Wandsworth Common

In the case "Digby v. Earl Spencer," in which a question was raised as to rights of Wandsworth Common, an application was made to the Chief Clerk, Mr. Church, at the Rolls Chambers, on Friday, for time to amend. The bill of complaint was filed in January, 1868, and Earl Spencer has filed his answer, and time was required to amend. The Chief Clerk gave to the 15th January, on which an objection was made on the part of his lordship, and the matter was referred to the Master of the Rolls.

A fund is being raised to defray the costs of Mr. J. C. Buckmaster, M.A., of St. John's-hill, New Wandsworth, defending the action brought against him in connexion with his assertion of the public right of way over Wandsworth Common. Sir Charles Dilke, Bart., M.P., has subscribed £5.

Our readers may remember the great battle of Berkhampstead fought a few years ago, when the fence thrown up by the lord of the manor was levelled during the night by a detachment of navvies from London. The campaign opened by that vigorous action has been raging ever since, although transferred from the field to the courts of law, and carried on by pleading instead of pickaxes. We are glad, however, to observe that victory still adheres to the same side. The Master of the Rolls gave judgment on Friday last in favour of the rights of the commoners.

The decision in the case of Smith v. Brownlow will inspire hope in the hearts of those who, under enormous difficulties and discouragements, have been for years fighting almost alone the question of common rights.

Admirable in every way is the letter which Mr. Buckmaster has addressed to the papers in reference to Wandsworth Common. Its tone is manly, earnest, and unflinching, and the issue to which he is now sacrificing himself is simply and temperately stated.

The action raised against Mr. J. C. Buckmaster, M.A., of St. John's Hill, New Wandsworth, for breaking in the windows of a beerhouse erected at the corner of Wandsworth Common, to assert the public right to the use of the Common, and to protest against the lord of the manor (Earl Spencer) leasing the ground to builders, is still pending. A fund is being raised to defray the costs of the action, as Mr. Buckmaster acted exclusively in the public interest. Sir Charles Dilke, Bart, M.P., has subscribed £5 towards the fund.

The preservation of open spaces is a serious matter for the people. Mr. Augustus Smith, who has been successfully resisting Lord Brownlow in his attempts to enclose Great Berkhampstead Common, deserves public thanks. When Lord Brownlow's agents put up the fence, some two years ago, Mr. Smith chartered a train on the London and North Western Railway, filled it full of navvies, sent it down one night quietly to Berkhampstead, and by the morning the fence had vanished. Thereupon ensued an action at law, bravely defended by Mr. Smith, who is, fortunately, able to hold his own even against an Earl.

A letter was received from Mr. Forster, conveying Lord Spencer's permission for trees to be planted on the side of the triangular piece of water running parallel with the railway station at New Wandsworth, the trees to become the property of the lord of the manor. It is assumed that an application had been made, as though the board had been desirous for the permission, which is erroneous.

On the Richmond and Windsor branch of the London and South-Western Railway, four miles and a half from Waterloo, is a pleasant little town situated on the river Wandle, and hence known to the intelligent public as Wandsworth, formerly Wandle-worth. The crystal Wandle, as some one has termed it, rises near Croydon, and it is said it turned more mills than any stream of its length in England.

Mr. Buckmaster, after a few preliminary remarks, proceeded to speak of the lack of correctness of taste on the part of the people of this country, which was evidenced in the abominable patterns that manufacturers found it to their interest to produce. Free-hand drawing should form part of an elementary education as much as reading, writing, and arithmetic.

A letter from Mr. Richard Onslow, on behalf of the visiting justices of the Wandsworth House of Correction, complaining of the state of the roads and footpaths from Alma-terrace to Heathfield Lodge, Wandsworth Common, was referred to the surveyor.

Last evening a meeting of copyholders and freeholders was held at Lammas Hall, Battersea, to organise measures of resistance against the encroachments of the lord of the manor of Wandsworth Common (Earl Spencer). Mr. Churchwarden Buckmaster presided. It appeared that Mr. Peek, M.P., had offered to contribute £1,000, if the inhabitants of Wandsworth, Battersea, and Clapham could raise £4,000, to form a fund with which to contest at law the claims of the lords of manors to dispose of these commonable lands. It was forcibly contended that Clapham and Wandsworth were interested in this question, and the meeting pledged itself to raise £1,000 of the amount required, and appointed a committee to carry out the matter. A resolution was also agreed to expressing the appreciation the inhabitants of Battersea felt of the handsome manner in which Mr. Peek had come forward at this critical period.

On Monday a meeting was held, which was called in consequence of a requisition to Mr. J. C. Buckmaster, churchwarden, with reference to a letter from Mr. H. W. Peek, M.P., in answer to one from Mr. Buckmaster to the City Press, complaining of the encroachments upon Wandsworth Common.

John Beadle, John Croft, and James Lambert, were summoned for stealing underwood from Wimbledon Common, the property of Earl Spencer, the lord of the manor. The defence was that it had been a custom time immemorial for poor people, born and bred in the parish, to cut the underwood. One witness stated that the beadle used to go round and cry, "Oh yes! This is to give notice that you are not to cut underwood until near Michaelmas-day." The time for cutting was between Michaelmas and Lady-day. Mr. Ingham said the defendants had done an act which they had no right to do, but the question was whether Earl Spencer ought not to bring an action against them instead of taking these proceedings. The summonses were adjourned for inquiries about the custom of the crier.

At the Wandsworth police-court yesterday, three boys named Richard Ross, aged sixteen, George Jackson, fifteen, and James Dwyer, fifteen, were charged with wilfully setting fire to the stable at the Wandsworth Reformatory, Wandsworth Common, on Tuesday last. The boys were inmates of the reformatory, under orders of detention. The damage done by the fire was stated to amount to £2,500.

On Wednesday a meeting was held at Price's Lecture-hall, York-road, Battersea, to take steps for the commencement of proceedings against Earl Spencer, the lord of the manor, for enclosing several portions of the common, with a view to obtaining a decision of the Court of Chancery as to the extent and nature of the common rights possessed by the lord of the manor and the commoners.

It is not very creditable to our legislation that notwithstanding all the agitation of the past few years, the few bits of common land which still exist in the neighbourhood of the metropolis are every now and then in peril from the land greed of neighbouring landowners. Notwithstanding the Metropolitan Commons Act, Wimbledon Common is threatened, Wandsworth Common is at this moment in great peril, and even Clapham Common is not in perfect safety.

A large meeting of the inhabitants of Wandsworth was held last evening at the Spread Eagle Assembly Room, Wandsworth, to consider and adopt the best means for raising a portion of the fund required for the purpose of preserving to the public Wandsworth Common. Mr. James Bevington, J.P., occupied the chair.

H. W. Peek, Esq., M.P. — £1,000.

Samuel Sullings, a sawyer, aged 21 years, was charged with being concerned, with other persons not in custody, in wilfully damaging a wooden fence enclosing a kitchen garden belonging to Mr. John Costeker, of St. John's-hill, Wandsworth.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STANDARD. SIR, — Can Mr. Buckmaster state at what hour of the day the men who broke down Mr. Costeker's fences, on Wednesday last, began to get "disgusted and indignant"? Was it not after they had been plentifully supplied with beer at the neighbouring public-houses, and been promised a few shillings reward for their day's work, "by those who ought to have shown them a better example"? — Your faithful servant, INQUIRER.

John Costeker writes: "I pay the heavy rent of 25/- per annum for the piece of land in question, and this solely to put an end to disgusting nuisances which were constantly occurring." He describes offering the question of right of way to counsel's opinion before any enclosure, and later complying with the Board of Works' request to abide by their solicitor's finding — which was adverse to the public. He denies making a "40-foot road" and states the ground was purchased as freehold building land at its full value.

Why do not the inhabitants of Wandsworth take the common, and divide it among themselves? If the statement Mr. Buckmaster has made in the daily papers this week is correct, they have as much right to it as Earl Spencer, Mr. Costeker, jun., and Mr. Compton Smith, who coolly take what they want, aided by the magisterial complaisance of their friend, Mr. Dayman.

A poor man is now suffering six months' imprisonment with hard labour for breaking down fences on Wandsworth Common, which obstructed the use of an old-established footpath.

The sum of £1,347 12s. 3d. has been subscribed to the fund now being raised for the preservation of Wandsworth and Clapham Commons, in addition to £1,000 given for the same object by Mr. H. W. Peek, M.P. A memorial, numerously signed, has been presented to the Home Secretary, by Sir C. W. Dilke, M.P., praying for the release of Samuel Sullings, who was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, with hard labour, for breaking down fences which obstructed the use of an old footpath on Wandsworth Common.

A public meeting was held in the Boys' School, Putney, on Tuesday evening, for the purpose of co-operating with the Battersea and Wandsworth Committee in raising the £5,000 towards proceedings for preventing further appropriations of Wandsworth Common.

The opinions of Sir Roundell Palmer and Mr. Raymond, Q.C., on a case sent to them by the Wandsworth Board of Works, respecting the public right of way across Plough Green, Wandsworth Common, have been received. The learned gentlemen, judging from the evidence furnished to them, are of opinion that the public have not the right of way.

The Lord Mayor has convened a meeting for Thursday, the 14th inst., at the Mansion House, for the purpose of forwarding the efforts now being made to secure Wandsworth Common for public use and enjoyment.

Yesterday the Lord Mayor presided at a meeting held in the long parlour of the Mansion-house, to assist the local committees in their efforts to secure what remains of the Common for public use and enjoyment. There was a very full attendance, including Mr. Cowper-Temple, M.P., Professor Fawcett, M.P., Mr. Johnston, M.P., Mr. Mundella, M.P., Mr. Roger Eykyn, M.P., Mr. McArthur, M.P., Mr. E. N. Buxton, &c.

Buckmaster opened: "I find Wandsworth Common occupying pretty nearly the same space in 1833 as it did a century before, and Clapham Common, with Putney Heath, are nearly the same as when Turner painted pictures of them in 1816. And it is worthy of remark that almost all the commons and open spaces round London which have descended to us are naturally so sterile as to be unfit (except at an enormous cost) for cultivation. I wish they were equally unfit for land societies and speculating builders."

Samuel Sullings, who was imprisoned with hard labour for breaking down fences on Wandsworth Common, and subsequently released on a memorial presented to the Home Secretary by Sir C. W. Dilke M.P., was entertained by a number of his fellow-workmen at the Infant School, Battersea, on the 9th inst. Sullings appeared in a new suit of clothes, hat, and boots, which were paid for by a few friends. The workmen have made a subscription, which will be placed in the Post-office Savings Bank.

COSTEKER V. CLARK — RIGHT OF WAY. Nearly four days were occupied with the hearing of this cause, which was an action for trespass, in order to try a question as to right of way on a portion of Wandsworth Common. The counsel for the plaintiff were the Hon. G. Denman and Mr. Bush Cooper; for the defendant Mr. Montagu Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Codd, and Mr. Kenelm Digby.

Sir, — Some time ago Mr. J. C. Buckmaster broke down a few palings on Wandsworth Common, and afterwards accidentally broke the window of the "Lord of the Manor" beershop, in removing a notice for a licence. Two actions for heavy damages, one by the beershop keeper, and the other by a speculating builder, were commenced; but as the right to enclose the common and sell it for rubbish heaps could not be decided in these actions, and as the chief object appeared to be annoyance and expense to Mr. Buckmaster, his solicitor thought it better to pay the costs, which amounted to upwards of £50. I felt that Mr. Buckmaster's long and faithful services in defence of common rights ought not to subject him to any pecuniary loss, and without his knowledge or consent I commenced a subscription to defray his expenses. — I am, &c., George Bickerdike, New Wandsworth, Oct. 3.

The Board appears to be alive to the value of the commons and open spaces for public health and recreation. It is stated that a draft scheme for the management of Tooting Bec has been submitted to the Inclosure Commissioners; that the Board have memorialised the Commissioners to prepare draft schemes for the open spaces of Plumstead Common, Blackheath, and London-fields and Hackney-downs. Wandsworth, Battersea, and Wimbledon Commons have been under legal investigation, and Wormwood Scrubs and Shepherd's Bush have not escaped attention.

Mr. Montagu Chambers, Q.C., moved to set the verdict aside on the ground of misdirection by the learned judge, and also that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. The Court refused the rule on the first point, and intimated that they would speak to Lord Chief Justice Bovill respecting the question of weight of evidence.