Commons originally were those lands which had not been brought into cultivation by the spade and the plough, over which, all who used the spade and the plough had certain rights in common. When the rights of the people over the soil were more limited by the law, there was attached to every portion of arable land a certain portion of waste, over which these common rights extended; and these lands were as much, in proportion, the property of the poorest occupier as of the richest holder. Commons have also been defined to be “wastes and pastures which have never been exclusively appropriated by any individual, but used in common by the inhabitants of a parish or district.”
In Paddington, the commons were in more senses than one, “commons without stint,” for they were not only used by the inhabitants all the year round, but the quantity assigned was, for centuries, amply sufficient for all their wants; and these commons in Paddington were not confined to that “universal right” called “commons appendant,” for the people here had the right of taking the material from the neighbouring wood, for their fire as well as for the repair of their houses, carts, and hedges.
To those who had obtained the lordship of the soil, the preservation of these commonable rights was of much less importance than to the people, for that which was gained by the labourers’ toil from the waste, and the wood, went to increase the domains of the lord, or to enrich some private owner. To the lords, the Roman law which “considered the individual member of the state,” was much more inviting than the ancient law of England, which “based itself upon the family bond.”
The better to secure individual rights, so acquired, the cultivated land was enclosed. But this enclosure of lands proceeded so rapidly that the rights of all the poor in England, those who could not find means to enclose, were in danger of being annihilated. The state was at length compelled to interfere, and the law provided that enough commonable land should be left in each manor to provide for the fulfilment of the usual commonable rights; and at the time of an enclosure it was, as it still is, the custom when the poor had the right of gathering their fuel from the waste and wood, and of turning their live stock on the common, to set apart a portion of the land for their uses, as a compensation for the loss of those rights.
Where the allotment for the poor of Paddington was situated; when it was set apart; or what was its extent, I have not been able to discover from any positive evidence now existing; but my impression is that the little piece of charity land remaining in Westbourn indicates the site of a much more extensive portion of the common field which was set apart for the uses of the poor.
It is a popular notion that the lord of the manor is entitled to the waste, but this is by no means the case in every manor. In the neighbouring manor of Abbot’s Kensington, we find that “the commons” were “presented” with “Notting-hill, the waste by the highways, and the Gravel Pits,” as lately as 1672; [54a] and in the ancient manors of Tybourn and Lilestone, there was pasture for the cattle of the villagers, and the fruits of the wood for their hogs. [54b]
The usual proportion given to the lord for his right in the soil is one-sixteenth. [54c] Whether the lords of the Paddington soil were content with this proportion we need not enquire. We know that their demesne lands have extended far beyond their original dimensions; and there is very little doubt that the land of the poor diminished as the lord’s land increased. Other individual holders, too, have carved out for themselves portions of that which was set aside for purely public purposes, but the great delinquents have been the lords of the manors—“those relics of feudal slavery and mediaeval barbarism;” and these before long will be known only in history.
It is true that waste land, and a common field existed in Paddington down to a recent date; and it is equally true, that some kind of right over this land was acknowledged to be vested in the inhabitants of this parish; for as we shall presently see, when this right was found to interfere with the designs of the lords and their lessees, a portion of it was bargained for and sold.
The common field appears to have existed on each side of the Westbourn, extending, with the poor allotment, from that which is now called the Uxbridge-road to a considerable distance north and east; the portion on the western side the stream being called the Westbourn, or Bayswater, field; the portion on the eastern side, the Town field, corrupted into “Downes?”
On the Paddington side, all that remained of the common waste was the Village-green; and for this the villagers must have had the greatest affection. It was their Home-field; on it their forefathers had made merry, and here they had trodden by hereditary right. Yes by hereditary right! And seeing that the title of the noble has descended by law to his feeble son, and the estates of the frugal man to his spendthrift heir; how highly must the people of Paddington appreciate that justice which has preserved to them so magnificent a portion of their ancestors possessions! [55a]