Paddington: Past and Present

by William Robins

In 1810 “An Act for further enlarging the Church-yard of the parish of Paddington, in the County of Middlesex,” the 50th Geo. III. cap. 44, enabled the trustees appointed under previous Acts, relative to the church and church-yard, to charge the burial-fees, pew-rents, and church-rates, with a sum not exceeding two thousand five hundred pounds, in order to complete a purchase of two acres, one rood and twenty-nine perches of land belonging to the said John, Bishop of London, and his lessees. For this piece of ground, with the trees standing thereon, and the old manor-house, the parish paid two thousand, two hundred and sixty-three pounds, seven shillings and sixpence. This sum I presume was divided in the usual proportion between the Bishop and his lessees: for this does not appear to have been any part of the land authorised to be sold for the purposes mentioned in one of the preceding Acts.

In 1811, the fifty-first of Geo. III. cap. 169, established the Grand Junction Water Works Company; the thirty-third section of which Act confirms and ratifies a previous arrangement, made by the previous Bishop, Beilby Porteus, with the Grand Junction Canal Company, for the supply of the tenants on the Paddington estate, with water at ten pounds per cent. less than they could be supplied by others. The clause is as follows:—

“Provided also, and be it farther enacted, that the said Company of Proprietors shall, and they are hereby required from Time to Time, and at all times hereafter, to supply the several Lessees or Tenants of the Estate belonging to the See of the Bishop of London at Paddington aforesaid with Water, at the Rate of Ten Pounds per Centum at the least below the average Rate which shall be demanded and taken by the said Company, or any other Company or Companies, for supplying with an equal quantity of Water the Inhabitants of Souses of the like Magnitude and Description of any other of the Districts or Streets within the Cities of London and Westminster.”

Whether or not the tenants of the Paddington estate have, up to this time, received the full benefits of this important clause, I leave them to decide for themselves. I, for one, can say that I have not; and after a full investigation of this subject, I cannot undertake, (as I have been requested to do, by a gentleman very much interested in the Company,) to point out the injustice of this clause. I make no doubt this clause was well considered, before it was allowed to form a portion of this Act; and was taken by the bishop and his lessees as a part of the quid pro quo in their arrangements with the Company.

Whether it was done as an act of kindness to the tenants, as a compensation for the loss of the public watering places which existed on several parts of this estate, or to increase the value of the estate matters little to our purpose: but we cannot suppose that a public Company would have consented to this clause without some adequate consideration; and even if the value of this consideration is no longer felt, which I believe is not the case, [90] that is no reason why their obligation should not remain. To have had a tall chimney, with all its consequences, as well as some acres of reservoirs filled with water, standing for years in the centre of the parish, could have been no improvement to the surrounding property, though the convenience to the company must have been very great; and if any injustice is to be discovered in this clause, I think it must be found in confirming the benefit to a portion of the parish only. But if the Company at that time had seen any injustice in this arrangement, it could and most probably would soon have been altered, for “the aid and authority of Parliament,” was required in 1812, the very year after the passing of this Water Company’s Act, to make “valid, binding, and conclusive,” certain articles of agreement, dated the twenty-fourth of March, which were entered into between John, then Bishop of London, and his lessees, and the company of proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal; which agreement, amongst other things, was entered into, to enable the latter to lease to the Grand Junction Water Works Company, the requisite quantity of land for the completion of their works. [91]

After fifteen years, in the seventh of Geo. IV, cap. 140, the same clause is again to be found; and in the seventh and eighth of Victoria, cap. 30, this agreement for supplying cheap water to the tenants of the Paddington estate is again ratified and confirmed; so that the subject has been well considered and ought to be fully enforced by a co-operation of the tenants.

By the fifty-second Geo. III, cap. 192, the Act just referred to, anno 1812, the said articles of agreement are “absolutely ratified, confirmed, and established,” by which thirty-six acres, three and a-half perches of land are demised to the end of the term for which the land previously leased to this Company was let, renewable for a further term of ninety-nine years, every fifty years, on the tender of a fine of twenty shillings, at a rent commencing at £427 3s. in 1812, and advancing year by year to 1818, when the annual rent was fixed at £570 3s.; one-third part of which was to be paid to the Bishop of London for the time being, the other two-thirds to his lessees.

Besides this lease of fresh portions of the estate, certain small pieces were exchanged, and the Company reconveyed to the bishop and his lessees rather more than two acres of that which had been previously leased to them, so that, altogether, rather more than eighty-two acres of the Paddington Estate is leased to the Grand Junction Canal Company, at a rent of £1,454 3s. per annum.

In the same year, 1812, the fifty-second of Geo. III. cap. 195, incorporated the Regent’s Canal Company, and gave full power and authority to that Company, “to make and maintain a Navigable Canal from the Grand Junction Canal, in the parish of Paddington to the River Thames in the parish of Limehouse;” to supply the same, as well as steam engines, Reservoirs, &c. with water from the River, and to effect other objects therein set down. The land required of the Paddington Estate for making this Canal amounted to two acres, three roods, twenty-eight perches; the purchase money for which was £2,000.

This canal was opened from Paddington to the Regent’s Park Basin two years after this Act passed, but was not finished till August, 1820. The other Canal and Water Company Acts which affect the Paddington Estate, are the fifty-sixth of Geo. III. cap. 4 and 85; the fifty-ninth Geo. III. cap. 3; and the seventh Geo. IV. cap. 140. But it appears that one Act of Parliament was not sufficient to ratify and confirm the articles of agreement of the twenty-fourth of March, 1812; for the fifth of Geo. IV. cap. 35, passed in 1824, was called into operation “to carry into complete effect” these articles of agreement; and the twenty-six pages of which this Act is made up, shew pretty clearly that “some doubt” must have been entertained whether the things therein agreed to be done, could be “legally and effectually” done.