Paddington: Past and Present

by William Robins

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 6s. 11d.; but the overseer’s account alone, in 1815, amounted to £3,375 12s. 4d. 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 10s. 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 16s. 7d.; 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.”