Paddington: Past and Present

by William Robins

Sir John Morshead being at this time absent from the kingdom, “and restrained from returning to the same by His Majesty’s enemies,” certain clauses are enacted respecting his consent being obtained, before leases are granted.

In 1808, another Act “for altering and enlarging the powers” of the 35th. 44th. and 45th. of George III. appears to have become necessary; for in that year we have the 48th Geo. III. cap. 142, passed for this purpose.

The preamble of this Act notices an Indenture of Assignment, bearing date on or about the twenty-fourth of July, 1807, made between Eliza Mary Thistlethwayte, widow of Alexander Thistlethwayte, on the one part, and Thomas Thistlethwayte, her brother-in-law, the third, but eldest surviving son of Robert Thistlethwayte, on the other, wherein it is witnessed that, “for the consideration therein expressed,” the said lady assigned her interest in the Paddington Estate to the said Thomas Thistlethwayte, his executors, &c. “for his and their own use and benefit absolutely;” subject to the life interest of his mother, then Selina Thistlethwayte. [87a]

By this Act certain parts of previous Acts are repealed; power is given to the lessees to pull down all buildings standing upon the premises comprised in any under-lease; the Bishop’s chief rent of forty-three pounds, six shillings and eightpence, is no longer to be charged on the whole of the hereditaments and premises; all lands comprised in the under-leases, to be exonerated and indemnified from the payment of the same; and the signatures of Sir John Morshead, Robert Thistlethwayte, and their wives, to the under-leases are to be no longer necessary. The sale of brick-earth, sand, gravel, &c., having been found totally inadequate for payment of costs of Acts, making drains, streets, &c. [87b] Beilby Lord Bishop of London [87c] and the trustees of the estate agree to execute a mortgage of “a competent part of the said premises,” charging it with any sum not exceeding ten thousand pounds, with lawful interest, for these purposes; or the money may be raised by annuities for lives instead of mortgage.

The eighth section of this Act relates to the “conduit upon the said estate belonging to the corporation of London, situate near Bayswater, and the pipes or drain therefrom, and the tanks or wells connected therewith.” And it is stated that as these pipes “run through the same estate diagonally so as to intercept the carrying on of the building improvements upon any eligible plan,” the Bishop and his lessees were empowered to treat with the mayor and commonalty and citizens of the said city of London, for the removal or varying the line of the said pipes, &c., and to make satisfaction for all damages which may be sustained by the city in consequence thereof: the estate to be charged with any sum not exceeding two thousand pounds for effecting this object.

Provision is made in the tenth section—“That nothing herein contained shall extend, or be constructed to extend, to authorize the making or forming any new drain or drains, tunnel or tunnels, except for the conveying and receiving the water from the conduit as aforesaid, which shall or may run into the Park, called Hyde Park, or Kensington Gardens, or into any drain, &c., running into or communicating with the same places, or either of them.” But the rights, powers and authorities, vested in the Commissioners of Sewers, were not to be affected by this Act.

In a schedule to this Act annexed, signed S. P. Cockerell, we find the “estimate of the expence of building a main drain or sewer for carrying off the water from the estate being at least, five thousand three hundred feet in length, four feet clear breadth,” was ten thousand and sixty-four pounds. And the “estimate of the expence of moving the pipes and drains from the conduit at Bayswater, and the tanks and wells connected therewith,” was two thousand pounds. Yet this arrangement, with respect to the Bayswater conduit and the pipes, &c., proceeding therefrom, was not sufficient to satisfy the owners of the Paddington estate; for, in four years after it was made, another Act was passed “to enable the mayor and commonalty and citizens of the city of London to sell, and the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London and his lessees of the estate at Paddington belonging to the See of London to purchase, certain waters and springs and the conduits and other appurtenances thereto within the several parishes of Mary-le-bone and Paddington, in the county of Middlesex.” 52nd Geo. III. cap. 193. And articles of agreement dated the first of July, 1812, relative to the purchase of the said conduit, springs, &c., for the sum of two thousand five hundred pounds, are confirmed by this Act. It also empowers John (Randolph) Lord Bishop of London, and his successors for the time being, with consent of the lessees, to raise money “for the completion of the said purchase and payment of the incidental expenses;” either by sale of all or any portion of thirty-two acres of land particularly described in a schedule to this Act annexed; or by a mortgage on any portion of the estate; or by annuities; but the sum of money “which may be raised under or by virtue of all, any, or either of the provisions contained in this Act, shall not together and in the whole exceed the sum of four thousand five hundred pounds.”

We are informed by a schedule attached to the 6th Geo. IV. cap 45. that under the powers of this Act, eight acres, one rood, and nineteen perches of land, were sold to purchase these waters; the amount received for which, including “interest and auction duty,” was two thousand, nine hundred and nineteen pounds, sixteen shillings and sixpence.

The lands, described in the schedule annexed to this Act, are said to be “the most convenient for sale,” being “detached parts” of the estate. How there came to be any “detached parts” in so snug an estate, the Act does not inform us. But it does tell us that in these detached parts there are two closes of land called “The Lower Readings,” and “The Upper Readings,” names very significant in themselves, and which must, I think, at some time, have had some connection with Readers.

Another Act—the Regent’s Canal Bill—was the same day added to the list of those Acts which, together, have made the Paddington Estate a subject of such notoriety. But there was an Act also for each of the intervening years.