Chapter V (1)

A REVIEW OF THE CONDITION OF THE PARISH AND THE PEOPLE, AT VARIOUS PERIODS OF THEIR HISTORY.

THOSE people who have been the most completely governed by ecclesiastics, are proverbial for having made the slowest progress in all the elements of knowledge which concern man; and the people of Paddington formed no exception to that rule which has been found to hold good in other places. Here, as elsewhere, the spiritual governors of the people made but poor attempts to develope the mind; and those to whom they deputed this duty, took care to follow the example set them by their superiors.

To keep the breath of life, the living soul, under subjection by the agency of superstitious dogmas and by threats of everlasting punishment, was attempted for ages, and is even now attempted; but the world is freeing itself from the government of organised crafts; and it will soon be useless—in spite of all the vain efforts which are now being made—to attempt to teach the people that the greatest virtue is _to believe and obey_, without the exercise of reason; and that the greatest vice consists in doubting the power of symbols to save.

Although the people of Paddington lived at so short a distance from the two rich cathedral marts of London and Westminster, they made no greater advances in civilization for many centuries, than did those who lived in the most remote village in England. The few people who did live here, were wholly agricultural; and they owed every useful lesson of their lives, much more to their own intelligence and observation, than to any instruction given them by those who were well paid to be their teachers.

Paddington, however, is no longer what it was; the lay element, independent of all craft, has thoroughly diffused itself through the country; and its advent in this place, though attended with much cunning, was the real cause of the wonderful transformation which has taken place here within the last half-century.

The Reformation and the Revolution added to the numbers and importance of the people; and the execrable act of that vain braggart, who wildly called himself the State, not only increased the population of Paddington, but brought out to useful purpose the christian virtues of the residents of this village. Here, on the revocation of the edict of Nantes, many of the exiled protestants of France found a home, which had been denied them by their _great_ King; and here, too, the memory of their sufferings and virtues will be kept green, so long as one of their graves shall be permitted to remain in the Old Church-yard.

It is impossible to tell what number of persons lived in this parish, at any one period previous to the present century. The oldest Parish Register, now to be found in Paddington, is dated 1701; and all the written proceedings of the rate-payers in vestry assembled, previous to the second of April, 1793, are said to have been burnt, lost, stolen or destroyed. The only sources from which I have been able to form any conjecture respecting the ancient population of Paddington, are, therefore, necessarily very imperfect, and open to many objections.

By the Subsidy Rolls, however, we discover the names of those who were rated in particular places, at different periods, when the respective subsidies were levied; and although their tombstones may have crumbled into dust, or may have been removed by Act of Parliament, and sold “for the best price that could be got,” yet in these tax-papers their names may receive a notice which will, for centuries, preserve their memories.

From the Subsidy Roll of the sixteenth year of Henry the eighth, I find that twenty persons, then living in Paddington, were taxed for the subsidy levied that year, although the amount of tax collected in this parish was but forty-eight shillings. All the heads of families might not have been included in this levy; but, if we suppose that all were included, and that each of these twenty persons represented a family, and if we calculate further five individuals for each family, we shall make the population of Paddington, in 1524, one hundred; which in all probability, was not very much under, or over, the number at that date.

The value of land, goods, and wages, on which this sum was assessed, amounted to £77 6_s._ 8_d._ But if these descriptions of property were all charged in this Subsidy, they were not taxed in the same proportion, on the capital sum assessed; for, although the wages of the labourer were taxed, they were taxed at only one-and-a-quarter per cent.; while goods were charged two-and-a-half per cent.; and land five per cent. So that, three hundred years ago, a more equitable property-tax existed, than that which is the result of present legislative wisdom.

In the thirty-fifth year of the same reign, the valuation for this parish was raised to £272 13_s._ 4_d._ Fifteen families only, however, were included in the subsidy for this year—land and goods alone being charged.

In a Subsidy Roll, of the thirty-ninth, of Elizabeth, Marylebone and Paddington are united, to produce a small sum.

In a Subsidy made in the eighteenth year of James the first, the name of Sir Rowland St. John occurs, as I have before observed; and, as this is the first time I find the name of a lessee of the manor on these Rolls, I am inclined to think Sir Rowland was the first lessee, who lived on the Paddington Estate.

It was not the son of Sir Rowland, but another Oliver St John, a relative of this Knight of the Bath, to whom the people owed so deep a debt of gratitude. That man of noble birth and noble mind, opposed the Tyranny of his time, not only in thought, but in word and deed; for he was one of the brave soldiers of that army, which fought and bled for the liberties we now enjoy; and the people of Paddington who preserved the sacred mound of liberty, which they erected within sight of his relatives’ windows, must have felt themselves ennobled, when the Lion settle echoed his valorous deeds. The people of Paddington knew the value of liberty, if their lords did not; and the public houses which were the only celebrated institutions in this rural village, were their debating clubs. Two, at least, were in existence, before “the house for two tenants” was occupied by the lord or his lessees; for they claim to have been established before the Reformation. There are three lions still in Paddington, each contending for the most ancient origin. The “White lion,” in the Edgeware-road, was established, according to the date on its present facade, in 1524—the year in which hops were first permitted to be imported, to preserve our beer. The “Red Lion,” in the Edgeware-road, near the commencement of the Harrow-road, claims a more ancient date for its establishment. In one of its old wooden chambers, taken down, some few years ago to make room for the present house, tradition tells us Shakspeare played; {182a} and many a story has been told of the haunted chamber in this house, as well as of that in the Manor House. The other ancient “Lion,” also “Red,” is situated in the Harrow-road, having taken up its present position as near to its old quarters, as the alteration in that road would permit. This house was formerly situated near the bridge which carried the Harrow-road over the bourn; and was, as I conceive, the property described in an Inquisition, held the second year of Edward the sixth,—vide p. 51—as the “two tenements, called the Bridge-House.”

There is a younger Lion, “Black,” but still of some pretensions to antiquity, standing in the Uxbridge-road; there is also an ancient “Pack Horse,” in the Harrow-road; and at the corner of Old Church-street, in the Edgeware-road, there is a “Wheat Sheaf,” which has the credit of having frequently entertained honest and learned Ben Johnson; so that, if learning and science were not allowed to flourish in the churches and other public buildings of Paddington, the ale houses, in some degree, attempted to supply the defect.

From the _Index Villaris_ of 1690, I find there were “more than three gentlemen’s seats” in Paddington, at that date. Probably there were four—Westbourn Manor House; Paddington Manor House; Desborough House; and Little Shaftsbury House; the two latter names pointing out their original occupants.

Although I am not now able to offer any positive evidence in proof of Desborough House having belonged to the celebrated Colonel, who was related to Cromwell, and whose doings in the Commonwealth are so well known, yet I have met with many circumstances which incline me to this belief.

Lysons tells us that Little Shaftesbury House was built by “The Earl of Shaftesbury, author of the Characteristics, or his father the Chancellor.”

There can be no doubt but the population of Paddington was considerably increased, when the manor and rectory fell into lay hands; and by making the same computation as before—five members for each family, {182b} we shall find that by 1685, it had increased to upwards of three-hundred; for, in the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth Charles the second, sixty-two persons are charged for 267 fire-hearths in Paddington: John Ashley, the gentleman who made the greatest smoke in the parish at that time, being charged for sixteen.

John Hubbard is not included in this impost; for he did not live to see all the good results produced by the Restoration, having died, according to his tombstone, in 1665, “aged 111 years.” {183a}

Lysons has omitted to notice this patriarch in his list of cases of longevity. “Whether he abstained from doing so, because John was _in some way_ related to the venerable lady of that name, and because his tomb was too well known to require mention, I cannot say. Seeing, however, this tomb exists when others of more recent date are not to be found, I am inclined to believe some such historical interest must have attached to it, or it would have shared the fate of others. At all events, from John’s Diary, if he kept one, many a story as good as Old Mother Hubbard’s could have been made.

In another part of the church-yard, on the end of a plain, flat stone, we may read these words:—

Sacred to the Memory of Sarah Siddons, who departed this life, June
8th, 1831, in her 76th year.

“Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord.”

Mrs. Siddons lived at one time in Paddington; but Mr. Cunningham tells us, in his Hand-book for London, that the pretty little house and grounds which she occupied, were destroyed, to make room for the Great Western Railway; Desborough Lodge, however, in which I am informed she lived, still stands in the Harrow-road, a little south and east of the second Canal bridge. {183b}

Poor Haydon, who devoted “forty-two years to the improvement of the taste of the English people in high art,” lived in Paddington; and his shattered corpse was placed near the spot, where Mrs. Siddons was buried. At no great distance, Collins, the painter of English coast and cottage scenery, lies. And Dr. Geddes, the “Translator of the Historical Books of the Old Testament,” was buried in Paddington Church-yard. His surviving friends could engrave on his tombstone the following sentence from his works:—

“Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname; I grant that you are
a Christian as well as I, and embrace you as my fellow disciple of
Jesus; and if you were not a disciple of Jesus, still I would embrace
you as my fellow man.”

Yet, because he dared to express his honest conviction, as to the real origin of the Books he had taken so much trouble to translate, he was condemned and despised by many zealots, who thought their hatred a Christian act; and “public censure was passed upon him by the Vicar Apostolic, of the London district.” The Life of this great scholar, and good man, was published by Dr. Mason Good, in 1803.

Banks the sculptor; the elder George Barret; Merlin the mechanist; the careful sculptor Nollekins, and his father; the Marquis of Lansdowne, without a word to mark his tomb, and many other notables; lie buried in this church and churchyard. But, although thoughts are to be picked up, by day as well as by night, in a ramble among the tombs, it is not my intention to copy all the grave-stones, or to encroach on the province of the biographer, or village barber, if there be one such useful gossip still remaining among us.

For a sketch of a people, whether forming a parish or a nation, it is better to go to their laws, and observe the effects those laws have produced; than to rely on any description of individuals, dead or living. With the exception of the ancient customs of the place, the common law of the land was the light which guided the people of Paddington, down to the middle of the last century. Then, as we have already seen, began the enactment of special laws,—laws which altered the relations between those who had duties to perform, and those who had rights and privileges to protect.

Previous to 1753, the people of this parish managed their own affairs without external aid, the influential inhabitants exercising their influence here, as influential people in all quarters of the world have done, either for their own, or the public good, according as their selfish passions, or the Eternal Truth, prevailed within them. Riches had their weight, as well as reason, even before Sturges Bourne and his system of plural voting, came to regulate and measure the powers of mammon in local elections. But in every system of government, the selfish rely on ignorance, more than on any other agent, for the preservation of their powers. When the ignorant, however, as well as the wise, were free to speak on local affairs, many unwelcome truths, which did not fall from the lips of the ordained teachers, must have reached the ears of “the jobbers,” within the walls of St. Katherine’s, St. James’s, and St. Mary’s. The meetings of the people, in these sainted places, for the transaction of their parish business, were open to all the inhabitants of the parish; and no local burden could be imposed without the sanction of the majority. No wonder, then, that those who did not reside in the parish, but who had determined to impose burdens on all those who did, should call to their aid a power never before felt by the people of Paddington: one, against which it was useless to rebel; and from the _justice_ of which there was no appeal.

Private Act followed private Act, for the regulation of property, over which the people saw and felt, _they_ had no control. And, when at length their voices were raised in no measured cadence, some against this grievance, others against that, the church was said to be desecrated, and polite ears could no longer listen to such a babel of tongues. A gag was provided. “A select vestry” was the instrument used. And among the many unjust and unwise laws “passed, to keep down the people, from 1817 to 1820, the most disgraceful era in our legislation,” “An Act for the regulation of parish vestries,” better known as “Sturges Bourne’s Act,” is to be found. In this Act there are, without doubt, provisions which were much required for the “regulation of parish vestries;” but I have never yet heard any reason, worthy a moment’s consideration, for the introduction of the third clause into that Act. This clause gives “one vote and no more” to all persons rated for property “not amounting to fifty pounds,” and adds one vote “for twenty-five pounds of annual rent, &c.” But “so, nevertheless, that no inhabitant shall be entitled to give more than six votes.” The principle, “that property should be properly represented,” is thus absurdly carried out: all those rated at £50 per annum, have double the amount of influence of those rated at £49; while those rated at £500, have no more power in the local election, than those rated at £150. But to such miserable shifts as these must legislation condescend, as soon as it swerves from the eternal principles of justice. Is it not of as much concern to the poor rate-payer, as to the rich, that the parish funds shall be well expended? And who can shew that the wisdom of a man can be measured by the size of his house; or by the amount he contributes to the poor-rate?

On the fourth of April, 1820, the Rev. Dr. Crane, the Lord Bishop of Exeter, and other influential inhabitants managed to establish “a select vestry” in Paddington; in which they and their friends had all the talk as well as all the work to themselves. But if this select body prevented the people talking, they prevented their eating also. The glorious parish dinners, at which the parish officers and their friends had rejoiced at the people’s expense, were discontinued by the bishop and his friends, in 1821; much to their credit be it spoken, seeing that at the beginning of this year it was discovered that there were no less than 824 persons in the parish who claimed relief as paupers—more than one-eighth of the whole population—and that out of these, thanks to the cottages, there were 635 legally settled on the parish.

In May, 1821, a general meeting of the inhabitants was called to consider, amongst various other things, the propriety of petitioning the House of Commons for a general law, to regulate the formation and maintenance of the highways on the north-west side of the metropolis; and so much was such an Act required, that it was resolved unanimously to petition. But when the petition was read, and considered, it was found to be so objectionable that it was as unanimously rejected. And by the thirtieth of March, 1822, the inhabitants had seen quite enough of the select vestry system; for on that day, when called on to re-appoint it for another year, they would not do so. But on the first of April, 1823, power was given to a committee of rate-payers to procure a local Act. A draft-bill was prepared by an experienced Parliamentary counsel, which was left in the hands of the vestry-clerk, for the inspection of the inhabitants; and it is said to have received “their cordial approbation.” Whether that clause which has compelled the people of Paddington, to elect their local governors, under the system of plural votes, received their approbation, we are not told; neither is it brought down to us by any authentic record, how many read and digested an Act, which contains no less than one hundred and fifty-five clauses, and occupies eighty printed Act-of-Parliament-pages. Whether its provisions were understood or not, however, the fifth of George the IV., chapter 126, received the sanction of the legislature on the seventeenth of June, 1824, and since that date all the provisions which have met with the approval of those who have been elected under it, have been carried into effect.

The cost of procuring this Act, is said to have been £1,088 14_s._ 6_d._

During these two years of select rule—from 1820 to 1822—the path had been paved for the introduction of this local Act. A committee had been appointed early in 1822, to inquire into its expediency; spacious vestry premises and other offices had been built on a portion of the garden belonging to the alms-houses; and other preparations had been made to effectually take the management of the local affairs out of the hands of _the people_.

To find laws so comprehensive and wise, as not to require the tinker at every little exigency, which may arise in every little portion of the community, must surely be a proof of the wisdom of a people. To find it necessary, constantly to alter general laws; and constantly to be called on to “stop gaps” by rotten bits of special legislation, which scarcely wear a single session, must as surely betoken want of foresight in the law-makers; or the approaching end of that system, which rests on so sandy a foundation. Five and twenty Acts of Parliament, at the least, have been passed specially to affect the property and people of Paddington; and when we think of these, in connection with the laws which apply to the people in general, we may not be surprised to find, now and then, even a local governor, elected under the aristocratic provisions of Sturges Bourne’s Act, lost amidst this heap of legislative wisdom.

Local self-government, and local taxation, are questions of the day; and are slowly, but surely, forcing themselves on the consideration of those who have to direct the affairs of “an Empire on which the sun never sets.”

Centralization, too, is under consideration; and, although in the objectionable sense in which this idea is generally understood, it has received the condemnation of the most acute thinkers of the present and past time, still it is supported by learned and powerful advocates, who profess to understand what government really is or ought to be. In every sense these subjects demand the attention of _the people_—not only on account of the enormous revenue annually raised by local taxation; but because all forms of government are in the crucible, and it is desirable for the benefit of all, that the best elements should be eliminated.

For the inhabitants of a particular parish or district to be permitted to carry out a general law which has been enacted by a whole people, according to the peculiar circumstances of their local condition, is a very different thing from giving to that district special privileges and laws, which may, and most likely would, become inimical to the public good. The circumstances of almost every place in England have so changed—not to say since their ancient municipal laws were enacted, but within the last few years—that radical alterations are absolutely demanded; and tinkering must soon end. But the spirit of self-government, and the desire for it, can never die, so long as the people understand the true value of liberty. And no system of centralization for the management of local affairs, can ever be rendered so palatable to the people of England, as to induce them to endure it, till mismanagement has attained a still higher point than it has yet reached—a consummation many causes are now at work to secure;—or till the people have greater power over the actions of those who regulate the expenditure of the country—a principle of justice which must ultimately prevail.

That the whole of the people of Paddington, Marylebone, and Pancras, (at the last census, upwards of 371,000 souls,) should have but two “places and voices,” in the Commons’ House of Parliament, while a few hundred in other districts, have the same direct power over the legislative and executive administration of this country, is so monstrous a wrong, that some may imagine the people, who quietly submit to such anomalies, have reached a point at which power may be safely centred in a few hands. These are they, however, who do not clearly discern the signs of the times. Any thing resembling the tyranny of an absolute monarchy, or the despotism of a well-paid and idle oligarchy, is as detestable now, as ever it was to that people, who from their childhood are taught to adore liberty for its own sake, as well as for the fruits it brings forth. The Saxon people are patient, and endure much; but to educate their children to look upon thraldom as liberty, will never be permitted in England; and cannot much longer be tolerated in other countries.

Till private legislation interested itself in the affairs of the people of Paddington, the local government must have been of the simplest kind. They had, indeed, little to trouble themselves about on this score. Their church was provided for, very badly, it is true, by those who took care of the revenues which were given for its support; so that the churchwardens were not troubled with the collection of church-rates; and they had no archdeacon’s visitations to attend; so that no troublesome questions could be put to them by this once useful and important officer of the church. The overseer was equally unemployed; for at no time previous to the latter part of the last century, could there have been many poor. The culture of the land, and its attendant duties, found occupation and a living for all. Alms-houses for the aged and infirm were built, as we have seen, in 1714; but no other sort of poor-house was required; for the only idle people in the parish were the few rich families, who were privileged to live on the industry of others.

By the middle of the last century, nearly the whole of this parish had become grazing-land. In 1795, according to Lysons, there were upwards of eleven hundred acres of grassland in Paddington; eighty four and a half acres only being arable, or garden-ground. And for a long period, the people who occupied the bishop’s estate in Paddington, were as celebrated for the quantity or quality of their milk, as they are now for the number and size of their houses. One persevering and handsome guardsman, who had contrived to gain the good graces of a grazier’s daughter, congregated cows here to such an extent, that all London rang with the number. “Nine hundred and ninety-nine” could he keep, but the black boggies always killed or ran away with his thousandth. {189} Whether these sprites were in league with, or in any way connected with, “Black Meggie,” who always lay in the cow-shed at the corner of Tybourn Field, when not on duty, I cannot pretend to say. I am informed by a gentleman who was born in this parish, and who is no longer young in years, that he has heard the Tripod, which is represented in Rocque’s maps, as standing at the junction of the Edgeware with the Uxbridge-road, was only placed there when the good old English oracle had to execute her judgments thereon. And that this “three-legged mare,” Black Meggie by name, was only a poor temporary substitute for the more ancient and formal “Tybourn Tree” which had been cut down by some daring fellows the night before it was to have been put in requisition for the benefit of a string of their friends. “Tybourn tree” had been removed from its old quarters, as we have already seen, and had been firmly erected, before Black Meggie’s time, as one of the institutions of the country, on that which is now the Marylebone side of the Edgeware-road.

At the beginning of the last century, next to the beautiful fields and quiet village, the gallows and the gibbet were the principal attractions in Paddington. At the beginning of this, “Tomlin’s New Town;” the collection of cottages, west of St. George’s-row; a row of gardens, and a large bowling-green, by the side of the Edgeware-road, between Tybourn turnpike, and Paddington, were called into existence. These changes, in conjunction with the grand canal of Paddington, {190} obliterated in a few years the work of centuries; and succeeded not only in altering the whole aspect of the place, but in infusing another element of social life into the people. Lysons, writing in 1794, says “this parish being chiefly church-land, there has been but little increase of buildings till about four years ago; since which time a number of small wooden cottages, to the amount of nearly one hundred, have been erected a little north of Tybourn turnpike. These cottages are let at from £7 to £12 per annum, and inhabited principally by journeymen artificers who work in London, forming with their families a small colony of about 600 persons.”

In the second edition of Lysons’ Work, published in 1811, he tells us these cottages were begun to be built in 1790. And he was informed by Mr. Pickering, the curate at that time, that before the second census was taken, they had increased to 600.

In Horwood’s large and beautiful plan of London, dated 1799, we find that a part of this colony, that lot of cottages built nearly opposite George-street, was called Tomlin’s New Town. We see, too, that St. George’s row was built at this time; that to the west of it a large building, called Trafalgar, existed; and that another plot of land had been covered with cottages. So that some portion of this colony was added to the people of Paddington, and these tenements to the Tybourn Field, before the bishop’s first Building Act, was passed. Whether these wooden houses were built in anticipation of that Act, by some one who had heard the tale of the tinker, who lit his fire, and boiled his pot, and erected his shed, all in one night, at the corner of old Church-street; and who could not be dispossessed of that land which he had so magically acquired; (a tradition which appears to have some reference to the establishment of Paedings New Town,) or whether these miserable sheds were built by the direction of the ground landlords, to give them a telling argument in favour of their private Act,—I cannot say. Both landlord and tenant, however, found the power of a modern private Act of Parliament, and the “journeymen artificers” had to “move on,” in order that Connaught-terrace, and better houses for the rich, might be built. The greater part of the enormous increase in the population between 1801 and 1811, was caused by the erection of these cottages, so very ill-suited for preserving health and life. They were soon filled, however, by the poorer class from the crowded parts of London; for pure air is more relished by the poor, than that which is fetid and foul, whatever the rich may say to the contrary. Give them but an opportunity of getting it, and see how greedily it is embraced; unless, indeed, the demoralizing effect of generations of bad education is brought into operation, to counteract this natural instinct. As fast as these cottages in the open fields were built, they were occupied; although those who were to reap the greater benefit of this more profitable occupation of the land, had made no provision for effective drainage, security from cold and wet, or for proper ventilation:—essentials, without which all sanitary laws are put absolutely at defiance, however well the situation of a town may be chosen, or however provident the bountiful Giver of all good may have been in sending storms and winds, to disperse the natural accumulation of unwholesome gases in certain localities.

Messrs. Pulford and Erlam, two surveyors, in their report to the vestry on the state of these cottages, in 1816, say, “we cannot refrain from thus recording our expression of regret, that the ground-landlords should be so inordinate in their demands. The effect of which is, the buildings are ill-calculated to afford shelter from the inclemency of the weather, and the want of drainage and consequent damp produce disease, filth, and wretchedness.” And so, these Paddington cottages, which were for so many years so prominent a feature in the parish, and which were so much sought after by the poor, as a sort of country-retreat, were in fact, the generators of “disease, filth, and wretchedness.”

During the long winter-evenings, the muddy roads which led to these cottages, were in total darkness, unless “the parish lantern” chanced to offer its acceptable light; and there is no doubt but that so long as these cottages remained they were the hot-beds of fevers and ague. A gentleman, who was for many years parish-surgeon, informs me that during the time these cottages existed, he was rarely without cases of these diseases; the latter disease was always endemic; and at times the former put on a fearfully epidemic character. Still these detached and semi-detached cottages on the Bishop’s Estate were better than the close streets of town, though these were more than sufficiently unhealthy; but what cared those who profited by this disease and misery, and their natural accompaniment, crime, so long as their rents were paid?

The poor and the ignorant did not know “the extent of their misfortune;” or if they did, the majority “did not seem to grumble at their lot, or to think it hard.” If a voice of complaint was occasionally heard, the generous landlord said, “it came from an ill-conditioned, discontented wretch, whom it was useless to attempt to satisfy; and the sooner he left the parish, the better.” Cries, indeed, from the feeble and the timid went up to heaven for redress, and heaven alone was left to answer them.

The ground-landlords, at length, seeing the cottages had served their turn, made an attempt to remove this evil, by clearing them away; and many a bitter curse was uttered by those who were evicted; for in the simplicity of their dealings they had made no legal provision for compensation for capital invested; and, although some compensation was granted by the Great Western Railway Company to the small tenants they displaced, yet the ground-landlords did not follow their example; and down to the present time, no dream of comfortable and healthful lodgings for the poor on their estate, has even entered their heads; no, not even the idea of a “Thanksgiving Building,” so far as we know by any sign that has been given.

Another source of disease and death was to be found on the banks of the Paddington canal, which was opened with so much _éclat_, on the 10th of July, 1801. No less than 20,000 people came to Paddington, to hurrah the mighty men who so altered the aspect of this quiet village; and who, in doing so, offered to the Londoner a new mode of transit for his goods. Unfortunately, for the people of Paddington, on the banks of this canal were stowed many other commodities than “dry goods.” Not only the dust and ashes, but the filth of half London were brought to “that stinking Paddington,” (as it was now called,) for convenience of removal. The time of removal was made to suit the convenience of those who traded in these contaminating materials; but the living sensitive nerves and active blood corpuscules of the people who dwelt near its banks, were not considered. And so, instead of having no doctor in the parish, as was the case within the memory of many now living in it, both doctor and sexton found full employ.

That this is no over-drawn picture of the condition of Paddington for the first quarter of the present century, there is plenty of evidence to prove.

The disbursements of churchwardens and overseers, in 1793, two years before the passing of the Bishop’s Building Act, amounted to £402 6_s._ 11_d._; but the overseer’s account alone, in 1815, amounted to £3,375 12_s._ 4_d._ And although there were more to pay the rates, still, even at the later date, many of the cottages were not rated at all; and the greatest difficulty was experienced in squeezing out of the hard earnings of the poor men who occupied them, the small pittance (to them a great sum,) which was at length obtained, towards defraying these serious local charges.

In 1803, eight years after the Bishop’s first Building Act was obtained, the assessment of Paddington was £9,966 10_s._ and the first poor-rate, levied under this assessment, was one shilling and three-pence in the pound. This valuation, however, was only one-third of the rental of 272 tenements; the smaller tenements not having been rated at all. The overseers’ account, this year, amounted to £701 16_s._ 7_d._; and it increased annually till 1811, when it was reported to the ratepayers at large, at their annual meeting on Easter Tuesday, that the expenses of supporting the poor have increased fourfold, in the last sixteen years.

No wonder, then, that the sensible inhabitants of Paddington, who saw what the Bishop’s Building Acts were doing for the bishop and his lessees, and who felt, in a very tender point, what they were doing for themselves as ratepayers, should be anxious that those, who derived so much benefit from the parish, should bear some share in the increased expenses. But although all the expenses of the church and the poor had been so considerately transferred from the owners of the Paddington Estate, to the pockets of the rate-payers; and although the additional claim of the poor was excessive, yet it was not till the twenty-seventh of October, 1807, that the rate-payers in vestry assembled, “resolved that the Lord Bishop, in respect of the great tithes is rateable, and that he be rated accordingly.”

One would have thought that the bishop, and his lessees, knowing all this—knowing that the “expenses of supporting the poor, had increased fourfold in the last sixteen years (that is, since the Act of 1795, during which time their income from the land had increased, perhaps in a like proportion) and that the same has arisen, in a great measure, from the necessity of constant and casual relief to paupers residing in small tenements built upon the Bishop of London’s Estate;” knowing that they had received £2,263 7_s._ 6_d._, for land to increase the burial ground,—a purchase made necessary principally on account of this great increase in the number of paupers, and the conditions under which they were placed: Knowing, I say, all these things; for to not one could they have pleaded ignorance, it is barely believeable that these legal protectors of the church and of the poor should have refused this legal demand. Yet most certainly they did so; and further, put the parishioners to the unpleasant necessity of applying to a barrister, learned in the law, for his opinion on this point. By the vestry minutes, dated November 3rd, 1810, we find that Mr. Const, “_apprehends_ the Lord Bishop _is_ liable to the poor-rate for the tithes both of the lands, belonging to the See, in occupation of other persons, and those for which a composition is received.” And accordingly in January, 1811, the Bishop of London is rated in the new assessment made that year, upon £462, the estimated annual value of the great tithes.

As the land became more valuable, this burdensome charge could not be endured. The agents of the bishop advise “merging,” and “commutation;” and, after the performance of these feats, on the twenty-third of July, 1844, the vestry receive a letter from Messrs. Budd and Hayes, informing them, “the Tithes of the Paddington Estate have been _merged_, and that the rent-charge for the tithes of the rest of the parish is £166 13_s._ 8_d._” And they considerately mention this, “in order that the future rates may be assessed with reference to that sum, _after making proper deductions_, and not on the amount they have been hitherto assessed upon.”

Whereupon the _poor_ bishop and his lessees are relieved from some of the _great_ charges laid on them, for the support of the poor; the vestry resolving to assess “the tithes of the Paddington Estate in future, at £166, instead of £340, as heretofore!”

At the end of 1810, it was found that out of a rental of £5,200 paid by the cottagers, only £535 of this was rated to the poor; and that the average of all the assessments in the parish, was but two-thirds of the real value; some being rated at one-third, others at one-half, and others at five-twelfths of the full value. The value of the property, as assessed in 1811, was £28,597, the assessment having been taken on 865 separate tenements.

From the census of this year, 1811, I find that 4,609 persons then living in the parish, constituted 1,083 families, occupying 879 houses. In 1812, out of 935 dwelling-houses, only 393 were rated to the poor; “the rest being miserable huts, occupied by paupers and very poor people.”

In 1821 there were 1,448 families in Paddington, four of whom are returned in the census of that year as being agricultural. In the same year there were 824 persons claiming relief as paupers; and the sum of £37 7_s._ 3_d._ was paid weekly for out-door and casual relief.

In 1825 the assessment of this parish was £46,245 13_s._ 4_d._; and in 1831 it had increased to £71,528 18_s._ The rates levied in the former year, amounted to £6,025 10_s._ 8½_d._; in the latter, to £14,691 16_s._ 5½_d._ The number of families, according to the census of 1831, was 3,493. In 1841 Paddington was in union with Kensington, Hammersmith, and Fulham, and I find the average of the establishment charges for three years for Paddington, set down at £2,712.

The transition-state from an agricultural village to the fashionable Tyburnia, was no very agreeable time for the majority of those who lived in Paddington. When the cottages were swept away, and the heavy poor-rates which they had entailed, were diminished, new burdens sprang up, scarcely less grievous. Rents became enormous; the Highway, Watching, and Lighting rates were excessive; and these were rendered more oppressive on account of those, who received the greatest benefit from the causes which necessitated the greater expenditure, not bearing their just share of this local taxation. And yet the local Act had made some sort of provision for an equitable adjustment of these expenses.

Unfortunately, however, for the majority of the rate-payers, the election of those, who had to carry into execution the provisions of that Act, viz., the election of vestrymen, was not in their hands. That clause of Sturges Bourne’s Act, which gave four votes to those who were rated at £100; five votes to those who were rated at £125; and six votes to all those rated at £150; placed the election in the hands of the minority; and, as that minority was much more interested in the success of the building-speculations which were in progress, than in that just and wise economy, which was advantageous to the majority of the rate-payers, one of the most important clauses in the local Act, was for years, and still is, disregarded. This, the 132nd clause of that Act, is as follows:

“And whereas it has happened and may happen that Houses and other
Buildings within the said Parish have been or may be began to be
built, but not finished nor let, and it is reasonable that such
Houses and Buildings should be rated and assessed for the Purposes of
paving, watching, and lighting; be it therefore further enacted, That
until such Houses or other Buildings which now are or hereafter may
be built or in building shall be finished and tenanted, (if the
Street, Square, Lane, or other Place wherein such House or other
Building is or shall be situated shall be paved, repaired, cleansed,
and lighted by virtue and in pursuance of this Act,) it shall and may
be lawful {196} to and for the said Vestry to rate and assess all
such Houses and other Buildings situate within the said Parish as are
or shall be erected and covered in, but not finished nor let, either
by One or more distinct Assessment or Assessments, or by including
them in any other Assessment or Assessments, at a Rate not exceeding
Sixpence for every Square Yard of Ground paved or to be paved
belonging to or lying before the Fronts or Sides of such Houses or
other Buildings, and in like Manner and for the like Purposes to rate
and assess all such Houses or other Buildings as last mentioned which
are or shall be erected but not covered in, at a Rate not exceeding
Four-pence for every Square Yard of Ground paved or to be paved by
virtue of this Act, and belonging to or lying before the Fronts or
Sides of such Houses or other Buildings, until the same shall be
covered in, as aforesaid, and then at a Rate not exceeding Four-pence
for every Square Yard until the same shall be let or occupied; which
last-mentioned Rates or Assessments shall be paid by and recoverable
from the Proprietor or Proprietors, Lessee or Lessees, Owner or
Owners of such House or Houses, Building or Buildings respectively,
and shall be charged and changeable on the said Premises; and if the
said Owner or Owners, Proprietor or Proprietors, Lessee or Lessees,
shall refuse or neglect to pay the same, upon Demand, then and in
every such Case such Rate or Rates, Assessment or Assessments, and
all Arrears due thereon, shall and may be levied on the Goods and
Chattels of the Person or Persons so required to pay the same in
manner herein directed; and in case the Owner or Owners, Proprietor
or Proprietors, Lessee or Lessees of such House or Houses, Building
or Buildings, shall not be known or cannot be found, then the said
Rate or Rates, Assessment or Assessments made thereon, shall be and
remain charged and chargeable on the said Premises until the Owner or
Owners, Proprietor or Proprietors, Lessee or Lessees, can be found,
and the same may at any Time be levied and recovered upon the said
Premises in like Manner as other Rates made by virtue of this Act are
made recoverable.”

Four years ago, this _forgotten_ clause of the local Act was introduced to the notice of the vestry. It was admitted that it had not been observed; and the Builders, who formed the most influential party in the vestry, thought it would be _unfair_ to enforce it. A little ventilation of this subject, however, induced the majority of another vestry to believe, and to resolve, “that all the rateable property in the parish should be rated.” But so much power have the Builders and the Proprietors of the soil in the vestry, that this good resolution has been from time to time set aside; and down to the present moment, the rate-payers at large have received no benefit from it. So that, although the Vestry Minute-books are crammed with applications to the vestry, to take under their protection, streets, squares, &c., and although the taking thereto has increased the local taxation very considerably, and will do so, year by year; yet none but the old inhabitants and the in-coming tenants have been taxed for all the wear and tear of old roads, caused by drawing building materials over them, and for all the additional expenses in watching and lighting, which every new house entails on the parish.

If this tax had been levied from the passing of the Act, in 1824, down to the present time, it would have saved the rate-payers some thousands of pounds; and it would have fallen on those who have received the most substantial benefits from the parish, although they have paid the least towards the local taxation, viz., the Bishop of London, and the lessees of the Paddington Estate. Had this clause been in force, those who took the land for building on, would have pointed out this charge, and insisted on its due consideration. For this additional burden, then, as well as for the enormous poor-rate entailed by the miserable cottages, the dwellers on the Paddington Estate are, in truth, indebted to their old friends, “the lords of the soil,” as much as to their local governors, and the builders.

And this is not the only burden, connected with the roads, which the owners of the Paddington Estate have attempted to throw on the people of Paddington.

In 1828, and 1829, when the Grand Junction-road, which had been recently made, was in a miserable condition; when it was ascertained that it would cost £400 a-year to keep it in repair; and when only £7 were the amount of rate received by the parish from the inhabitants of Oxford and Cambridge terraces; the owners of the soil tried, by force of law, to compel the vestry to appoint a surveyor to inspect this road, and take upon them the charge of its repair. The trial, however, went against them, and the learned Lord Tenderden delivered an elaborate judgment in favour of the parishioners. {198}

But what the law would not compel the vestry to do, the vestry could voluntarily do; and, as the election of vestrymen was virtually in the hands of a few builders and proprietors, these few took especial care to elect those, and those only, whose interests coincided with their own. Thus, those who were most deeply interested _in the Paddington Estate_, became the governors _of the parish_; and, as these personal interests were very frequently antagonistic to the interests of the ratepayers at large the public weal has had to suffer; and “parish squabbles” have not been unknown in Paddington, even since the introduction of Sturges Bourne’s Act. And discontent must continually arise, so long as the majority of the ratepayers know they are not fairly represented; that they have a minority of votes in the election of their local governors; and that the business of the parish is conducted with closed doors. Although this injustice was made legal, at the time when Grattan and old Sarum sent Members to Parliament; and when a single nobleman had more influence in law-making, than the whole of the inhabitants of the largest cities, yet “An Act for the better Regulation of Vestries, and for the appointment of Auditors of accounts, in certain parishes of England and Wales,”—the first and second William IVth, chapter 60,—better known as Hobhouse’s Act, was passed by the reformers, even before the Parliament itself was reformed.

This Act _for the better regulation of vestries_ gives one vote, and one vote only, to each rate-payer; and it is scarcely believeable, that so just a principle could be refused to any parish, which had become too numerous to continue the “good old English constitutional custom” of personal attendance in Vestry; where and when each individual rate-payer might express his opinions on any subject within its jurisdiction, and record his vote thereon. Yet it has been most strenuously opposed, from its introduction into Parliament down to the present time, by the vestry of Paddington; and in consequence of its being necessary to obtain the sanction of two-thirds of the rate-payers who vote, and half those who are qualified to vote, before this Act can be adopted, the attempt to introduce it into this parish has twice failed. In 1849, there was a considerable majority for its adoption, but not the requisite proportion; and in 1853, it is said, the half of the qualified rate-payers have not voted. So that at the present time, Paddington enjoys the unenviable distinction of being behind its neighbours in the adoption of a liberal policy in the election of those to whom are entrusted its local affairs; and those who conduct them, have the unenviable honour of being the representatives of a section only of their fellow-parishioners.

Even the ancient rule of electing churchwardens, by single votes, has been set aside in Paddington; the Judges of the Exchequor Court sanctioning this proceeding, when the vestry appealed to that Court, by writ of error, from the decision of the learned Lord Chief Justice Denman, who had confirmed to the inhabitants of this place, their ancient right in this particular: {199} a right, which every inhabitant, who was not a lawyer, must have believed, as that learned Judge did, the tenth clause of the local Act confirmed to him. This clause declares that the election of vestrymen shall not take place, until after the usual election of churchwardens; “which election of churchwardens shall take place on _Easter Tuesday_, and be conducted from year to year in such manner, as hath been usual in the same parish.”

The rule of plural voting for vestrymen having been established by the adoption of Sturges Bourne’s Act, vestrymen so elected could not sanction the election of church-wardens in the manner which had been usual in the parish; viz.—by show of hands. Those gentlemen, who still govern Paddington, determined to take advantage of a legal quibble, to abrogate the ancient form of election; but their proceedings produced an amount of ill-feeling, which lasted for years, between those who now really had the election of parish officers in their hands, and those who, in consequence of the introduction of this new principle, had nothing to do with parochial affairs, except the payment of whatever sums of money were demanded. This feeling is indeed not yet allayed; neither can it be till this act of injustice to the majority, is for ever and entirely revoked. And justice must not long be delayed, if harmony is to be restored. Upwards of 2,000 rate-payers have this year voted in favour of that Act, which gives a single vote, and but one vote in local elections; and it behoves all who pay towards the local expenses, all who are interested in the welfare of this parish, to think of this, and to co-operate by every means in their power, for the establishment of good government on the solid basis of just principles. When this is done, all discord may cease; for it will then be the fault of the majority if Paddington is badly governed.

* * * * *

THE END.

* * * * *

* * * * *

A. & W. HALL, Caxton Steam Printing Office, 10, Cambridge Terrace, Camden
Town.

FOOTNOTES

{1a} Cunningham’s Hand Book of London, 1850, p. 369. The Marylebone Borough Almanack, 1853.