London Evening Standard — Wednesday 22 February 1865
OPEN SPACES(METROPOLIS). .
Mr. DOULTON, in moving for select committee to inquire into the beat means of preserving for the public use the forests, commons, and open spaces and around the metropolis, said the question was one which had received the consideration of the house on more than one occasion. Having shown what had been done in the matter former occasions, he alluded the Wimbledon Common bill, and spoke strongly upon the necessity of keeping open the existing commons, heaths, forests, &c" In the vicinity of the metropolis, and in all their wildness. He trusted the result of committee up-stairs would be Wme suggestion or measure the result of which would preserve to the people the one hand the enjoyment of these commons and open spaces, and on the other hand, to reserve without encroachment all private rights (cheers).
Mr. Alderman ROSE seconded the motion. The question was one of which feared the importance was not recognised by the public largo by that house (hear). The motion for the second reading of the Wimbledon Enclosure Bill was postponed fora month in order await the results of this committee, believed if this committee were appointed tha-t public outrage would perpetrated (ob, oh). The hon. gentleman then referred to the enclosure -f Wandsworth Common, by which, said, every public and private right had been outraged.
Lord BURY defended Lord Spencer's proposal with respect Wimbledon Common, which, said, was most liberal one. He protested against the improper language of the hon. gentleman.
Colonel NORTH said that nothing could be more kind liberal than the offer of for Spencer although ho differed from noble lord as to his mode currying out his views.
Alderman ROSE explained. felt strongly upon the subject; and if he had conveyed Ms sentiments in other than parliamentary terms he begged to withdraw what had said.
Mr. JACKSON hoped it would lie understood hat this Wimbledon enclosure was not result any claim upon the public funds (bear. hear).
Mr. LOCK said he was have seconded this motion, he had supported a similar one last year, which whs carried large majority, but being late the session there was not time to appoint a committee. the duties of the committee now about appoints! would therefore curtailed, as would not necessary for them go into the question whether or not these spaces should kept open. referred the remarks of his bon. tri (.Mr. Jackson), with which entirely disagreed, and that, with regard to Wimbledon, had a strong objection to any fi nc being put up.
After few words from Mr. and Colonel TORRENS, Mr. COWPER said that when last year the subject was before the house, he had suggested hoo. member that would have been better have moved for select committee, and was glad that step had now been taken (hear, hear). He enumerated the open spaces London possessed, the preservation of which was, said, essential for the health and enjoymen t of the people of this tm tr; ai d he believed th: when the committee ne inquire into the subject they would experience noditticul finding whatever funds might wanted from metropolltan, as distinct from sources.
Mr. PEACOCKE said that the whole question was, whether Lord Spencer had had not the right a-t he proposed with Wimbledon Common. There could be doubt that the noble lord had acted from the n.o-c generous motives; but as the extent his power was called in question it was very desirable that the selcot committee should inquire into the subject.
Mr. LEFEVRE said that if the public had legal Jit, the lord of the manor could at any time enclose common. But if, the contrary, the public had right in the common the interest the lord of ihe manor could bought for comparatively small sum. The quest of Wimbledon-common was one detail, and it. would, doubt, brought before the committee. He was convinced that Lord Spencer meant to deal with the public the most generous spirit; but man who did generous thing did not always get the credit deserved. The Hon. gentleman then referred the legal bearing of the question, and suggested some considerations for the commit- ee.
After some remarks from Mr. MARSH and Mr. f'OX, Mr. DOULTON said he proposed that the inquiries the committee should extend to distance of 15 miles from London. The motion was then agreed to.
[BNA: Link.]
Bell's Weekly Messenger — Saturday 25 February 1865
Open Spaces (Metropolis).^p^pMr. DOULTON, moving for select committee to inquire into the best means of preserving for the public use the forests, commons, and open spaces in around the metropolis, said the question was one which did not admit '.f delay, for if something was not done at once towvds its tettfoment the question would settle itself, and the few open spaces that remained would be applied to other purposes than what believed their legitimate use. The fact that bill was introduced in the present session for dealing with oi.e valuable common, namely, Wimbledon Common, showed the necessity that existed for. a Parliamentary inquiry. In proposing a committee he was only following the wish which the bouse had expressed. The object of the inquiry was not with the view of enclosing those op--n spaces, and keepii g them trimly laid out; his desire rather was that iboso commons and open sf aces should be preserved in their present wildness and irregularity, which ho believed their greatest charm, and that those whom those commons had been used should have free, uncontrolled, aod, might say, boisterous enjoyment, which they could not have the parks, which were necessarily under restriction. The metropolis was present well supplied with parks; hut what was wanted was, to preserve the opo:i spaces in their prosent irregularity.^p^pMr. Alderman ROSE seconded the motion. said motion had been put the paper that the Enclosure Bill for Wimbledon Common should > Mr. S. LEFEVRE said the state of the law as regarded public rights was in menacing jiosition. The courts of law recognised the rights of the public to places of recreation they had not been given away almost all the world. They had, in point of fact, enjoyed those rights from the time of the second Charles. ono esse the inhabitants claimed a right the common, and Sir Matthew Hale, in giving his decision, said;-% This is a good custom, and it is necessary for the inhabitants to have their recteation;'' and this had become one the loading cases on w.lich the rights of public were dotormiootl the courts of law, bow. ver, a sort of duellistn between good and evil prevailed. Amongst other cases was one arising out dcite>puto on the turf, in which the trustees of Newmarket Heath warned off the course a gentleman who had made ugly ol>servations against them the newspapers. He pleaded immemorial usage; but. on the other side, it was pleaded that general custom was bad. and therefor% had right to there; although, had be claimed inhabitant of Nowmarket, he might have had such aright. In the case of Woodford Green, in Forest, Mr. Justice Wightman, in summing up the jury, had in fact pointed out that the claims of the inhabitants of a particular village play ou the green had boon abandoned, boc..u-e, though being near place like London, the green had become enjoyed all the world. This might be law, but it did stem to him to opposed to all| common sense and fooling. (Hoar, bear.) The law had indeed come such ridiculous point that the only thing to was to alter it and say that customs which were general were good customs, and it was good custom to play village green. (Hear, hoar.) Mr. MARSH hoped justice would be done, but protested against the expenditure of shilling of the public money for this purpose. The motion was then agreed to. [BNA: Link.]
South London Press — Saturday 25 February 1865
OPEN SPACES AROUND LONDON.
The rapid and ever-increasing absorption of the open country around our vast metropolis must make every thoughtful man anxious, not only for the sanitary requirements of its present denizens, but of the immensely-augmented population which in few years will congregate within the metropolitan district. Of course, in a country like this, where the rights of private property are held sacred, and very properly so, it is not likely that' any attempt will ever made to prevent those who hold it from doing as they like with their own," and the tempting prices which are offered for building-land, concurrently with the steady growth of demand for house accommodation, is certain year by year to eat up every green field, shady lane, upland, and plantation, within some score miles of London, which are at the disposal of private proprietors. In view of this state of things, with reference to the sanitary considerations alone, and without regard to pleasure and relaxation," think Mr. Doulton, the member for Lambeth, deserves credit for having called the attention of the House of Commons to the subject this week, moving for a select committee to inquire into the best means of preserving for public use the forests, commons, and open spaces in and . around the metropolis.
He reminded the House that at the close of last session decided majority expressed opinion that it was the duty of the Government, or of some other body, to see that this was done, and that unless some practical steps were speedily taken in the matter, the question would settle itself, for there would soon be few commons which would not be disposed of for purposes other than those which Parliament believed their legitimate use.
As an illustration, Mr. Doulton referred to the Bill for converting Wimbledon Common into a park. He expressed no opinion on that proposal, but he thought it was a strong reason for inquiry. London had already neat and trimly laid parks; what Mr. Doulton, in common with every other healthy-minded man, wants, is that the forests and commons should be preserved their present wild state, which is their greatest charm, and that the people should continue to have that enjoyment in their use which is incompatible with the very nature of restrictions, regulations, rules, and park-keepers, in formally laid-out grounds.
With the steady increase of our population these relies of the old times; when "wild in woods the noble savage ran," become "few and far between," and yet every one who has ever rambled for a few days in the New Forest, for instance, will admit that new sense of enjoyment was, as it were, created in him by the utter absence of restriction; that the wildness and irregularity of the scenery appealed to something in his own nature, which, however deeply hidden and strongly repressed in the everyday drudgery of common existence, only required contact with the proper conditions to burst into life and give it zest never enjoyed before.
All the more important therefore is it, that the few forests and commons we have, should be preserved, as far as possible, in their present state, and that we take to the sole and simple object of the motion of the hon. member for Lambeth. Wi allusion to the proposed enclosure of Wimbledon gave rise a rather animated passage-atarma.
Alderman Rose, who seconded the motion for select committee, called the enclosure "a public outrage which ought not to be perpetrated," and referred to Wandsworth Common, where the Spencers are also lords of the manor, as specimen of the way in which both private and public rights had been sacrificed. A largo workhouse had boon built there, a burial-ground had been opened, a large space had been given to a railway company, there were jails, schools, and every description of incongruous buildings springing up on land which few years ago was regarded aa pnblio property. Was the same fate to befal Wimbledon under the management of the noble lord? Thereupon, up sprang Lord Bury to protest against this strong language, and to vouch for the pnblic-spirited, patriotic, and philanthropic intentions of Earl Spencer, who was bent upon sacrificing his own rights for the benefit of the public, who courted inquiry, and if committee should decide against the enclosure, would no doubt consider whether be should not give up a power which he was advised he legally possessed. Upon this assumption of Lord Spencer's, there has betel rather smart correspondence in the daily papers this week.
The solicitor for the Earl, in letter addressed to the Times, took very high ground as to the legal rights of his lordship, on the faith opinions given by eminent counsel. The committees appointed by the Commoners and others resident at Wimbledon and Putney, repudiated, upon the authority of equally eminent lawyers, the extravagant and unfounded claims the lord of the manor, and the contest has been carried on with great energy by various correspondents in other papers.
Mr. Shaw Lefevre brought out with great distinctness the very anomalous and unsatisfactory state of the law this subject. Through the later decisions the Courts of Law, what were recognised at one time as the rights of the public, have been almost refined away to nothing by the introduction of principle which declared that, although when confined to the inhabitants of particular place, the right to recreation — the liberty of playing all lawful games, sports, and pastimes at all seasonable times of the year at their own will and pleasure — was good, yet it was bad if claimed by the whole people.
It was no wonder that this strange legal cobweb, spun out of the brain of some subtle double-refined special pleader, created laughter, but the law in its present state is no laughing matter.
A law which makes the custom for a whole people to play on a public green, like Clapham or Blackheath, a bad custom, is, as Mr. Lefevre very properly said, a ridiculous law, and the proper way is to alter the law, and say that the custom, when general, is a good custom.
Of course some of the county members, in assenting to the appointment of the committee, entered their usual protest against any money being taken from the Imperial purse for the benefit or improvement of the metropolis, and Mr. Cowper, the first commissioner of works, while cordially assenting to Mr. Doulton's motion, differed from Mr. Locke, the member for Southwark, in thinking the public purse should be applied to for metropolitan purposes, and gave broad hint to the committee that it would be wasting its time in directing its attention to the means meeting the expenditure for these open spaces out of Imperial resources.
If there was any expenditure more properly belonging to the metropolis than another it was this. With all deference to Mr. Cowper and those who take that view of the subject, we hold that the capital of great empire cannot in this respect be placed the same footing any provincial city, however large, wealthy, and important.
Whatever tends to facilitate locomotion, to promote health, convenience, and enjoyment, and to satisfy what may called the educated and refined artistic tastes of the community, becomes, in fact, not the property of the residents of the capital, but of the whole people, and as such all may fairly called upon to bear their share of the cost of making the capital worthy the greatness of the empire, and of the wealth and civilisation of the nation.
[BNA: Link.]
South London Press — Saturday 25 February 1865
COMMONS AROUND THE METROPOLIS.
Mr. Doulton, in moving for select committee to inquire into the best means of preserving for the paolic the forests, commons, and open spaces in and around the metropolis, said the question was one which had received the approval of the House on more than one occasion.
In 1863, the House passed resolution for an address to Bar Majesty calling upon her not to exorcise any rights which Her Majesty had with respect to Epping Forest At the close of the last session the House, by considerable majority, expressed an opinion that it was the duty the Government to provide for the preservation the oommons and open spaces in and around the metropolis. Although thsrs was strong diversity of opinion as to the policy of the motion, there was but one opinion that ft was urgently necessary to have Parliamentary inquiry into the whole question. The question was one which did not admit delay, for if something was not done at once towards us settlement the question would settle itself, and the lew open spaces that remained would be applied to other purposes than what believed to m their legitimate nse. The fact that Bill was introduced in the present session for dealing with one most valuable common, namely, Wimbledon Common, showed the necessity that fora Pauliamentary inquiry. proposing committee was only following np the wish which the House had already expressed. The object of the inquiry was not with the view of enclosing those open spaces, and keeping them trimly laid out; his desire rather was that those oommons and open spaces should bepreserved in their present wildness and irregularity, which believed to be their greatest charm; and that those by whom thoee commons had bean used should have free, uncontrolled, and, he might say, boisterous enjoyment, which they could not have in the parks, which were necessarily under restriction. The metropolis was at present well supplied with parks; but what was wanted was to preserve the open spaces in their (assent irregularity. The parks necessitated large annual expenditure. found sum of 6,000 for Battersea Park, and a like sum for Victoria Park. The hon. member repudiated the idea that his object was to secure gnat public advantage by the confiscation of private rights. All he desired, while respecting those rights, was to secure public rights; because there was such thing as the confiscation of public rights which had been made sacred by the usages of centuries. His desire in moving for the committee was to have the subject considered in all its varieties, with the result, hoped, of some practical suggestion which would admit of preserving the commons and open spaces freely to the people hitherto, and, on the other hand, not encroaching in any way upon private rights.
Mr. Alderman Hose seconded the motion. He said a motion had been pot upon the paper that the Enclosure Bill for Wimbledon Common should be postponed for month, to await the consideration of this committee. He believed, if that committee were appointed, they would give such information that such public outrage as believed the enclosure to be would not be perpetrated. (Cries of "Oh, and Hear, bear.") It was said that the noble lord who was interested in carrying out that Bill was acting for the public benefit Hon. members of the House had an opportunity of judging for themselves of the public spirit of the operation by riding from Battersea Park across Wandsworth Park. The proof f the noble lord's public spirit was shown the enclosure that was going on of Wandsworth Common the present time, which believed was owned by the noble lord. There was not public right which had not been sacrificed, or private right which had not been outraged, contrary to all law. The noble lord wanted to extend the same private management to Wimbledon Common. The operation of all Enclosure Acts was give private advantages. Lord Barr, M the person the Billwhich the hon. member had stigmatised a public outrage, protested against such improper language being applied in that House to what the noble lord, Earl Spencer, belie red be great boon offered to the public. He courted open and fair inquiry, and, the meloeure was objected the committee, no doubt the noble lord would be prepared to oonsi- THE SOUTH dor whether he should not rive the power of enclosure, (Hoar, hear.) Colonel North said it was not necessary to defend the character of Earl Spencer. Every one who knew him would know also that what had been said of him by the hon. member for Southampton was altogether unworthy. (Colonel North) had property at Putney, and, though he differed from Ban Spencer to the policy of enclosing Wimbledon Common, must bear testimony to the fact that nothing could be more liberal and courteous than the offer the noble lord had made. Ha could not allow the hon. member for Southampton to speak of Lord Spencer in the way had done without rtoingto aay that such opinion did not exist In the nrighbonrhood of Putney.
Mr. Alderman Bose said that fdt strongly on the subject, and he had spoken strongly; but; If had convoyed his feelings in other than parliamentary terms, hoped the House would allow him to withdraw those terms.
Mr. Jackson hoped that the Wimbledon Common Enclosure Bill was not the beginning of cell upon the Consolidated Fond.
Mr. Locke deprecated the objection of the hon. member who had just spoken then, and of the hon. member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentlnok) on previous occasions, to any imperial expenditure for the improvement of the metropolis, fie (Mr. Looks) thought it was necessary to do more for the metropolis of a country to which every one went than for any provincial town. With regard to the Wimbledon Bill, his strong feeling was against any fence being pat up in any open place, as it entirely destroyed the enjoyment that people had from roving about unrestrictedly. The committee, took it, was for the purpose of protecting the rights of the public against any innovation. If they could lay down any clear and just principle with regard to these common lands and embody it in Bill, they would confer great benefit on the public.
Mr. Bentinck said that, had been referred to, would reiterate his objections to any money being taken from the imperial purse for the purpose of metropolitan improvements. After few words from Mr. Torrens, Mr. Cowper Raid that be was glad the hon. member for Lambeth had moved for select committee. The matter was one of great interest and importance to all who resided in Ixmdon, but great deal more information was required before the subject would be ripe for legislation. He believed the details which might be obtained by committee would be of great ralne. London was peculiarly fortunate at present, both in the parks, which were in its centre, and the belt of open places and commons which surrounded it on all sides. There were twentyeight commons and greens encircling the metropolis which at present were open to the public. These became every day of greater importance to the inhabitants, because railways enabled the poorest as well as the richest to enjoy such open places; while, on the other hand, the enormous growth of London tended rapidly to engulf those commons. They saw how London former times had ongnlphed open spaces by taking within its embrace such maces as Saffron-hill, Boeemary-lane, and Mayfair. The increase of building naturally tempted lords of manors and commons to combine, and get profit out of their rights, and thus to destroy the commons. He thought that wealthy city like London could well afford to buy up such rights and keep the commons in their state of native wildness. He must turn deaf ear to the pleadings of the hon. member for Southwark, who had endeavoured to induce the House to concur in'this szpenditnre out of the public purse. If ever there was expenditure wnieh more particularly belonged to the metropolitan funds, it was the preservation of those open spaces. There was nothing imperial in the question, and if the committee was granted it must be on the understanding that they would only waste their time if they turned their attention to meeting that expenditure out of the public revenn- Their object would be to find how the funds of the metropolis could be employed. The ratepayers were already heavily taxed, but would suggest that the owners of the fee-simple of the land did not at present contribute anything to the permanent improvement of the metropolis. All the expenditure was derived from the occupiers. He, however, felt sure that the metropolis would be willing in many ways to find more money for the preservation of the surrounding open spaces. Ur. Pm0oolm wished inform the House of the actual state in which the Enclosure Act stood. If the landlord and the homage agreed, it was unnecessary to oome to that House; hut if, on the other hand, opposition was made, they were obliged to apply to Parliament The whole question of Wimbledon rested upon this: has Lord Speneer the consent of the homagers or not? If had not, would find it necessary to apply to the Honse; if had, he made most munificent proposition to enclose the Common. (Hear, hear.) The people in that neighbourhood disputed his power. If had a legal right to do it, no one could complain; if had not that legal right, the people had the usual remedy in their own hands. The same remarks would, thought, apply to Epping Forest, to which had been continually asked why Parliament did not afford help.
Mr. S. Lefovro thought Lord Spencer had intended to act in an extremely-generons manner towards the public, and might console himself with the reflection that those who did this did not often get tiie credit they deserved. He was anxious to deal with those commons- where they could not expect the lord of the manor toi be so generous as the noble lord had been — such as Blackheath, Hampstead, Clapham, and a variety of others. The state of tiie law regarded public rights was in menacing position, and not such one as those who took the part of the public would like to see it in. The courts of law recognised the rights of the public to places of recreation if they had not gradually been given away to almost all in the world. They had, in point of fact, enjoyed those rights from the time of the second Cbaries, when, might be supposed, the people turned to amusements after the strictness of the Puritans. In one case the inhabitants claimed a right to the common; and Sir Matthew Hale, in giving his decision, said, "This is good custom, and it is necessary for the inhabitants to have their recreationand this had become one of the leading cases on which the rights of the public were determined. In the courts of law, however, sort of duellism between good and evil prevailed. Amongst other oases was one arising out of a dispute on the tnrf, in which the trustees of Newmarket Heath wanted off the course there gentleman who had made ugly observations against them in the newspapers. He pleaded immemorial usage; but, on the other side, it was pleaded that general custom was bad, and therefore had no right_ to be there; although had he claimed as inhabitant of Newmarket, he might have had such right. In the case of Woodford Green, in Epping Forest, Mr. Justice Wightman, in summing to the jury, had in fact pointed out that the claims of the inhabitants of particular village to play on the green had been abandoned, because, through being near a place like London, the green had become enjoyed by all the world. This might be law, but it did seem to him to be opposed to all common-sense and feeling. (Hear, hear.) The law had, indeed, come to such ridiculous point that the only thing to do was to alter it and say that customs which were general were good customs, and that it was a good custom to play on a village green. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Marsh hoped justice would be done, but protested against the expenditure of shilling of the public money for this purpose. There might some excuse for applying the national revenue to the preservation of public buildings, because the public might there; but when people came up to town they did not go to see rural places, which were entirely for the use of the metropolis. Hr. Cos would bring the House down to what had taken place within the last two or three years.' The lord of the manor asked the House in 1862 to pass a
the people to eaeloee it, and to deprire the public of the right the/ had heretofore enjoyed. On bia notion, the matter wa referred to select committee, the result being that fifty acne were allotted to the free use of the inhabitants of the metropolis; but the Enclosure Commissioners had not yet stated where that ground was to be, should be glad to receive some information on the subject. With regard to Epping Forest, the inhabitante of the metropolis had no desire to deprive the lord of the manor of any right he might possess. All they required was that the two or three hundred acres they had hitherto had for their enjoyment might be left in the same wild state now, and that the trees might not be out down, nor gravel walks made to despoil the forest of the charms it had for pio-nks. the motion was then agreed t&
[BNA:
South London Chronicle — Saturday 4 March 1865
THE PRESS ON MR. DOULTON. M.P. AND OPEN SPACES.
The contributor of a series of a clever popular sketches of the "Inner Life of the House of Commons, " apjiearing in the fflnttrtfed refers to Mr. Doulton's motion for a Select Committee on the preservation of Open Spaces, in his latest article "On Tuesday — Mr. Doulton brought forward hi.motion for committee to preserve the op spans 1:1 and around the metropolis. The motion .
ittraet'i large number of members; and Mr. Doulton. usual, made very effective speech. It is the i;. to sneer at the metropolitan members; but then' not twenty members in the House who can i Is more effectivelv than Mr. Doulton. always and'ean make the House understand.'
he is talking about, and in few words. 1/1 tl>' _ vilersof Mr. Doulton note of this. makes pots! " True; and the late Sir Robert — father spun eottnn.
Mr. Alderman Rose rush. Ii _
to the house in hot haste, to speak upon this _ and, gracious powers! what a speech he e. in charity we will drop the curtain, first the Alderman is not a metropolitan m
', r;'! .'ih revilers might revile. Him to honour.' Whilst the was'
his Brummagem philippic against Lord Spencer, his Lordship sat calndy under the gallery and smiled." article of Parliamentary gossip, entitled " Below the Gangway, " has been lately introduced once
very week into the Morning Star. In the range of J, Dies, and in the style of writing, this weekly contribution closely resembles the sketches in the ll!, titrated Time', almost to indicate that both proceed from one pen. Here, too, Mr. Doulton's motion was commented upon, and in the following terms: " What a curious calumny it is which the snoboraey never weary of repeating that the metropolitan members are below the average of the House in intellect. had a proof what a libel this is on Tue-jy. when Mr. Doulton brought forward his motion for a select committee to enquire into the best means preserving the commons and wastes round There are not fifty men — no, nor hardly a Joore — in the House who can speak better than the — ruber for Lambeth did then. His style and manner were perfectly unexceptionable: there was not a _article hesitation, not a slip in the grammar or Sonounciation. Iadvisedly say pronounciation, because if were to listen to the stupid scandals afloat we must believe that Marylebone, Finsbury and Lambeth send men to Parliament who hardly know how to talk their mother tongue.
Mr. Doulton, too, has nther merits. may never attempt any eloquence rhetoric, but always understands his subject and never wastes time. The fact is, that the metropolitan representatives, rule, are superior to the general run. Let any sober minded-man take 'Dod's Parliameiitary Companion, 'and cast his eye down the list the members, calling to mind the Parliamentary achievements of each, and then sec if he can conscientiously sav that the majority have ever given any signs of such overwhelming superiority to men like Mr. Doulton and Mr. Locke.
What a silly exhibition Mr. Rose, alderman and member for Southampton, made on that motion of Mr. Doulton's, to which I have just referred! The hon. gentleman has done many foolish and extraordinary things the House, but Inever heard him do anything more foolish or extraordinary than did on Tuesday last.
When Mr. Doulton had finished his speech the alderman jumped state of the most evident excitement. Poor man! his faculty of expression is not very great, his feelings are very strong, his mental capacity not large, and his knowledge of the English language but scanty; that altogether he got into a considerable muddle. About the enclosure waste lands, too, very sensitive. He lives at Upper Tooting, close to Wandsworth Common, and has his soul vexed every day at the prospects of six-roomed houses being built that sacred domain. Imagine him, then, infuriated, and irritated perhaps at the presence of f.i ri Spencer, his tormentor, who sat just before him under the gallery, starting to his legs, and commencing a wild attack on his lordship. It was extremely difficult to follow him, for he talked more like an angry washerwoman than a sane and dignified representative of the people; but the word outrage came in pretty frequently, and charges were made against the lord of the manor of Wandsworth, which, if they could have been raved, would have formed very good basis for an indictment.
The reporters have mercifully given some kind of shape and form to the Alderman's efforts; otherwise what he said would be perfectly unintelligible. He was strong, for instance, against Lord Spencer, because at Wandsworth 'every public right had been outraged and h-m — ha — h-m
out.' The Alderman really should not speak when he gets in such temper. I hope too he will allow to tell hiin that the word narrow is not pronounced 'narrer.'"
[BNA: Link.]
[BNA: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Doulton"
[UNKNOWN PUBLICATION — header not detected. Please review.]
"V important . . . transcribe and edit property
Interesting comment on cricket
Rose interviews Rose
SEE ALSO THE VERSION IN MORNING HERALD 7 April 1865
Daily News (London) — Friday 7 April 1865
AND
Sun (London) — Friday 7 April 1865
[BNA: Link.]
________________
Daily News (London) — Friday 7 April 1865
THE WANDSWORTH COMMON ENCLOSURES
The Committee appointed to inquire into the best means of preserving for the public use the forests, commons, and open spaces in and around the metropolis, met again yesterday, Mr. LOCKE in the chair Nearly all the members of the commaittee were present.
Previous to taking evidence respecting Wandsworthe-common,
The Hon. Charles Gore, one of her Majesty's Commissioners of Woods, was examined with respect to the
duction of Earl Spencer's Enclosure Bill. The crown allowed rights in respect of property at Mestiake, It was a part of to the crown. It was situate in East Sheen, and was called March-gete-farm, he righte of the crown had not boom settled. oe ie thas Earl Spencer denied existence common.
The crown claimed in respect of enclosed fed one The Parliamentary survey of 1649 contained various Sndings with respect to the rights of the lord and the tenants over the commons, and among the customs of the manor were the cet ant, Crery cottager thas is heouldr, of | the said manor may keepe on commons witkia the sara maaor twenty-five sheep, two cows ope mare sada
and is to have once im every yearn allowed him one carte load of wood from of the pollards of the said commons and he that hathe ffteene acrec or the trove of fifteene acres of copie hould land is to have the tike likertia of com- monesy and fireboote." He could not tell off-hand what the crown aright claim by virtue of that provisioe, If the crows compensation for common rights, it was in the case of enclosure, The land of the crown was generally common rights, Ho balioved ss cet meezan these common believed the crown to possess
Daily News (London) — Friday 7 April 1865
[BNA: Link.]
Daily News (London) — Friday 7 April 1865
It was also covered in e.g. Express 7 April 1865
[BNA: Link.]
But this seems easier to edit
Morning Herald (London) — Friday 7 April 1865
THE WANDSWORTH COMMON ENCLOSURES
The Committee appointed to inquire into the best means of preserving for the public use the forests, commons, and open spaces in and around the metropolis, met again yesterday, Mr. LOCKE in the chair Nearly all the members of the commaittee were present.
Previous to taking evidence respecting Wandsworth-common,
The Hon. Charles Gore, one of her Majesty's Commissioners of Woods, was examined with respect to the Crown rights over Wimbledon-common. He said his attention had been called to the subject in consequence of the introduction of Earl Spencer's Enclosure Bill. The Crown claimed rights in respect of property at Mortlake. It was a part of the private property of George II Itransferred to the Commissioners of Woods in 1820, and afterwards regranted to the Crown. It was situate in East Sheen, and was called Marsh-gate Farm. The rights of the Crown had not been settled. He believed that Earl Spencer denied the existence of rights of common. The Crown claimed in respect of enclosed land at Mortlake. The parliamentary survey of 1649 contained various findings with respect to the right of the lord and the tenants over the commons, and among the customs of the manor were the following: — " Every cottager that is a copy houldr. of the said manor may keepe on the commons within the sayd menor twentie-five sheepe, two cows, one mare, and a coult, and is to have once in every yeare allowed him one carte load of cropp wood from of the pollards of the said commons, and he that bathe fifteene acres, or the greate pte of fifteene acres of copie hould land is to have the like libertie of communing and fireboote." He could not tell off-hand what the Crown might claim by virtue of that provision. If the Crown claimed compensation for common rights it was in the case of enclosure. The land of the Crown was generally let on lease, and the lessee might or might not exercise these common rights. He believed the Crown to possess the rights which he had described.
Mr. Rose, solicitor, was called, and examined by Mr. Alderman Rose with respect to the state of Wandsworth-common.
He said: I am the owner of property on the east side of Wandsworth-common, and have been so for the last 13 years. At that time there were no enclosures, except one piece of land, in front of Mr. Wilson's house. The first enclosure made was by the parish of St. James, Piccadilly, for a workhouse, or for parochial schools. The next was by a railroad running right through the common. The next was for railroad purposes, for excavations to make the embankments up to the Crystal Palace. There were 13 acres excavated to a considerable depth, and left in that condition. The next enclosure was for the Patriotic School. Then pieces of land were enclosed by Mr. Mella.
Were these enclosures made under the Enclosure Act? — No. I am not aware by what authority they have been made. The general opinion is that they have been made by no lawful authority whatever. At the time I went there there were public footpaths over the whole of Wandsworth-common. The whole of these have been stopped 11p, except one, which crosses in the centre, in a straight line. The enclosures have been made up to the carriage road, in some instances without leaving any footpaths.
With regard to the drainage, in what state was the common when you went to live there? — lt was kept in good order thirteen years ago by the inhabitants, who held a lease. They excavated gravel at certain points in such a manner as to convert the spaces into ornamental waters. In what state is the common now? — lt is a morass now. A great portion of it is under water all the winter, and was so up to the 20th March. A portion of it is now under water. In summer time the water soaks in, but it leaves the common in a had condition. Iconsider Wandsworth-common an unhealthy place on account of the want of drainage. In olden times the excavations were made so as to preserve the beauty of the common and its use to the enjoyment of the public; but during the last five years the ground has been excavated in extraordinary quantities, so that the common is not useable by the commoners. It is full of pits, and water, and some time ago the dead body of a man was taken out of one of these pits.
In the whole area of Wandsworth-common is there sufficient space for a cricket ground? There is only a small space near Wandsworth town. The enclosures have been made contrary to the wishes of persons living there or having property in the neighbourhood, with the exception perhaps of Mr. M'Kella. The interests of the public have been totally sacrificed by the 'making of these enclosures. The inhabitants believe they have been made illegally, and contrary to all right and justice. Wandsworth-common was held on lease by a certain number of the inhabitants of the district, in the same way that Clapham is now held, and it was kept in order by a public subscription. They had an open space for the public use and enjoyment. Ibelieve that a deputation waited on Earl Spencer to ask him to grant a new lease on condition that they would preserve the park for public use and enjoyment.
And what was the answer? — He refused. There was a common-keeper, but there is none at present. There was an avenue of trees a mile long, planted by the inhabitants of the district. The ground has been dug right up to the trees, one-half of which are wholly destroyed, and the other half are in such a had condition that they might as well be taken away. The last enclosure was made right up to these trees. Earl Spencer is the lord of the manor of Clapham. There has been no enclosure there. Ibelieve a new lease was granted 30 years ago of that portion of Clapham-common of which Earl Spencer is lord of the manor. Clapham-common is preserved to the use of the public at a very small expense. It is of the greatest service to the public. There is a large open space for cricketing, and a large portion covered with gorse.
What is the difference between Clapham-common and Wandsworth-common? — Around Claphain-common there are numerons mansions inhabited by, the rich, the rental exceeding 50,000/. a year, and any enclosure would be resisted by them. Wandsworth-common is a poor district. The residents around are few in number, and could not raise the money, or have not the courage to contend with the lord of the manor — he having unlimited resources and a definite object, and they having no definite object and small resources. I am not aware of any nuisances on Wandsworth-common, except those committed with the sanction of the lord of the manor or his agents; I do not consider the gipsies a nuisance. I have never lost anything by them. But there Are .people who come on Wandsworth-common who are objectionable. They come from the gaol at the expiration of their sentences, and congregate in considerable numbers. They are sometimes interfered with by the police, but I am not aware that they are interfered with by the lord of the manor. The gaol is situate at the edge of the common.
By Mr. Lefevre. — Before these en closures took place the common was much used in summer time. The population of Wandsworth is about 10,000. The extent of open space is not more than one-half what it was origi nally. lam not aware of any common rights. The copyholders are few in number, and are entirely under the influence of the lord of the manor. The lease to which Iallude ext-)ired five or six years ago.
By the Chairman.---Tooting is at one end of the common. Many houses are in course of erection in the neighbourhood. Some tune ago I applied on behalf of myself and three other persons to be allowed to enclose a space opposite to our houses, solely to prevent any one else from doing so. The application was male to E trl Spencer's agents. That was in lii November of that year an answer was received from them, stating that Ein Spencer was not very desirous of parting with any of the common at Wandsworth ' so much having previously been enclosed; but stating that if we were in a position to make an offer it might facilitate matters. I did not make an offer, and there the matter dropped.
By Mr. Cowper. — l presume the railway enclosure took place under the railway act. The enclosure made by the parish of St. James tock place under no act of parliament. They obtained the property at a very low price, because there was no title. The price was about 30s. per acre. Ipresume the amount was paid to the lord of the manor. Mr. M'Kella enclosed in conjunction with the lord of the manor. The lord sold him the property for so much money, and he put up the fences. Ibelieve that there is no title to these enclosures. The fences are run up very rapidly, and the only way to interfere is to knock them down; but it would be rather awkward to do no in the case of a railway company. I have never communicated with the lord of the manor. No application is made, because our belief is that it would be entirely useless. That is the general opinion.
By Mr. Tollemache. — Why did you not try your right by pulling down the fences in the case of the lord of the manor? — Because that would be a preliminary to a long litigation. My neighbours would not find money for that purpose, and it would have been useless to commence pulling down the fences. I hope the legislature will deal with the matter, and not lead us into conflict with Earl Spencer. If I had sufficient money I would contest the matter with him to the end, but there is no worse form of carrying on litigation than by a committee of inhabitants. Earl Spencer would have every advantage in such a case and might sacrifice all public rights.
By Mr. Peacocke. — Has there been any act relative to these enclosures except the railway acts? — None whatever.
By Mr. Baillie. — When I went to Wandsworth the common was unenclosed._
By the Chairman. — The enclosures would never have been made but for the expense of litigation being so enormous. The committee then adjourned until after the holidays.
[BNA: Link.]
South London Press — Saturday 8 April 1865
That the clerk request Mr. J. B. Smith, and the Rev. J. S. Jenkinson, to transfer to the Board the sum of 573 Is. 3d., three per cent, consols held by them in trust for the parish of Battersea, for the purpose of keeping in repair the road from Bum wood-lime to Nightingalelane, Wandsworth Common, per agreement between the above parish and Messrs. Bush and Perkins in the year 1827.
[BNA: Link.]
South London Press — Saturday 8 April 1865
THE ENCLOSURE OF WIMBLEDON COMMON
It is difficult to understand on what grounds the House of Commons proceeded on Thursday night, when they allowed Lord Spencer's scheme for the alteration of Wimbledon Common to be read a second time, even with the proviso that it is to be sent to select committee.
The committee "open spaces," moved for by Mr. Doulton, and of which Mr. Locke is chairman, evidently had, in anticipation of the discussion of the Bill, after taking full evidence on the subject, reported very decidedly against the scheme., They objected to fencing in the Common, and extinguishing common rights. They thought it was neither necessary nor desirable to sell any of the land, and thus struck at the root of many of these schemes, when they recommended the immediate repeal of the "Statute of Merton," which enables a lord of the manor to enclose, without the concurrence of the Commoners or the sanction of Parliament. Yet, in the face this report, Lord Bury, who has been Lord Spencer's advocate in the Committee, urged, in presence of his ''noble friend," who was sitting under the gallery, the second reading of the Bill, and the House of Commons deliberately set aside the recommendation given to it by a committee of its own appointment — a most unusual, and must say contemptuous course, for the adoption of which can find no justification, in the advocacy of the measure itself. Lord Spencer, and his advocates and his abettors, loudly profess their desire to benefit the public that and that alone, they declare is the sole object
the Bill; bat the public might surely claim to too* what is good for them as well Lord Spencer, and if he really wishes them so well, and 2riies earnestly to promote their comfort and jtcnotion might pay some respect their rejgo ns trances, and let the people happy in their own way. They say that Wimbledon Common is T well as it is — that it is breezy, wild, free, and healthy, and all they desire is that it may be left alone. If Lord Spencer really desires to benefit them, there is one thing he can do: let him give np to the public any rights may possess, suppose to possess, over the Common, and thus secure to the people without litigation the light to roam freely oyer it for all time come. It is yery suspicious whon_ noble lords press "fayonrs" upon people in this Srtinacious style, and notwithstanding Lord Spencer's earnest assurances that will comply with the two recommendations of the committee, and neither fence the Common nor sell any the land if the inhabitants will raiae a rate drain it efficiently, hope that the select committwe, which the Bill is to be referred, will give it its quietus and rid na for oyer of this yory questionable "public boon."
The evidence given before the committee to Wandsworth Common the very day on which the Bill was read a second time, ought to be sufficient to ensure its ultimate rejection.
Lord Spencer is the lord of the manor of Wandsworth, as well as Wimbledon Common, and how have his powers been exercised there? Thirteen years ago it was as open and free to the public Wimbledon now is. There were public footpaths over the whole the Common. The whole of them have been stopped up, except one which crosses the centre in a straight line, and the numerous enclosures have been made up to the carriage-road, in some instances without leaving any footpaths. the whole of these enclosures have been made contrary to the wishes of persons Hying there or having property in the neighbourhood. No one can tell under what authority they have been made, but the Commoners are few in number, the district is poor, and not able to enter into litigation with the lord of the manor, who, having all his own way, has shown at Wandsworth what he would like to do at Wimbledon, under the pretext of conferring great boon on the public. We hope that if his lordship is so ill-advised to persist pushing forward his Bill, that will sustain humiliating defeat by its rejection, either by the Private Bill Committee or the House of Commons.
[BNA: Link.]
"VVG piece!
London Evening Standard — Monday 10 April 1865
The glories of the breezy common and the open heath are passing away. Our civilisation is settling down into a maze of streets, highways, and fenced-up footpaths, dotted here and there with a park wherein it becomes increasingly difficult to tread anywhere but on the hard, unyielding gravel — in some respects worse than paving-stones, particularly in dry weather, when the pebbles run loose, and set their sharp edges against the foot of the pedestrian, who tries to fancy that he is walking amid rural scenes.
There is not a common nor unenclosed space in all this kingdom that is safe from being shut up, parcelled out, and built upon. We cannot help thinking that this state of things is mainly caused by a neglect to ascertain and defend the rights' of the public.
The lord of the manor, of course, will take care of himself; but who is to care for Brown, Jones, and Robinson, who ramble over the heath and play cricket on the common in the fond belief that the open space is purely "common ground," devoted to the general enjoyment of the community? If the lord of the manor sets lip a fence, who is to knock it down? and if anybody is bold enough to make a show of resistance, who, is prepared to go into the law courts, and become the hero of ' a suit, with the prospect of paying an enormous bill of costs and the certainty of gaining no personal benefit? The lord of the manor generally has a' long purse, and if he litigates, it is in the hope of gaining some substantial advantage, worth a good round sum at the Auction Mart.
As for the law itself, it seemingly disdains to take note of the public — an incorporate idea out of which nobody takes costs, and which sends no counsel into court. The law looks out keenly for the man in possession, and. having found, him favours him. the faintest shadow of a right on the part Of the manorial proprietor goes down in the scale with ponderous effect, while the most sacred privileges of the public are frittered away by ingenious technicalities which leave Brown, Jones, and Robinson even less than the oyster-shell's. Very often, however, there is no law at all in the matter — the lord of the manor simply does as he likes; and, as nobody knows how to interfere, the affair papsca off sub sik. ntio. The extent of the public interest in questions of this sort needs to be ascertained and strictly enforced.
The committee on commons and open spaces in and around the metropolis has an important duty to perform, and we trust its members will take care that the work is thoroughly done. It is not a very pleasurable thing to hear an enclosure commissioner saying — " Where there is an open common, the public have no right to go over it. " In like manner Earl Spencer puts forth the statement, that in " strict law" the public on Wimbledon-common are " mere trespassers. " Even a person possessing common rights, if he goes on the ground for other purposes than looking after his stock is thereby a " trespasser. " As for the right of way, that can only be represented by a " beaten path " (gravel again), and if the lord of the manor were to build up a wall twenty feet high on each side of the path we suppose the public would have no legal ground of complaint. It may have been the custom from time immemorial for the people to roam about in all directions over a particular space of ground; but Mr. Wingrove Cooke says, that "there is no such thing known to the " common law as the right of the public in such " a case. " If a village green is dedicated to the public, then, this gentleman says, the law may recognise the right of the people to assemble there and play their games. But Mr. Cooke seems at a loss to define the difference between a "common" and a "green;" and in the case of Woodford-green the judge ruled that unless the custom was vested in some particular community it went for nothing. Thus "everybody" is nobody in a court of law, so far as the enjoyment of anything more than a right of way is concerned — which right is rigidly confined to a beaten track.
Recreation grounds may be granted to parishes according to their population, but this indulgence also is very strictly limited. The proximity of London or any other great city has nothing to do with the extent of the allotment. The population of the nearest parish is the sole rule which guides the final arrangement — in which respect the Enclosure Act of 1845 clearly calls for amendment. Thus at Barking 528 acres are being enclosed, while the allotment for recreation is only five; at Warlingham, 290 acres are to be enclosed, with four for recreation; and Viscount Bury stated in the recent debate that in regard to Wimbledon common, only four acres could be claimed out of the entire thousand for recreative purposes! While the "parish" allowance is thus miserably small, the interest of the general public — the non-parishioners — is still less, going in fact down to zero. How wretchedly this important subject is neglected is shown by the statement of Mr. Cooke, that "if large " enclosures were about to take place in the " neighbourhood of London the commissioners " have no power to interfere even if the enclosure should be illegal. " Further — "If an " enclosure were contemplated at Walthamstow " the commissioners would not think it necessary " to insert advertisements in the London papers, " nor is it their duty to take any steps to ascertain the rights of the public. " It is no wonder that courts of law have ceased to believe that the public have any rights at all in the matter, and that lords of the manor begin to think themselves lords paramount to do as they please. Under these circumstances the process goes on merrily enough. At Walthamstow we have 207 acres enclosed; at Upshaw, 76; at Edgware, 58; at Carshalton 1149, at Barnes 21, and at Benhill Wood, 54 — a total of 1565 acres, all enclosed within the last 20 years, and all situated within 15 miles of London, whHe ip none of these cases do we hear anything of a " recreation ground. "
But if we wish to see how a common can be pulled to pieces without the aid of the enclosure commissioners, we may just hear what has to be said about Wandsworth-common by a gentleman who has held property in the vicinity for the last 13 years. At that period — not very remote — there was only one enclosure on the common, and that seems to have been merely a small piece of land opposite a gentleman's house. [PB: The Bevington field? Wilson? Compton-Smith/Costeker? Other?] For a considerable period of time the inhabitants of the neighbourhood had held a lease of the common, and at their own expense they kept the land in good order. They planted an avenue of trees a mile long, and so contrived that when gravel was dug the hollows were converted into sheets of ornamental water.
Such was the golden age of Wandsworth-common. But the lease fell in, and Earl Spencer refused to renew it. Then came The Era of spoliation. Land was sold to the parish of St. James's, Piccadilly, and a sort of juvenile workhouse in the shape of industrial schools made its appearance. Then there came a railway, right through the midst of the common.
Next, excavations were made for the purpose of constructing embankments elsewhere, and a considerable portion of the common was carried off in order to make up the line for the Crystal Palace. Thirteen acres were thus disembowelled, leaving an ugly chasm for ever afterwards.
Next came the Patriotic School — an admirable institution, which deserved a happier foundation. One after another the various footpaths over the common were stopped up and disappeared, one only being left. Hacked to pieces and neglected, Wandsworth-common — where not built upon — is now a morass, haunted by discharged prisoners from the adjacent gaol, and altogether shorn of the beauties which it possessed at the time when Earl Spencer assumed its entire control. Enclosures have been run round the common in some places so close to the road as to leave no footpath. The beautiful avenue of trees has been undermined and otherwise damaged, so that it is utterly ruined. Yet we are told that the nobleman who has thus completely sacrificed Wandsworth-common, possesses "sympathies" which are "opposed to the enclosure of any commons," and which move him to seek for the preservation of Wimbledon common, so that the land shall be swept of every nuisance and delivered from every species of invasion — railways and hotel companies included.
At Clapham the golden age is not yet extinguished. There the inhabitants still hold their lease and keep the place in order by public subscription. The expense is small and the benefit is great. Earl Spencer is also lord of the manor there — at least over some portion of the common, and we may devoutly hope that the lease has yet many years to run. Experience proves that in order to preserve a common from nuisances and encroachments there is no necessity for fences, and lodges, and an array of park-keepers with "suitable cottages."
The history of the past also serves to show that Earl Spencer has a curious way of carrying out his popular " sympathies. " His lordship declares be has right on his side, and would have us believe that what lvoflers ia a great concession, in which hi_ aioi: i in But we are not gui La Burt t. . at F??. 1 fathomed he depths c? the Win. l . cheme. There is to be a dedication to the?? of 688 acres, encumbered with certain conditions; 158 acres, or less, lying round about, are to be sold. A hundred and fifty acres, or more, remain lo lie accounted for; and we seem to apprehend some arrangement between his lordship and the remaining "commoners" which will not be without its advantages to the stronger party. It is fair to suppose that the lord of (ha manor can appreciate the difference between gipsy tents and villa residences. But let this be as it may, the manner in which the 688 acres are to be "dedicated" is in itself open to some degree of doubt, and we would very much rather that the gravel-digging and pasture-letting and compensating rent-charge were eliminated from the scheme. Surely it is possible to provide for the rights of Earl Spencer and the privileges of the public in some simpler fashion than this.
[BNA: Link.]
"Suffolk and Essex Free Press — Thursday 1 June 1865
GOING TO THE DERBY. Ths usual chapter of accidents connected with tho Derby Day has not been wautinrthu ycur. Amonr the first was a fatal accident. Mr. Le*-?att. enparjr. Cole road. Islington, in company with Mr. Anscll and Mr Pcare, set out in a dojr cat lor Epsom. They had crossed Westminister an.l wore towards Konmngton. when the hors went off at terrific pace. Mr. Lcggatt, lo*t all cm- trol over the animal, and th' dog cart came u>lnt collision with heavily laden van and three | gcntl. m-n wore hurled a u-anco. i ' , were taken in insensible state tho h, *P' where Mr. expired. Mr. Aaacll and Mr. Pearae were not expecte>! to recover. ,
Tno next o-o irro ic reported that of p enure van catching firo. It appears tha*. a lirg* pleasure van. filled with persms of both sexes, was crossing Wandsworth common on Lpsom, when was discovered to on fire through some the smokers having dropped their lighted tobacco omo tho loose straw. The dresses of some of the ladies were sot on fir-, and one or two were rather i severely burnt. Tho flames communicated with the j curtains and awning, and water being at hand tho van was rendered a complete wreck.
[BNA: Link.]
Oxford Chronicle and Reading Gazette — Saturday 26 August 1865
href = "1865/1865_08_26_lynch_law_OxfordChronicleandReadingGazette_26aug1865_1024.jpg" Target="_blank">
(Click on image to enlarge)
LYNCH LAW AT WANDSWORTH — EXTRAORDINARY SCENE.
LYNCH LAW AT WANDSWORTH.- EXTRAORDINARY SCENE.
Last evening it was my ill fortune to witness an extraordinary scene on the borders of Black Sea.
Lest any readers should suppose that I am one the foreign correspondents of the Star, Imay state that the Black Sea is the local name for a pood of no great extent or beauty in the neighbourhood of Wandsworth.
On the banks of this not very pellucid lake, the scene last evening was of the the quietest description.
Gentle nursery-maids led forth their interesting chargee to enjoy the odour of duckweed which arose from the lonely mere.
Wandsworth Common was beautiful under the placid influences of sunset.
But in the midst of this general tranquillity there occurred a strife of elements which reminded one of the battles of the ancient megalotheria in their homes of mud.
As a peaceful preliminary to the strife I noticed a lady descend from a cab, displaying in her right hand a white handkerchief.
She looked wonderingly about for a few minutes.
Presently a gentleman repeated the signal peace; and then, having pocketed his handkerchief, walked forward to the lady, and shook her warmly by the hand. It was a singular but not extraordinary meeting; and I was about once more to dwell in mild contemplation on the beauties of wood and lake, when Iobserved the gentleman lead the lady in a very affectionate manner towards a seat which was separated from the pond by only a very narrow bank.
Nor was there much unusual in this occurrence; but no sooner had they prepared to seat themselves than the lady in a very wonderful way abruptly left her companion and ran off, while the gentleman was seized by two rough-looking men, who forthwith had the assurance lug him down to the banks of the lake and chuck him into its waters.
Suddenly the delightful stillness of the Black Sea was broken a series of the most heartrending shrieks and he was seen wallow out on all fours from the plain of mud in a vary deplorable condition.
When at last he emerged he presented one of the must unhappy spectacles that ever a gazer witnessed.
He glistened from head to foot with mud like some enormous boa-constrictor.
His coat was rent across; his hat was smashed; while his face revealed the most hideous mass of mud that ever made a human being look like a chimpanzee.
Immediately the scene of this extraordinary dip, which beat all to pieces the header" in the Colleen Bawn, was the pole whither everybody on the common was attracted; and it seemed as though the miserable experimenter on this new sensation-scene was well known to most Wandsworthians, for he underwent a singular amount of hooting as he shuffled off.
But these expressions of public disapproval were redoubled. They increased to groans, wild cries; they took visible form in sundry showers of inodorous eggs; and, finally, the j unhappy gentleman made a humbling appeal to his feet, and ran off swiftly as they could carry him.
I was j just about to transfer to my pocket book the closing lines of a sonnet on "Solitude in Wandsworth" when this untimely provocation occurred; and I forthwith found it imperative run along with the crowd that was now collecting in wake of the ducked one.
Opposite is a large public bouse (which shall mentioned in sonnet) [i.e. The Freemasons/Round House] the stranger turned upon his assailants, and singling out one of them, knocked off his hat, and finally closed with him.
Several of the crowd were about to help their comrade when the English love of justice intervened, and a loud cry of "One to one" was raised.
One to one it was; though I do not consider that principle applies cases in which the one is covered with mud and the other is a decently-dressed Englishman.
The gentleman attacked suffered more from mud than blows, though his scarf and collar were tom open.
His clothes received a faint lithographic impression of the Black Sea, and his face presented a faithful portrait thereof.
Finally live man who had been ducked backed off, and took refuge the tavern already mentioned, in front which assembled a crowd of natives to discuss the matter.
From these people Ireceived, in snatches, the following details, which may or may not be true, and which, if libellous, are attributed solely the Dogberries in question.
A foreign nobleman, whom Ishall call Count Caskowhisky, and who is reputed to descended from the Caskowhiskies who invaded Bavaria in 1649, has for some time back been in the habit of inveigling into a correspondence young ladies desirous of being wedded; and it is allege! that in not a few instances these foolish girl have been made pay the penalty of their folly by being forced to contribute to the count's yearly income under fear of exposure.
Hitherto the count has been slippery, and eluded conviction.
But more recently a gentleman in Wandsworth thought fit to reply to one the advertisements put forth by Count Caskowhisky, and succeeded in enticing the count into correspondence.
The letters, l am told, are sufficiently warm both side .
Clorinda is gushing; Philander is recklessly pious .
Clorinda talks of the dreams of her youth; Philander displays his knowledge of Scripture and swears by it.
Philander, in fact, indulges in what is called by the ugly name of blasphemy, and Clorinda represents herself being possessed of 300 a year, Philander is more than ordinarily violent in demonstratious of his passion.
Finally, so the story runs, a meeting was arranged on Wandsworth-common; and a married lady who volunteered to become a weapon of punishment on behalf of her suffering sisters, undertook to personate Clonnda.
Hence the scene which disturbed my poetic reverie; and which raised such commotion last evening in the peaceful neighbourhood of Wandsworth.
Ifear the proceedings were altogether very unjustifiable.
Doubtless revenge is a a rude sort of justice; but it is a form of justice which is not quite in accordance with the modem law of Great Britain.
While, therefore, 1 lift my hands in horror at the summary vengeance taken by the Wandsworthians, Iventure to lay before your readers such details as came under the observation of an eye-witness.
Several other articles:
[BNA: Link,]
e.g.
Particularly popular in Scotland?
Fifeshire Journal — Thursday 31 August 1865
LYNCH LAW AT WANDSWORTH EXTRAORDINARY
YART BOWL A correspondent of the Star, writing on Friday, says: — brat evening it was my good or ill fortune to witness an extraordinary scene on the borders of a pond of no great extent or beauty in the neighbourhood of Wandsworth. On the banks of this not very pellucid lake, the scene last evening was of the quietest description. Gentle nursery-maids led forth their interesting charges to enj..iy the odour of duckweed which arose from the lonely mere. Wandsworth Common was beautiful under the placid influence of sunset.
But in the midst of this general tranquillity there occurred a strife of elements which reminded one of the battles of the ancient megalotheria in their homes of mud. As a peaceful preliminary to the strife I noticed a lady descend from a cab displaying in her right hand a white handkerchief. She looked wonderingly about for a few minutes. Presently a gentleman repeated the signal of peace; and then, having pocketed his handkerchief, be walked forward to the lady and shook her warmly by the band.
It was a singular but not an extraordinary meeting; and Iwax about once more to dwell in mild contemplation on the beauties of wood and lake, when 1 observed the gentleman lead the lady Ma very affectionate manner towards seat which was separated from the pond by only a very Harrow bank. Nor was there much unusual in this occurrence; but no sooner had they prepared to seat themselves than the lady in a very wonderful way abruptly left her companion and ran off, while the gentleman was seized by two rough-looking men, who forthwith had the assurance to lug him down to the banks of the lake and chuck him into its waters.
Suddenly the delightful stillness of the pond was broken by a aeries of the toast heartrending shrieks; and the gentleman was seen to wallow out on all fours from the plain of mud in a very deplorable condition. When at last he emerged he presented one of the moat unhappy spectacles that ever a game whammed. He listened from bead to foot withiandlihe ba Victor; his coat was rent wren; his bet was entombed; while his face revealed the /wag hideous nen of 'nod that ever mate lumen he kick a the Mls Minh hest pines the 'Mier' he was the psis whither the emmon was; and it esemed the miserable se this Dew error wJ ale Melba as aL gm 'gumless pails They lamed to poem to wed nine; they Me in sen un happ dry y a @hewers Mimes Me bet, nes meg as thmid emery him. Mt attain a tavern, in front of which s_a natives
to disco= the matter. From these people Ireceived, in snatches, the following details.
A foreign nobleman has for some time back been in the habit of inveigling /into a correspondence with young belles desirous of 'being wedded; and it is alleged that in nut a few instances th e se foolish girls have been made to pay the penalty of their folly by being forced to contri b ute to the count's yearly incr.me under fear of an exposure. Hitherto the count has been slippery, and eluded conviction. But more recently a gentleman in Wandsworth thought lit to reply to one of the advertisements put forth, and succeeded in enticing the count into a correspondence. A meeting was arranged on Wandsworth Common, awl a married lady who volunteered to become a weapon of punishment on behalf of her suffering sisters. undertook to personate elorinda. Hence the scene which rained such commotion last evening in the peaceful neighbourhood of Wandsworth.'
[BNA: Link.]
"Glasgow Free Press — Saturday 2 September 1865
A MATRIMONIAL ADVENTURER LYNCHED
A cessxsseirpsinr of the Star, writing Friday bat, myc Lilt evening it was good* U1 fortune to wiCuas an extraordinary msdsou the battel of spend gf grist extent or in the neighbourhood of Wandsworth. the beaks of this not vory pellucid Igke, the scene last evening was the qeietest description. Gentle nurserymaids led ferih their intenetiag cham* to onjoyth* odour of duck-weed which arose today mars. Wandsworth Common was bsaatUul plead Influences of sunset. But in midst of this (mini tnsqallUty thsra occurred a>Mle of elements whlsh renisdef one of tbs hattiss of the aaoient megtlotheria in then iomsssf mud. peaoeful preliislnsry the strife, aottesd lady descending from cab displaying In her right Into white hnadkarshMf. looked ehoDt slevmiutea Presently guntleman repentsd lbs of asee; and ten. haringpoeketed his handkerchief, ha walked iowirdtothalady, and shook bar warmly by the hand, u wasingalar bat not an extraordinary meeting; and Iwm _host OBOe more to dwell la mUdoontemplntloa on the besatiea wood and take, when Iobeerved the gentleman tend the Indy very nWwtlantte meeueeto wards seat which was afarnted from the pond cdy a vary narrow bonk. Nor ws than amah nananal tat this ooeomnoa t but no sooner Imd ctepareri thsemfvie than the lady very wontotal way abruptly left bar com pan ion and ran of, while the pa'Jensa was aMsd by two rough-looking man. who forth* eitbbad the aasoraaee to log him down to the bonks of the hke and chock him into its waters Suddenly the delight!al aUbuai of the pond was broken by scries of the most benrtretoleg eh risks, and the genUeman teen to wallow out ell loan troa ptern of mod in very dtploenbla aondi* don. When at last emerged presented one of the moat unhappy spectacles that tvar gaser witnessed. listened (rotajitad to lost with and sannoas boa constrictor; coat was rant noram t hi* hat was smaihed; while his teas mealed the meal bid eons mass of mod 'that ever mad* human being look shlmpasaea Immediately the assn* this extraordinary dip, which beat kb to pieces the header' is the Colleen waa pete whither everybody the commoe sss sttraeted i sad It seamed tboagh the miserable experimenter on tills mw smm wm well no Wudsworthians, tor got a slugalar amount of boohtog be of. Bat them expression* at pabtio (Uaa>- proral wan fedoabled. They laoraased to groans, to wild alee; they took risible farm In can dry showers of inode roes tad, finally, the unhappy gentleman mad* an hambling isperi to bis Isst, and ran ofl a* swiftly a* they could carry tin. Fisslly be took refnge la tavern. In. IKmt of whito memhied crowd of untiva* to diacnas the matter. From tea pcepie Iraesfved, in metshss. tbs toUowing details >A tote aoWmma has far soau ttate hack bam la th* habit tirtUlag into eomapoodmes yonng ladtas dsstrons sf bsiag ydtod; and it allsgsd that to ant lew tnstensss thras Mto gtris have hem made to pay the penalty sf thrir lolly brief (arced to eswtrlbuto to the sound's yearly teems* ester tear ol exposure. Hitherto the oonnt has bem lUptery end riudto cmristtm. But amro reemtly gatolsman Windswocth It to reply osss of the advertiaaraats pat forth, and ssssmdm te the into wreepodence, A toaaring waa arrmagM on Wandsworth Common, snd eraairisd tody, who volunteered to ow htr tiifleiiox undertookto Henoethe cnmmnflcntetheptosefnlnelghbonrhoodof Winds warih
[BNA: Link.]
Evening Mail — Wednesday 6 September 1865
(Click on image to enlarge)
THE CHOLERA
TO THE EDITOR OF THE EVENING MAIL.
Sir, — We are receiving constant warnings through the press of a visitation of cholera either this autumn or next year. It is through the press, therefore, that representations should be made of culpable carelessness on the part of those on whom the country chiefly depends for enforcing sanitary regvulations. 0 For a long time past the inhabitants of Lavender-hill, Wandsworth-road, have been suffering from three grievous nuisances.
1. At the foot of the high ground called Battersea Rise there is a large open sewer, passing in its course several rows of cottages, inhabited by labour-ing people. This sewer (the Falcon sewer) is as black as ink and as thick as gruel. The smell from it is, Ineed hardly say, &host offensive.
2. On the summit of the hill is a pond, in which the older inhabitants remember catching fish some 40 years ago, and which until the last two years was filled with pure water. But an obliging neighbour turned his house-drainage into it and when, after repeated warnings, he diverted the house drainage elsewhere, he established a muck heap in such a position that the drainage from it filters into the pond and renders it putrid and offensive.
3. There is an open ditch, nearly a quarter of a mile in length, which receives the drainage of several of the houses on Lavender-hill, and conducts it down the hill to join sewer No. 1. The exhalations from this ditch are most noisome. Two medical men have assured me that it is a nest of typhoid fever. There have been several cases of typhoid illness in the immediate neighbourhood, clearly traceable to these nuisances.
I, and other inhabitants of Lavender-hill, have for more than a year past been making repeated applications to the Board of Works for the Wandsworth district on the subject of these nuisances.
At one meeting of the Board it was decided that the pond should be filled up. At the next meeting this order was reversed. No steps at all were taken as to the other and greater nuisance. I then applied to the parish inspector of nuisances, who has done what he could by causing chloride of lime to be placed. in drain No. 3. But the good effect passed off in a week, and he is unable to take any further steps, as the Board have not authorized any.
Possibly this carelessness on the part of the Board may be accounted for by the fact that the Board consists of 56 gentlemen, gathered from five parishes, and only one of these gentlemen resides in the neighbourhood of Lavender-hill.
I am aware that our remedy is to the an information in Chancery. On a recent visit, however, to the officer of the Board I found that they are quite alive to the fact that an information filed in the Long Vacation, when the judge is away from town, involves an expense which no private person would be likely to incur.
Before incurring such expense I hope to arraign the Board of Works for the Wandsworth district at the bar of public opinion in your columns — a more summary and effectual redresser of grievances than Her Majesty's High Court of Chancery in the Long Vacation.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
NASSAU JOHN SENIOR. Lavender-hill, Wandsworth-road, Sept. 2.
[BNA: Link.]
""CRICKET
Illustrated Sporting News and Theatrical and Musical Review — Saturday 9 September 1865
NINE PLAYERS AND TWO GENTLEMEN v. TWENTY ONE GENTLEMEN AND ONE PLAYER.
This match took place on Monday near the County Arms, Wandsworth-common. The Twenty-two took the batting first, and the conspicuous scorers were Messrs. Green 23, Foster 18, Bamford 12, and Mills 8. Total of the innings,
The bowlers were Harwood and Southon, who divided the wickets between them.
On the side of the Eleven Mr. Wix scored 20, Lee 10, Oliver 13, and Parr, of Clapham, 22 (not out). Total 99, thus losing the match by five only. Lott, ifowick, and W. B. Shepherd bowled, the latter throughout. He howls well, and would boa good acquisition to his county (Surrey). Subjoined is the score of ELEvErt. Mr. Wiz.b Bamford 2O Wheatley o b Shepherd 1 Lee e and b Bamford Oliver b Shepherd Harpour o Untield b Bamford 3 Southon b Shepherd Parr not out 22 The game was well contested. Llttlorc Foster b Loa 0 Harwood o Frost b Lee 5 E. Ball a Cbinery b Howlok 4 W. Ball a Lee b llowick 0 B 10, w b 2 l2
Total 99
[BNA: Link.]
"Wells Journal — Saturday 16 September 1865
[Short version still running a fortnight later.
An odd case is reported. A man who calls himself by some foreign title has been in the habit of advertising for a wife, and having procured interviews with certain foolish young women, has so far succeeded in compromising their characters that they have gladly paid a kind of black mail to secure his silence. This has been discovered by some indignant brothers and other relations, who last week entrapped the pseudo count to Wandsworth Common, where he was ducked in a most unsavoury pond and afterwards hunted out of the neighbourhood. The police appear to have looked with tolerance, if not with complacency.
[RATHER LIKE INTERNET TODAY — groomers versus online vigilantes etc]
Launceston Weekly News, and Cornwall & Devon Advertiser. — Saturday 7 October 1865
London Evening Standard — Monday 18 September 1865
[WC in poetry]
href = "1865/1865_09_18_poem_bride_and_her_groom_Standard_18sep1865_600.jpg" Target="_blank">
(Click on image to enlarge)
THE BRIDE AND HER GROOM.
By Policemah X.
0 pleasant is a parson's life —
Beneath no cares to writhe.
To spend your trooly rooral days
Midst smiling rustics blythe;
And drive your Poney carridge hout
Collectin of your Tythe.
But hevry rose has got a thorne,
Vich him that smells it feels;
Though at a distance hit alone
Its pooty looks reweals —
And even Parsons has sum cares
Beyond their daily meals.
Sometimes his curates goes estray,
Or Bishops thwarts his course;
Sometimes hit Is a unpayed Tythe,
Sometimes a limpin orse;
Sometimes it is his childering dear —
So 'twas with Mister +!
Vich + by name he was, but not
I hopes by nature so;
Miss Alice was his daughter fair,
And she had chose a Bo
(The brightest eyes that shoots fourth darts
Will sometimes hame them low).
Equestering exercise she took
Whenever she'd a mind,
George Smith the groomb (haged 18 years),
He should have rode behind —
But hoft he cum up side by side,
Miss Alice was so kind!
And to the stables she would go
Her darling nags to view
(Vich whilst she kissed their noses warm —
As most young ladies do —
Preaps, by haccident, she mite
Have fondled George's too.)
Vich wen her father came to find
This orrifying fac,
Iope he neither swor nor cust
(No parson so should ack),
But he gave Miss A. a scolding sharp,
And Mister George the sack.
Ho, fancy those young loviers then,
Ow sad their fate did loomb —
Pore Alice she was sent up-stairs,
And ad to keep er roomb;
And pityus was the diction hof
That pore young Boy the Groomb.
But love at locksmiths laughs, they say
And so (it wosn't right)
Sly Alice, wen 'twas dark, displayed
A burnin paper light,
Attractin George, to whom she vowed,
"We'll fly this very night."
Then she goes and packs her cloze
(Vich sum was her mamma's),
And down the ivied wall she climbs,
Dispizin locks and bars,
And to the Rail five miles they walks
By lite of moon and stars.
Vich Alice then esumed kermand
(Has females loves to do),
And took his capital away
(Vich were just £5 2s. 0d.),
And bought two tickets for herself
And George to Waterloo.
Ven Doctors-commons waked that morn,
The coves in aprins white
Observed (vich was to them a sweet
And soul inspirin sight)
Our lnnicents a wanderin round
In anxshus puzzled plight.
Beneath the Arch those veskits vite,
They led the infants in,
But R! too soon they turned them out,
Whilst lookers-on did grin —
Without her Pa they couldn't get
A Lisins to begin!
Their true love's course untimely checked!
By hobstacles like these,
Towards Wandsworth Common off they set,
And sat beneath the trees,
And sor the windmill turnin round,
And herd the cacklin geese.
Vich rooral sounds inspirin hope,
They joins eaoh other's hands,
And off they goes, and tells the Clerk
To publish of their bans,
And takes a lodgin in Love-lane
In a terras called St. Hans.
But soon to that abode of Bliss
Inspector Lovelace came
(It's hodd that such a man as im
Should ay a hammerous name),
And on a vile phelonions charge
He stopped their little game.
Pore George he took afore the Beak,
Where Mister + erose,
And swore he steeled his daughter's heart,
And likewise stole her cloze
(Vich she it was as rifled him,
As well my reader noze).
Brave Alice boldly pled his caws,
And did herself avow
That she it was that pland their flite,
Becos " there was a Row."
And that it was a equall flame
She redly did allow.
But all er smilin blushin looks
They wos of no aveil
To save her George from being soon
Remanded to the jail,
Until so be as he might find
Two good substanshal bale.
They bore him faintin from her sight,
And hall is ope he found
In thinking with wot faithful love
His Alice did abound-
That Hangel in a hat and cape
And spotted muslin gownd!
But, hout on fickle woman's love!
A week had scarcely past
Hare Alice broke the vows she swore
From life to death she uld last,
And flung away the faithful heart
That clung to hers so fast.
She told him be might "Go away"
She'd never see im more" —
Inspector Lovelace, standing by,
It pleased his very core,
And off to Ockham Mister +
His perjured daughter bore!
On Vensday last when George came up
His Alice was not there!
To him, the Beak who set im free
Spake nothing but Despare —
His fond young hopes he thought wos wrecked
Upon a quicksand fair.
But O, faint-harted George mistook!
(Like many a other man).
Ven Alice bade him "* Go away"
Twas all a artful plann
By soothing Pa, to keep him safe
From Lor's tremenjus ban!
No sooner was the case dismissed,
Than Alice, quite elate,
Declared that now, till 21,
She patiently would wait,
And then to George she would return,
And be his married mate!
O sore it grieved the Parson's heart
Such desperate words to hear,
But hacting like a man of sense
He faced his fate severe.
(That he would have to yield at last
He saw wos very clear.)
A wilfull man," said Mister + ,
"We know must hav is way. —
Hay foresheory, so will girls:
No longer He say nay —
That she may not her choice repent
Iearnestly do prey!"
So Friday last, in Wandsworth Church,
There was a wedding gay,
And George and Alice one were made
By Mr. Gower that day.
The belles ring out! the people shout!
True love has got its way!
R, wonderful is woman's ways
To pleasure or to vex!
No wonder that they even did
A Solemnun perplex.
O Soosan! lovelier than all
The loveliest hof thy Sex,
Be true to me, as I to thee,
Thy changeless
PLEASEMAN X.
Sept. 16.
[BNA: Link.]
"Posted by Tom Hughes at 2:46 PM
Saturday, September 3, 2011
[BNA: victoriancalendar.blogspot.com/2011/09/" target="_blank">Link.
ALICE CROSSE
September 14, 1865 --- A Romance in Real Life
A police escort is needed to lead the bride and groom through happy, cheering crowds outside All Saints, Wandsworth. The bride is 20-year old Alice Crosse, only child of a wealthy, widowed, rector from Ockham. The groom is just that, the family groom, 18-year old George Smith.
Their romantic elopement, with Alice's midnight clamber down the ivied wall of her father's rectory and their pursuit by hired detectives, had been closely followed across England. Rev. Crosse had forbidden Alice's fancy for George without success and so the groom was sacked in August. Two nights later, they ran off to London. Turned away at the Registry Office as Alice was under age to marry without parental consent, they went to Wandsworth where George had family. The trail was not hard to follow.
George was charged with abduction and robbery. Rev. Crosse claimed the young man "systematically worked upon [Alice's] feelings to dislike her home." He accused him of lusting more for Alice's inheritance, hers at age 21. The crowded Police Court fell silent when Alice took the stand. Without nervousness, she declared her love for George. Asked who made the first advance, she answered, "We were about equal"; about the elopement, " Iproposed it"; about the flight to London, " Iarranged it." Reversing the robbery charge, she boasted of taking George's money to pay for the train. As for her father at home, Alice insisted, "Whether George was there or not, I should have gone."
The case was remanded for a week and George given bail, the young lovers managed to convince Rev. Crosse to drop the charges. Nor would he stand in the way of their marriage, once satisfied that — in his words — "Alice returned home as intact as on the day she left." The father of the bride opts not to attend the wedding, however. At their modest reception, George and Alice appear at the window to acknowledge the crowd outside. In the words of The Times: "A public scandal, which has greatly shocked well-regulated minds in the genteel classes of society, but which, after brilliant sequel, will doubtless be the theme of admiring and envious comment in many a Servant's Hall."
Their married life was short as Alice died in 1871.
Hey, we have that lovely poem (written in cockney) about this!
Where is it? HERE!
[BNA: Link.
"Cheltenham Chronicle — Tuesday 19 September 1865
[BNA: Link.]
Lincolnshire Chronicle — Saturday 16 September 1865
A curious case came before the Lambeth magistrate last week. On the 26th ult.. Miss Alice Crosse, daughter of the rector of Ockham, in Surrey, eloped with her father's groom — a lad of 18, named George Smith. The young coupleMiss Crosse is 20were traced to Wandsworth, where they had taken lodgings as husband and wife, and Smith was given into custody on the charges of abduction and of stealing certain articles which the lady seems to have carried with her flight. Miss Crosse was put into the witness box, on Wednesday, and affirmed that she left ber father's house of her own accord, and because she " preferred Smith's society;" but the young man was remanded, and on bail being tendered and ac cepted, he was " led away in half-fainting condition."
[BNA: Link.]
Lancaster Gazette — Saturday 9 September 1865
LATEST NEWS. ELOPEMENT WITH A GROOM. A curious ease came before the Wandsworth Pofiaa Magistrate on Wednesday. On the 39th alt. Miss Alice Crosse, daughter of the rector of Oct ham. m Surrey, eloped with her father's groom — a lad at La. named George Smith. The young couple — Miss Crosse- is 20 — were traced to Wandsworth, where tbmg bam taken lodgings as huskaad and wife, aad Sraidt wan given into ousted/ on the charge- of abduction end est stealing certain articles wbiob th- lady seem- to base carried with bar in bar flight Miaa- Crassa waa m- into the witn--a box. on Wednesday, and amrmea emmt she left ber father's house of her own accord, sadhaeause die " preferred Smith's society; " but th- fmmmg man was remanded, and en, bail bt iag tendered and accepted, he was " led away in a half-fainting condition".
[BNA: Link.]
Cheltenham Chronicle — 19 September 1865
>THE INSANITY OF LOVE
Miss Alice Crosse, aged 20, daughter of the parish clergyman of Ockham, has afforded abundant food for gossip during the last ten days. The young lady had formed an attachment to Master George Smith, aged 18, a groom in her father's service, and as Mr. Crosse considered the young gentleman from the stable was scarcely suited to his the husband of his daughter, he turned him out of the house.
Miss Crosse, however, appears to have will of her own, while Master Smith seems to be more fool than rogue. The young lady planned an elopement; but the lovers were followed and arrested, and last week Master Smith found himself before the Wandsworth police magistrate charged with the abduction of his young mistress.
Miss Crosse told the story of her elopement with extraordinary candour.
"Kings County Chronicle — Wednesday 20 September 1865
MARRIAGE of Miss Crosse with her Groom
Scene in Yesterday morning at half-past nine o'clock, George Smith, who was discharged yesterday at the Police-court the charge preferred the Key. K. Crosse, of Ockham Rectory was married to his daughter by licence, and with his consent, in All Saints' Church, High-street, Wandsworth, the interesting ceremony being performed by the curate, the Rev. Mr. Gower.
One of the most extraordinary scenes ever witnessed in Wandsworth occurred on the occasion.
Although the townsfolk often assembled in large numbers at the church wedding occasions, yet there was never such a crowd as gathered this morning in and about the sacred edifice. The church was crowded and every available spot, both inside and out. in which a glimpse could be obtained of the happy couple was occupied. The roads and paths were literally blocked up for some distance, and the pretty church bells rang a merry might have supposed that nothing short of a Royal mat-rage was being celebrated. The happy couple arrived in Wandsworth last night, and took up their temporary abode at the house Mr. George, baker, in the High-street, who was one of the groom's bail. They were unaccompanied by any friends except those which had been made in Wandsworth. Mr. George and his daughter accompanied them to church and acted their best friend.
After the ceremony was concluded, and on walking from the church, they were received with loud and continued cheering r. The young lady was dressed in a pink bonnet, with black silk cape and purple silk dress. The young gentleman looked exceedingly happy, and escorted his bride his arm to the residence of Mr. George, Inspectors Lovelace and Usher excortiii"' themselves manfully clear the path for them. As*the young couple walked for the few yards from the church she seemed to have the advantage of height over her husband, who, however, presented a natty" appearance, he being dressed in a black coat and trousers, with a white waistcoat and white kid gloves. They were quickly ushered into the baker's shop by the police, but quickly reappeared at the first-floor window, where Mr. Smith cook of his hat and bowed repeatedly to the crowd with few appropriate remarks. He thanked his friends sincerely for all their kindness and sympathy shown to him since he had been in Wandsworth, and hoped they would all live long and happy
This short speech was received with tremendous cheering, and it was some time before the police could clear the streets and restore order. It was understood that the happy pair intended to travel for a short time. This finished one of the most exciting cases that had ever startled and so deeply interested the good folks of Wandsworth. — Globe of Thursday.
[BNA: //www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001376/18650920/032/0002" target="_blank">Link.]
Surrey Comet — Saturday 4 November 1865
THE MATRIMONIAL CHAMELEON.
TO THE EDITOR.
Sir, — Some years ago, when residing in Staffordshire, an English friend of position told me that an interesting young Polish refugee had been introduced to him, M. Waszkowaki name, whom he wished I should befriend.
Iconsented to receive him house, and on his arrival Iaddressed him in my native language, but to my surprise he did not understand me.
Ipressed him hard as to what country he belonged,when he said he was a native of Prussia.
After this I thought it my duty to make some inquiries as to his character and antecedents, and found him to be a worthless, idle, conceited adventurer, living upon the credulity and stupid sentimentality of silly old maids.
Since residence here, met me in the street, when he made an effort to renew the acquaintance with the view of getting Into my debt. I took care, however, to caution some of the neighbouring tradesmen as to the character of the"distinguished foreigner,'' who was favouring Surbiton with his presence.
In justice to my countrymen, Ibeg you will insert this in your widely-circulated journal, to show that the "Hero of the Black Sea of Wandsworth" is not a native of Poland.
I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, A POLE.
Surbiton Hill, Oct. 3lst.
P.S. the public know that the elderly lady mentioned is the pamphlet is in the enjoyment of national pension ?
[MEANING?]
[BNA: Link.]
"SAYERS — ANOTHER ACCOUNT OF THE FIGHT ON WC
TOM SAYERS
Illustrated Sporting News and Theatrical and Musical Review — Saturday 2 December 1865
ORIGINAL ANECDOTES OF SAYERS.
BY Mn. B. KIND, Ms BROTHER-IN-LAW.
At the age of fourteen years Sayers came to London to my wife, Louis's eldest sister, at Camden-town, where I was then residing. He was desirous of learning a trade, and the one he chose was that of a bricklayer. I found him a very sharp boy, and I thought he would make a bright man in the world. Iput him along with the bricklayers and be soon got on, but after a little while I was told by some of them that he was always fighting with some boy or other. Iused to talk to him and so did his sister, but all of no avail, for it appeared fighting was his delight.
Irecollect that at some extensive works I was carrying on at the Hippodrome Race Course, Notting-hill, there was a poor Russian refugee, who could not speak English, and was constantly asking sue in his way to give him a job as a labourer. Tom asked me to take him on, and I did so, and the Russian had not been many weeks at work before he met with an accident, but was soon well and at work again.
There were on the works about sixteen navigators, and one of them one day at dinnertime, tormented the poor Russian. Tom took the Russian's part. The navvy told Torn if he did not hold his tongue be would give him "a slap of the head." Tom replied that "he had better try it on." Tom was then in his seventeenth year. A ring was formed, and at it they went, and Tom gave the navvy, in about ten minutes, a severe thrashing. The navvy's Mate who seconded him, not being satisfied at Tom's thrashing his friend, challenged him, and at it they went, and in less than a quarter of an hour the other navvy was glad to say "enough" and succumb to a mere boy. This gained Tom many friends among his mates, nod he had several rough fights with fellows about that part, and always with bigger men than himself, but never failed to come off victorious.
After Icompleted the works Tom thought he could better himself, and left me for some time, but soon returned and asked me to give him a job; I did no, for at that time I had some very extensive works on Wandsworth Common.
One day the labourers were what is termed "having a run," which is to overload the scaffold with bricks and mortar. Among the gang of labourers there was a tall strong Irishman, and he shot a hod of bricks over Tom's feet. Tom spoke civilly to him and told him not to do it again; but he did it a second time and Tom again spoke to and he told Tom if he did not like it he would give him a slap of the head.
Dinner time came, and as the Irishman and mates began chaffing Tom a fight was agreed on. All the men started to the common, as I could not allow it on the works — the Irishman told Tom he would get him ready for his coffin — and a ring was formed. The two stripped, and the difference between them surprising. Tom a mere boy, not eighteen years old, and the other a man above six feet high.
The fight commenced, and during the first hour Tom was thrown tremendously. The ground was very slippery, and Tom could not keep his footing. He pulled off his boots, and at it he went, and, after fighting two hours and three quarters, the poor Irishman was laid for dead on the ground. Tom, with only a few bruises, commenced dancing, and was soon at his lodgings, while the Irishman was carried on a shutter to his lodgings, three doctors attending all night, for they did not know one hour from another but what he would die. He had never been beaten before, and had fought some very good men. Towards night the police were after poor Tom, but his mates let him know of this, and he was concealed at Tooting in a stable in a large corn bin till three o'clock in the morning, when he came up to London under a load of hay. He went to his sister's, and was ready to go to work again in three days. This fight got quite a name about Wandsworth and Tooting, and a waterman sent word he would fight him for 5. Tom's mates soon got the five pounds, but when man and money put in an appearance Mr. Waterman would not fight him, as Tom told him, if he could not got the money he would give him a chance, and fight, him to see which was the best man; but it was no go: no fight came off.
Another time, when Tom was at work on the Railway works at Chalk Farm, one Saturday evening a quarrel took place among the bricklayers. One of the number, a fellow who was considered a first-rate man, offered to fight the best man in the works. Tom was ready, and up he sprang to go out and fight him. The bricklayers laughed at the boy, but at it they went, and, after a severe battle of about three-quarters of an hour, the big man, for such he was, called enough. Many more rough fights he had, but his first prize fight was with one Abraham Crouch for five pounds aside, whi.th is published in his career. I have often heard hint say that he would rather go out and have a fight than have his dinner or go to work.
____________________
THE CLERGYMAN AND THE PRIZE FIGHTER.
A. clergyman residing in a village not twelve miles from St. Paul's, the other day missed the 'bus which was his usual means, of conveyance. He was in a burry, and did not feel inclined to walk three or four miles. In this dilemma . he applied to the landlord of the nearest public house. Boldface, who was Mr. W. P. Warner, of the Welsh Harp, Hendon, would assist him with pleasure. There was a gentleman in the house who was going to start for Loudon immediately; would he give the clergyman a lift. Of course he would The clergyman was delighted, and away he and his newly-formed acquaintance rode. As they approached near town, it seemed to the clergyman that, every one was staring at them. He could not understand it. The more he thought of it, the more unintelligible did the general staring appear. At length he said to his driver, " can't see that there is anything peculiar about our appearance, yet every one appears, to be staring at you or me — can you explain that to me 7" "The truth is, " said the driver, "my name is Tom Sayers." "Oh, indeed, " said the clergyman, " "then perhaps you will have the kindness to set me down." "Indeed Inot, " replied the hero of the Ring; " Ipromised to drive you to London — and to London you go along with me." And thus the worthy pair rode on — the mob greeting Sayers everywhere as a favourite — the clergyman feeling not a little out of place.
_________________________
TOM SAYERS'S DOG IN THE 011UTORES OF THE LONDON DOG STEALERS.
A short time previous to last Christmas Day, Tom Sayers was on a fraternal visit at Brighton and Wt his dog at his stables in Camden-town, under the guard of his stableman. Those impudent varlets, the London dog thieves, had often threatened, in Tom's hearing too, to " lift " the hound, early or late, and Were invited to try and do their best, as Torn had that the dog would tear to atoms any stranger who might have the temerity to take liberties with the brute. More than one of the scamps had frequently followed Tom from sporting houses to "drums" where Tom usually dropped in at, but as the dog when left on the trap outside, attracted much attention, the dog-imps found their prey too well guarded to attempt to raid upon. By some means a worthy child of Autllyeus, rejoicing in the title of " jack-the-kid, ".and hailing from Golden-lane, ascertained that Tone was at the sea-side, and had left his dog in town, and it was not long before the animal changed his snug quarters for the kennel of Daddy-longlegs, in Golden-lane, where his arrival created quite a stir amongst the gang of dog prigs, who at once set the price. of "fifty quid" upon the dog, and ', min& were advanced upon the expectant reward by the dogs' pawnbroker, and drink in wine, toasting Tom's jelly good health, and better luck to him next time. Tom had a telegram of the " rieving, " and to the astonishment of the, 4 sc h" e l, , , a reward of three pounds was only offered. The dog's necklace the school valued at more than Tom's proffered reward, and this was at once taken from the animal's neck. A London banker, a well-known friend to Tom, next interested himself in the recovery of the dog, and some of the dog chaunters waited upon that gentleman, offering to restore it for .50. They were assured that Tom would give no more than three pounds, as he well knew the longer the dog was kept the greater its burthen to the gaolers. Days and weeks elapsed and Tom called into his services Mr. William Kendillon, formerly a superintendent of police, and afterwards employed by royalty and the nobility, to recover lost dogs. Kendillon advised Tom not to pay one farthing, and Tom left the matter entirely in the ex-officer's hands. In a very short time, Torn was directed to meet two of the gang at a certain hostelry, and received his boat favourite, minus the necklace, and not liking to break his word, gave one of the fellows the three pounds, but ere the thieves left the place, the money was spent, and by way of a finish, one of the scamps was shook of ether loose cash, by standing him on his head. For once, the school were done, and the dog pawnbroker ranked of six quid, beside the expense of maintaining Tom's elephant some thirty-four days.
________________
IN MEMORIAM THOMAS SAYERS. .I.OONISTX 001IONATI, QU INATUS EST, A.D. ' 1826; OBIIT, A.D. 1865 ANNO /I.;TATIs SUE, 40.
Who not seen the "Octoroon, " And shudder s d, when the knife Forth from the collar of each " coon " Flash'd for the deadly strife? Who has not read, as foreign news, uf brave won, stiff and stark Pierced by stilettoes, spite of thews And sinews, in the dark? Who has not heard; in courts of law Of men whose teeth uproot Noses and lips? who lash, till raw, Infants, from head to foot? Who has not heard of, read of, seen, A stand-up English fight? No weapon but the fist, Iwenn, And "God defend the right!" No dastard's blow unfairly struck, But Englishmen's " Pair play!" Down with brute force! "ris English pluck And science win the day! One who thus fought (the eye grows dim) Has found an early grave: English — aye, every inch of him — And bravest of the brave. All honour to the glorious scars the wounded soldier shows! All honour to the gallant tars Who scatter England's foes . Honour to him, whooo Heaven-made pair Of pistols ne'er hung tiro IHeroic, honest bricklayer, In Nature's own attire. The gentleman who laughs to see A hero of ouch stuff, Deserves — ) he deserves to be " Well punish'd " by "a rough." Did not of old Olympia sound (As every scholar reads) The praises of her champion, nrow n, d For lees heroic deeds " 'Tis irreligious." Theo, my lord, 'rue warrior's trade eschew; written: They, who take the sword Shall perish by it too." Shall we (policeman-like), while A r t Her teachers loves, shout " Hence, Ye skill'd professors, who impart The Mt of Self-Defence?" No! Absit oineul Stand aside, While heroes of the fist that humble name with pride, , 4 Tom SAYERS, Pugilist." May we all fight, without a foe, Stiletto, teeth, or knife, Ac Sayers fought at Farnborough The Battle stern of Life. CAuourfi.
TOM SAYERS AND HIS CIRCUS.
Tom, when a little boy, had a the " riders, " . as the circus people were great penchant for seeing called, and more than he received a " lorruping" for cutting a hole in the canvas to gratify his curiosity. Tom never forgot this, and when he had a of his own (which he said he would have some day, and had it) he never forgot his youthful longings. We have seen him repeatedly smuggle in a ragged lad, lift up the canvas, and allow the youngster to crawl in, and with his well known good-humoured merry laugh at having deceived, or "kidded" his own check-taker. The anecdote is nothing, but it shows the pure and simple mind of the man.
[BNA:
[UNKNOWN PUBLICATION — header not detected. Please review.] "Lots of enclosure articles 1865 The Westminster Review — Page 219 [PB: I can't find this source again! Where is it? It's a superb account. I wonder who wrote it? George Eliot was in practice the main editor rather earlier, 1852-1854] 1865 According to the evidence of Mr. Rose, who has some property adjoining Wandsworth Common, that common has been undergoing a rapid degradation for several . . . Art. VII. — Commons Round London. 1. Reports of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Cultivation and Improvement of Waste Lands. 1797 and 1798. 2. Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the means of Facilitating the Inclosure and Improvement of Waste Lands. 1800. 3. Reports of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Open Spaces (Metropolis)- 1865. The growth of that incoherent aggregation of villages which we call London is daily bringing up fresh problems for solution. It would be difficult under any circumstances to compress a nation within the limits of a city without causing much inconvenience. But the difficulty is increased tenfold by the incapacity of our municipal institutions to conform to circumstances. London is compelled to expand, not like a vertebrate animal, by a uniform development of all its parts, but like a creature of the lowest order of existence, by throwing out a series of imperfectly organized growths. It is, perhaps, needless to remark that this irrational state of things is not a legitimate consequence of any principle of self-government. It is not that the sphere of government is too narrow, but that it is divided and parcelled out amongst too many, and too feeble authorities. In any country where the adaptation of institutions to circumstances is not tempered by a superstitious regard for vested rights and ancient corporations, the city which is a unit by its geography is also allowed to be a unit for administrative purposes, and certainly without any evil consequence to its independence. In fact, the impotence of our local centres of authority compels the constant interference of the national authority in matters which are properly of merely local interest. To settle such purely municipal questions as the main drainage and the Thames embankment, Parliament had to create a new authority, and afterwards could not refrain from meddling — not always successfully — with its action. The evils which result from the curiously complicated system of jurisdictions under which we live, have been often enough illustrated, and are indeed obvious to the eyes and noses of us all. London is allowed to develop according to its own sweet will, without any attempt at providing against the dangers of the future. Railways have been permitted to cut their way through populous districts, and to force back the displaced inhabitants into streets already overflowing; and no care has been taken to render the transition to the new state of things as easy as possible. There has indeed been, of late, a revolt against the tyranny of railway companies, but the want of any central will or intellect must always give advantage to the assaults of interested persons upon interests which there is no one to look after. The state of the commons round London is an illustration of this very obvious truth. By a piece of good fortune there are still a number of unenclosed pieces of wild land within the Metropolitan District. Fragments, as it were, of moor and heath lie at our very doors, and a few years ago they still remained in a position of apparent security. The transformation which London is undergoing, no less than Paris, though after a different fashion, is bringing many of them into jeopardy. It is curious to remark the various gradations by which London fades into the country, or as we should more accurately say, by which the country is gradually swallowed up in London. The main army is preceded by an advance of villas, thrown out like skirmishers. They begin by seizing a few picked positions, but are to be found, as their numbers increase, wandering off into the fields, where they can only be approached along muddy and unlighted lanes. Then come the more solid ranks of the semidetached, forming in continuous lines along the high roads and in the neighbourhood of railway stations. They are followed by rows of shops, generally headed by an enterprising gin-palace, which bind together the more irregular forces and complete the army of occupation. We find some morning that a town has grown up which has a physiognomy peculiar to these suburban districts. For it is evidently no articulate whole, but a mere fragment, which will soon be assimilated by the advancing mass behind. The houses, too, have that cramped and mean appearance which speaks of pressure in the dingy crowds of London. They bear the stamp of their origin, and show in contrast with the remaining fragments of picturesque old country houses as a Cockney would show amongst the gathering of a Highland clan. Of course these houses, and streets, and towns have a tendency to congregate round the commons. The pieces of wild land are gradually surrounded with a girdle of town houses, which seem to look down upon them with a show of town-bred arrogance. The common becomes an island in the dingy ocean of coal-smoke, and, unfortunately is too often in danger of being entirely engulphed by the rising tide of bricks and mortar. It has seldom or never happened, indeed, that a common has been swallowed up wholesale, for reasons which we shall presently have occasion to notice. Small outlying fragments, however, are frittered away; squatters effect settlements upon them; and the enemy succeeds in establishing a lodgment. Meanwhile, nuisances of various kinds grow up: the drainage is left to take care of itself; the surface is degraded in a variety of ways; heaps of rubbish are shot upon it; gravel-pits are dug without the smallest regard to its beauty or convenience; and as the police are not responsible for preserving order and decency upon it, it becomes in some cases a resort of had characters. By these means the common, which was formerly an ornament to the neighbourhood, and which a little foresight might have converted into a permanent reservoir of fresh air and country beauty, degenerates into a nuisance. The immediate interest of a whole army of spoilers is allowed to prevail over the interests of the population at large, which are watched by no intelligent guardian; and before public attention has been aroused the evil may be consummated. Even if the common still remains unenclosed, it may have. been so damaged that its enclosure is no longer regarded as an evil. There are, however, symptoms that Londoners are beginning to awake to their danger. The case of Wimbledon Common last year drew attention to some of the more important considerations involved. Wimbledon is, without doubt, one of the most beautiful of our commons. The furze-covered slopes of the hill fronting Combe Wood, with their miniature glens and broken undulations of ground, have a peculiar attraction. They are in pleasant contrast to the more formal graces of the neighbouring Richmond Park. Fortunately, too, they had stronger claims upon public interest than any derivable from mere beauty of landscape. Artists might admire them; but artists have as yet established no locus standi to resist the encroachments of builders or of railways upon their favourite haunts. Luckily the preservation of Wimbledon Common is almost indispensable for the interests of the volunteers. There is no body which is pinched more to the quick than the volunteers by the growing pressure of population; although in this they are only most conspicuous representatives of all those to whom air and exercise are becoming daily more valuable and more difficult to obtain. The difficulty of obtaining anything like satisfactory rifle ranges is so great, and the distances which have to be travelled in order to obtain them increase so fast, as to be a severe discouragement upon the practice of shooting. But it is also becoming difficult to obtain a fair space for drilling. A few companies may contrive to make some sort of shift in the backyards and sheds to which London volunteers are ordinarily doomed. But there is no place within a moderate distance of London where more than a battalion or two can be manoeuvred with anything like the facilities obtainable at Wimbledon. Hence any blow aimed at the common would instantaneously cripple the London volunteers. With the common would perish the only space where field-days can be held on a satisfactory scale, and the only space where the National Rifle Association could hold its meetings. Its enclosure would have the same effect upon them as the closing of their last breathing-holes would have upon fish in a frozen pond. There was, therefore, no common round London whoso integrity would be guarded with more eager jealousy; and the inhabitants of the neighbourhood are of that class who are able to make their voices heard in Parliament, and, if necessary, to provide means for a legal contest. The proposal made by Lord Spencer in the last session was therefore received with great interest, as it was avowedly, and no doubt sincerely, intended to reconcile the interests of the commoners and the lord of the manor. Wimbledon consists of about 1000 acres: of these it was proposed to sell 300, or so much of them as should be sufficient to compensate all the persons concerned, and pay the necessary expenses. The remainder of the common was to be surrounded with a fence, to be drained and reduced to the likeness of a park; a house was to be built in the centre, to be occupied by the "Protector," the name under which Lord Spencer and succeeding lords of the manor were to be the supreme rulers of this little domain. Lord Spencer, in making this proposal, undoubtedly conceived himself to be making a generous offer; but the value of his concession of course depended upon the nature of the rights which he abandoned. If it had been in his power to sell the whole, or nearly the whole common, for building land, then he would have deserved due gratitude for the generosity which secured so large a fraction for public purposes. If, on the other hand, he had no legal power to sacrifice a single acre to the builder, it was plain enough that the last state of the common, as contemplated in his scheme, was worse than the first. Now, as the commoners took the narrower view of the lord's rights, whilst i.< -: Spencer approximated more nearly to the broader, it is not surprising that they received his offer with small show of gratitude. He was, in their opinion, only granting to them a part of what was theirs already; they decidedly objected to selling any part of the common; they objected also to the proposed enclosure; they very much preferred the present wild growth of fern and gorse to the new park, with its central "protectoral" residence. They maintained that the really necessary drainage might be accomplished at a very trifling expense, which could be raised without a sale of any part of the land; and, on the whole they very decidedly requested to be let alone, except so far as measures for the preservation of the common were necessary. The committee of the House of Commons, to which the question was referred, so far adopted their views as to declare that no inclosure was desirable; and the proposal for any permanent settlement of the matter dropped through, leaving the common, for the present, in the same state as before. The committee. however, took evidence as to the state of many of the other commons round London, and proposed a general plan for securing them in their present integrity. The various complaints which were made illustrate forcibly the complication of evils which commons in these days are heirs to. Some are threatened with instant annihilation; others are gradually perishing by an insidious process of consumption; and most of them are suffering from diseases which arc rapidly spoiling their remaining charms. We may give an instance or two of the various fates with which they are threatened. It is unnecessary to go over again the story of Hampstead Heath, which has long been the object of assault, and which has been so far preserved (possibly at some expense to private interests) by the vigilance of Parliament; on the death of the present lord of the manor, his successor will probably claim a right to cut up the whole of it into building plots. Sir Thomas Wilson stated very frankly before the Committee that he should simply consider how he could best improve Hampstead Heath for his own advantage. He considered himself to have been already seriously aggrieved; the public had, in his view, no rights whatever upon the heath; and he would enter into no arrangement with regard to it. He had once intended to lay out Hampstead Heath as a recreation-ground for his own houses. Now, he said, he might, if he chose, "turn it into an Agar Town" — Agar Town being a place where cottages have been built on short leases for poor people. We express no opinion upon the grievance to which Sir Thomas Wilson conceives himself to have been subjected; but it is pretty clear that if he can establish his view of the legal rights of the question, the public hold upon one of the most delightful of London recreation grounds is, to say the least, precarious. In fact, it is only reasonable to presume that lords of manors will, as a rule, take the most extended view of their rights, and will endeavour to enforce them by all means in their power. On the assumption, however, 'that they may find their view of the matter to be erroneous, it does not at all follow that commons will escape unscathed. Commons have strong attractions for various other classes of depredators. One example will show the nature of the most flagrant evils. According to the evidence of Mr. Rose, who has some property adjoining Wandsworth Common, that common has been undergoing a rapid degradation for several years past. Thirteen years ago [i.e. c.1852] it was kept in a satisfactory state, under an arrangement similar to one still in force and still producing satisfactory results at Clapham. A certain number of the inhabitants had a lease from Lord Spencer, the lord of the manor, and kept the common in order for public use and recreation. They dug gravel at certain points, so as to make ornamental pieces of Water in the places from which it was excavated, and to allow the water from the common to drain off satisfactorily. It was then, as Clapham still is, a beautiful oasis of country scenery in the outskirts of the metropolitan wilderness. For some reason or other the lease was terminated. The common was neglected: gravel was dug at random, without any regard to its beauty or convenience; and a series of inclosures gradually came cranking in and cut "monstrous cantles" out. The irresistible powers who have been cutting and slashing the map of London according to their will, were not long in claiming their share of the spoils. Two or three railway companies in succession fell upon the devoted common, the danger of whose position may be inferred from the immediate vicinity of that mysterious station, Clapham Junction, whence, to the bewildered mind of the passengers, every railway in England seems to radiate. A space of open land was too tempting not to invite attack. The South-Western Railway seized a fragment; the Crystal Palace Railway appropriated 29 acres; and the London, Brighton, and South Coast 7 acres. Besides encroachments pure and simple, the inclosures made under Lord Spencer's authority appear to have amounted to 140 acres; of which, whatever consolation the public may derive from that fact, the greater part have been granted to charitable institutions. If our pockets are picked, it is of course gratifying to know that the money has been put into a missionary-box; and we may take some comfort in the thought that we are being ousted from our scanty supplies of green grass and fresh air by the boys of the Patriotic School. The mere diminution in area of the common is by no means the only evil. The remnant which is left to us is deteriorated. Railways and other intruders, like the Harpies, spoil the fragments of the feast which they do not touch. Thus all the public footpaths across the common, with one exception, have been stopped up. The space formerly used as a cricket-ground has become useless, and in Mr. Rose's language:
"Wandsworth Common is a morass now; it has been excavated to such an extent that the whole of the space from Nightingale-lane up the centre of the common is under water all the winter; it was under water up to the 20th of March, when I was there, and is now (April, '64) to a considerable extent; and although in the summer the water soaks away, it leaves the common in a very had state, so that it cannot be used for any purpose." As an illustration of the results of excavating gravel in a reckless way, Mr. Rose mentions that he, with two of his neighbours, took the dead body of a man out of one of the pits, which had been placed (as traps are set for elephants in Africa) in the direction of a public path, the water being at such a level that he could not reach up to the bank. Lord Spencer's agent, who appeared before the committee, did not dispute the existence of these grievances but the responsibility of Lord Spencer. He mentioned an additional evil, which results from the inability of the police to exercise authority upon the common, except in the case of an actual breach of the peace. He stated that there were loose women living upon the common who had no other home, and who insulted and annoyed people as they went about. The encroachments by which the common has been mangled appear in some cases to have been made without any sort of claim; but the commoners are disloyal enough to their feudal superior to doubt the legality even of those sanctioned by his authority. They venture to say that they consider these inclosures to be disastrous to the neighbourhood altogether, and have "a strong sense that they are done illegally, and contrary to law and justice." These misguided men will be finding fault with the British Constitution next. They entertain, however, a strong opinion that it is impossible for a poor man, or even for a rich man, having a right, successfully to contest an inclosure; and as Wandsworth is a poor parish the various inclosures have been allowed to pass without protest. It might be hoped that the abuses of which Wandsworth is a most flagrant case would be avoided in cases where the Crown is lord of the manor; it might be anticipated that its powers would be used to secure a more satisfactory state of things. If a lord of the manor prefers his own interests to the interests of the public, the public cannot be surprised. But the interests of the Crown are presumed to be those of the public. Blackheath, which is in this position, should therefore be a model common, especially as it is one of the rare breathing spaces upon which the crowded population of the East end congregates with most eagerness. It is stated that as many as 80,000 people have gone to Blackheath upon Easter Monday and Tuesday. Now the heath is stated to have very much deteriorated during the last few years. The principal causes of this are the absence of all control, and the gradual breaking up of the surface by digging for gravel. Booths and photographic vans, and other habitations of our nomad population form temporary settlements, which tend to disfigure the beauty of the heath. The Hon. C. Gore was examined upon this point, and stated that the Crown received 56/- a year from the gravel, besides II. from a photographer, 4s. 6d a-year from the Blackheath Improvement Association for certain posts and rails, and 11. a-year for a tool-shed belonging to the man who digs grave). Part of this princely revenue is raised to prevent any one from encroaching on the Crown rights; the 561. is raised at an expense, as we have seen, of serious injury to the Heath. Mr. Gore was asked whether it was not his duty, as trustee for the Crown, to see that whilst the revenue was raised the comforts of the people were not interfered with. He answers, " I do not see what right I have to forego the public revenue that is derived from Crown lands for any local purpose, however beneficial the purpose in itself may be." This enlightened policy, by which the nation at large realizes 561. annually at the expense of a permanent injury to a London common, is carried out on a nobler scale in the case of Epping. A committee of the House of Commons, in 1863, stated that there were two courses which might be followed with regard to the forestall rights: the first was to discontinue the sale of those rights, and to maintain them vigilantly without regard to cost, in order to prevent future inclosures, and preserve the forest in its wild state; the other was to obtain the sanction of Parliament for the inclosure of the forest by sale of rights, and otherwise "to secure an adequate portion for purposes of health and recreation." The committee recommended this last plan, as, in their view, the use of such rights to prevent inclosure was of questionable justice. The House of Commons, however, passed a resolution recommending that no sales of forestal rights should be made to facilitate inclosures within fifteen miles of the metropolis. The result of this resolution was singular. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests discontinued the sale of rights; but, after taking a legal opinion, they decided that it would not pay to take legal steps against encroachments already made. The pecuniary value of the rights preserved would be more than swallowed up by the law expenses; and as they look at the question as simply a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence (and, we may add, very few pounds and shillings), they declined to take any steps against encroachments. The result of the House of Commons' resolution thus appears to be, not that no further encroachments are made, but that we receive nothing for them; the rights are appropriated instead of bought. Now Epping is a beautiful open tract of country within a few miles of the most crowded part of London. These will be sufficient examples of the chief dangers by which commons in the neighbourhood of London are surrounded, and of the spirit in which they are generally met. It is scarcely necessary to dwell upon the importance of preserving these open spaces, nor to point out that those in the metropolitan district have especial claims upon us. The destruction, indeed, of commons in the country districts is one which it is not possible to contemplate with entire equanimity, attracted as we may be by the promise of increased production. We are all treading too closely upon each other's toes in this little island of ours, not to grudge the closing of any interstice which yet remains unfilled. When men inhabited little oases of cultivated land in the midst of a wilderness, the sight of uninclosed land was a vexation of spirit. The case is now reversed — we value a bit of unbroken ground as our ancestors valued a garden. In the words of Mr. Mill, in one of those eloquent passages which stand out from the philosophic calm of his ordinary writing: — [UNKNOWN PUBLICATION — header not detected. Please review.] "Elopement With A Groom. Date: Thursday, Sept. 7, 1865 Publication: The Times (London, England) Issue: 25284
ELOPEMENT WITH A GROOM At the Wandsworth court yesterday -eo* st,.ed> years, Of short stature; iiaid of very boyish appearance, was,baced in the dack before Mr. -GAAM charged withtihe a duetIon of a;oung lady, and also with robbery.,Mbprer. Hane olOictotr; of Wandsworthappeared for the prisoner.,InsVectci Loelace, v iisioii, stitel t&at at 4 c,'clock on ues ay afternoc atwo gentlemene oane to the police-statios ad informedi hira thatthey had reason to behevethedaug.Vter o one of them, the Rev. Mr. Crosse, of Ockham, Surre, was living with a young man semewiere in the neigbourhoodac& Wandsworth and.ha.d considerable prperty beloxgiuo to her father izk her possession. Witness went'to lo. 1; St.- Ann's.plsce, Love-lanet and he there found ia an upper rcom the plisoner with He youig ladyr Heasked the prisoner whether he had the property in the roborZ anl Ltaee obelieved the yoang lady handed him,, whimh her father, who had accompanied him, at ance ideutifled. Witness found apoet the prisoner a,,arse contamins 11. 2'., and in the boxhe fou)t 41. in gold. le also found in the room a4liastityof clothing, dresses, bonnets, and feuale wearing appareL lHe then tookthee,D. risoner into custodiy. — ',The Itev. Robert Croise, rector of Ockham, said his Oaaugtei's natte was Alice Caroline, and the was 20 years of ajeiu lune lest. 1he hadieen living with himauntilthe *snght, or, striv tpcakin;, the morning of the 26th ult. He nissed her frorr the house. He knew the prisoner. RelLad been groom and.general servant in his house. Ho had sent 'him away On the Thursday previously. Witness recognizedl the box antd sxticles as belonging to his daughter. To the,est of his belief- -sotbing was said in the room about the bd.uction. ie spoke to his lauglter about the elothing.,Mr. INGHAM inqiuired- whether any property was found tut what was expreasly.purohased for his dau-hter.,The wtness said that sonteof the articles were not pur. chatshedr for his5 daughter. Some of tliem belonged to her Another.,-Mr. IXGrAVr said he woouid pass oi frora that part of the case, WSlt was not necessary to go into the question of rob-,The wlitneas was then questioned with reFerenee to pro. G (rty veSted is his daughter. Ho said that on her coming,'lot ifurter rspects oln thte denat,eOth ofhr mouther anzd Mr, IieGoU inqyuirmd whether he ctoul swear tbat the drisoder was aware of that,*The -vitniess said he had no proof of the fact, but ha had teasn6 to believe that he was aware of it, because his daughter was in the habit of speaking about her prospects.,By-M.r Haynes.-His daughter hbd not stated her reason -for lIaving. He discharged the prisoner because it had * een copnrte4. that she haa bean seen in the stable with hinT. Releftt'ehouse on the 24th nlt., and tooklodginga just outside witness' property. Ho could not say at what tinie his daughter left, but it must hxvo hees before half-past 3 o7cleck in the rnorning. He discovered her missing at 7 o'clock.,In answver to further questions, the wituess said he ceiild -rt say wahether the young lady left by herself, but he had Tensota believe that she didnot. Re conl rnot see thatshe could get out of anupperwindow withoutassistance. Be found.the window of her bedroom open, and the cord of the curtain torn dowvn. The window is about 14 feet higb, and looks-out on to the Iawn. He only saw the case of his danghter's unibrclla, that had been dropped on the lawn ulnderneath the window. The ground waS too bard to leave foatmarks. He did not see anu marks of a ladeor nor any. thing fixed. to the window.,r.-. Havues sugested that she could easily have jumped from the rIndow.,Witness.-ils daughter wras slender andaactive. It was milusual for the windowto be open. Heoerrfoaunditopen before. It war so wide open tbat be Saw in a moment what had taken place. It was an iron casement windoyr, and opened like a door. The outer I domrs were not unloaked.,the housemaidn first discovered his daughter gone on enter. Iu= her bedroomn.,MArt Hn&yes.-T.th eoing away ws sVi volntay on, the Tart of your daugh-Iter?,Witesvi,- I don't knoW at ptesent.,Mr. Imasrar.-Was anything said in the prisoner's pro. sence about taking her away?,* Witness.-i did not speak to hir. Ihavc spoken to 'my daughlter on the sul'ject. I have reason toberieve that she -was in the babit of burning paper at the winwaw as a signal fortheprisonerto come to her. I tound.ashesof burnt pacer in the window.,Inspector Lovelace was reealled, a-ad he sSia tiat he took the prisoner intocustody simply for the A obbery, and that;,e rcoverdsftion tookplace with reference to the yonughad'fs expectaions. Vitness'believed bereceived the boxof jewels jima the daugliter.,Hrsit Jane Wietns, the wife of a labotuer, of, St. Ann's.> Eplace,,saM that an last Satardsy week the p is- r car e tc. haer house with his wife, as she thought. theylbothispolve,ebouttselolagngs She askedlthem whethertheyTwererma-,ain4 wife, satheylookedso4y6ttg,andweirenorelik)bot'her anadsister. Ileseli~, " Oh, ee, we are man amcl wife." They t,Ok the lodgings for- weK; hntthey remainedbeyosld that iitme. -Witness coulnhsee that she swas a perfect dTand,thobetroom togetlher Thel ay made the agreemeit and paid witness t'he rent.,Mr.T JoahnHam eltn, of Fyne-court, Somerset, said that 'ie was surmmoned by hFie brother. Witnms carefuIlys-ex amnieth window and found traes of soineperson getting eut. and the ivy was pulled down.,The Rev. Mr. Crosse saidulie noticed that the iiy wasrtezr nnderneath tle wmndow, uownwards. It was imposs-ble to put a feot on the ivy, as it was not strong aenoigh to hear the weight of a person. The ivy was torn only just at the atoP.,Mr. Hamilton, in continuation of his evidence,. saidIhe 'rxamiaed the ground nnr7erneath the window. At rIght an gles of the honuse was alowv brick aill, and by standing saponit a persox could.be assisted out of the window. He exammed the top of the wall, and he observed traces df heavwyslices or'boots havingrisbbed away the brickworl, and esldentl'thesebhaa been proaduced by somne person ulho liad stood on the wall,,Mr. IDs.A l having expressed a deseie to examline the young lady, Inspector Lovelace broughtlier upstairs into the court and placed ber ia the witness-hbax. She iSnR slight, lady-nikeyeungwonian,having irlis'h appeainee, and was,et-y snmply dressed in a small black straw hat, black silk cane, and a spotted mslin dress. She dll not exhibit any oympAdu ofnrv-latrronsness. Onlbring sworn,absetstated thit jsbe hadheen livin- with lier fathier until Tecently.,Mr. A. Taylor (the Chief Clerll.-Now- explain how yen caine t4 leave your falthe's bouse.,t> Smith. Hewasnearly tworears in y fatme s service.,giiunlt Ohcitmu,s,-a littlehbCefore, perhaps.teCnUlQR,Mr.. 155ORAa.-gOw did the iatinssp' osinsiene?,Wititcss.-By riding with bitn. Iwrant oit riding, and he accomnanied me aSR nr,Isr. X2cGfl&.-Wh -smade the frst advomlee Witsese. — I den't know eraotly.,slr. GtUM.-You can tell me tlwt.,Witnsess (sinilins ).-.. I think w e wnere sboutt eellla. M,r. Iirur.uer-Did you ever go into the etabhe s,gee the hories cleanea,d.etElt,*1 . tS IGHc a_ . . . -WhO first proposed that you should leave Wituees.- I think Ipropnsed tha. There had been a,re:rt row, and I was anlmappy; Rand Iwisbied to leave. ihcrowaaagreat roDwwhen itwasfoundout-about 3 week beefore I went away-.,Mr. Iira3s,ts.-?qow. tell me all ab ont it.,Witue s.-Iarrin,,edi6-. Rewassentawayat aminute's ~eolice. 1 sAW him en the pasage wshen he vwas leaviur, and P[ merely told l im. to comhe the niglit after to my bedroom 'window. Iusedtolightpaperinithewindow.,31r. 1NGUAly^.-What happened ontho night in question? 'W'itess.-Ye.s, directly after pa wpa vest to bed.,The Utev. Mr. Crocee (excplining).-4 wvent to bed about WittesL-T lit paper in the'window, and he canae -p rntside, I think he was in the lane. I told him I should go away. Iput my things out of the window, and then I got uut myself. Iscrambled ouit someholw, as I had no assistF ne. I think hb helped me alittle when I gotnearlvdown. I think r was slipping down, 'and be held me. blothing u irther took place, you know, exrcept that we walked toe ter t6 the station. I did not know where I was going, ntIthbuiht I was going to London. Iiroposed walking to Wevbriage station. It is s distance of about five miles and a hslf along the road. We.walked there togbther. We took a mail tr to: London, and Ipaid the fare. I don't knowrwho uald for It, as on-r imonea Vwas put together. 1 3ranl abeelt 21., and he hbad 51. 2s.. — The mnoney was put to-. Leiher -AtWeylridge. I took tlrt money.I,Mr. INGHAe,.-Yoa took his money, in fact?,'WitnleSS.-.YeS (L,o1rgiter.) We Went tO 'Waterloo Station.'thence to a cof'eehlou.e in the city, wtere we had smnie co ee. We wert to Doctor's-commons for a licence of narriage. He applied for it. We could not have it with. oct myraither'sconeent e Id Inot hear'what was said, as Iw,s nntpsesent. mRe tolda m6 tA afLrwards. We came itr'.ght. to Wandsworth. Iproposed Wandsworth, as I thought it would be more convenient. I had ofton been through Wandsworth. We took loddeugeat Mrs. Wiggins's fromin osin a card in her wiiidow. Ikiow what fortune I am entitledlto; Iinevertalkedimeich about it. Since Ibase,srirat Wandsworth ase IRn sadssol aipt i ndo the, unenee,BeFore I1lef home IterIdbim I shoujli 'hare sanmetbing, not the exact sun. ' Iwill Swear clid not tell.him the exact,.erm. To the bea of my belief I did ne * mention an.y sum, in particular. Irthought I should I have smtIgo h death .ofimvImother. Inever mentioned 'that in nhia prorence. I toldl htineishould nthve anthlting on my fistther's,eleth.Tlitwaseoew hlvolecnrDr- n4~tthinkjgpoke .of thatbheforel lefthborne. -1havea d-utaotit i,ILsve apoken abouat mV prosPect, boorlthet hbomei. Itih,Thie 11er. Mer. Crms~e..-j leave evidncoc to hrorv'that 'the V.-iway tickets. w-erepaid for. by.the prisone'r,sIr. Hi:e,v~ rnunnr handedl to hM,The .ftev. AMr. Crosse.-Thab Ire erpenihs ue,to ~Lie monod' out, ajed renraried that lire had vet tte, letoo,W'itaese.-I. hdl he-aid thirit there wvas a. Proloability of my 'Living nionoy- aLtmy fathtar's death';- bre T-c~ ~s ot If Iniatrried George. Irmight hive Said. Iabbuhl.lkot have,havea. esttf. bfy fat-bos'ris"in goodclircunestancs.1 'Re keeprs two; hioresqsandacaMige I suppoeserryfathier ist irichi =a.not very ricTr. E'dh't kneu hterte~i soner knwbat myfather had.- Ieapps6oire thoregltity fathier in ~good circumstances.'; Inever talked to himi abouti 3nt- sister..,-Bv r fe. 114ss.-It wrs iiv~ Ownl actasd deed,tha.t of Iav-ing- moe f~'9 r'a house: 0th priomr doe~s not detain,ouig~outofWimddr.Whether George was there or not, s4ould, home g~oli. I don't 3ne'w whetlier I shou1cld jvt jeft that ivenitiegif lie .hasl-noth beeethere. .IL ead rileu.de,ame iriuh o -ea~e tehe aries o~estenit as I I hould ieiv Wt2f, eorr~;hd ded. fter 12w'~aoutof the,me actogaway. whbnligout ofto thowinaon; heasked-ine if Ihiad not better stay. I said I wottlclrat'her not., Ee,akedl a policeman abiout Dootora'.eonmonB. I417d -not know muc'h about, It. Iproposed asking a policeman, and we got the informatioa frors one. The prisaoer went isside, and Iwaited outside,.,Thia bets Uteeidne hhE!.iurdwe thrthere was any bail for the prisonut.,ldr. Haynes said he lid not new, as'-tile priseier wasa, stranger. He 'wag not' likely to run away after the MR.ntstrati bail l*ouglet out the fact that t'heyonla, wais liktly to have 4 large fortune. yugld,Didir eantakn aaywithou theftehkolde,Mr~ ayne o~s~edthat the. proeridntaehe,noL InumenH. a~Ii a qe tio flw htera.p. Wasslta haer go hdeidelehere.Teqeto a,jid the fare, and esol.lk to hea h vdnee,Mr.llanisthoghtthe'word, "fraudulent" mnsaat to impl tht sme mprpermeans had beenaused to entice.,Mr.lic~ni~ sidke didl xot think it yroper tolet the prione goat arg 'wthot affiies hal.He, should reman hunto se 'wat frthe eviencewas ffered. Hze, I hoive, tougt terewasnot muh& chnefins rauning',Theo Young lady, was askedl 'uetion byr the magistrate at thle suggestien of her father. SheSdened that the prisoner ever toldl her that she 'wouila die if she remained at her fatheres house.,Iu answer to further questions she aid. thet prisoner was going-to wor-k for his brother, a farmer. lI!othinig wast said about-that until they came to Wandsworth. They talkedl,shocut how they shou d live in the winter, san hie said thaLt,he could 'work for 'his brother. She proposed that they should buy abausiess with the mousy she 'would.have, lHe ask-ea her not to touich the muoney.,rgr. -I2onAN -then cossentecl to accept two sureties InL,1004. each for the prisoner's appearanc.,The young ladv retired 'with her friends andl the prisoner was remove(i to the cella. — The bail, -two tradesmenL of, Wandsworth, were, however, soon forthcoming, and he -was ledaaw.w ly ythem in a half-fainting condition. q,Mn ITaynes madle anapplica6tion for the etoration of themoney belonging to the priioser, laut -,The XAGsrTnAT refused to make asny order at present.,It-was sta-ted that the banns of mnarriage between the prisoner and his late young mistress had keen published in Wandsworth Church. [BNA: go.gale.com/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=Newspapers&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&hitCount=1&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm¤tPosition=1&docId=GALE%7CCS151167271&docType=Article&sort=Pub+Date+Forward+Chron&contentSegment=ZTMA-MOD1&prodId=TTDA&pageNum=1&contentSet=GALE%7CCS151167271&searchId=R1&userGroupName=whl_earl&inPS=true" target="_blank">Link
[UNKNOWN PUBLICATION — header not detected. Please review.]
"Saturday, September 3, 2011
September 14, 1865 --- A Romance in Real Life
A police escort is needed to lead the bride and groom through happy, cheering crowds outside All Saints, Wandsworth. The bride is 20-year old Alice Crosse, only child of a wealthy, widowed, rector from Ockham. The groom is just that, the family groom, 18-year old George Smith.
Their romantic elopement, with Alice's midnight clamber down the ivied wall of her father's rectory and their pursuit by hired detectives, had been closely followed across England. Rev. Crosse had forbidden Alice's fancy for George without success and so the groom was sacked in August. Two nights later, they ran off to London. Turned away at the Registry Office as Alice was under age to marry without parental consent, they went to Wandsworth where George had family. The trail was not hard to follow.
George was charged with abduction and robbery. Rev. Crosse claimed the young man "systematically worked upon [Alice's] feelings to dislike her home." He accused him of lusting more for Alice's inheritance, 2600, hers at age 21. The crowded Police Court fell silent when Alice took the stand. Without nervousness, she declared her love for George. Asked who made the first advance, she answered, "We were about equal"; about the elopement, " Iproposed it"; about the flight to London, " Iarranged it." Reversing the robbery charge, she boasted of taking George's money to pay for the train. As for her father at home, Alice insisted, "Whether George was there or not, I should have gone."
The case was remanded for a week and George given bail, the young lovers managed to convince Rev. Crosse to drop the charges. Nor would he stand in the way of their marriage, once satisfied that — in his words — "Alice returned home as intact as on the day she left." The father of the bride opts not to attend the wedding, however. At their modest reception, George and Alice appear at the window to acknowledge the crowd outside. In the words of The Times: "A public scandal, which has greatly shocked well-regulated minds in the genteel classes of society, but which, after brilliant sequel, will doubtless be the theme of admiring and envious comment in many a Servant's Hall."
Their married life was short as Alice died in 1871.
Posted by Tom Hughes at 2:46 PM
[BNA: victoriancalendar.blogspot.com/2011/09/" target="_blank">Link.
Hey, we have that lovely poem (written in cockney) about this!
Where is it? HERE!
"