Wandsworth Common is a hilltop gravelly heath on a long finger of land pointing across the Thames. It owes its shape to the action of two parallel rivers — the Wandle and the smaller "Falcon Brook" (which now runs in a pipe beneath Northcote Road).
[From around 1800 the Falcon Brook was an ornamental stream at the foot of the "5 Houses" — [embellished] with lakes, ponds and waterfalls). By 1871 part of it was marked on maps as "the York Sewer" and was culverted in ??]]
The Common is the remnant of the "waste" of a single very large manor — "Battersea and Wandsworth".
[This manor was owned by Earl Harold before the Conquest, then mainly given by William the Conqueror to Westminster Abbey (in exchange for Windsor).]
When church lands were broken up and sold off in Tudor times, the manor was subdivided and given (or more usually sold off) to court favourites and rising men from the City.
The common waste was only notionally divided between two main manors — "Battersea" and "Wandsworth "(Battersea West Heath and Wandsworth East Heath). The parish and manorial boundaries ran down the middle, but there was no fence or ditch to separate them.
But fatefully a small rectangle was taken out of the rest of the Common and given to the new manor of Allfarthing. (I say "given to", but more likely "taken from", since the first new lord of the manor was Thomas Cromwell, [himself the architect of the Dissolution of the Monasteries]. The "Allfarthing Piece" of waste exactly corresponds to the today's built-over area between Lyford/Heathfield Road, Routh Road, Baskerville Road, and Dorlcote Road. The fact that this area is now built upon is due to this [...]. [Such a vivid example of how what happened in the deep historic past continues to influence us today.]
[HistoryWandsworthCommon: The Toast Rack — for some good maps and images.]
[HistoryWandsworthCommon: /wandsworth_common/years/1870.html Buckmaster on Allfarthing — and on the Berkhamstead case.]
According to Daniel Lysons, writing around 1800, the Common was at that time about 400 acres in extent: "About one half of the common, which takes its name from Wandsworth, is in this parish; it contains about 400 acres, and extends nearly two miles in length towards Streatham." The "greater half", he says, is in Battersea.
By 1871 it had shrunk to no more than 150 acres. (today it is [25] acres or so larger again, after a number of small areas were bought back).
[MAP/S?]
Earl Spencer was a particularly enthusiastic [user of private bills]. For example in the 1820s he proposed to incorporate large parts of Wiumbledon Common into his estate at Wimbledon park, to make areas of Wimbledon Common into a walled or fenced Park (on the lines of nearby Richmond Park), and to sell off large areas for [housing? a sewage treatment works? other?].
[HistoryWandsworthCommon: The Barchard Family]
[PB: Is this the first reference to a campaign against enclosure?]
[PB: CHECK letters to the Times etc for a vitriolic dispute about enclosure in that year.]
CONTEMPLATED MEASURE FOR INCLOSING BATTERSEA, WANDSWORTH, AND CLAPHAM COMMONS, AND OTHER OPEN LANDS.
Yesterday a very numerous meeting of the most affluent and respectable resident gentry of the neighbourhoods of Battersea, Wandsworth, and Clapham Commons, assembled at the Swan Tavern, at Stockwell, for the purpose of adopting measures to counteract a Bill which is about be introduced into Parliament for dividing, allotting, and enclosing the commons, open and common fields, meadows, pastures, and commonable lands and waste grounds, within the manor and parishes aforesaid.
Several gentlemen, whose properly is not at all likely to be affected by a measure of the kind, attended from public feeling, which is now in very active operation against the tremendous system of which the projected Bill is considered a part.
________ Deacon, Esq. in the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN briefly stated that the object of the Meeting was to oppose a Bill about be brought into Parliament by Lord Spencer — a bill calculated to do very extensive mischief.
Mr. BARCHARD rose to state the circumstances under which they were called together. A rumour had been, he said afloat, that it was the intention his Lordship, and other persons who had interest as copyholders, to bring in a bill for the above-mentioned purpose.
The rumour increased, and he and about dozen other gentlemen, met at his house, to consider a subject of such importance to their interests. They determined to write a strong, but respectful letter, urging their objections to the proposition, and requesting a conference.
His Lordship granted the conference to a deputation of the joint parishes on the 26th of November, and upon that occasion admitted the strength of some of the objections, if such objections had any foundation at all; but thought that they could be easily removed if they really did exist.
In a correspondence between the deputation and Mr. Lefevre, upon the part of his Lordship, that gentleman submitted the following propositions by way of modifications.
That that part of Clapham Common which was within the manor of Battersea, should remain in its present state — that the avenues on the East Side of Wandsworth, or Battersea Common, should remain in its present state
- That the remainder of the commons and wastes Battersea and Wandsworth be inclosed, but that no buildings be erected thereupon, except dwelling-houses of the value of £1,000 each at least, buildings (not dwelling-houses) requisite for the cultivation of land, and buildings for parochial and charitable purposes; that the open fields be inclosed, but no dwelling-houses of less value than £200 be erected thereupon; the Lachmere [sic] Common (about 18 acres) be appropriated to the benefit of the Battersea poor, in such manner as should appear most beneficial; and that an appropriation of similar extent be made for the Wandsworth poor.
The Deputation replied to this communication, that the propositions did not appear to them to obviate the objections, and a public meeting of the inhabitants was called.
Now, with respect to the alleged modifications, the offer of his Lordship not to inclose a certain part the Common was certainly no great favor, for it happened not to be possible to do so, as a writ had been issued on a former occasion to determine the boundary without effect; and it was but prudent in his Lordship to leave the avenue in same state, as any alteration there would certainly prejudice his Lordship's property.
With respect to the proposal, that no building of less value should £1000 be erected on the Common, it was well known, that if the Common was inclosed, it would be soon cut into small slices — and what was to prevent a proprietor from building whatever sort of house he pleased upon his portion?
- As for buildings requisite for the cultivation of land, a pig-stye or any sort of wretched cabin, was included under that head.
He called upon the Meeting to reflect upon the consequence of the erection of small houses: all small portions of land were devoted to building the most profitable mode of disposing of them, an immense population of poor would become [?] that the parish rates would necessarily sustain an alarming increase — (Hear, hear).
In Bromley an inclosure of common had some time ago been carried into effect, and the consequence was, that many who were induced to vote for it, had so much to regret the redundancy of a poor population, which the measure drew together, as to declare that they would give £1,000 each for a repeal of it.
There was a similar case at Bexley, and in Chelsea, where but a very small portion of land was inclosed — the rates rose from 9d. to 14d.
At Hornsey and Norwood, the annoyance and inconveniences were likewise intolerable from the same cause.
Mr. Barchard then spoke of the advantages of the situation and extent of Common and its vicinity to the Metropolis, and argued, with considerable force, against any intention to destroy those public and private advantages. The poor inhabitants would sustain great injury if the measure was carried into effect.
They laid claim for their cattle to the pasturage of the Common which they had enjoyed so long, that it was, if not an actual right, something very like a right; and their means in that respect would not only be quite destroyed, but would be driven into public houses, mere roads not being the most agreeable of walks.
He instanced the case of some Gentlemen who had taken houses upon the impression that no inclosure would take place, but who were scarcely settled in their habitations when they were surrounded by miserable receptacles.
The case of Botany Bay, in Wandsworth, was in point; that wretched spot had grown out of one of those measures,which were ever attended with public loss and inconvenience.
Mr. Barchard then called upon the Meeting, with every respect for the character and conduct of Lord Spencer, to adopt such resolutions as would show the determination of the inhabitants to resist the Bill, and concluded by stating that his Lordship had expressed that he was ashamed to see the Common in such state it was, and yet had refused either to improve its condition himself, or allow others to do so.
Resolutions, which were the echo of the speech, were then proposed.
Alderman SCHOLEY seconded the Resolutions. He declared that he did so more from feeling towards the public, than from a private feeling, although he was one of those that who would be affected by the projected measure.
After some further discussion, the Resolutions were agreed to, and a Committee was appointed to superintend the opposition to the Bill.
The alacrity of the Meeting in opposing the Bill, may be guessed from the fact, that the subscriptions in the room amounted, in five minutes, to between £1,100 and £1,200.
"The case of Botany Bay, in Wandsworth, was in point; that wretched spot had grown out of one of those measures, which were ever attended with public loss and inconvenience."
ADD INFO/DISCUSSION OF WHERE THIS WAS, AND WHAT IS REFERRED TO...LIVELY DISCUSSION ABOUT ITS MEANING — PROBABLY A GYPSY ENCAMPMENT NEAR THE WILSON HOUSE / BLACK SEA / TODAY'S SPENCER PARK.
[the obvious example near here is Wandsworth's "South Field" [i.e. Southfields]. There were other communal fields, including "North Field" (where Wandsworth Park is today), and "Bridge Field" [on the other side of the East Hill, down to the Thames — now mainly the "Tonsleys" — since Trinity Road went straight through it when it was widened in the 1960s. You can still see evidence of the fragmented landholdings in the slightly higgledy-piggledy streets and varied building styles there.]
[Several early/mid-C19 maps show the area west of the Common, down to Garratt Lane, as "Wandsworth Common Field" (singular) - yet on Endymion Porter's C17 map it was much divided into fields/closes, each of which has a named owner & leaseholder. How is this to be interpreted]
[The "Bridge" in question is one that crossed the Wandle, paid for Queen Elizabeth in [??], not Wandsworth Bridge, which wasn't built until 1873.]