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.