Having despatched the crooked lawyer Thomas Reynolds, Buckmaster turned his attention to Arthur Alexander Corsellis (:

• HistoryWandsworthCommon: Arthur Alexander Corsellis.
• HistoryWandsworthCommon: Thomas Reynolds.

For Buckmaster v Corsellis see also e.g.

• HistoryWandsworthCommon: 1866
• HistoryWandsworthCommon: 1869

Clerkenwell News - Tuesday 25 April 1871

Exceptionally interesting on importance of trams, rapid growth of population, demand for housing, employment of "girls" etc. Well worth looking into more closely.

South London Tramways.

A bill for the construction of new lines of tramway in South London came on Monday before a Select Committee of the House of Commons, consisting of Viscount Emlyn (chairman), Sir John Amory, Mr. R. Preston Bruce, and Mr. Coddingtou. Mr. Littler, Q.C., in opening the case for the promoters of the bill, said the South London Tramways Company was an existing company, who now sought for an extension of their system towards the City.

The first line of the company was originally constructed in 1879, and was now opened from Wandsworth-road station to Niue Elms-lane; then from Lambeth Bridge and along Lambeth-road and Southwark-street to Loudon Bridge. What was asked by this bill was to continue their authorized line (from Vauxhall to Westminster Bridge) from Westminster Bridge onwards to join their existing line at the foot of Southwark Bridge.

There were large numbers of working men and small clerks on the line of route who wished to be conveyed to their places of employment at a cheaper rate than the railways could supply. Many of them lived in the neighbourhood of Battersea Park, Wandsworth, and Clapham Common.

The traffic on the existing lines had been something astounding. The line was opened at the end of 1830. In January, 1881, the number of passengers carried over the line was 52,628. In the same month of 1882 the number was 168,883, showing increase of 116,000. In the month of July, 1881, the number had increased to 180,133. lu July, 1882, the number was 492,053, or an increase of 311,000. Taking the whole year, the total for the year 1881 was 1,664,683; in the year 1882 the total number was 4,147,131. In the month of May, 1881, the number passengers conveyed was 135,000; in 1832 it was 378,863;! and May, 1883, the number was 546,559.

The only petitioners against the bill were the London and South-Western Railway Company aud the London Tramways Company, with whom the proposed new line would compete. The local authorities and inhabitants petitioned in favour of the bilk Sixty thousand people living in the neighbourhoods of Southwark-street, Staraford-street, York-road, Wandsworth - road, Battersea Park, and Wandsworth had signed in favour of the bill. There were also 2,350 signatures from various printing offices.

The petition of the South-Western Railway Company against the bill was chiefly directed against the crossing in the Bridge-road, and the route along York-road, especially on race days. It might be that on race days there was some inconvenience, and the company were perfectly content, if the committee thought necessary, to insert clause enabling the Commissioner Police, not the South- Western Railway Company, to suspend the tramway traflic during such portions of race days as might be found necessary.

The London Tramways Company, who opposed, were the owners of the line to Blackfriars from Clapham Common.

Witnesses were called in support of the bill.

Mr. Arthur Alexander Corsellis, solicitor to the Wandsworth District Board of Works, and also clerk to the magistrates, said that before the tramway started, the district was very badly served, but since it had been constructed the number of houses in the district had very largely increased. Houses for artisans and clerks were occupied almost as soon as finished. The proposed Hue would be great advantage to these persons.

In cross-examination by Mr. Clarke for the London and South-Western Railway Company, and by counsel for the London Tramways Company, witness said he was aware that there were two or three omnibus services running along part of the proposed route. He did not know the amount of traffic in the Westminster Bridge-road (which the line would cross.) Re-examined: No doubt the local authorities over Westminster Bridge-road would have considered the element of public danger.

Mr. H. R. Jones, solicitor, practising in Wandsworth, and formerly member of the Wandsworth Board of Works, believed the general feeling of the working classes was in favour of the proposed line. Cross-examined: They wished to get from Wandsworth-road to Waterloo Bridge, Mr. Pilditch, residing at Battersea, and surveyor of that parish, stated that there were 313 acres available for building.

During 1831 there were 1,004 additional houses built, and there were several large estates now bring opened up for building. With ordinary care on the part of drivers, he saw more difficulty in the proposed crossings than in the existing crossings.

In cross-examination, witness said he did not know how many tramcars in the hour passed along Westminster-road. He was aware that steamers carried passengers along the river at a cheap rate, and that there were omnibuses; but none would serve so well as the tramways.

Dr. Kempster, of Bridge-road, Battersea, medical officer of health for the district, said that the neighbourhood was originally occupied by labourers. It was now occupied largely clerks, and especially by those employed in Government offices, particularly female clerks. There were also foremen of factories and warehouses, and skilled artisans generally.

During the winter months, when bad weather prevailed there were many cases of illness caught in going to and from places of business. Many female clerks broke down every year. He thought it desirable that they should taken from points as near their own place of business to points near their own houses as possible, and vice vzrsa. The London General Omnibus Company had repeatedly refused to supply the demand.

Cross-examined: A good many of the female clerks were employed in the General Post Office, and Blackfriars Bridge was the nearest for them. There were also many girls who served in shops in the Strand and at Charing Cross.

Mr. John Elmslie, of Albert-road, Battersea, provision dealer, member of the Wandsworth District Board of Works, and now a vestryman, believed the new line would be a great boon to many residents in Battersea who were employed in the Strand and in the City. Many small shopkeepers would be glad to avail themselves of it in going to Blackfriars Bridge without change. Small greengrocers would go to Farringdon Market and purchase their vegetables for retail sale in their own places of business. Witness was the founder of the Battersea Park Tradesmen's Club, which fairly represented the fooling of the district. They passed resolution in favour of increased road service. The Omnibus Company refused to give it, and therefore they welcomed the South London Tramways, which had done a great amount of good.

Cross-examined: He was glad, when driving, to get behind tramcar, because it got heavy vehicles out of the way; but he could not that account recommend the construction of tramways in Cheapside.

Mr. Nathaniel Purdy, van builder, and member of the Wandsworth District Board of Works for 20 years, said he had known the district from the time when there were only 3,000 inhabitants. There were now 30,000. The inhabitants regarded the South London Tramways Company as angel? in their district. (Laughter.) He would like to see them extend their angels' wings further. The result would be, if they had a new line, further civilization for the community on both sides of the proposed newline, who sadly wanted civilization. It would take them out of the dens in which they lived, and bring them into houses ready for them, where they could enjoy the fresh air and liberty they wanted. It would be very useful to compositors who had to to their various newspaper offices.

Mr. Young, solicitor, Bridge-road, Battersea, churchwarden, and member of the District Board of Works, stated that he had offices Newgate-street, City, and that be found the existing routes altogether inconvenient. If he took the boat from the City, it sometimes occupied an hour and quarter from London Bridge to Battersea Bridge. The South London Tramways had greatly improved the district and induced people to come and live there, and the extension would be valuable that he hoped it would be conceded by the committee. For a great number of people employed in printing offices, communication of this sort would be very important. The Rev. Burman Cassin, rector of St. George the Martyr, Southwark, stated that he was vicar of St. George's, Nine Elms, for 13J years, so that he knew the district well. He was sure the convenience of the district would be increased the new line. The poorer classes lived largely Southwark in lodging-houses, and there was nothing at all to enable them to take recreation except the churchyard, where there were enclosed beds of flowers. Communication with Battersea Park would an unspeakable boon.

The inhabitants were exceedingly anxious to have the new line. Overcrowding drove them to public-houses, and nothing was more likely to draw them away than to give them access to open spaces. Witness's vestry had petitioned in favour of the line. Mr. Arthur Southen, surveyor of the parish of Clapham for 12 years, said that a large number of the artisan class lived in that district, and he thought the new line would he very beneficial, and was necessary for the district. He did not think there would be more than ordinary danger in the crossings.

Cross-examined: He daresay there would be 1,000 vehicles an hour along the Westminster Bridge-road. Mr. Lloyd, managing director of the Liverpool Tramways Company, said that their line ran immediately in front of Lime-street station, where there were 8,000 vehicles per day, and where the gradient was one in 28. The driving was mere matter of wireful management. He had inspected the proposed line of South London Tramwavs, and he saw no difficulty in it, except that a signalman might be required at Blackfriars. He would have signalman's box there and at Westminster Bridge, and would have the junctions worked with levers. The committee adjourned.

The committee resumed at noon on Tuesday.

Mr. Harry Baynes, Lavender Hill, Battersea, Parliamentary reporter of the Globe newspaper, and member of the local Tradesmen's Clnb, stated that the locality was very inadequately supplied with means of communication to Waterloo. The South- Western railway trains were remarkable for their uncertainty. Tne 9.35 train of the previous day was taken off entirely. The other means of communication was the Chatham and Dover from Battersea, which was very circuitous and lengthy. The omnibus, it seemed to him, ran once in an hour and a half. The steamboats were not available in fogs nor after dark in winter. Many compositors lived in bis neighbourhood.

Cross-examined: He believed the omnibuses were supposed to run every half-hour. They started from the William the Fourth in the Wandsworth-road, some distance from where witness resided. The line was not yet constructed to Nine Elms-lane. The new line was first brought under his notice by the employes in the Globe office about three weeks ago. It was desirable to get communication with Waterloo Bridge especially. The existing line would run near to Waterloo station. Mr. Henry Thomas, deputy foreman printer at 332, Strand, opposite Somerset House, residing at Shaftesbury Park, between Clapham Junction and Queen's-road, stated he sometimes went by the South-Western Railway to Waterloo, but that was a circuitous route, and had to walk from Waterloo to the Strand. The new line would be a great convenieuce to himself aud the great body of printers who lived in the same neighbourhood.

Cross-examined: The proposed new line would also be ti great advantage to those who went over Blackfriars Bridge. He was aware there was a line authorized, but that would not bring him so near hia place of business the proposed new line. Re-examined It would be an additional disadvantage to have to change. Mr. John Rogers, of 73, York-road, Battersea, printers' reader, stated that he went to Fetter-lane night aud morning, and had done so for 10 years. There were many who took the same journey. The proposed new line was the best solution of the difficulty of comraunicaiiofi he had jet seen. People going to the west of England by excursion trains went to Waterloo. This lino would be a great advantage to those people, because they only took small quantity of luggage.

Cross-examined: The fare from his neighbourhood to Ludgate Hill was fourpence. A working man could not afford to pay that. There were no return tickets. He came that morning by tram two miles for one penny. Re-examined: By existing lines would have to change. By the proposed new line he would get into the tram opposite his door and be carried to Waterloo Bridge. The chairman said there seemed to be good many printers from the same district. Mr. O'Hara (for the promoters) said that as they had made their impression he would not call any more. Mr. George Hill, of Westminster Bridge-road, newspaper proprietor, and member of the Metropolitan Board of Works, stated that be lived in Wandsworth, and knew the requirements of the district. Great benefit bad been conferred by the South Loudon tramways. The line proposed would be a great and valuable addition to the present line. Battersea Park was favourite resort of the inhabitants of Lambeth, and this line would boa great advantage. The vestry of which he was a member were not in the first instance favourable to this scheme, but on its being brought before them, resolution in its favour was carried by two to one. The Metropolitan Board were, as a body, rather unfavourable to tramways, but they were in favour of this line. It was the only one thit had received their assent this session.

Cross-examined: He believed the authorized lino to Nine Elms-lane had been commenced. The tramway companies had to keep the road in order, but that made no difference in the cost to the vestry of keeping the road in repair. Mr. A. Ward, clerk of the St. Saviour's District Board of Works, said the formation of the new line would be an important link in the chain, not only with Wandsworth, Kennington, Battersea, and Clapham, but also with the West-end. The population of his district was 28,000, but had decreased in the last 30 years, chiefly owing to the formation of railways and the construction of factories and public buildings. Although the people did not sleep there, he believed they came back to work. The proposed line was, in his opinion, one that should be sanctioned. This bill was the subject of consideration and discussion before the St. Saviour's District Board of Works, and they assented to and approved of the plan. The new line would afford liuk that was now wanted. Mr. Greenstreet, surveyor to the St. Saviour's District Board, having considered the scheme, believed it would be a very great boon to the inhabitants. He had been over the locus of the new line. As to the opposition of the London Company, he saw no difficulty in crossing the line at Blackfriars Bridge, although the traffic was greater there than at Westminster Bridge. The new line would be the lesser of two evils. As to the difficulties of the South- Western Railway traffic, there might on race days be some inconvenience.

Cross-examined: He did not know in figures what was the traffic at Blackfriars Bridge corner, but he knew it was second only to London Bridge. could not doubt the statement of counsel (Mr. Atkins for the South-Western) that there were 2,000 vehicles passing the Stamford-street corner of Blackfriars Bridge in half an hour that (Tuesday) morning. did not know how many days in the year were race days affecting Waterloo station. Re-examined: Tuesday was market day at Covent Garden, and that added to the traffic in Blackfriars-road.

Mr. Fowler, architect and surveyor, attending on the authority of the Speaker's warrant, said he was member of the Lambeth Vestry, and represented the vestry on the Metropolitan Board of Works, where he was member of the Tramways Sub-Committec. He felt there ought to be better communication for people working on the north side of the Thames taking advantage of the small properties about Battersea. He had considered the matter of the crossings in Westminster Bridge-road. A good deal of regulation wi uld no doubt be required, but there would be no difference between tramcar and an ordinary vehicle crossing the road. At the Elephant and Castle it was done without any difficulty. On the Derby Day and Oaks Day there might be difficulty at the South-Western stations, and on those days the trams should be stopped. There was no steamboat pier on the south side of the river from Lambeth Bridge to London Bridge. This matter was referred to the Parliamentary Committee of the Metropolitan Board, and they assented to it. He believed the line would be of great advantage. Re-examined: He believed the Metropolitan Board in the first instance refused permission to make the loop-line which had since been authorized.

Chief Inspector Huutly, of the A Division, stationed at King-street, Westminster, was once superintendent of the district where the Elephant and Castle is situated. The crossing had been at work there for many years. Complicated as it looked, it had been worked for many years, and was still working. It required care, no doubt. He gave evidence before a committee of the House of Commons in 1381, when he was directed to keep an account of the number of accidents from tramcars at Newington, and he remembered they were very few, though he could not from memory say how many. He believed the traffic at the crossing at the Elephant and Castle was the largest in South London. He believed the crossings on the proposed line could be worked with ordinary care. He did not think the tramways would cause any appreciable inconvenience. There would be greater difficulty in dealing with the traffic in than at Nine Elms, but he certainly thought it could be worked with ordinary care.

Cross-examined: The space at the Elephant and Castle was larger than York-road. All the trams there belonged to one company. He believed they were all double lines except one. The drivers could see a long way in front of them except for the congestion of traffic. He was intimately acquainted with the traffic at York-road. He should not surprised hear that there were two inspectors and 12 constables on duty there that (Tuesday) morning; but that was one of the two exceptional days of the year (Ascot races). On the Derby Day the traffic was principally in the Waterloo-road. He was not surprised to hear that between 10 «nd 11 that day there were 1,000 vehicles in Blackfriars-road. Occasionally trams were an advantage to the traffic, and especially in regard to hansoms, because the trams kept them in something like order. Inspector Denning, of the Westminster Palace police, said he-was chief inspector of police at the House of Commons. He was acquainted with the crossings over which this line proposed to run. He did not think thqre would be any more impediment by the crossing of trams than by omnibuses. The proviso for stopping the traffic on particular days would remove any difficulty. He had for many years had charge of the regulation of traffic at the corner of Parliament-street, and there was not a worse corner in London. He lived in Battersea, and was astonished at the number of persons who had to walk both night and morning for lack of public conveyances.

Cross-examined: He was now aware that there was an authorized line. He had had no tramways under his charge, but spoke from observation. He had been subpoenaed by the promoters, but he should have come as resident in Battersea. There might be little inconvenience on race days, but that would bo more than counterbalanced by the great advantage to the district through which the trams would run. Superintendent Buckland, of Carter-street, Walworth, said he hod inspected the traffic in Westminster Bridge-road where this line proposed to cross, and also the South-Western station. the traffic at the Elephant and Castle was much larger than at those places. He believed the crossings proposed in this bill could be worked as safely as at the Elephant and Castle. He did not, so far as his memory served him, know of any accident at that particular place.

Cross-examined: The figures given in 1879 of traffic at the Elephant and Castle between 9 and o'clock were 8,000 vehicles, aud he should say that had not increased. Inspector Richard Stead, chief inspector of the M Division, stationed at Stone's-end, stated that that included Xewington Causeway and the Elephant and Castle. He knew no more intricate traffic. He saw no difficulty in regulating the traffic on the proposed line any more than in other places. Re-examined; He attended by permission of thfr authorities at Scotland Yard. He knew Superintendent Brennan and Inspector Garland. They knew more about York-road than he did, but he did not say he should agree with all they said - (laughter) - though he should pay great respect to what they said. Mr. Tomlin, formerly superintendent of the London Tramways Company for 10 years, said he had paid great attention to the Elephant and Castle crossing. No accident had happened during the time he was connected with it.

Cross-examined He was now representative of an ironfoundry. Mr. C. Hurley, manager of the Cardiff tramways, had experience both at Newport and Cardiff as to crossings, and looking at that experience, he thought the traffic on the proposed new line could, with care, be regulated without inconvenience.

Cross-examined The service of trams varied according to the traffic - usually a five minutes' service. He came up purposely to give evidence. Ho had been inspecting the proposed line. He did not notice increase of traffic on the Friday.

Re-examined; He mentioned Cardiff as a district where the tramways ran close by the station. Mr. Reid (Birmingham) said he knew the South-Western Railway station at Birmingham. There was a service of trams along Snow Hill which ran close to the Snow Hill station.

Re-examined: The entrance to Snow Hill station was on a level with the street. Mr. Wharam (Leeds) said the tramways were laid along the principal streets, and crossed the entrances to several railway stations. He had inspected the traffic in York-road and Westminster Bridge-road. At certain times of the day the traffic was not greater than in Leeds. Evidence was also given by Mr. Alexander Cameron, engineer of the company, who stated that the line would be completed in about three months. The committee adjourned. The committee met again on Wednesday, counsel being the same as at previous hearings. Mr. Venialls, a civil engineer, was called, and said he knew the position of the London and South- Western station, and he did not think the tramway would interfere with their traffic or their station.

Cross-examined: Did not exactly know what the traffic of the road was. Did not think that the introduction of a tram car into a road was more objectionable than the introduction of any other vehicle. Had given his attention to the traffic along Stamford-street, Blackfriars-road, and Southwarkstreet, and he did not think that one or two tramcars more or less would make an appreciable difference. Had been engineer to a number of tramway companies, but his business was chiefly concerned with railways. His experience with regard to tramways had reference more to the construction than the working of tramways. Mr. Joseph Kincade, a civil engineer, admitted that at certain periods there was a considerable pressure of railway traffic in the vicinity of the South-Western station, but he did not consider there would be any difficulty in making regulations so as to avoid blockB.,, In South London there were considerable difficulties in the regulation of tramway traffic on great race days, such as the Derby and Oaks; but the skilled management of the company was such that the lines were invariably worked with smoothness.

Cross-examined: single line of tramway was less inconvenient than a double line at points where it crossed other companies' rails. In the event of cars waiting for any length of time at "points" where they crossed each other, the fact would, in his opinion, show defective management, which ought to be remedied. The level crossings at Kennington Church did not appear to witness to be badly worked. Was not aware that Griffin-street, in the vicinity of Waterloo station, had been widened at the expense of the South-Western Railway Company. If the company bore the cost, he had no doubt they did so for their own convenience. Mr. W. Jaques, manager of the South London Tramway Company, was then examined, and the case for the opposition having been opened, the committee adjourned.

[BNA: Link]

South London Press - Saturday 24 November 1883

WANDSWORTH COUNTY COURT

A COMMISSION CLAIM

Syer v. Corsellis. - Plaintiff, a builder and surveyor, Tooting for whom Mr. Dickens was counsel, claimed £'so for commission which he alleged to be due to him from defendant, a soUcitor, of East Hill, Wandsworth, who m also senior partner in the firm of Corsellis, Son, and Mossop, clerk the Wandsworth Board of Works, clerk to the magistrates, &c.

Mr. Lyon was counsel for defendant.

Plaintiff deposed that in June, 1832, he introduced a builder named West to defendant, who took certain plots of land the property of defendant in Burton, Headmont, and Haskell roads, Wandsworth, which erect houses at a cost of about each. Defendants agreed to pay plaintiff £5O for this but hud not done so.

Arthur Alexander Corsellis, the defendant, deposed that before Mr. West took the laud plaintiff inquired to commission, and witness said he would have no objection to allow him commission the builder pulled through all right, and there was no loss. West, however, only finished 25 houses, on which witness made advances from time to time. Seven houses were left unfinished whenlWest went into liquidation. Witness had sustained clear loss of through West not completing his contracts.

Henry Nicholas Corsellis, son of last witness, deposed that looked after the branch of the business of dealing with builders. Plaintiff came into his office and said he had a man named West to take the land, and had just seen witness's father about it. asked witness about commission, and witness replied that would pay commission results. He had had a large experience with builders, and would not pay any commission until all advances made by the firm had been repaid. Then when the builder had cleared out of the estate without loss to defendants, witness would make plaintiff a present of £50.

After further evidence, His honour said the usual commission such cases was one year's ground-rent; but this commission had not been agreed on in this case, but a lump sum of named, must come to the conclusion, the conflict evidence, that it was agreed to given without conditions.

Judgment was for the plaintiff.

A second case between the same parties was then gone into, plaintiff chumiug 32 guineas for preparing plans and doing surveyor's work for tbe same houses.

Mr. A. A. Corsellis said he had his own surveyor, Mr. Stanbury to do the work; and as regards the plans, it was for the builder to provide them, and submit them to the freeholder for approval. The freeholder did not provide plans.

Plaintiff, Mr. West, Mr. U. N. Corsellis, and Mr. Stinbury were examined, and gave directly contrary evidence as to what had taken place.

Only one plan, which was suspiciously clean, was produced.

His honour observing that it did not look as though it had been used, and in the end his honour found for defendant.

[BNA: Link]

South London Press - Saturday 06 December 1884 says he retired in 1884, after 29 years as [?]. He was the first officer appointed under the Metropolis Local management Act of 1855, and the longest serving. It speaks of his "extensive knowledge of parochial law, his unfailing urbanity, and his upright and honourabke character". He was presented "by his brother officers of the Board of Works" with an inscribed inkstand

[BNA: Link]

Exeter and Plymouth Gazette - Friday 31 July 1885

CROWNN COURT. - Tuesday. FELONY AT TORQUAY. Henry White, 20, tn, pleaded guilty to stealing a gold set with diamonds, a glova box, aud other articles, the property of Arthur Alexander Corsellis, his mister, at Cockington, within the last three months. - His Lordship sentenced the prisoner to nine calendar months' imprisonment with hard labour.

South London Press - Saturday 05 May 1888

Death of Arthur Alexander Corsellis. Mr. Arthur Alexander Corsellis, whose death took place very suddenly on the 27th ult. Torquay from heart disease, was the only surviving son of the late Lieutenant - Colonel Henry Nicholas Corsellis, H.E.I.C.S. He was admitted as a solicitor 1850, and for nearly 30 years he was clerk and solicitor to the Wandsworth District Board of Works, and to the county justices of the Wandsworth Division. He was also clerk to the Commissioners of Taxes for West Brixton. He was senior partner of the then firm of Corsellis, Son, and Mossop, and had an extensive private practice the Wandsworth district.

On his retirement at the end of 1884, his long and faithful services were most suitably acknowledged by testimonials from oil the public bodies with which he was connected, and he then retired to Torquay, where he took a great interest in local affairs and politics.

He was an earnest Liberal, an admirer of Mr, Gladstone, and an indefatigable, though unostentatious, worker.

The funeral on Tuesday was largely attended by all classes - a fitting token of the respect and esteem in which the deceased gentleman was held. The cortege, consisting of open hearse and eight mourning carriages, left the house about 3 o'clock, followed by a dozen carriages.

The body was enclosed in a cedar shell inside lead coffin, the outer coffin being of polished oak with brass mountings, the plate bearing the inscription - " Arthur Alexander Corsellis, died April 27,1888, aged 59 years," The coffin was covered with over 20 beautiful wreaths, contributed by Mrs. Corsellis and family, E. L. Corsellis, the grandchildren, Mr. and Mrs. Ellis, Miss Ramsay, Mr. £. C. Ellis, Miss E. Matlock, Mr. M'Kellar, and Mr. 6. T. Burner. Sir Arthur and Lady Hayter sent handsome wreath from London, and the members of the Wandsworth Board of Works also forwarded a magnificent floral decoration, others coming from the old clerks in deceased's employ, member of the Torquay Liberal Club, the Liberal Associations at Paignton, Brixham, and St. Mary-church respectively, and the Liberal Cabinet of the Torquay Parliamentary Debating Society.

The monrners were Mr. Henry Nicholas Corsellis (son), Master Arthur Corscllis (grandson). Miss Helen Corsellis and Miss Leila Corsellis (daughters), Miss Corsellis (sister of deceased), Miss Ethel Corsellis and Miss Marion Corsellis (daughters), Mr. Herbert Ellis, the Bev. Delavah 8. Ingram (cousin), Captain Tom Hamber, Dr. Lush, and Mr. Lewis Chare.

[BNA: Link]

Illustrated London News - Saturday 23 June 1888

The will (dated Sept. 20, 1887) of Mr. Arthur Alexander Corsellis, late of Layer Marney, Chelston-road, Torquay, who died on April 27 last, was proved on May 16 by Henry Nicholas Corsellis, the son, Henry Mossop, and George Francis Berney, the executors, the value of the personal estate amounting to over £25,000. The testator bequeaths £2OO and his horses and carriages to his wife, and the residue of his property, real and personal, he leaves, upon trust, for her, for life. At his wife's death, he gives his freehold property, Marney Lodge, Wandsworth, to his son Henry Nicholas, subject to his paying to his brother, George Caesar, £1000; his freehold offices, Alma-road and East-hill, Wandsworth, to his said son George Cassar; and there are some specific bequests to his son Henry Nicholas. The ultimate residue of his property is to be held, upon trust, for his five daughters.

[BNA: Link]

South London Press - Saturday 15 February 1879

Corsellis and Wardley Street Gipsies

[Source: Link]

The Wandsworth Gipsies. At the Wandsworth police-court on Tuesday, liam Penfold, of Wardley-street, Garratt-lane, Wanda, worth, was summoned before Mr. Paget, at the instance the Wandsworth Board of Works, for having hia premises in such a state as to be nuisance and injurious to health. Mr. Lille; appeared for the defendant. Mr. Corsellis, clerk of the board, who supported the summons, said the defendant had piece of ground which was used as a gipsy encampment. The gipsies squatted in tents and huts, causing a great nuisance to the neighbourhood. It would be remembered by the magistrate that on the last occasion be called evidence (that of house-agent named John Woodruff in particular) proving that the smell from the encampment was [most offensive. It was then deposed by the witness that had seen as many as a dozen tents on the ground, with eight or 10 persons in each. It was also shown by inhabitants that the smoke arising from the encampment was such that in some cases people said they could scarcely breathe. On that occasion Mr. Corsellis reminded the bench that order was obtained for the removal of the filth on the ground. At the present time there were four vans, each occupied by a family, one of the vehicles having a space of 275 cubic feet for sis persons. Dr. Nicholas, medical officer of health for the Wandsworth district, was called, and said that since his ship had made an order some time since, the nuisance had not abated in the least. He found the people living in vans a way which was prejudicial to their own health and to the inhabitants of th 3 neighbourhood. It was condition of things which ought not to be allowed in any country that pretended to be civilized. Mr. Lilley, for the defence, contended that no case bad been made out, and said that the magistrate saw these people he would find them in healthy and robust condition, notwithstanding the statements made on the other side. Mr. Paget said so far as the evidence before him went, it came to this - that a man and bis wife were found living in a van. He conld not grant an order en snch evidence, and the summons would therefore be dismissed. The case of the other defendant, Thomas Mills, was next heard. He was summoned for the same offence as Penfold. In this case Mr. Corsellis said there were tents on the ground as well vans. Dr. Nicholas said he found three tents, each occupied a family, who slept on chips, from the making of skewers, and litter, and lived in condition highly prejudicial themselves, and, indirectly, the neighbourhood. Mr. Paget said it was desirable to remove nuisances of that sort, but the evidence was too vague to act upon. He dismissed the summons.

[BNA: Link]

[BNA: Link]

His son, HN Corsellis takes over...