The History of Wandsworth Common
Refresh this page
Index of years
1866 | 1868
Wandsworth Common
IN THE NEWS
1867
[BNA Search: "Wandsworth Common"]
[South London Press: "Wandsworth Common"]
[The Times: Search: "Wandsworth Common"].
[BNA: Buckmaster Battersea 1867]
[BNA: Buckmaster Wandsworth 1867]
[London Evening Standard: Buckmaster Wandsworth 1867]
London Evening Standard — Saturday 2 February 1867
WANDSWORTH, . . . e Wilson said that about eleven o'clock last night he was on duty on Wandsworth-common, when he heard the cries of a female for help. hastened to piece of water ailed the Black Sea, where he found the prisoner. She was reclining in the water with her . . .
South London Press — 30 March 1867
[BNA Search: "wonderful discovery on wandsworth common" yields a number of variations.
(Click on image to enlarge)
Pall Mall Gazette, 20 April 1867
(Click on image to enlarge)
Wandsworth Common A singularly beautiful Residential Estate known as "Fernside," with pleasure grounds and park-like land of about thirty acres in a ring fence, within five miles of the City and West-end, and a few minutes' walk from the New Wandsworth and Balham Stations of the London and Crystal Palace Railway, by which the City or Victoria Stations may be reached in a few minutes; with possession.
MESSRS. FULLER AND HORSEY are instructed to SELL by AUCTION at the MART, Tokenhouse-yard, on WEDNESDAY, June S. 1867, at Two o'clock precisely, in One Lot, the very valuable and beautiful Estate distinguished as "Fernside," with pleasure grounds and undulating park-like land, of about thirty acres, in a ring fence, delightfully situated, and commanding extended views of rich and varied scenery, and within a few minutes' walk of the New Wandsworth and Balham stations of the West London and Crystal Palace Railway, by which the City or Houses of Parliament maybe reached in a few minutes.
The Mansion, seated on high ground, is of good elevation, with a handsome stone portico to the entrance, and is approached by a private road with entrance lodge leading from Nightingale-lane and Wandsworth-common, with a carriage drive encircling the front lawn.
It contains on the ground floor a suite of reception rooms, fitted up with much taste and judgment, and comprising two elegant and lofty drawing-rooms 44 feet by 17 feet 6 inches, recently decorated by eminent artists, opening on to a stone terrace with steps descending to the lawn; morning-room 24 feet 6 inches by 20 feet communicating with the library by folding doors; breakfast-room and a noble dining-room, 35 feet 6 inches by 20 feet 6 inches, with Doric columns to form recess; vestibule and spacious outer and inner halls. On the upper floors are four principal bed-chambers and two dressing-rooms and eight secondary bed-chambers; extensive and convenient domestic offices on the basement.
In the rear of the mansion are the pleasure-grounds and lawn, ornamented with choice specimens of the cedar, and planted with a profusion of flowering shrubs and evergreens, sloping to a sheet of ornamental water, flower garden, garden with terrace walks and shrubberies, a well-stocked walled kitchen garden, with two large vineries, melon pits, &c., the whole bounded by rich undulating park- like land, belted with fine forest timber.
The stabling and farm buildings are conveniently placed at a short distance, though entirely screened from the house, and consist of four-stall and three-stall stables, two loose boxes, two double coachhouses, granary, cowhouse, piggeries, cart shed, &c., gardener's and coachman's cottages. The mansion, outbuildings, and grounds in the rear containing about 12 a. 3r. 36p. [12 acres 3 rods 36 poles], are held on lease for an unexpired term of about sixty-eight years at a ground rent of £79 17s. per annum. The remaining portion of the land, about seventeen acres in extent, is held on lease for the same term at a peppercorn.
The entire property offers numeroas advantages as a building speculation if desired, combined with a residence possessing every comfort, for a family of distinction, and which need be but little (if at all) interfered with by judicious building operations under the control of the proprietor.
May be viewed by cards only, to be had of the Auctioneers. Particulars with plans are in prepa- sation, and when ready may be had of Messrs. McLeod, Stenning, and Watney, Solicitors, London-street, Fenchurch-street; at the Mart and of Messrs. FULLER and HORSEY, 13, Billiter-street, London, E.C.
[Source: ]
— the advert was placed a numer of times in the Pall Mall Gazette, and possibly elsewhere. I have not checked it was worded in the same way, but the phrase "a singularly beautiful residential estate" appears ubiquitous.
— BNA Search: Pall Mall Gazette: "Wandsworth Common" Fernside [more refs].
South London Press — Saturday 27 April 1867
ELECTION OF VESTRYMEN . . . . St. Mary's, Battersea. meeting of the elected vestry of this parish was held at the Lammas Hall, on Easter Tuesday, at the customary hour of? a.m., the special object of the meeting being the election of church officers, and the reception of the accounts of the Burial Board.
There were present: The Vicar (in the chair), Messrs. Paine, Kempster, Purdy, Sellar, Walton, Stuart, Todd, Lord, Turner, Alder, Poupart, Acomb, and Gerrard. The minutes of the previous meeting having been confirmed, and the notice convening the meeting read, the vicar appointed John Archibald Stuart, churchwarden, and Wm. Henry Kempster, sidesman, for the next year, accompanying his nomination with a few complimentary remarks, in which he expressed his regret at the loss of Mr. Gibson. need not say anything at present respecting the late parish warden, but would simply call upon them to chose his successor.
Mr. Purdy wished to bring before the meeting, as churchwarden of the parish, gentleman whom he desired to propose, not because of any personal acquaintance with him, but because what he knew of his conduct led him to believe it his duty to propose him for election. He referred to Mr. Buckmaster. It was the wrong time of the day to make any speech, and perhaps he was the greatest stranger to Mr. Buckmaster among all those then present.
Mr. Sellar seconded the proposition, in the firm conviction that Mr. Buckmaster was thoroughly independent and a thorough reformer. When he first came into office, some six years ago, the condition of the parochial matters certainly was most deplorable. It was mainly through Mr. Buckmaster's indomitable perseverance that this dilemma was got out of at an expense of some thousands of pounds. He was sure that Mr. Buckmaster was thoroughly competent to fulfill the duties of the office, and it was therefore great pleasure to second his name.
Mr. G. P. Turner supported the proposition, quoting from a letter, written by Mr. Buckmaster to him, an expression of that gentleman's willingness to serve. Mr. Buckmaster had been a good servant of the parish, who had been in opposition to those in office constantly "trimming them. He should like now, that he might be in office, so as to give opportunity for trimming him by others. The motion was then carried without opposition, and Mr. Turner appointed sidesman.
Messrs. J oar and Nicholls were appointed auditors of the accounts; Mr. Nicholls, organist of St. Mary's (%5O), Mr. Curtis, organist of St. George's (%40); Homer and Whitehall (beadles). Messrs. Jewell, Todd, and Purdy retired from the Burial Board. Messrs. Purdy, Sellar, and Turner were appointed in their place. Mr. Alder called attention to marks in the burial ground having been removed from the grave and another substituted so as to prevent identification of graves, and some were two feet below the surface. It was stated that there was a plan by which the position of any special grave could be accurately pointed on. On the plan being produced it was found to be useless, as there was no register number kept. It was determined that such a plan should henceforth be adopted and adhered to. The accounts of the Burial Board showed a total receipt %1,062 10s. Bd. (%600 being loan from the Pelican Life Office.) The expenditure was for labour, &c, -rv. 18s " 6d *' the balance in hand bein g 12s. 2d. accounts of the Parochial Charities showed an aggregate of %78 14s. 10d., which had been distributed Bma ll gifts amongst the poor. %J Mft at P m — appointed for the election of vestrymen and auditors ofaccounts. a yeai for the premises in Cheapside occupied by him on a lease of 21 years, commencing from the expiration of the present lease.
A letter was also received from Messrs. Newton and Durbin offering %200 year for their premises on like lease. Mr. Walton begged the vestry not to deal with them, since the leases would fail duri 1872-3 The offer was declined.
Mr. Turner proposed a vote of thanks to Mr. Walton for his services as churchwarden. Though the demands on the parish had been increased the rates had not beeu increased in proportion to the demand, but rather had inverse ratio been diminished. Mr. Sellar exceedingly regretted that Mr. Walton was about to retire he had done all the secular work of the parish as if it had been his own property, and cordially agreed with the regret his health?* ' " He Eastbour would recruit his vicar (who had hoped the vote would have originated with him) expressed his sorrow at the loss Mr. Walton, who had been a most useful mm. and to whom they owed deep debt of gratitude for his kindness and activity. He had been with them long, but not too long. a churchwarden, he had served and supported the Church well, had attended duly at her services; and more than that, he had been enabled by his ability and influence to sustain the Church. He hoped that Mr. Walton's successor would follow his steps, and that Mr. Buckmaster would be similarly useful, though perhaps he could not be as useful as Mr. Walton" He regretted the loss both of active parish-officer and pleasant neighbour. prayed that Cod's blessing might rest upon Mr. Walton, and that he might be spared to live usefully through many happy years. Mr. Walton replied that in leaving Battersea he should be leaving many friends and dear associations behind him. had worked there, he believed not unsuccessfully, and hoped those who followed him would go and do likewise. He would also like to propose a vote of thanks to the overseers who had kindly assisted him. This was seconded by Mr. Alder, and carried unanimously.
Some discussion took place the reappropriation of the charities of the parish. As regards that of St. Walter and St. John, Mr. Corsellis stated that he had not as yet been able to get a copy the will: nor had Messrs. Jones and Starr, of Gray's Inn laue, though had called and written many times, given him any help to find it. Various -suggestions having been made in the course of a desultory conversation, it was decided that meeting the Charity Committee should be convened to arrange a meeting on parish matters between themselves% the trustees and the Charity Commissioners. Complaint having been made of the voluminous accounts which the auditors had to examine, and desire expressed (without result) that paid accountant should be employed to prepare a balancesheet for their guidahco, The meeting closed by vote of thanks to the chairman.
[BNA: Link]
Pall Mall Gazette — Monday 29 April 1867
BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS HART-COVENTRY — At the British Consulate. and afterwards at Trinity Church, Boulogne-sur-Mer, by the Rev. J.C. Furlong, Frances Alicia, second daughter of Colonel H. G. Hart, to Edward, second son of Millis Coventry, Esq., of Fernside, Wandsworth Common, 23rd inst.
[BNA: Link.]
NB There are numerous adverts in the Pall Mall Gazette at this time about housing development in the area. It may be worth following up.
e.g. 18 June 1868:
[BNA: Link.]
The Times, 3 July 1867
(Click on image to enlarge)
FERNSIDE — Residential Property, with possession — To be SOLD, by Private Contract, the valuable and beautiful ESTATE known as Fernside. Wandsworth-common, a few paces from Nightingale-lane, with noble Mansion, seated on high ground, replete with every accommodation for a gentleman's family surrounded by park-like land, belted with fine forest timber, walled flower and kitchen gardens, stabling for seven horses, two loose boxes, coach-house, and gardener's and coachman's cottages; in all about 30 acres. It is proposed to give a purchaser of the mansion the option of taking the whole or so much of the land as he may desire. For further particulars apply to Messrs Fuller and Horse,. 11, Billiter-square, London, E.C.
[Source: The Times, 3 July 1867]
Burntwood Lodge for sale, 3rd July 1867
(Click on image to enlarge)
MESSRs. NORTON. TIiIST, WATNEY, an.l Co. have received instructions to OFFER for SALE, at the Mart, Loudon, .in Friday. Julylft. Two (unless previously disposed of by Private Contract), tt%e LEASE of an exceedingly attractive PROPERTY. known Burntwood Lodge, delightfully situate the road leading from (Tlanhani-conmon Wimbledon and Tooting, and on the south west side of Wandsworth common. about li mile from the New Wandsworth, Lulham, and Claphaui Junction Stations of the London and Crystal Palace Railway. liy whiel the City and Wo t-end may reached half an hour, only a short drive tr.-m Claphamcommon, and miles the metropolis.
It consists of a compact residence, replete with every comfort for gentlemans establishment, ami approached carriage drive and lodge entrance. The accommodation consists of six led-chamber* and dressing icoins, three servant rooms, bath-room, drawing room 23ft. hiu. >.y 18ft. Cm., communicating with conservatory, with smoking room adjoining, dining-room, and morning-room, all opening to the ground* French window paved entrance and inner halls, with stone eta%rcase lighted a cupola, water-closets, kitchen, servants% hall, the domestic oflu and capital cellarage fei wine, beer, and coah . for fcOr hori-cs, harness-rooiii, coach-humic, with rooms ov.-r for coachman. loftK. 4c.. greenhouse, melon, aiidcucutnl- r ho%ises. fern house and fernery, delightful grounds and law ns. ornamented with luxuriant ciergre- n- and t'.owcring sbrnoa very productive kitchen gardens, the walls clothed with the choi- est fniit trees in full txaiiDg, summer house, dry gravelled shrul.herj walks, and rich paddock, the whole estate comprising about five acres.
Held upon leas- t%-i upwards of 15 years the low rent of 1501. per annum P%MF%ssion given on conipleth-n the purchase. May viewed by card*only, and particxilais hud O. E. Phllbrick, Ew; . solicitor GinllerM% Hall, 39. Basinghall street,; the Hpr-ad Eagle. Wandsworth; U*e Inns at and Putney; at the t; and, witii card* to view, of Messrs. Norton. Trist, ami < % Broad-atmet, Royal Exchange.
South London Press — 6 July 1867
(Click on image to enlarge)
South London Press, 6 July 1867
[CHECK TRANSCRIPTION..]
"The Central Board", South London Press, 6 July 1867
Earl Spencer disgusted, says he would have laid out Wandsworth Common by now [meaning parkified? Paths added etc?], had it not been for the "legal proceedings". But see the article a few days later saying no such plans had been made [South London Chronicle, 13 July 1867] .
(Click on image to enlarge)
THE CENTRAL BOARD A discussion cropped up, originating with Messrs. Todd and Turner, on the subject of the refusal of the board to allow building on a portion of Wandsworth Common (taken by the railway under their bill, and since sold by them as surplus land), on the score that, as conservators of public rights, they could not sanction any such building.
Mr. Poupart said that Lord Spencer was as much disgusted as the board at such a way of acquiring public land for building purposes. He also desired to ask whose duty it was to remove gates which closed public footpath.
Mr. Corsellis said that if the board were satisfied any public thoroughfare was interfered with, he had no doubt they would order their servants at once to take action in the matter. Mr. Sarson mentioned that some gentlemen had seen Lord Spencer's agent on the subject of Wandsworth Common, and were told it would have been laid out long ago had it not been for the legal proceedings now pending.
Whatever that decision might be, Lord Spencer desired to preserve that portion of the common, and would lay it out for the recreation of the people.
The article continues on matters of street paving and "nuisance"/defective drainage. John Buckmaster (a vestryman) is mentioned.
The Battersea Local Committee recommended that Mr. Buckmaster be informed that the watering arrangements [PB: presumably means spraying water on roads to suppress dust?] for this season having been made, his application cannot be complied with; that Russell-street, St. John's Hill Grove, and Henley-street, paved, and the cost thereof charged to the owners of property abutting thereon, the footways to be kerbed at the cost of the parish that the channel of Little Europa-place be paved, and the other portion made up, the cost thereof to be charged to the owners of property abutting thereon; that 1,000 yards of Guernsey granite be procured of Mr. Turner; and that a flusher of sewers be appointed, at the wages of not exceeding 24s. per week. They also stated that they had instructed the inspector of nuisances to take the necessary proceedings at the police-court against Mr. Ellis, the owner of houses, Lansdowne-terrace, Bridge-road, to abate the nuisance caused defective drainage there. — Approved.
[BNA:Link.]
London Evening Standard London Press, 10 July 1867
. . . chairman. Wandsworth-common. One of the South-London papers has circulated an erroneous statement respecting Wandsworth-common. We have authority for stating that Earl Spencer has not said through his agent that he had undertaken to lay out the . . .
South London Press — Saturday 13 July 1867
(Click on image to enlarge)
BATTERSEA VESTRY
Long List of Grievances. On Thursday last a meeting of the elected vestry, and such of the inhabitants as liked to attend, was convened at the Lammas Hall, Battersea, by Mr. Buckmaster, to consider:
The claims of the late churchwarden to some recognition on the part of the ratepayers.
The present state of the assessment of the parish.
Compound property (Paine's Act).
The collection and audit of the rates
Division of the parish into three districts
The charities of the parish.
The Church-rate. and matters relating to the parish church.
Rights of way, footpaths, and free docks.
The appointment and duties of the vestry clerk
Latchmere allotments.
Free libraries, baths and washhouses, and dispensaries.
Amongst those present were: Vestrymen Messrs. Buckmaster, P. Wix, Sellar, Purdy, Gerrard, G. Todd, jun., and Beauchamp. Ratepayers — Messrs J. Mickiuson, Symons, J. Allen, Slocombe, Dandy Gillott, Walsh, Bey. S. Griffiths, F. Jenkinson, Wix, sen., Broadbridge, Morris, G. N. Paine, Dobbin, Barron, Baker, Dighton, Ing, Albon, J. Denny, Chorley, Bamfield, Webster, Ayles, Digby, Nichols, W. Griffin, Barber, and Abberly.
The proceedings began by Mr. Beecham objecting to Mr. Buckmaster's election as churchwarden on the ground of illegality — six members only voting out of 13 present, whereas the Act required majority of the assembly to vote.
No quorum of the vestry assembled. After waiting nearly an hour to form one — in the meantime sundry remarks being made as to the inhabitants being treated with contempt — Mr. Buckmaster took a seat behind the piano in a corner of the room, and read an elaborate manuscript disquisition on the state of affairs.
[Is what follows Buckmaster himself talking? It reads like him. I think it must be.]
Mr. Walton, — In the first place they ought to consider the clauses of the late churchwarden to some recognition from the ratepayers. The office was never sought by him, but forced upon him when the parish was in a disturbed state. For six years he held office, devoting nearly two days week to the work of the parish, feeling the utter helplessness of anybody to do what was right without much difficulty, sacrificing the comforts of his own fireside to the claims of the parish. Now these services should be matter of consideration, and he was sorry Mr. Walton was allowed to leave the parish without some acknowledgement.
Assessment.
The present assessment of the parish was £189,546, the gross value was £232,386. For this to be just, the whole of the parish should be assessed on one uniform assessment. If he could show in the present system disregard of uniform principle, he thought he should have a strong claim to hearing. He instanced low assessment of St. John's Schools and the Freemasons, and high of an Almshouse. From this he proceeded to instance discrepancy in the rating of private property, in some cases actually adjoining. But besides actual rent, the sum paid for the lease should also be taken into consideration. They would find nearly all the wharves and railway property required reassessment. No one would say that £8,300 was a fair assessment for all the land of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway in the parish. /p>
With regard to compound property, he instanced houses, compounded for at £8 each, letting at 13s. a week, which, on the principle laid down of £1 assessment for each ls. of weekly rent, should be rated at £13. When the time came he would suggest the entire reassessment of the parish by a properly qualified individual.
Compounding.
He next alluded the Compound Act of 1845, known as Paine's Act, which laid down that small houses under £15 should be rated to the owner instead of the occupier. Within the last three years more than of these houses had been placed in compound. The sooner it was repealed the better. The inmates took no part in parish matters except through their landlords. Doing away with this would give a larger number to select vestrymen from, and prevent such a dies non as had been seen that night.
On the question of the collection and audit of rates, he said this vestry had neither system nor supervision. The collectors, in point fact, were irresponsible to the overseers; being appointed the guardians. Twice in the year the churchwardens received precepts from the guardians and the District Board, for amounts required those bodies. This year the sums were — For the guardians, £13,617; for the board. £20,151; to meet which poor-rates were made of ls. 4d. and ls. 4d. the pound. The new rate books were supposed to be ready to have the amounts entered in, and a week was ample time to do this. But the actual state things was that sometimes the books were ready, but not the receipts, or the notices. The result was that the parish accounts got so complicated, he would defy any one to understand them. Any negligence of the collector was covered by excessive rates. £6,322 were carried forward last quarter, as arrears from the last rates. The result of this way of going on, was that the magistrate had issued that day summonses against the guardians for not meeting the precept. The cost of collection was £1,200, and the losses by empties, runaways, &c, £3,000. The collection required immediate revision.
The notice papers for the April rate are hardly yet delivered. The collection of the October rate was commenced few weeks back. He also objected to the mode of book-keeping adopted. He believed two of the collectors to be quite inefficient, and objected to the plan of electing a man because his grandmother lived in the parish, or because he was too stupid or too idle to do anything else. To put end to ihe overseers jobbing away three appointments, he proposed to have these men elected by the vestry, and the appointment renewed yearly.
Auditing.
Twice year they had an audit of the poor-rates, when the auditor could disallow items that seemed to him improper, subject to the Poor-law Board. But the local rates there was no real audit, since very often they were saddled with items disallowed by the Poor-law auditor. To facilitate collection of the money and the proper management of the parish, he would propose that the parish should be divided into three districts and memorial forwarded to the Poor Law Board praying for the appointment of an auditor of local rates.
With regard to the Parochial Charities, the efforts of two committees had been unable to fathom the mystery of their management. Though the Act required certain accounts of these matters to be laid before the vestry, it was not done, nor was it done in regard to the Lammas Hall. The parish ought to insist on the law being carried out with reference to these accounts.
With regard to Bird-in-hand-court, Messrs. Debenham and Tewson were ordered to report on it, and then he had handed to him bill for £10 expenses already incurred by Messrs. Fuller and Horsey, of which the vestry clerk ought to have told him, but for which he had, yet, seen result. It would require the greatest care to see that this charity was not swindled away, or it would be swallowed up by sur- of the mode 0f d tb,i smaller charities; of one the great coats it pro-3 FehruarlT tts glVen awa November instead ke? T grera M a proper material,ho T , f — (Laughter.) He must request that the vestry clerk should return to the Charity Com-, tint i 6rS ro statement of the local benefac- IftSr t? none had Ix3oll returned of them since low. He thought the smaller charities should be amalgamated, so as to be permanently useful to a smaller number of persons.
Mr. Allen asked why Mr. Buckmaster didn't give them the whole truth of the matter, and state that Charity Commission been down there. Mr. Buckmaster stated that did not wish to burden the meeting with detail. That the commissioner came down was due to him, for he got the return he wanted moved for a parliamentary paper. He should propose that every year in November they should print proper list of the charities the parish, and forms of application, so that any who desired relief might hll i .the forms, and be supplied at their own homes with aid.
Church-rates.
With regard to these, they had no right to make one if it was illegal, and one which they could not enforce. church-rate was purely voluntary, why should they to individuals for money to which they had legal claim would make the seats the church free. the early church none such existed. By the ancieut law of England he had right to a seat in the parish church, and he had yet to learn the right of any one to traffic in news, and he had made presentment to the archdeacon on that subject. He went on to allude to the cold-heartlessness of the service, and the exclusion of the cross — (" Question ") — which without keeping Dissenters within its pale deprived the church aesthetic beauty.
Mr. Buckmaster here introduced anecdote of "The Burial of Sir John Moore," a poem that he used to repeat to his aunt [PB: Aunt? or Grandmother?] every Saturday night, and of a collier boy he heard singing a ballad — whether by Hannah More or Tom Moore, not stated.
Mr. Beecham here expressed his opinion that had heard a lot of nonsense — all sound and fury — signifying nothing.
Another hearer considered the address good sermon — in allusion of flight of oratory of the " padding description.
Several of the audience who didn't enjoy the evening made a move to their door.
Candles were brought and the reporters enjoyed a rest while twilight pervaded the room. But after time the gas was lighted and their work began again.
Rights of Way.
Mr. Buckmaster stated the Wandsworth Board of Works to be the proper authority on this. He had written to them till was tired. With regard to the enclosure Wandsworth Common, they told him it was made under the Railway Act. He pointed out to them that the railway line deviation did not include that path, and was told it was a trespass path. I thought [?] it had been repaired by order of the board. His next letter was put under the table. He then opened up the footpath himself, and asked the sanction of the ratepayers to follow the matter up. Railway Act was obtained in 1853, the line opened in 1857, but they did not try to stop up the footpath or enclose the common till 1861.
Another analagus case was that of footpath from the bridge to Nine Elms. "Oh," it was said, "the Park Commissioners stopped that when they sold the surplus land." But they could not sell what never belonged to them. Then footpath from Surrey-lane, across Mr. Paine's land into Latchmere, the District Board ought to protected against the railway company. If it could regained at any reasonable cost, it would be well expended money. The longer, too, that the disputed boundary question existed, the more it would cost to settle.
Free Wharves.
He complained that the parish only possessed throe free wharves and docks, instead of live, that formerly belonged to it; that tolls were not levied properly, and that a board respecting them, taken down two years asro to be repainted, had never been replaced.
The Vestry Clork.
The unsatisfactory relation the vestry clerk to the parish was the cause of the parish state. So long as he retained that place there would be no check, no system, in the management of parish matters. He applied to him for assistance, and was told it was no part of his duty to give it. But if was asked to do anything that could be turned into a bill, he would do it with marvellous alacrity. He was within the mark if he stated the vestry clerk received £200 year in addition to that sum received as salary. He urged that his appointment was illegal, stated that an arrangement was made by which Mr. Chadwick's friends voted for him condition he paid the former £100 year to the work; that though £60 year rent and £200 for office furniture was paid, the rate-books since 1865 were not there, and that they were travelling about all over the country — one book being just gone to Margate for the benefit of its health; that held the clerk responsible for the negligence; that the clerk undertook to do law work for costs out of pocket -
(Mr. Corsellis: "I deny it.")
- and that was the clerk's interest to have the rates in arrear, for the more he summoned the more his costs out of pocket. They had paid more law costs during the four years he had been in office than the four years preceding. There was this consolation, that he did not do the work cheaper or better than others, and therefore the vestry were relieved from the obligation of taking him. The clerk had not even mastered the boundaries of the parish. He had taught him more that night than would have learned in years. What right had he to come there tell the ratepayers he was not their servant?
He was also energetic on the subject of Latchmere allotments, when a ratepayer complained that "the Irish and Mr. Poupart's friends monopolized them."
Baths and Free Libraries.
Mr. Buckmaster should like to see established Nine Elms and free libraries, baths and washhouses, and dispensaries, which they had power under the recent Acts. In that he might perhaps opposed by persons who called themselves large ratepayers, but who really were the landlords compound property inhabited by the very class the schemes would benefit. The average rates had been 6s. 6d. ?? pound. After estimating the cost carefully, believed that if the compound houses were properly assessed, this increase would cover the cost, and that after time the baths would become self-supporting, whilst the free library might cost perhaps 1d. had shown them some things that required investigation, yet was told last year that the cause of their being only three vestry meetings last year that there was nothing to do. Out of 36 members 19 had never yet attended a meeting. When he asked one why he did not, the answer was: "Because it considered scarcely respectable to go there." (Laughter.)
At the close of the address, which was often applauded, some discussion was desired.
Mr. Buckmaster stated that he hardly thought matters ripe for that.
Mr. Turner moved vote of thanks to the chair, and suggested that the address should be printed. The meeting then broke up.
[BNA: Link]
South London Chronicle — Saturday 13 July 1867
South London Chronicle, 13 July 1867
(Click on image to enlarge)
The Parochial Critic says — One of the South London papers has circulated an erroneous statement respecting Wandsworth common. We have authority for stating that Earl Spencer has not said through his agent that he had "undertaken to lay out the common as public recreation ground on the termination of the present legal proceedings." The statement is founded upon a total misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what the agent wrote six months ago, and of what he said to two gentlemen on the common a short time since. The letter and the conversation were mixed together by a wordy member of the Wandsworth District Board of Works, and, we are informed, not very correctly reported in the local papers. A further manipulation divested it of every tittle of truth.
Wandsworth-Common If Earl Spencer's past and present dealings with Wandsworth-common to taken criteria for the future, there is every reason to fear that the termination of the "present legal proceedings" would be the signal for further encroachments, which have been going on at a scandalous rate.
Within the last two years a village has sprung on the eastern end of the common, while on a picturesque portion near "Black Sea," huge gravel pit is opening wider and wider its " ponderous jaws." the Wandsworth District Board Works have been trying to get this piece of the common for playground, with the road running parallel with the railway cutting, and very vague statement been constructed member of local board into a promise. But no promise has been given. The answer was that nothing in the of concession could be considered pending legal proceedings. It to hoped gentlemen who write short paragraphs, founded upon utterances they hear while reporting the vestries, will try to obtain information from surer sources, and so avoid the propagation of error.
[What's all this about? "Within the last two years a village has sprung on the eastern end of the common, while on a picturesque portion near the "Black Sea," a huge gravel pit is opening wider and wider its "ponderous jaws." The Wandsworth District Board Works have been trying to get this piece of the common for playground, with the road running parallel with the railway cutting, and very vague statement been constructed member of local board into a promise. "]
[The paper in question is not ours, nor was our report, might implied the above paragraph, incorrect. The speaker said, as we reported, that legal proceedings had delayed the execution of Earl Spencer's intention to drain and lay out the common for the enjoyment of the public; but that Earl Spencer was willing, irrespective of the issue of the proceedings, to carry out his former intention. — Ed.]
[BNA: Link]
South London Press, 24 August 1867
"Wandsworth Common", South London Press, 24 August 1867
(Click on image to enlarge)
WANDSWORTH COMMON This big London of ours beats hollow the famous dragon said to have been slain by St. George. The dragon only wanted to devour one maiden at distant intervals. The encroachers upon open spaces, common lands, and free air, insidiously spread their nets in such a manner that the whole public, almost without knowing why or when, find themselves ousted from the enjoyment of time-immemorial rights.
Take, for instance, Wandsworth Common. Why, it appears only the other day since were free to wander over it "our own sweet will" (Wordsworth), or, with our family in an open carriage, drive in any direction across a fine, undulating, breezy, gorsey stretch of country, which sent us back to hard work with the feeling that what are called the "London cobwebs" had been blown away, and that "Richard was himself again."
Year after year have we noticed that pleasant Common growing "small by degrees and" (not) "beautifully less." The railway companies stopped you in one direction, philanthropic institutions in another. We won't say anything of the Gaol which constitutes such a central portion of the panorama; but somehow or other one feels justified in quoting the lines of Wordsworth:
jolly place in times of old,
But something ails it now;
the place is cursed.It has a Lord of the Manor, who is also Lord of the Manor of Wimbledon, and who for the most philanthropic and public-spirited reason has a penchant for kicking old-fashioned shins and upsetting old-fashioned notions of what is right and fair as between commoners and Lords of the Manor. It is very evident from the reports we give elsewhere of the meetings at the Spread Eagle Inn, Wandsworth, and on the Common itself last night, that Earl Spencer will not be allowed to indulge in his peculiar philanthropic tendencies in the enclosing of public breathing spaces without at least a strong resistance on the part of those who think that London has a right to freshen a little way out of the big Babylon.
[BNA:Link.]
1867
[Source: BNA SEARCH "SPENCER WANDSWORTH BUCKMASTER" — p.1.]
Express (London) — Saturday 24 August 1867
THE ENCROACHMENTS ON WANDSWORTH-COMMON >Yesterday % meeting of nearly 5,000 inhabitants of the parishes of Wandsworth and Battersea was held on the piece of land lying close to Clapham Junction, in accordance with % premien made at the Spread Eagle, a few nights before, that the assembly should take place, and the destruction of the fence surrounding a portion of the common enclosed by the Brighton Railway Company, signalise its gathering. Earl Spencer learning this, applied to Sir Richard Mayne for a body of mounted police to be on the spot to cheek any damage. The request was granted.
The railway company appeared also to have prepared resistance to any aggression, for % suspicions number of "navvies" stood is knots among and in the outskirts of the crowd apparently ready for saner. gency. The proceedings commenced with an address from Mr. J.C. Buckmaster, churchwarden of Battersea, who implored all present to abstain from any act of violence. AM they had now to do was to protest against cruelty and injustice.
Up to 1831 there had been no encroachment for generations. How, they were told they had "no right whatever on the Common," though the House of Commons had said otherwise. If they were trespassers, why didn't Lord Spencer order them off, and punish them for being there When they saw the Common taken away without reasons assigned and a hurled before them, " This land to be let on building it wee time to take action. It was no secret th a t be meant to have that board down. He appealed to those present to abstain from violence that night, since it might endanger future gnomes. Tsent two or three gentlemen hail arranged privately to break down the femme, and so assert their righter, fortified in the act by the expression of public opinion there manifested.
The following resolution was carried unanimously: "That this meeting regards with ethernet morrow and regret the enclosures which have taken place on Wandsworth-common, and urges the committee appointed for its preservation to take every step to restore the privileges which the public have enjoyed from time immemorial"
Cheers were then heartily given for Mr. Buckmaster, Mr. Rose, and the committee, with groans for Lord Spencer. The people did not immediately disperse, but stood about in groups on the Common till late in the evening.
STRIKE OF AGRICULTURAL LABOURER&
Yesterday 200 soldiers of various regiments stationed at the Colchester barracks were dmughted off to harvest work, in accordance with the recently-issued regulation. This is partly owing to the difficulty felt by the farmers in inducing the labourers to remain at work at the usual rate of pay, and because of a strike amongst those who attend to the stearn.threshing machines. The farmers were obliged to send theirordinary labourers to the machine, but they too objected unless they received extra pay. The consequence is, nearlyall the steam threshers inthe vicinity have refused to work, and roost of the machines are now lying completely idle. The disaffected labourers refuse also to work with the military, because they say that the remuneration paid to the soldiers is nothing but % little beer. The farm labourers of Essex are talking of organising. There an abundant crop of wheat and other cereals; and notwithstanding the drawbacks connected with the recent unfavourable weather, the greater portion of the "golden grain" would and no doubt will have been secured within a few days.
[BNA: Link.]
London Daily News — Saturday 24 August 1867
THE ENCROACHMENTS ON WANDSWORTH-COMMON Yesterday a meeting of nearly 5,000 inhabitants of the parishes of Wandsworth and Battersea was held on the piece of land lying close to Clapham Junction, in accordance with a proenise made at the Spread Eagle, a few nights before, that the assembly should take place, and the destruction of the fence surrounding a portion of the common enclosed by the Brighton Railway Company, signalise its gathering.
Earl Spencer learning this, applied to Sir Richard Mayne for a body of mounted police to be on the spot to cheek any damage. The request was granted. The railway company appeared also to have prepared resistance to any aggression, for a suspicious number of "navvies" stood in knots among and in the out. skits of the crowd apparently ready for emergency.
The proceedings commenced with an address from Mr. J.C. Buckmaster, churchwarden of Battersea, who implored all present to abstain from any act of violence. All they had now to do was to protest against cruelty and injustice. Up to 1881 there had been no encroachment for generations. Now, theywere told they had "no right whatever on the Common," though the House of Commons had said otherwise.
If they were trespassers, why didn't Lord Spencer order them off, and punish them for being thecr? When they saw the Common taken away without reasons assigned and a huge herd [??] before them, "This land to be let on building leases, " it was time to take action. It was no secret that he meant to have that board down. He appealed to those present to abstain from violence that night, since it might enidanger future success. Two or three gentlemen had arranged privately to break down the fence, and so assert their rights, fortified in the act by the expression of public opinion there manifested. The following resolution was carried unanimously:
"That this meeting regards with extreme sorrow and regret the enclosures which have taken place on Wandsworth-comnmon, and urges the committee appointed for its preservation to take every stop to restore the privileges which the public have enjoyed from time immemorial."
Cheers were then heartily given for Mr. Buckmaster, Mr. Rose, and the committee, with groans for Lord Spencer.
The people did not immediately disperse, but stood about in groups on the Common till late in the evening.
[BNA: Link.]
South London Press — Saturday 24 August 1867
[p5]
"SAVE WANDSWORTH COMMON!"
Public Meeting With this despairing cry — probably founded on the daily stimulant administered to the Crusaders at sunrise, "Save the Holy Sepulchre" — the inhabitants of Wandsworth, or a portion of them, called on their long-suffering fellows to publicly protest against the system which has of late gradually sapped the outworks of the old pleasaunce by ye Wandle, " and bids fair to imperil it, even more than the breezy heath of Hampstead. The meeting was convened in the large room of the Spread Eagle Inn, which shortly after the time appointed was crowded by the gathering of inhabitants. The chair was taken by the Rev. E.W T. Chave, D.D., vicar of Wandsworth, who was supported on the platform by Messrs. J.C. Buckmaster, Rose, Wallis, Lawrence, Turner, Hole and other gentlemen.
The meeting was enthusiastic its reception of the speakers, and of the "levelling sentiments they expressed. The chairman believed the subject of consideration did not need his advocacy, though it was one which he took a deep interest, for he should be sorry to see the right of enjoying the fresh air assailed. Unless active measures wero taken all the open spaces round London would be swallowed up, and the childreu deprived of the fresh air; which, as it was, they too seldom enjoyed. He would not detain them, but would at once call on the gentlemen who had promoted the gathering to detail the steps they had taken, and what must be done to secure the common in future.
Mr. Wallis mentioned that the Lord Mayor was prevented by dining with the judges from being present at that time, but hoped joining them later in the evening to show his sympathy with the effort. (Applause.)
Mr. Parsons thought himself entitled to make a few observations on a subject which had employed him 20 years. He never dreamed that his grain of mustard seed would be ripened into so strong a shoot, with Parliamentary Committees giving their attention to it, and the merchants of the City coming forward with such munificent aid.
Part of the Common of Wandsworth, at Tibbett's Corner, was enclosed by Earl Spencer, but was subject both to right of "tubbery" [i.e. turbary - right to cut peat for fue] as well as pasturage. By the evidence of his deputy steward before the committee, appeared that Earl Spencer claimed power to enclose the land. However, he paid the parish of Battersea a year rent, till it was sold to its present proprietor, when the parish of Battersea, having no money to go to law, let the matter drop. What they ought to have done, was to have done what he had — gone with an axe and cut down the enclosure. (Applause.)
Mr. Beaumont was now one of the richest proprietors in the kingdom, partly through that very enclosure. The committee before them that night aimed to preserve these rights, and only needed support cany out the objects desired. those who spoiled the people of their land and air commit moral crime? Land without the population was of value. They had exercised their right of going over the Common, and it belonged to them. The meaning of the Act of Merton was simply that the Lord of the Manor, if very poor, enclose a portion to keep up his dignity. If a man stole a loaf, to stay his hunger, from a shop he was called thief, and punished by the law! But here was an individual who "walked away" with hundreds and thousands of pounds worth of property with impunity. (Hisses.)
Did da t °-u ß as he had served Wandsworth Common? No. (Applause.) They had a right to cut timber there. His grandfather had sent him to cut wood there, and told him, Well, done, boy. This wood warms you twice warms you when you cut it, and warms you when you burn it." He would warm the first encroacher with such a turn at the machine in the centre of the common — (laughter) — as should render him an counter 6Very L the Manor
Mr. J.C. Buckmaster, M.A., was not going to discuss the rights the Lord of the Manor but simply to state that he took a great interest in the preservation of open spaces, which he believed tended to influence the people morally. It was necessary to preserve these places for the purposes of recreation and health for the public, and if so 15 years ago it was much more important now fifteen years he could walk over any part of Wandsworth Common without let or hindrance; now, only a small portion of open Common space was left, and that he desired to preserve. He thought it a monstrous thing the enclosure of these Commons should go on without any right to do so being shown by the parties enclosing.
He could recollect the time when they could walk round the Black Sea — (hear, hear) — and also when a gentleman obtained permission of the Court Leet to enclose 10 acres on the north side of the Black Sea. on condition that the public should walk round it when they liked. Now that had fallen into desuetude, and he believed grand plans for building thereon had been sanctioned by the Board of Works, who had given no assistance in preserving the Common or its footpaths.
Another part on grand scale given up by the Court Leet, similarly, was covered by stucco and fine sites for builders. Then there was the Telescope enclosure, given up for seven years. Nobody objected to the temporary use for scientific purposes, but there it was now, still enclosed. The enclosure of the St. James's School and the Patriotic School made gentlemen open their eyes for they saw then the direction of these movements. was surprised at the apathy of the copyholder- but still more important were the rights of the freeholders. He should be very ready to co-operate — not in a spiteful, litigious way but fairly, and in a friendly spirit — in any endeavour to ascertain the rights of the Lord of the Manor by an appeal to law. When it was first mooted that a piece of the Common should be given up for the purposes of a cemetery, he called upon the late Lord Spencer, who assured him that he thought enclosure had gone far enough, and no more should be enclosed. But since that time more than 50 acres had been enclosed.
Most of them recollected the large piece that had been appropriated by the railway company. He looked at its fence with friendly eye, and applied to the Board of Works who informed him that it was enclosed under the Act of Parliament that sanctioned the construction of the railway: and on a second letter, that "it was included in the line of deviation." He assured them that it was not, and requested them to obtain tracing. asked the board, then, to preserve footpath that was taken away; but they replied, '"Tisn't a footpath " — (laughter) — but a "trespasspath." He then asked them to point out the difference, but the exceedingly clever men at the board got very angry, and sent him a polite letter from their clerk stating that he might try the question himself. So he went and broke down the railway fence in presence of the railway authorities — (applause) — and wrote to the local board, asking them to maintain the right. No proceedings were taken against him, and he had broken down the fence again and again.
A footpath had been defined as " the right of going from one place to another for 20 years, " and on that judicial definition he was prepared to try the question. Moreover, the board had once ordered their surveyor to repair this at the public expense. While Clapham Common had not been touched owing to the wealthy persons around it, Wandsworth Common was cut up in every direction. The district board ought to have preserved the footpaths. Why had they not? A good many were copyholders, who naturally desired not to offend the Lord of the Manor; then another gentleman liked to lay down the law on the subject, and the clerk nodded his head that being the easiest way of getting out of a difficulty. Others of the gentlemen were from Clapham "or elsewhere, and cared nothing about Wandsworth. only knew that he had seen piece after piece of the Common enclosed and as he told the railway, the right of any party to enclose portion of the Common ought to be as indisputable as their title to a carriage. For four years after their line was made, the company never enclosed this piece of ground. Now there was a large carriageway to be constructed across the Common probably sanctioned on the principle, " Don't interfere with my business, and I'll let yours alone." He had seen working men, with their wives and children, get out of the train and have a little picnic on the breezy Common, under the pleasant shadow of the trees, and go home all the happier and better for it.' Would health and morals be improved by the place being covered with houses, and "public" stuck at every street corner? He appealed for the moral influence and support of all, and for the assistance in the fighting out of the matter, of the wealthier. He hoped this would be but the prelude to larger meetings; and that they would meet on the Common and take some practical steps to preserve what they believed to be their rights. (Applause.)
Mr. Lawrence, as one who had been present the Committee of the House of Commons iv 18U5, said that Mr. Foster stated there that Earl Spencer had received suggestions from people in the neighbourhood for the enclosure of the common, and except a protest from Mr. Rose, there appeared no strong feeling against the enclosure of Wandsworth Common. In the last 20 years 140 acres had enclosed the sum of £15,000, received by Lord Spencer. The Common originally consisted of 300 acres; so, at the present rate, a score more years would take the rest away. (Laughter). The old rural life was now dead in the suburbs, and the local organization of the olden time called "the Homage" that attended to the lopping gorse, or pollards, or the use of pasturage, and watched these rights jealously for the village-folk. But now these interests were gone and there was common-life, whilst the scene of local interests was shifted to the City. There was, therefore, no ono to take theso rights for the inhabitants. the Lord of the Manor wished to enclose, he did so, and stood his chance of action. Thus if they were rightly advised, Earl Spencer had gained £15, 000, to which he was not entitled, from the Common. The only thing was for the inhabitants to revive the old "homage," as organization to preserve the public rights. It was not to be done by sitting still; and if such a committee had been organized 20 years back, the Common would not have been treated as it was. A committee would havo to be formed, and its members would have to give a portion of their time, and must be assisted with money in order to retrieve the errors of past neirlitr „ J m. " not believe the Lord of the Manor 1.2 these matters, for b P he had been obliged to give way ma^eTbTthe d ed t0 See ' litt]e affa They Wandsworth people in their own not earned??, Und 1U Earl one who had conn?™lf tUle 0r his wealth by services his WaS neither a warrior, nor great seaman, nor a great statesman, nor a wise juage — a mau endowed by Providence with almost unparalleled wealth, noble library, and all that lortune of birth could bestow. God and his country demanded of such a man that instead of being curse to his neighbours he should be a benefit and a blessing. He had been face to face with Earl Spencer and detailed the wrongs he had done; and was entitled to do so now, that redress might procured. The lord had the right to dig turf, to dig gravel, to pasture beasts upon the Common; but had no right to seek to pocket the price of its fee. As a man, and a nobleman he should have shown himself grateful to God for the blessings showered upon him and not commit "crimes he committed daily " He would compare him with Mr. Bowyer who renewed his half of the lease of Clapham Common
[p6]
whilst Earl Spencer would not do so, "because he had been so treated at Wandsworth.” St. James's parish wanted a school for its pauper children: leave was was granted them to build on the Common. As soon as their 20 years' title was expired, they would be off to some other spot, and sell the old for building ground. The Brighton Railway had enclosed 12 acres of land, which were not their plan of deviation, and Mr. Buckmaster had broken down the palings there five times. As a lawyer, he told me that fence was utterly illegal, and they had every right to destroy it. He also mentioned that the sale of the land was concealed as carefully as could be, so that the inhabitants of the locality might not know about it. it might be there was no sale whatever, and that it was only the nominee of the Brighton Railway, who was enclosing and building on the land. He didn't understand how a man who failed three years ago in Chelsea, could buy up Wandsworth Common. (Applause and laughter.) He had a map in his hand, which showed the pieces of Common that had been taken marked black. He had shown that to Lord Spencer, who, with his agent, said he knew nothing about it, he supposed those parts still belonged to them. (Laughter.) He could not understand why the Board of Works constantly answered they had nothing to do with the Common. He saw daily, men going two miles to get to their work, when there used to be eight or nine footpaths they might have used. Well, Earl Spencer had the right to dig turf and gravel and pasture. had dug gravel till the whole was undermined, and the soil was a morass; had pastured there till there RM nothing left for cattle to eat, and cut turf till there was no turf left. Now to three millions of people more than all Scotland held — dwelling one great city, breathing and imbibing noxious vapours and exhalations from each other's bodies, pure air was of vital necessity; and open, breezy commons were the finest manufactory for pure air ever created. This was not a rich man's question, but a poor man's. The merchant might go farther afield as houses were reared arouud him; the labourer must live by the spot where he gained his bread. Abroad, any public authority would have protected and manured the grove trees on the Common. Here, excavations were being made under them, and actually under the footpath! He had written to the Board of Works about it. That body simply replied that they had nothing to do with it, though the duties of the highway boards had been transferred to them, and they were the conservators of the public rights.
He had told Lord Spencer the pieces of water were being made into a foetid nuisance, the receptacle of the filth of the district, instead of health giver — a source of disease death. It was a fact that one good lady at Clapham had kindly sent three carts of night soil to throw in there! The only way of preventing these encroachments was to break down the fence. He would be one to do it — (applause)-. — and would subscribe £50 to keep it down. (Applause.) Lord Spencer found there was this determination in the minds of the people, he would give way, for he was a coward at heart. He had gone himself to law with the railway company, and promised if he beat them to dedicate what was recovered to public use. There was no time to lose. One tree to which ho referred had fallen that week, and the others would soon follow if immediate action was not taken. Mr. Rose resuming his seat three cheers were given for him with right good will, and resolution passed to the effect that the condition of the Common required the earnest attention of the inhabitants to prevent further encroachment, and to improve the condition of such portion as yet remained; also appointing as a committee to take such steps as they might think advisable, Messrs. Wallis, Buckmaster, Rose, Turner, and Lawrence.
Mr. Bevington had seen with regret the enclosure that had taken place. Some years back a local committee had taken counsel's opinion which was then adverse to them. Since then, however, Act had been obtained that gave greater power to inhabitants to protect their rights. He moved that the committee be requested to invite subscriptions to form fund for the carrying out the first resolution.
Mr. Wallis seconded this, believing they had met for the common good. also mentioned that the meeting had been called through a chance remark by him to the effect that it was a pity the Common should be so cut up. He was delighted to see such meeting, and at the hearty reception given the views propounded.
An inhabitant asked when the meeting might be expected.
Mr. Buckmaster said that for several reasons he desired it on the Common — In the enclosure "] — (applause) — [" Cut the fence down first"] He then proposed a vote of thanks to the chairman, which Mr. seconded, and which was cordially acknowledged by Dr. Chave, who observed that he felt himself called on to identify himself with any legitimate, and proper movement of the parishioners. They had gone with the speakers that night and must go a little further. Unity was strength. such a cause, he thought there could be no difference of opinion. was absolutely necessary to keep up these Sanatoriums he would call them. Take away the outlets from the people, and where are they to go for fresh air? Take away their air, you take away their vitality — their lives! (Applause.) The meeting then broke up.
[BNA: Link.]
[BNA: Link.]
South London Press — Saturday 31 August 1867
WANDSWORTH DISTRICT BOARD OF WORKS. This body met on Wednesday last at their offices. Present: Messrs. Meaden (in the chair), Carter, Sarson, Rolls, Gaitskell, Dagnall, Purdy, Riches, Loat, Barringer, Bemish, Lacey. Watlin, Young, Hewett, Turner, Poupart, Selwood, Clarke, Silvester, Clayton, Greenwood, Langton, G. Todd, C.W. Todd, Osborne.
HEALTH OF THE DISTRICT.
Battersea. — Births 50, deaths 47. No remarks. Clapham. — Births 35, deaths 17. The weekly average being now 8.15, the health of the district was good, though some epidemic disease prevailed. Streatham. — Births 13, deaths 3. General health good, and zymotic disease rare.
Wandsworth. — Births 26, deaths 11. Health of the district continued very satisfactory; as indicated by the continued lowness of the mortality, the absence of any deaths from epidemic disease, and the character and amount of sickness prevalent amongst the parochial poor. letters were received From the Commissioner of Police, calling attention to a nuisance Chapel-place, York-road, Battersea; from Mr. F. Whitaker, requesting the erection of lamp in Cross-street, Battersea; from Mr. J. Blackmore, expressing surprise at any complaints of the state of the roads in Wimbledon Park after his sower work there; from Messrs. Few and Co., relative to the proceedings instituted by Messrs. Clark and Sons for compensation for damages done to them by the construction of new sewers Clapham, and requesting the amount of compensation and costs to be paid at early date; from Mr. Reed, Atkin's-road, Clapham, complaining of negligence of the dust contractor; from Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton, ou behalf of the Brighton Railway Company, stating that the company's contractor had instructions as to what roads the company were liable to repair, and that if Streatham Church road was one, the work would bo done.
Twelve tenders were received for sewer work at Putney. The highest was that of Mr. Blackmore ( £1,650), the lowest that of Mr. Thackrah ( £050). The latter's was accepted. the battersea local committee recommended That the clerk be requested to give his opinion as to whether the board are liable, the matter of Mr. Holland's claim for compensation for using party wall, &c, in the erection of the cottage at the stone yard. That the attention of the Metropolitan Board of Works be called to the serious nuisance arising from the ventilators of the main sewers. That the apportionment of the cost of paving Russell-*street, Henley-street, St. John's Hill Grove, and Little Europa-place, as accompanying the report, be approved, and that Mr. George Nichols collect the amounts. That the clerk be instructed to take the necessary legal proceedings immediately against the liquidators of the West London Wharves and Warehouses Company, to compel them to reinstate the bridge in the Lower Wandsworth-road. That a sewer be constructed Landseer-street, and the cost thereof charged to the owners of property abutting thereon, and that the surveyor be instructed to prepare a plan and section thereof for the approval of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The whole of the recommendations were adopted. The committee further stated that they have instructed the inspector of nuisances to take proceedings at the police-court against William Hexell alias Crisp, of Ashley's-buildings, Battersea, for offering fish for sale on the 9th inst., the same being unfit for human food, and in future to take immediate proceedings at the police-court against any persons whom he may detect offering food for sale, which the medical officer of health may pronounce to be unfit for human food.
The inspector of nuisances reported that he has inspected houses, all of which are now drained into sewers, and are clean and well supplied with water; also that he has served nine notices, and that 14 nuisances have been abated.
Letters were received from the superintending architect of the Metropolitan Board of Works with reference to Mr. Eedwood's shop front in Orchardstreet, Wandsworth, stating that such a shop front is permitted by the 26th section of the Building Act, and that such law is usually carried out under the supervision of the district surveyor, in cases where no interference with the powers of the street authorities is likely to arise, and that the proposal of Mr. Redwood, which was refused by such board, related to a larger projection. The like, inviting suggestions, with reference to an application by Mr. Thomas Cocks, for permission to erect a one-storey addition front house adjoining Pilgrim Cottage, York-road, Wandsworth. the like, stating that such board have approved of Messrs. Drew's plan for the formation ot a continuation of Leigham Valley, and of three new roads (40 feet wide) adjoining Leigham Court-road, Streatham.
WANDSWORTH COMMON.
The following letters were received on this subject:
" The Elms. Wandsworth Common.
" Sir, — I have been served with notice that the roads by and across the Black Sea contemplated the parish are illegal. It certainly seems to me an unwarrantable expenditure of the parish funds. — Dear sir, yours truly, 'Chas. Lambert.
[To] "A. A. Corsellis, Esq."
" 11, Salisbury-street, Strand, London, lir ~ T 23rd August, 1867. Gentlemen, — l informed that the Wandsworth District Board of Works have agreed the destruction of the ornamental water called the Black Sea, on Wandsworth Common: 'and to make or and making roads to facilitate the enclosure and building on Wandsworth Common Earl Spencer. I hereby give you notice that any such expenditure on the part of the board is utterly unwarrantable, and is, I believe, illegal; and that I shall oppose by every means in my power, by legal proceedings or otherwise, any such expenditure by the board .
I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant,
J. Anderson Rose
" The District Board of Works."
" 11, Salisbury-street, Strand, London, " 23rd August, 18(57. "Dear sir, believe I am entitled under the Local Management Act to inspect and take a copy of the minutes of the board. " I understand the board has passed a resolution with reference to the Black Sea on Wandsworth Common, and it would be a convenience to me, and save the trouble of my personal attendance, if you would allow your clerk to send me a copy of the resolution of the board, for which I shall be happy to pay any charge.
I am, dear sir, yours truly,
J.A. Rose
[to] Mr. A. A. Corsellis, Clerk to District Board.
A long letter was also received from Mr. Buckmaster. In it he stated that he was directed by the committee for the Preservation of Commons and Open Spaces to inquire if the board intended to take any steps to preserve the footpaths on Wandsworth Common — especially the footpaths taken away by the Brighton Railway Company, and the one referred to by Mr. Corsellis in a case drawn up by him to be submitted for counsels' opinion, as having been used without interruption for years
- (Mr. Corsellis: "I may say that is incorrect") — and if the board did not intend to do so, if they would kindly inform him of their reasons for non-interference. He begged also to direct the attention of the board to the destruction an elm tree near Battersea cemetery, and asked, conclusion, that the board would allow the committee to meet the offices of the board occasionally, in order to avoid the expenses of meeting at a public-house.
The Chairman: The first letters are with regard to the road. I suppose our clerk can say whether or not we have legal right to make that road.
Mr. Purdy thought that as it was usual for holders of private property to make their own roads, they ought to have any departure from the ordinary custom brought prominently forward on the agenda paper and properly investigated.
Mr. Dagnall remarked that the board had already agreed that the road should be formed. [At the previous meeting it was resolved, "That the Battersea and Wandsworth surveyors be instructed to prepare an estimate of the cost of the proposed new road across Wandsworth Common, and to report as to the relative lengths abutting upon private property and the Common in each parish."]
Mr. Meaden apprehended that no mischief could occur by waiting till the full report was ready, which would state the exact length abutting on private property. He thought every one would highly approve making a good road. The only thing was that in the minds of some persons there existed an impression that there were reasons yet behind the scenes why this road should not be constructed. The only notice the board had the matter was the desire to act for the public good, and no more could be done if the Common was the hands of the Metropolitan Board. If any member desired to oppose the construction of this road, he could call a special meeting of the board.
Mr. Turner desired to give notice of special motion to be taken into consideration at the next meeting of the board — "That the condition of Wandsworth Common be taken into consideration by this board " — as there had been a good deal of discussion on the matter out of doors — " with a view of ascertaining whether this board has any power, aud, if any, what power, to preserve the Common."
Mr. Dagnall: Better let it alone, for we have the promise of Lord Spencer that it shall be appropriated to public recreation.
Mr. Sarson: Lord Spencer wants to help the parish, and the parish won't let him.
Mr. Turner: It's said outside there's no member of the board who takes any interest in the matter.
The Chairman: I believe every member of this board is as anxious as any one can be out of doors to preserve our open spaces, if possible, but I fear our powers are limited. When the discussion comes on we shall know exactly what they are. I know what the feeling of the Metropolitan Board is in this matter. I have tried to find out what reason those members who oppose the making of this road have for opposing it, and I should like to ask Mr. Turner what it is that he wants done.
Mr. Turner: If you ask me, I don't want anything done at all.
Mr. Gaitskell observed that the board had a meeting about a month ago on the very same subject. It appeared now that the surveyors for Battersea and Wandsworth were instructed to prepare estimates of the cost of the proposed road across Wandsworth Common, and to report as to the relative lengths abutting on private property was given to understand that the property belonged to Earl Spencer, who had conveyed his interest in it to the board, and considered that the only thing that remained to be done by the board was formally to adopt the surveyor's estimates.
Mr. Meaden observed that it was meant to indicate on the plan private property as distinguishable from common land, which had not yet been done. He advised the board to go on the right way, and take no notice of what was said outside.
Mr. Sarson remarked that if Lord Spencer had been paid £1,000 for the land, it would have been all right. He hoped that as Lord Spencer had signed deed of gift The Clerk: It's not deed of gift. It's a deed of dedication.
Mr. Sarson: Well, then, a deed of dedication. I hope it will be returned to him in common honesty, if the road is not made. The clerk said that the matter was still incomplete, as Earl Spencer had not signed the plan of the proposed road.
DRAINAGE EXTRAORDINARY >Mr. Loat complained of the excessive depth of a main sewer that ran across Clapham Common. It lay so deep that it put those who had houses near it to enormous charges. Mr. Irving had to pay £i > for the simple connection of his house drainage with the main sewer. The chairman suggested that four or five neighbouring residents should conjointly lay down a subsidiary drain to take the drainage off all their houses, having only one connection with the main sewer.
Referring to Mr. Buckmaster's letter afterwards, he observed that there were three points in that letter for reference — the footpath, the elm tree, and the committee room.
Mr. Poupart contended that the track referred to by Mr. Buckmaster never was a footpath. When the South-Western Company went across the Common long before the Brighton Railway was made, there was a footpath across by the Plough, near where the elm tree was now destroyed.
On the railway taking away that path, the parish insisted on a footbridge being made the company, and one was made near the Freemasons' Schools.
When the Brighton Railway Company came afterwards, they paid the parish as compensation, and entered into an arrangement with it to keep the arches and bridges in repair. the footpath they took was the one tlme went across from Wandsworth to Nightingale-lane.
Those were the only two recognized footpaths.
There was also a track by the Plough towards the Freemasons' Almshouses [PB: Almshouses?], but it never was recognized. Those to which he referred were the only two shown upon any maps. With regard to a path referred to as having been mended at the expense of the board, he would mention that when the board met at Bonnerville-road [?], many members got out at the New Wandsworth Station, the nearest way from which was by track across the Common, and that being in a bad state, requested the surveyor to lay a little gravel on it to make it a little cleaner.
Mr. Dagnall corroborated this statement.
Mr. G. Todd remarked that he had spoken to Sir Charles Forbes respecting it, and he said it was merely a beaten track, and not a footpath at all. He remembered when first it was made. The subject of the preservation of open spaces, more particularly that of Wandsworth Common, was dear to all. Many gentlemen then present had a great stake in the neighbourhood, and it was manifestly to their own personal advantage, even if they were actuated by no more praiseworthy motive, to seek to preserve such open spaces. What they wished to do, however, was to act as the board desired to do — legally, honestly, fairly The chairman reminded the speaker that the subject was simply one of the footpath.
Mr. G. Todd said that the question had been discussed often, and invariably it had been decided that the footpath was not public, and that therefore the board had no right to interfere all in the matter.
Mr. Turner had known the place 10 years, and certainly there was footpath there on which he could walk. All he would say was this:It is very desirable that the board should ascertain what is a footpath. If have any power to preserve that footpath, by all means let them preserve it full force.
Mr. Meaden remarked that many years ago persons were very anxious respecting the Putney Park-lane question. It was told the board over and over again that they ought to press the question. They did so. It cost immense deal of money, and they found to their cost that the mere fact of a path being made and used for a term of years did not establish right. The Battersea Local Committee had decided this was not a public path. Should the board be justified in going to law on a question, compared to which that respecting the Park-lane at Putney was clear?
Mr. C.W. Todd: Supposing they gained their point, and found it was a parish footpath; if they tried to use it, they'd find themselves walking into the company's coal bunks. It leads nowhere.
Mr. George Todd hoped that if the board interfered at all, it would be to take the Common upon a lease the same as that at Streatham. It seemed to him a very simple matter to do so.
Mr. Poupart asked whether the board had not already passed resolution in regard to Mr. Buckmaster's correspondence?
Mr. Sarson was quite willing to give up a portion of his time for the public good, but certainly demurred at having it frittered away by useless repetition of the same discussion. The subject had been carefully gone into, and so satisfied were the board in their own minds that they had no power whatever to interfere, that, his opinion, all that it was necessary to do, would be to refer Mr. Buckmaster to the former communication of the board. As to entering into any wildgoose scheme for no purpose and no end, he never would endorse such a step.
Mr. Turner: Have the board ever had any legal opinion on the subject besides the clerks?
The Chairman: Well, sir, why should the board take action upon it at all, when the matter has been referred to the local committee, and they say it's not a public path at all? We are met here by Mr. Buckmaster
Mr. Turner: It's not Mr. Buckmaster! It's idle to disguise the fact. It's the inhabitants as well. The meeting originated entirely apart from Mr. Buckmaster — (Mr. Todd: "No, no") — with a man little known in this district. I don't want the board to bother itself about this matter, but if we have counsel's legal opinion, there's our answer to Mr. Buckmaster.
The Chairman: Why should Mr. Buckmaster, or any one else, force us into court of law
Mr. Dagnall: If Mr. Buckmaster wants opinion, let him go and take it.
Mr. Turner: He's a ratepayer, and has a right to ask us if we can do anything in the matter — .
Mr. Dagnall had been a good many years the parish — ever since boyhood; but there was no footpath across the Common in the place referred to.
Mr. Sarson: The argument amounts to this. If you take opinion for every dissatisfied ratepayer who comes up here with a crotchet and says: " Oh, you're only falling back the opinion of your clerk. Why don't you take counsel's opinion?" you would take it on the merest rubbishy trash possible. But we have not only the opinion of our legal adviser, but also that of Mr. Poupart, who is au authority in himself, and who was for years connected with the Highway Board. All the evidence that we can collect shows that this is not a footway at all.
Mr. Poupart: I have taken the trouble privately with Mr. Buckmaster of going over every map and plan of the parish I could get at — Lord Spencer's private maps and the tithe maps. There's not one that shows this track across the Common.
The chairman remarked that it was an entire mistake to suppose that the board set itself opposition to the wishes of the ratepayers as regarded the enclosure of the Common. The only bit ever enclosed since they were a board, was the little piece taken for the schools. [?] They did all they could to prevent that being done. The other piece was taken by the railway, and belonged to it years before the Board of Works was existence.
Mr. G. Todd: it's not all wind of that great agitator, Mr. Rose, he distinctly said he should take a legal opinion on it. He told a falsehood, saying I was the nominee of the railway company — The chairman stopped the speaker.
Mr. Sarson: They are collecting funds for the purpose of litigating this question. Let them take the opinion.
The Chairman: Can make this plain to them? So far as have evidence, and in the opinion of our law clerk, this is not a public footpath, and therefore the board cannot interfere.
Mr. Todd: We don't need counsel's opinion. You may depend Mr. Rose will get one if he wants it He had given notice of injunction against the Brighton Railway Company. He told me he thought he hadn't a leg to stand on, but thought it a good way of coming to a settlement. ("Laughter.) Excuse me for feeling rather warm on the subject, but I suffered little at the hands of the mob. An answer was settled to be returned that all information had been already given. With regard to the elm tree,
Mr. C.W. Todd observed that people shouldn't tell lies, and say the whole of those trees were going to be taken down.
The chairman remarked that the board were most anxious to preserve all the trees if they only had the power to do so. There were other trees they would be very glad to get rid of, but they hadn't the power to do so. How would that part be answered respecting the application for the use of the offices
Mr. Todd: I have gone into a society that wish to save your rates very much — the teetotal society. I should like the use of this board-room for them immensely, and have as much right to ask for it anyone else.
Mr. Dagnall observed: They have got their Lammas Hall. Let them meet there.
Mr. Turner thought the application very reasonable. The matter had been taken by many influential persons, and the board-room was a very central place to meet at. There could be no objection to let them have a little room once fortnight or once a month. The board ought to sympathize with their object. He thought any refusal of the room might be construed into the opinion that the board not only took no interest in the Common, but was opposed to the movement for its preservation.
Mr. Meaden could see why they should be asked if the committee consisted of gentlemen who lived in the neighbourhood, but it was a general committee collected from all parts of the metropolis he could see no reason for the grant.
Mr. Purdy also thought it would be wise to avoid ill-feeling granting the application on the understanding that the committee was composed of local residents.
Mr. G. Todd objected on the ground that the committee only sought to come there to get certain status to fight their battles with. He belonged to a private committee that had attempted to arrange the matter by taking the Common from Earl Spencer on lease or to buy the freehold of him. But they had been thoroughly thwarted the fact that people had been calling him names, that he refused to see anybody on the subject.
Mr. Barringer seconded Mr. Turner's motion, that the committee should have the room if it was composed of local men.
Mr. Dagnall Mr. Sarson, and Mr. Todd opposed the motion, which was after a long discussion lost by a very large majority. The board then adjourned.
[BNA: Link.]
South London Press — Saturday 31 August 1867
. . . the Wandsworth District Board of Works have agreed the destruction of the ornamental water called the Black Sea, on Wandsworth Common : 'and to make or and making roads to facilitate the 'en.-Insure and building on Wandsworth Common Earl . . .
[Rus in urbe!]
South London Press — Saturday 07 September 1867
WANDSWORTH COMMON To the Editor of the South London Press.
Sir, In a very interesting discussion, reported in your journal of the 31st ult., I find that the Board of Works gravely discuss the point of what is a pathway, it appearing that a beaten track is not footpath. May I be permitted to remark that I, for one, never walk on a beaten track when I can fresh turf for my feet; and it really monstrous to spend time in settling whether an open Common, traversed for thousand years from all points of the compass, is not altogether a footpath although not worn down into ruts and straight lines, as it is provident the public must learn to do.
Is there human being who can desire to have the only pretty walk within 10 miles abolished, and to satisfy practical builders, permit the Black Sea, with its islands, to be levelled and covered with angular villas, fitted up with backyards for the children to play in and annoy the neighbours I shudder at the thought.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Rus in Urbe.
[BNA: Link.]
1867-09-07-SouthLondonPress-07sep1867.png
South London Chronicle — Saturday 23 November 1867
Wandsworth-common. The Clerk reported on the question referred to him to the public right? over the common. Was of opinion that there had not been a defined and distinct footpath that had been interfered With. A letter from Earl Spencer was read in answer the Board's application for a perpetual easement over the common, and in the event of that being declined, to know upon what terms he will part with his interest, with view to its being secured to the public for ever. The Earl replied that he should postpone any action in the matter until after a decision is given with reference to Wimbledon-common. It will be more satisfactory to wait for that decision than to act Upon any course which may afterwards be set aside. T
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000443/18671123/028/0005" target="_blank">Link.]
Express (London) — Saturday 24 August 1867
(Click on image to enlarge)
THE ENCROACHMENTS ON WANDSWORTH-COMMON Yesterday a meeting of nearly 5,000 inhabitants of the parishes of Wandsworth and Battersea was held on the piece of land lying close to Clapham Junction, in accordance with promise made at the Spread Eagle, a few nights before, that the assembly should take place, and the destruction of the fence surrounding a portion of the common enclosed by the Brighton Railway Company, signalise its gathering.
Earl Spencer learning this, applied to Sir Richard Mayne for a body of mounted police to be on the spot to cheek any damage. The request was granted. The railway company appeared also to have prepared resistance to any aggression, for a suspicious number of "navvies" stood in knots among and in the outskirts of the crowd apparently ready for emergency.
The proceedings commenced with an address from Mr. J.C. Buckmaster, churchwarden of Battersea, who implored all present to abstain from any act of violence. All they had now to do was to protest against cruelty and injustice.
Up to 1831 there had been no encroachment for generations. Now, they were told they had "no right whatever on the Common," though the House of Commons had said otherwise. If they were trespassers, why didn't Lord Spencer order them off, and punish them for being there? When they saw the Common taken away without reasons assigned and a huge board before them, "This land to be let on building leases." it was time to take action. It was no secret that he meant to have that board down.
He appealed to those present to abstain from violence that night, since it might endanger future success. Two or three gentlemen had arranged privately to break down the fence, and so assert their rights, fortified in the act by the expression of public opinion there manifested.
The following resolution was carried unanimously: "That this meeting regards with extreme sorrow and regret the enclosures which have taken place on Wandsworth-common, and urges the committee appointed for its preservation to take every step to restore the privileges which the public have enjoyed from time immemorial"
Cheers were then heartily given for Mr. Buckmaster, Mr. Rose, and the committee, with groans for Lord Spencer. The people did not immediately disperse, but stood about in groups on the Common till lute in the evening.
[BNA: Link.]
[An identical article appeared in the cite>London Evening Standard — Saturday 24 August 1867: Link]
South London Press, 24 August 1867
(Click on image to enlarge)
"SAVE WANDSWORTH COMMON!"
Public Meeting With this despairing cry — probably founded on the daily stimulant administered to the Crusaders at sunrise, "Save the Holy Sepulchre " — the inhabitants of Wandsworth, or a portion of them, called on their long-suffering fellows to publicly protest against the system which has of late gradually sapped the outworks of the old pleasaunce by ye Wandle," and bids fair to imperil it, even more than the breezy heath of Hampstead.
The meeting was convened in the large room of the Spread Eagle Inn, which shortly after the time appointed was crowded by the gathering of inhabitants. The chair was taken by the Rev. E. W. T. Chave, D.D., vicar of Wandsworth, who was supported on the platform by Messrs. J.C. Buckmaster, Rose, Wallis, Lawrence, Turner, Hole and other gentlemen. The meeting was enthusiastic its reception of the speakers, and of the "levelling sentiments they expressed.
The chairman believed the subject of consideration did not need his advocacy, though it was one which he took a deep interest, for he should be sorry to see the right of enjoying the fresh air assailed. Unless active measures were taken all the open spaces round London would be swallowed up, and the children deprived of the fresh air; which, as it was, they too seldom enjoyed. He would not detain them, but would at once call on the gentlemen who had promoted the gathering to detail the steps they had taken, and what must be done to secure the common in future.
Mr. Wallis mentioned that the Lord Mayor was prevented by dining with the judges from being present at that time, but hoped joining them later in the evening to show his sympathy with the effort. (Applause.)
Mr. Parsons thought himself entitled to make a few observations on a subject which had employed him 20 years. He never dreamed that his grain of mustard seed would be ripened into so strong a shoot, with Parliamentary Committees giving their attention to it, and the merchants of the City coming forward with such munificent aid.
Parsons — crikey! He was the "Labourer" prosecuted in 1849 for fence-breaking near Garratt Lane!]
Part of the Common of Wandsworth, at Tibbett's Corner, was enclosed by Earl Spencer, but was subject both to right of "tubbery" [PB: presumably turbary] as well as pasturage. By the evidence of his deputy steward before the committee, appeared that Earl Spencer claimed power to enclose the land. However, he paid the parish of Battersea a year rent, till it was sold to its present proprietor, when the parish of Battersea, having no money to go to law, let the matter drop. What they ought to have done, was to have done what he had — gone with an axe and cut down the enclosure. (Applause.)
Mr. Beaumont was now one of the richest proprietors in the kingdom, partly through that very enclosure.
The committee before them that night aimed to preserve these rights, and only needed support carry out the objects desired. those who spoiled the people of their land and air commit moral crime? Land without the population was of value. They had exercised their right of going over the Common, and it belonged to them.
The meaning of the Act of Merton was simply that the Lord of the Manor, if very poor, might enclose a portion to keep up his dignity. If a man stole a loaf, to stay his hunger, from a shop, he was called thief, and punished by the law! But here was an individual who "walked away" with hundreds and thousands of pounds worth of property with impunity. (Hisses.)
Did he dare to serve Clapham as he had served Wandsworth Common? No. (Applause.)
They had a right to cut timber there. His grandfather had sent him to cut wood there, and told him, "Well done, boy. This wood warms you twice — warms you when you cut it, and warms you when you burn it." He would warm the first encroacher with such a turn at the machine in the centre of the common — (laughter) — as should render him an example to every Lord of the Manor throughout the country.
["Turn at the machine in the centre of the common"?]
Mr. J.C. Buckmaster, M.A., was not going to discuss the rights the Lord of the Manor but simply to state that he took a great interest in the preservation of open spaces, which he believed tended to influence he people morally. It was necessary to preserve these places for the purposes of recreation and health for the public, and if so 15 years ago it was much more important now. Fifteen years ago he could walk over any part of Wandsworth Common without let or hindrance; now, only a small portion of open Common space was left, and that he desired to preserve. He thought it a monstrous thing the enclosure of these Commons should go on without any right to do so being shown by the parties enclosing.
He could recollect the time when they could walk round the Black Sea — (hear, hear) — and also when a gentleman obtained permission of the Court Leet to enclose 10 acres on the north side of the Black Sea, on condition that the public should walk round it when they liked. Now that had fallen into desuetude, and he believed grand plans for building thereon had been sanctioned by the Board of Works, who had given no assistance in preserving the Common or its footpaths.
Another part on a grand scale given up by the Court Leet, similarly, was covered by stucco and fine sites for builders.
Then there was the Telescope enclosure, given up for seven years. Nobody objected to the temporary use for scientific purposes, but there it was now, still enclosed.
["Still enclosed"!]
The enclosure of the St. James's School and the Patriotic School made gentlemen open their eyes for they saw then the direction of these movements. He was surprised at the apathy of the copyholders, but still more important were the rights of the freeholders. He should be very ready to co-operate — not in a spiteful, litigious way but fairly, and in a friendly spirit — in any endeavour to ascertain the rights of the Lord of the Manor by an appeal to law.
When it was first mooted that a piece of the Common should be given up for the purposes of a cemetery, he called upon the late Lord Spencer, who assured him that he thought enclosure had gone far enough, and no more should be enclosed. But since that time more than 50 acres had been enclosed.
Most of them recollected the large piece that had been appropriated by the railway company. He looked at its fence with no friendly eye, and applied to the Board of Works who informed him that it was enclosed under the Act of Parliament that sanctioned the construction of the railway; and, on a second letter, that "it was included in the line of deviation." He assured them that it was not, and requested them to obtain tracing. He asked the board, then, to preserve the footpath that was taken away; but they replied, "'Tisn't a footpath " — (laughter) — but a "trespass path." He then asked them to point out the difference, but the exceedingly clever men at the board got very angry, and sent him a polite letter from their clerk stating that he might try the question himself.
So he went and broke down the railway fence in presence of the railway authorities — (applause) — and wrote to the local board, asking them to maintain the right. No proceedings were taken against him, and he had broken down the fence again and again.
A footpath had been defined as "the right of going from one place to another for 20 years," and on that judicial definition he was prepared to try the question. Moreover, the board had once ordered their surveyor to repair this at the public expense.
While Clapham Common had not been touched owing to the wealthy persons around it, Wandsworth Common was cut up in every direction. The district board ought to have preserved the footpaths. Why had they not? A good many were copyholders, who naturally desired not to offend the Lord of the Manor; then another gentleman liked to lay down the law on the subject, and the clerk nodded his head that being the easiest way of getting out of a difficulty.
Others of the gentlemen were from Clapham or elsewhere, and cared nothing about Wandsworth. He only knew that he had seen piece after piece of the Common enclosed; and as he told the railway, the right of any party to enclose portion of the Common ought to be as indisputable as their title to a carriage. For four years after their line was made, the company never enclosed this piece of ground. Now there was a large carriageway to be constructed across the Common probably sanctioned on the principle, "Don't interfere with my business, and I'll let yours alone."
[Where was this "large carriageway"? I think it must be Windmill Road or Drive.]
He had seen working men, with their wives and children, get out of the train and have a little picnic on the breezy Common, under the pleasant shadow of the trees, and go home all the happier and better for it. Would health and morals be improved by the place being covered with houses, and a "public" stuck at every street corner? He appealed for the moral influence and support of all, and for the assistance in the fighting out of the matter, of the wealthier.
[Presumably a reference to the pubs being built around the Common at this time?]
He hoped this would be but the prelude to larger meetings; and that they would meet on the Common and take some practical steps to preserve what they believed to be their rights. (Applause.)
Mr. Lawrence, as one who had been present at the Committee of the House of Commons in 1865, said that Mr. Foster stated there that Earl Spencer had received suggestions from people in the neighbourhood for the enclosure of the common, and, except a protest from Mr. Rose, there appeared no strong feeling against the enclosure of Wandsworth Common.
[Lawrence? — presumably Philip Henry Lawrence, the first honorary solicitor to the Commons Preservation Society, who lived in Wimbledon. NB don't forget his recruit Robert Hunter, the energetic lawyer who came to live for a couple of years in Louvaine Rd. Edward [?] Fithian, himself active in the Society, lived nearby too. See e.g. G Shaw-Lefevre [Lord Eversley], English Commons and Forests, and Lawrence W. Chubb, The Common Lands of London: The Story of their Preservation.]
In the last 20 years 140 acres had enclosed for the sum of £15,000, received by Lord Spencer. The Common originally consisted of 300 acres; so, at the present rate, a score more years would take the rest away. (Laughter).
The old rural life was now dead in the suburbs, and the local organization of the olden time called "the Homage" that attended to the lopping of gorse, or pollards, or the use of pasturage, and watched these rights jealously for the village-folk. But now these interests were gone and there was no common-life, whilst the scene of local interests was shifted to the City. There was, therefore, no one to take up these rights for the inhabitants.
If the Lord of the Manor wished to enclose, he did so, and stood his chance of action. Thus if they were rightly advised, Earl Spencer had gained £15,000, to which he was not entitled, from the Common. The only thing was for the inhabitants to revive the old "homage," as organization to preserve the public rights. It was not to be done by sitting still; and if such a committee had been organized 20 years back, the Common would not have been treated as it was.
A committee would have to be formed, and its members would have to give a portion of their time, and must be assisted with money in order to retrieve the errors of past negligence. They must not believe the Lord of the Manor was all-powerful in these matters, for whenever he had been resisted he had been obliged to give way.
Mr Rose was delighted to see some little interest manifested by the Wandsworth people in their own affairs. They found in Earl Spencer one who had not earned his title or his wealth by services to his country, who was neither a great warrior, nor a great seaman, nor a great statesman, nor a wise judge — a man endowed by Providence with almost unparalleled wealth, a noble library, and all that fortune of birth could bestow.
God and his country demanded of such a man that instead of being a curse to his neighbours he should be a benefit and a blessing. He had been face to face with Earl Spencer and detailed the wrongs he had done; and was entitled to do so now, that redress might procured. The lord had the right to dig turf, to dig gravel, to pasture beasts upon the Common; but had no right to seek to pocket the price of its fee.
As a man, and a nobleman, he should have shown himself grateful to God for the blessings showered upon him and not commit "crimes he committed daily." He would compare him with Mr. Bowyer who renewed his half of the lease of Clapham Common
[p.5]
whilst Earl Spencer would not do so, "because he had been so treated at Wandsworth." St. James's parish wanted a school for its pauper children: leave was granted them to build on the Common. As soon as their 20 years' title was expired, they would be off to some other spot, and sell the old for building ground.
The Brighton Railway had enclosed 12 acres of land, which were not in their plan of deviation, and Mr. Buckmaster had broken down the palings there five times. As a lawyer, he told me that fence was utterly illegal, and they had every right to destroy it. He also mentioned that the sale of the land was concealed as carefully as could be, so that the inhabitants of the locality might not know about it. it might be there was no sale whatever, and that it was only the nominee of the Brighton Railway, who was enclosing and building on the land.
[Where exactly was this 12 acres? [Today's Chivalry Rd area]]
He didn't understand how a man who failed three years ago in Chelsea, could buy up Wandsworth Common. (Applause and laughter.)
[How did Todd fail in Chelsea? He had a workshop there, didn't he? I recall it was his cricket team that played on the Common sometime.]
He had a map in his hand, which showed the pieces of Common that had been taken marked black. He had shown that to Lord Spencer, who, with his agent, said he knew nothing about it, so he supposed those parts still belonged to them. (Laughter.)
He could not understand why the Board of Works constantly answered they had nothing to do with the Common. He saw daily, men going two miles to get to their work, when there used to be eight or nine footpaths they might have used.
[Where were they going from/to? Because of the interrupted footpaths or the railway lines?]
Well, Earl Spencer had the right to dig turf and gravel and pasture. He had dug gravel till the whole was undermined, and the soil was a morass; he had pastured there till there was nothing left for cattle to eat, and cut turf till there was no turf left.
Now to three millions of people — more than all Scotland held — dwelling in one great city, breathing and imbibing noxious vapours and exhalations from each other's bodies, pure air was of vital necessity; and open, breezy commons were the finest manufactory for pure air ever created.
[Wow!]
This was not a rich man's question, but a poor man's. The merchant might go farther afield as houses were reared around him; the labourer must live by the spot where he gained his bread.
Abroad, any public authority would have protected and manured the grove trees on the Common. Here, excavations were being made under them, and actually under the footpath! He had written to the Board of Works about it. That body simply replied that they had nothing to do with it, though the duties of the highway boards had been transferred to them, and they were the conservators of the public rights.
He had told Lord Spencer the pieces of water were being made into a foetid nuisance, the receptacle of the filth of the district, instead of health giver — a source of disease death. It was a fact that one good lady at Clapham had kindly sent three carts of night soil to throw in there!
The only way of preventing these encroachments was to break down the fence. He would be one to do it — (applause)-. — and would subscribe £50 to keep it down. (Applause.)
Lord Spencer found there was this determination in the minds of the people, he would give way, for he was a coward at heart. He had gone himself to law with the railway company, and promised if he beat them to dedicate what was recovered to public use. There was no time to lose. One tree to which he referred had fallen that week, and the others would soon follow if immediate action was not taken.
On Mr. Rose resuming his seat three cheers were given for him with right good will, and a resolution passed to the effect that the condition of the Common required the earnest attention of the inhabitants to prevent further encroachment, and to improve the condition of such portion as yet remained; also appointing as a committee to take such steps as they might think advisable, Messrs. Wallis, Buckmaster, Rose, Turner, and Lawrence.
Mr. Bevington had seen with regret the enclosure that had taken place. Some years back a local committee had taken counsel's opinion which was then adverse to them. Since then, however, an Act had been obtained that gave greater power to inhabitants to protect their rights. He moved that the committee be requested to invite subscriptions to form a fund for the carrying out of the first resolution.
[Which "Mr Bevington"? Geoffrey? His brother S, or his father James?> The Act was presumably the 1866 Metropolitan Commons Act.]
Mr. Wallis seconded this, believing they had met for the common good. He also mentioned that the meeting had been called through a chance remark by him to the effect that it was a pity the Common should be so cut up. He was delighted to see such meeting, and at the hearty reception given the views propounded.
An inhabitant asked when the meeting might be expected.
Mr. Buckmaster said that for several reasons he desired to have it on the Common — ["In the enclosure "] — (applause) — ["Cut the fence down first."] He then proposed a vote of thanks to the chairman, which Mr. Wallis seconded, and which was cordially acknowledged by Dr. Chave, who observed that he felt himself called on to identify himself with any legitimate, and proper movement of the parishioners. They had gone with the speakers that night and must go a little further.
Unity was strength. In such a cause, he thought there could be no difference of opinion. It was absolutely necessary to keep up these Sanatoriums he would call them. Take away the outlets from the people, and where are they to go for fresh air? Take away their air, you take away their vitality — their lives! (Applause.)
The meeting then broke up.
[BNA: Link.]
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Commons_Act_1866<<
Text Metropolitan Commons Amendment Act 1869 [??]
South London Press, 24 August 1867
(Click on image to enlarge)
Whole article:
(Click on image to enlarge)
[CHECK & COMPLETE TRANSCRIPTION]
WANDSWORTH COMMON
Great Meeting Last Night Yesterday a great meeting of the inhabitants of the parishes of Wandsworth and Battersea was held on the piece of land close to Clapham Junction, between the Freemasons' Schools and the cemetery.
[PB: For me this is now sacred ground!]
Between 4,000 and 5,000 were present at the commencement of the meeting, which had been convened in accordance with a promise made at the Spread Eagle, a few nights before, that the assembly should take place, and the destruction of the fence surrounding portion of the Common enclosed by the Brighton Railway Company, signalise its gathering.
Earl Spencer, learning this, applied to Sir Richard Mayne for a body of mounted police to be on the spot to check any damage. The request was granted, the officers being placed under the direction of Superintendent Wayne, V division.
[Mayne was for 39 years Head of London Metropolitan Police. V Division was the Wandsworth area (L was Lambeth, W was Clapham).]
The railway company appeared also have prepared resistance to any aggression, for a suspicious number of "navvies," in the conventional smocks and red caps, stood in knots among and in the outskirts of the crowd, apparently ready for emergency.
The proceedings commenced with address from Mr. J.C. Buckminster, M.A., churchwarden of Battersea, who was supported by the presence of Messrs. Rose, Wallis, Bevington, Lambert, and other friends.
[James Anderson Rose, lawyer, friend and patron of Whistler. Where exactly did he live? Probably the area behind Wandsworth Common, near Fernside. His brother was William Anderson Rose, MP, Sherriff of the the City of London 1855, and Lord Mayor 1862 — WAR died at "Bifrons" [where?], his house in Upper Tooting, near WC.]
He commenced his address by imploring all present to abstain from any act of violence, which would injure their chance of success, for ail they had now to do was to protest against cruelty and injustice.
Up to 1831 there had been no encroachment for generations; in that year a road was made from Burntwood to Nightingale-lane, and £700 paid by the Battersea Bridge Company to the parish for its construction and maintenance.
In 1835 Battersea opposed the South Western Railway, on the ground that it would interfere with the rights of commoners, and a sum of £80 was paid into Chancery as compensation for those rights.
These encroachments, however, tended to benefit the public; but next came others by private individuals, such as Mr. Wilson's, near the Black Sea, and Mr. M'Kellar's, only permitted by the Court Leet on the promise that the ground should not be built on. But the latter had since enclosed double the area the Court Leet sanctioned, having obtained the consent of though Lord of the Manor, and now the whole was appropriated to building purposes — ("hear, hear," and applause) — depriving the people of the light, the exercise and the air they enjoyed.
Then, now, at the last moment, they were told they had "no right whatever on the Common," though the House of Commons had said otherwise. If they were trespassers, why didn't Lord Spencer order them off, and punish them for being there? — (laughter) — when they saw the Common taken away without reasons assigned — ay, and that huge board before them, "This land to be let on building leases," it was time to take action. It was no secret that he meant to have that board down.
He then gave the history of the taking of the land he referred to by the railway company, and concluded a vigorous address, which was loudly cheered throughout, by an appeal to those present to abstain from violence that night, since it might endanger future success. Two or three gentlemen had arranged privately to break down that fence, and so assert their rights, fortified in the act by the expression of public opinion there manifested.
Mr. Rose, who was constantly cheered, avowed himself a personal enemy of Lord Spencer. He, like all Englishmen, liked lords — ("no, no") — lords who did something in return for the mighty privileges Providence had showered on them — not such Earl Spencer, who had endeavoured to wrest the law to his own private profit, and the injury of his fellows. He had told him to his face that this enclosure was act of lawless violence. (Cries: "We'll have it down.") He had exhausted every right he possessed of pasturage and gravel; and now, by God's assistance and the laws of the country, should be made to disgorge this land.
After deprecating violence he pledged himself to go to law with the earl within a week, and obtain an injunction to preserve the 36 fine elms that fringed the view. But everything must done legally, quietly, discreetly, and wisely, care being taken not to be jockied into a wrong course or commit violence. Then they might rely that the matter should be fought out successfully, and show the railway company that they could not deal in public land; "or, sub rosa, pretendedly only, sell it to Mr. Geo. Todd." He told them that did not believe in that sale all. There was no notice of it on the land, or he would have stopped it, as he had another attempted sale of another part.
[This was the area behind "New Wandsworth Station" — where Chivalry Rd was developed by Christopher Todd.]
In conclusion, he mentioned that 15 years ago Wandsworth Common was more beautiful than Clapham. Because the latter was surrounded by wealthy people who resisted encroachment, it was preserved, as henceforth this should.
The following resolution was then carried unanimously: "That this meeting regards with extreme sorrow and regret the enclosures which have taken place on Wandsworth Common, and urges the committee appointed for its preservation to take every step to restore the privileges which the public have enjoyed from time immemoriaL"
Mr. Buckmaster then made a closing speech, producing roars of laughter by the repetition of the distich:
The crime is great in man or woman
Who steals a goose from off the Common;
But who shall plead the man's excuse,
Who steals the Common from the goose?Cheers were then heartily given for Mr. Buckmaster, Mr. Rose, and the committee, with groans for Lord Spencer.
At this part of the proceedings, Mr. George Todd clambered on the waggon, which, sheltered from the sun by a photographer's caravan, formed the rostrum for the speakers, and was greeted with a continuous din of groaning that made his voice inaudible a foot from his lips.
[Who was the photographer? I'm pretty sure we have the name, and sample images - Henry Morris, the photographer who shot Kalulu, yes? Wasn't his studio at New Wandsworth Station? Did they take photographs? Wouldn't it be wonderful to see them now!]
Addressing Mr. Rose, he said, "I understand you to say, 'I'm the nominee of the railway company. My name is Todd.'"
Mr. Rose replied, "You know where to find me if you want to do that, put it in writing."
As Mr. Rose refused to answer the questions of Mr. Todd, that gentleman left the waggon, and though to some extent protected by some bricklayers and navvies that were near, was roughly hustled by the crowd till he found a harbour of refuge in the railway premises.
[Presumably New Wandsworth Station, nearby.]
The people did not immediately disperse, but stood about groups on the Common till late in the evening. Up to the time of going to press we had been informed of no disturbance.
[BNA: Link]
Google Search: James Anderson Rose. NPG: Link.]
Morning Post — Saturday 24 August 1867
(Click on image to enlarge)
THREATENED ENCLOSURE OF WANDSWORTH COMMON Yesterday a great meeting of the inhabitants of the parishes of Wandsworth and Battersea was held on the piece of land lying close to Clapham Junction, between the Freemasons' Schools and the cemetery. Between 4,000 and 5,000 were present at the commencement of the meeting, which had been convened in accordance with a promise made a few nights before, that the assembly should take place, and the destruction of the fence surrounding a portion of the common enclosed by the Brighton Railway Company, signalise its gathering.
Earl Spencer learning tbis applied to Sir Richard Mayne for a body of mounted police to be on the spot to check any damage. The request was granted, the officers being placed under the direction of Superintendent Wayne, V division.
The railway company appeared also to have prepared resistance to any aggression, for a suspicious number of "navvies" in the conventional smocks and red caps stood it knots amoug, and iv the outskirts of, the crowd apparently ready for emergency. the proceedings commenced with an address from Mr. J.C. Buckmaster, M.A., churchwarden of Battersea, who was supported by Messrs. Rose, Wallis, Bevington, Lambert, and other friends. He commenced his address by imploring ail preaent to abstain from aay act of violence, which would injure their chance" of success, for all they bad now to do was to protest against cruelty and injustice. Up to 1831 there had been no encroachment for ge ier ation s; in that year a road was made from Burntwood to Nightingale-lane, and £700 paid by the Battersea Bridge Company to the parish for its construction and maintenance. In 1835 Battersea opposed the South-Western Railway, on the ground that it would interfere with the rights of commoners, and a sum of £80 was paid into Chancery as compensation for those rights.
These encroachments, however, tended to benefit the public; but next came others by private individuals, only permitted by the Court Leet on the promise that the ground should not be buih on. But the latter had since enclosed double the area the Court Leet sanctioned, having obtained the consent of the lord of the manor, and now the whole was appropriated to building purposes — (hear, hear, and applause) — depriving the people of the light, the exercise, and the air they enjoyed. Then, now, at the last moment, they were told they had "no right whatever on the common," though the House of Commons had said otherwise.
If they were trespassers, why didn't Lord Spencer order them off and punish them for being there? (Laughter.) Wheu they saw the common taken away without reasons assigned — ay and that huge board hefore them, ' This land to be iet on building leases," it was time to take action. It was no secret that he meant to have that board down. He then pve the history of the taking of the land he referred to by the railway oompany, and concluded a vigorous address, which was loudly cheered throughout, by an appeal to those present to abstain from violence that night, since it might endanger future success. Two or three ' gentlemen had arranged privately to break down that fence, and so assert their rights, fortified iv the act by the expression of public opinion there manifested.
After a rather violent speech by Mr. Rose, the following resolution was carried unanimously: "That this meeting regards with extreme sorrow and regret the enclosures which have taken plaoe on Wandsworth Common, and urges the committed appointed for its preservation to take every step to restore the privileges whicb the public have enjoyed from time immemorial."
Mr. Buckmaster then made a closing speech, producing groans of laughter by the repetition of the distich:
"The crime is great in man or woman,
Who steals a goose from off the Common;
But who shall plead the man's excuse,
Who steals the Common from the goose?"Cheers were than heartily given for Mr. Buckmaster, Mr. Rose, and the committee, with groans for Lord Spencer.
[BNA: Link.]
London Daily News — Saturday 24 August 1867
(Click on image to enlarge)
THE ENCROACHMENTS ON WANDSWORTH-COMMON Yesterday a meeting of nearly 5,000 inhabitants of the parishes of Wandsworth and Battersea was held on the piece of land lying close to Clapham Junction, in accordance with a promise made at the Spread Eagle, a few nights before, that the assembly should take place, and the destruction of the fence surrounding a portion of the common enclosed by the Brighton Railway Company, signalise its gathering.
Earl Spencer learning this, applied to Sir Richard Mayne for a body of mounted police to be on the spot to check any damage. The request was granted. The railway company appeared also to have prepared resistance to any aggression, for a suspicious number of "navvies" stood in knots among and in the outskirts of the crowd apparently ready for emergency.
The proceedings commenced with an address from Mr. J.C. Buckmaster, churchwarden of Battorsea, who implored all present to abstain from any act of violence. All they had now to do was to protest against cruelty and injustice. Up to 1831 there had been no encroachment for generations. Now, they were told they had "no right whatever on the Common," though the House of Commons had said otherwise. If they were trespassers, why didn't Lord Spencer order them off, and punish them for being there?
When they saw the Common taken away without reasons assigned and a huge herd before them, "This land to be let on building leases," it was time to take action. It was no secret that he meant to have that board down. He appealed to those present to abstain from violence that night, since it might endanger future success. Two or three gentlemen had arranged privately to break down the fence, and so assert their rights, fortified in the act by the expression of public opinion there manifested.
The following resolution was carried unanimously: "That this meeting regards with extreme sorrow and regret the enclosures which have taken place on Wandsworth-comnmon, and urges the committee appointed for its preservation to take every step to restore the privileges which the public have enjoyed from time immemorial."
Cheers were then heartily given for Mr. Buckmaster, Mr. Rose, and the committee, with groans for Lord Spencer.
The people did not immediately disperse, but stood about in groups on the Common till late in the evening.
[BNA: Link.]
["The people did not immediately disperse, but stood about in groups on the Common till late in the evening." !]
Hull Advertiser and Exchange Gazette — Tuesday 27 August 1867
[NEEDS EDIT]
Works Committee, have been correspondence with the company, desiring make a bargain tor future. They have, however, been unable to come to and the Council, in its collective wisdom, will to devise the means meeting the difficulty. Friday night a meeting of nearly 5,000 inhabitant of the parishes of Wandsworth and Battersea was hel "'the piece of land lying close to Clapham Junction in accordance with a promise which had been made a few nights before, that the assembly should take place, and the destruction of the portion of the common enclosed the Brighton Railway Company should ''"f "Tchard Earl Spencer, learning this, applied t0 Sl t ' Wayne for a body of mounted police to be tie,t to check any damage. The request was "ted The railway company appeared also ance to any aggression, for a b irt "navvies" stood in knots among and in the outskirts Of the crowd apparently ready for emergency proceedings commenced with address from xlr- Buckmaster, churchwarden Battersea, wh implored all present to abstain from any act violence. The meet followed this advice, and passed a resolution urging committee appointed for the preservation the to use every effort for the restoration of the which the public had enjoyed for generations. Cheers were given for the committee, and groans for Earl is made in
r attention to the principle, under what-
[BNA:Link.]
South London Press — 31 August 1867
[NEEDS EDIT.]
(Click on image to enlarge)
WANDSWORTH DISTRICT BOARD OF WORKS . . . informed that the Wandsworth District Board of Works have agreed the destruction of though ornamental water called the Black Sea, on Wandsworth Common . . . and to make or and making roads to facilitate the enclosure and building on Wandsworth Common . . .
WANDSWORTH DISTRICT BOARD OF WORKS This body met on Wednesday last at their offices. Present: Messrs. Meaden (in the chair), Carter, Sarson, Rolls, Gaitskell, Dagnall, Purdy, Riches, Loat, Barringer, Bemish, Lacey. Watlin, Young, Hewett, Turner, Poupart, Selwood, Clarke, Silvester, Clayton, Greenwood, Langton, G. Todd, C.W. Todd, Osborne.
HEALTH OF THE DISTRICT. Battersea. — Births 50, deaths 47. No remarks.
Clapham. — Births 35, deaths 17. The weekly average being now 8.15, the health of the district was good, though some epidemic disease prevailed.
Streatham. — Births 13, deaths 3. General health good, and zymotic [i.e. infectious] disease rare.
Wandsworth. — Births 26, deaths 11. Health of the district continued very satisfactory; as indicated by the continued lowness of the mortality, the absence of any deaths from epidemic disease, and the character and amount of sickness prevalent amongst the parochial poor.
WANDSWORTH COMMON The following letters were received on this subject:
The Elms. Wandsworth Common.
Sir, — I have been served with a notice that the roads by and across the Black Sea contemplated [by?] the parish are illegal. It certainly seems to me an unwarrantable expenditure of the parish funds.
Dear sir, yours truly, Chas. Lambert.
[To] A. A. Corsellis, Esq.
11, Salisbury-street, Strand, London, 23rd August, 1867.
Gentlemen, — I am informed that the Wandsworth District Board of Works have agreed the destruction of the ornamental water called the Black Sea, on Wandsworth Common; and to make or and in making roads to facilitate the enclosure and building on Wandsworth Common by Earl Spencer. I hereby give you notice that any such expenditure on the part of the board is utterly unwarrantable, and is, I believe, illegal; and that I shall oppose by every means in my power, by legal proceedings or otherwise, any such expenditure by the board. — I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant,
J. Anderson Rose
[To:] The District Board of Works.
11, Salisbury-street, Strand, London. 23rd August, 1857.
Dear sir, I believe I am entitled under the Local Management Act to inspect and take a copy of the minutes of the board. I understand the board has passed a resolution with reference to the Black Sea on Wandsworth Common, and it would be a convenience to me, and save the trouble of my personal attendance, if you would allow your clerk to send me a copy of the resolution of the board, for which I shall be happy to pay any charge.
I am, dear sir, yours truly, J.A. Rose.
[To:] Mr. A. A. Corsellis, Clerk to District Board.
[PB: notice Buckmaster v Corsellis.]
A long letter was also received from Mr. Buckmaster. In it he stated that he was directed by the committee for the Preservation of Commons and Open Spaces to inquire if the board intended to take any steps to preserve the footpaths on Wandsworth Common — especially the footpaths taken away by the Brighton Railway Company, and the one referred to by Mr. Corsellis in a case drawn up by him to be submitted for counsels' opinion, as having been used without interruption for years — (Mr. Corsellis: "I may say that is incorrect") — and if the board did not intend to do so, if they would kindly inform him of their reasons for non-interference. He begged also to direct the attention of the board to the destruction an elm tree near Battersea cemetery, and asked, conclusion, that the board would allow the committee to meet the offices of the board occasionally, in order to avoid the expenses of meeting at a public-house.
The Chairman: The first letters are with regard to the road. I suppose our clerk can say whether or not we have legal right to make that road.
Mr. Purdy thought that as it was usual for holders of private property to make their own roads, they ought to have any departure from the ordinary custom brought prominently forward on the agenda paper and properly investigated.
Mr. Dagnall remarked that the board had already agreed that the road should be formed.
[At the previous meeting it was resolved, "That the Battersea and Wandsworth surveyors be instructed to prepare an estimate of the cost of the proposed new road across Wandsworth Common, and to report as to the relative lengths abutting upon private property and the Common in each parish."]
Mr. Meaden apprehended that no mischief could occur by waiting till the full report was ready, which would state the exact length abutting on private property. He thought every one would highly approve making a good road. The only thing was that in the minds of some persons there existed an impression that there were reasons yet behind the scenes why this road should not be constructed. The only notice the board had the matter was the desire to act for the public good, and no more could be done if the Common was the hands of the Metropolitan Board. If any member desired to oppose the construction of this road, he could call a special meeting of the board.
Mr. Turner desired to give notice of special motion to be taken into consideration at the next meeting of the board — "That the condition of Wandsworth Common be taken into consideration by this board " — as there had been a good deal of discussion on the matter out of doors — " with a view of ascertaining whether this board has any power, and, if any, what power, to preserve the Common."
Mr. Dagnall: Better let it alone, for we have the promise of Lord Spencer that it shall be appropriated to public recreation.
Mr. Sarson: Lord Spencer wants to help the parish, and the parish won't let him.
Mr. Turner: It's said outside there's no member of the board who takes any interest in the matter.
The Chairman: I believe every member of this board is as anxious as any one can be out of doors to preserve our open spaces, if possible, but I fear our powers are limited. When the discussion comes on we shall know exactly what they are. I know what the feeling of the Metropolitan Board is in this matter. I have tried to find out what reason those members who oppose the making of this road have for opposing it, and I should like to ask Mr. Turner what it is that he wants done.
Mr. Turner: If you ask me, I don't want anything done at all.
Mr. Gaitskell observed that the board had a meeting about a month ago on the very same subject. It appeared now that the surveyors for Battersea and Wandsworth were instructed to prepare estimates of the cost of the proposed road across Wandsworth Common, and to report as to the relative lengths abutting on private property. was given to understand that the property belonged to Earl Spencer, who had conveyed his interest in it to the board, and considered that the only thing that remained to be done by the board was formally to adopt the surveyor's estimates.
Mr. Meaden observed that it was meant to indicate on the plan private property as distinguishable from common land, which had not yet been done. He advised the board to go on the right way, and take no notice of what was said outside.
Mr. Sarson remarked that if Lord Spencer had been paid £1,000 for the land, it would have been all right. He hoped that as Lord Spencer had signed deed of gift.
The Clerk: It's not deed of gift. It's a deed of dedication. Mr. Sarson: Well, then, a deed of dedication. I hope it will be returned to him in common honesty, if the road is not made. The clerk said that the matter was still incomplete, as Earl Spencer had not signed the plan of the proposed road.
[ . . . ]
Referring to Mr. Buckmaster's letter afterwards, he observed that there were three points in that letter for reference -the footpath, the elm tree, and the committee room.
Mr. Poupart contended that the track referred to by Mr. Buckmaster never was a footpath. When the South-Western Company went across the Common long before the Brighton Railway was made, there was a footpath across by the Plough, near where the elm tree was now destroyed. On the railway taking away that path, the parish insisted on a footbridge being made by the company, and one was made near the Freemasons' Schools.
When the Brighton Railway Company came afterwards, they paid the parish as compensation, and entered into an arrangement with it to keep the arches and bridges in repair. The footpath they took was the one that went across from Wandsworth to Nightingale-lane. Those were the only two recognized footpaths. There was also a track by the Plough towards the Freemasons' Almshouses, but it never was recognized.
Those to which he referred were the only two shown upon any maps. With regard to a path referred to as having been mended at the expense of the board, he would mention that when the board met at Bonneville road, many members got out at the New Wandsworth Station, the nearest way from which was by track across the Common, and that being in bad state, requested the surveyor to lay a little gravel on it to make it a little cleaner.
[Where are these paths? The footbridge [was later made into a wide bridge, after protests] that substituted for the "footpath across by the Plough", and the one "from Wandsworth to Nightingale-lane". Check the OS Skeleton map of the 1850s — might show something. Bonneville Rd — where was that, surely not today's BR?]
Mr. Dagnall corroborated this statement.
Mr. G. Todd remarked that he had spoken to Sir Charles Forbes respecting it, and he said it was merely a beaten track, and not a footpath at all. He remembered when first it was made. The subject of the preservation of open spaces, more particularly that of Wandsworth Common, was dear to all. Many gentlemen then present had a great stake iv though neighbourhood, and it was manifestly to their own personal advantage, even if they were actuated by no more praiseworthy motive, to seek to preserve such open spaces. What they wished to do, however, was to act as the board desired to do — legally, honestly, fairly —
The chairman reminded the speaker that the subject was simply one of the footpath.
Mr. G. Todd said that the question had been discussed often, and invariably it had been decided that the footpath was not public, and that therefore the board had no right to interfere at all in the matter.
Mr. Turner had known the place 10 years, and certainly there was footpath there on which he could walk. All he would say was this: It is very desirable that the board should ascertain what is a footpath. If have any power to preserve that footpath, by all means let them preserve it full force.
Mr. Meaden remarked that many years ago persons were very anxious respecting the Putney Park-lane question. It was told the board over and over again that they ought to press the question. They did so. It cost an immense deal of money, and they found to their cost that the mere fact of a path being made and used for a term of years did not establish right. The Battersea Local Committee had decided this was not a public path. Should the board be justified in going to law on a question, compared to which that respecting the Park-lane at Putney was clear?
Mr. C.W. Todd: Supposing they gained their point, and found it was a parish footpath; if they tried to use it, they'd find themselves walking into the company's coal bunks. It leads nowhere.
Mr. George Todd hoped that if the board interfered at all, it would be to take the Common upon a lease the same as that at Streatham. It seemed to him a very simple matter to do so.
Mr. Poupart asked whether the board had not already passed resolution in regard to Mr. Buckmaster's correspondence?
Mr. Sarson was quite willing to give up a portion of his time for the public good, but certainly demurred at having it frittered away by useless repetition of the same discussion. The subject had been carefully gone into, and so satisfied were the board in their own minds that they had no power whatever to interfere, that, his opinion, all that it was necessary to do, would be to refer Mr. Buckmaster to the former communication of the board. As to entering into any wild-goose scheme for no purpose and no end, he never would endorse such a step.
Mr. Turner: Have the board ever had any legal opinion on the subject besides the clerk's?
The Chairman: Well, sir, why should the board take action upon it at all, when the matter has been referred to the local committee, and they say it's not a public path at all? We are met here by Mr. Buckmaster
Mr. Turner: It's not Mr. Buckmaster! It's idle to disguise the fact. It's the inhabitants as well. The meeting originated entirely apart from Mr. Buckmaster — (Mr. Todd: "No, no") — with a man little known in this district. I don't want the board to bother itself about this matter, but if we have counsel's legal opinion, there's our answer to Mr. Buckmaster.
The Chairman: Why should Mr. Buckmaster, or any one else, force us into court of law?
Mr. Dagnall: If Mr. Buckmaster wants opinion, let him go and take it.
Mr. Turner: He's a ratepayer, and has a right to ask us if we can do anything in the matter.
Mr. Dagnall had been a good many years the parish — ever since boyhood; but there was no footpath across the Common in the place referred to.
Mr. Sarson: The argument amounts to this. If you take opinion for every dissatisfied ratepayer who comes up here with a crotchet and says: "Oh, you're only falling back the opinion of your clerk. Why don't you take counsel's opinion?" you would take it on the merest rubbishy trash possible. But we have not only the opinion of our legal adviser, but also that of Mr. Poupart, who is an authority in himself, and who was for years connected with the Highway Board. All the evidence that we can collect shows that this is not a footway at all.
Mr. Poupart: I have taken the trouble privately with Mr. Buckmaster of going over every map and plan of the parish I could get at — Lord Spencer's private maps and the tithe maps. There's not one that shows this track across the Common.
The chairman remarked that it was an entire mistake to suppose that the board set itself opposition to the wishes of the ratepayers as regarded the enclosure of the Common. The only bit ever enclosed since they were a board, was the little piece taken for the schools. They did all they could to prevent that being done. The other piece was taken by the railway, and belonged to it years before the Board of Works was existence.
Mr. G. Todd: it's not all wind [??] of that great agitator, Mr. Rose, he distinctly said he should take a legal opinion on it. He told a falsehood, saying I was the nominee of the railway company -
The chairman stopped the speaker.
Mr. Sarson: They are collecting funds for the purpose of litigating this question. Let them take the opinion.
The Chairman: Can make this plain to them? So far as have evidence, and in the opinion of our law clerk, this is not a public footpath, and therefore the board cannot interfere.
Mr. Todd: We don't need counsel's opinion. You may depend Mr. Rose will get one if he wants it. He had given notice of injunction against the Brighton Railway Company. He told me he thought he hadn't a leg to stand on, but thought it a good way of coming to a settlement. ("Laughter.") Excuse me for feeling rather warm on the subject, but I suffered a little at the hands of the mob. An answer was settled to be returned that all information had been already given.
With regard to though elm tree, Mr. C.W. Todd observed that people shouldn't tell lies, and say the whole of those trees were going to be taken down.
The chairman remarked that the board were most anxious to preserve all the trees if they only had the power to do so. There were other trees they would be very glad to get rid of, but they hadn't the power to do so. How would that part be answered respecting the application for the use of the offices
Mr. Todd: I have gone into a society that wish to save your rates very much — the teetotal society. I should like the use of this board-room for them immensely, and have as much right to ask for it anyone else.
Mr. Dagnall observed: They have got their Lammas Hall. Let them meet there.
[PB: Explain "Lammas Hall" — meeting place for? paid for by sale of? common land in Battersea.] "Lammas" because paid for out of money . . . ]
Mr. Turner thought the application very reasonable. The matter had been taken by many influential persons, and the board-room was a very central place to meet at. There could be no objection to let them have a little room once fortnight or once a month. The board ought to sympathize with their object. He thought any refusal of the room might be construed into the opinion that the board not only took no interest in the Common, but was opposed to the movement for its preservation.
Mr. Meaden could see why they should be asked if the committee consisted of gentlemen who lived in the neighbourhood, but it was a general committee collected from all parts of the metropolis he could see no reason for the grant.
Mr. Purdy also thought it would be wise to avoid ill-feeling granting the application on the understanding that the committee was composed of local residents.
Mr. G. Todd objected on the ground that the committee only sought to come there to get certain status to fight their battles with. He belonged to a private committee that had attempted to arrange the matter by taking the Common from Earl Spencer on lease or to buy the freehold of him. But they had been thoroughly thwarted the fact that people had been calling him names, that he refused to see anybody on the subject.
[So Todd "belonged to a private committee that had attempted to arrange the matter by taking the Common from Earl Spencer on lease or to buy the freehold of him"! Interesting. Who they? Why?]
Mr. Barringer seconded Mr. Turner's motion, that the committee should have the room if it was composed of local men. Mr. Dagnall, Mr. Sarson, and Mr. Todd opposed the motion, which was after a long discussion lost by a very large majority.
[So what was the result?]
The board then adjourned.
[BNA:Link.]
The Bedfordshire Mercury, 31 August, 1867
WANDSWORTH COMMON
. . . they had right whatever on the Common," though the House of Commons had said otherwise. If they were trespassers, why didn't Lord Spencer order them off, and punish them for being there? (laughter.) When they saw the common taken away without reasons a . . .
[SHOW MAP]
[IS THIS A DUPE OF THE BEDFORDSHIRE MERCURY, SATURDAY, AUGUST 31, 1867?
WANDSWORTH COMMON On Friday a great meeting of the inhabitants of the parishes of Wandsworth and Battersea was held on the piece of land lying close to Clapham Junction, between the Freemasons' schools and the cemetery. Between 4,000 and 5,000 were present at the commencement of the meeting, which had been convened in accordance with a promise made at a conference few nights before that the assembly should take place, and the destruction of the fence surrounding a portion of the common, enclosed by the Brighton Railway Company, signalise its gathering.
Earl Spencer learning this, applied to Sir Richard May for a body of mounted police to be on the spot to check any damage. The request was granted, the officers being placed under the direction of Superintendent Wayne, division. The railway company also appeared to have prepared resistance to any aggression, for a suspicious number of navvies, in the conventional smocks and red caps, stood in knots among and in the outskirts of the crowd, apparently ready for emergency.
The proceedings commenced with an address from Mr. J.C. Buckmaster, M.A., churchwarden of Battersea, who was supported by the presence of Messrs. Rose, Wallis, Bevington, Lambert, and other friends. He commenced his address by imploring all present to abstain from any act of violence, which would injure their chance of success, for all they had now to do was to protest against cruelty and injustice.
Up to 1831 there had been no encroachment for generations; in that year a road was made from Burntwood to Nightingale-lane, and £700 paid by the Battersea Bridge Company to the parish for its construction and maintenance.
In 1835 Battersea opposed the South-Western Railway, on the ground that it would interfere with the rights of commoners, and sum of %BO was paid into Chancery as compensation for those rights.
These encroachments, however, tended to benefit the public; but next came others by private individuals, sui h as Mr. Wilson's, near the Black Sea, and Mr. M'Kellar's, only permitted by the Court Leet on the promise that the ground should not be built on. But the latter had since enclosed double the area the Court Leet sanctioned, having obtained the consent of the lord of the manor, and now the whole was appropriated to building purposes (hear, hear, and applause)% depriving the people of the light, the exercise, and the air they enjoyed. Then, now, at the last moment they were told they had right whatever on the Common,% though the House of Commons had said otherwise. If they were trespassers, why didn't Lord Spencer order them off, and punish them for being there? (laughter.) When they saw the common taken away without reasons assigned%ay, and that huge board before them, This land to be let on building leases%%it was time to take action. It was no secret that he meant to have that board down.
He then gave the history of the taking cf the land he referred to by the railway company, and concluded a vigorous address, which was loudly cheered throughout, by an appeal to those present to abstain from violence that night, since it might endanger success.
Two or three gentlemen had arranged privately to break down that fence, and so assert their rights, fortified in the act by the expression of public opinion there manifested. Mr. Rose, who was constantly cheered, avowed himself a personal enemy of Lord Spencer. He, like all Englishmen, liked lords (no, no) %lords who did something in return for the mighty privileges Providence had showered on them not such as Earl Spencer, who endeavoured to wrest the law to his own private profit, and the injury of his fellows. He had told him to his face that this enclosure was an act of lawless violence (cries of "We'll have it down"). He had exhausted every right he possessed of pasturage and gravel, and now, by God's assistance and the laws of the country, should be made to disgorge this land.
After deprecating violence, he pledged himself to to law with the earl within a week, and obtain an injunction to preserve the thirty-six fine elms that fringed the view. But everything must be done legally, quietly, discreetly, and wisely, care being taken not to be jockied into wrong course or commit violence. Then they might rely that the matter should be fought out successfully, and sh. the railway company that they could not deal in public land; or, sub rosa, pretendedly only,% sell it to Mr. George Todd. He told them that he did not believe in that sale at all. There was no notice of it on the land, or he would have stopped it, as he had another attempted sale of another part.
In conclusion he mentioned that 15 years ago Wandsworth Common was more beautiful than Clapham. Because the latter was surrounded by wealthy people who resisted encroachment, it was preserved, as henceforth this should. The following resolution was then carried unanimously:
That this meeting regards with extreme sorrow and regret the enclosures which have taken place on Wandsworth Common, and urges the committee appointed for its preservation to take every step to restore the privileges which the public have enjoyed from time immemorial.
The people did not immediately disperse, but stood about in groups on the common until late in the evening
>South London Chronicle — Saturday 31 August 1867
(Click on image to enlarge)
OUR PAROCHIAL PARLIAMENTS
Wandsworth Common Preservation A letter was received from Mr. C. E. Buckmaster, asking, on behalf of a committee for the preservation of commons, if the Board intended to take steps for the preservation of the footpath across Wandsworth-common, also complaining of the destruction of an elm tree in Bollingbroke-road [sic], and asking for asking for the use of the Board's committee room in which to hold their committee meetings.
[BNA:Link.]
OUR PAROCHIAL PARLIAMENTS WANDSWORTH. The Board of Works met on Wednesday afternoon; Mr. G. P. Meadon presiding . . . .
[Section on medical reports made invisible to browser . . . However, it is important to remember other issues the Vestry is considering — the wider context of these discussions abut Wandsworth Common encroachments and the blocking of pathways i.e. a deep anxiety about overcrowding, homelessness, filth, sewers, epidemic disease etc. The vestry was also having to discuss and make decisions abut these.]
WANDSWORTH COMMON PRESERVATION A letter was received from Mr. C. E. [presumably JCB's eldest son Charles Alexander, b.1854, so aged c.13!, not Stanley Owen Buckmaster, the future Lord Chancellor] Buckmaster, asking, on behalf of a committee for the preservation of commons, if the Board intended to take steps for the preservation of the footpath across Wandsworth-common, also complaining of the destruction of an elm tree in Bolingbroke-road, and asking for the use of the Board's committee room in which to hold their committee meetings.
Mr. Poupard [sic] said he had gone through, along with Mr. Buckmaster, all the plans and maps of the common that could be found, and he had failed to find any such path indicated as was now contended for. had doubt that there was no public path.
Mr. G. TODD had spoken to Charles Forbes, who said that it was not a footpath, but a beaten track, and he could remember when it was first made. He said the subject of the preservation of open spaces was as dear to him to any one, but they must all act according to constitutional methods. He was proceeding to argue the general question, but stopped being called to order by the chairman.
The CHAIRMAN stated that years ago, the Board, at the wish of the parishioners, defended the Putney-park-lane question, and persons gave evidence of usor for 70 years. A deal of money was spent, but the Board lost the day. The Battersea Local Committee had, however, discussed and investigated this subject, and were of opinion that this was not a path and that the Board ought not to interfere. There were, therefore, no grounds for the interference of the Board.
Mr. C.W. TODD would like to know what the parish would say if, after the Board should spend a lot of money and be successful in getting this path, some of the inhabitants, walking along the path some day, found that it led to the company's coal-bunks. If they should get the path it would be no use to the public, as it led nowhere.
Mr. TURNEY urged that the Board should take action, as there was a strong feeling in the parish.
The CHAIRMAN: No; not the parish — it is Mr. Buckmaster.
Mr. G. TODD said that Mr. Rose had privately told him he believed that with respect to the piece of land at the other end of the common which he was then trying for, he had not a leg to stand upon, but he thought he would try the case. And now, that gentlemen was again trying to fight the battle he had lost there.
Mr. Todd, to show the genuineness of his wish to retain the common, if it could be done, said that he had been one of a committee who had negociated for an arrangement with Earl Spencer for a portion of the land, to be laid out and preserved for the use of the public; but such hard names had been thrown at the earl that he entirely set his face against negociating with any one.
Considerable discussion ensued upon the question of allowing the use of the room for committee meetings. It was contended that Lammas Hall was specially for meetings for public purposes, and that the use of the Board's room would give the agitators a standing point from which to assail the Board.
It was moved "That upon the distinct understanding that the committee consist of ratepayers resident in the parish," the Board see no objection to the committee meeting occasionally in the committee-room belonging to the Board, provided that the Board and its committees are not inconvenienced thereby."
Upon being put to the vote, this was lost, only 4 hands being held in its favour. With respect to the two other points, it was decided that the Board had no power to interfere.
In relation to the same subject the following letters were received:
"I have been served with notice that the roads by and across the "Black Sea" contemplated by the parish are illegal. It certainly seems to me an unwarrantable expenditure of the parish funds for private purposes. Yours truly, C. LAMBERT.
I am informed that the Wandsworth District Board of Works have agreed to the destruction of the ornamental water called the "Black Sea," on Wandsworth common, and to ask our aid in making roads to facilitate the enclosing and building on Wandsworth Common Earl Spencer. I hereby give you notice that any such expenditure on the part of the Board utterly unwarrantable, and believe illegal, and that I shall oppose every means in power, legal proceedings or otherwise, any such expenditure by the Board. J. ANDERSON.
There was also another letter from Mr. Anderson, asking to be furnished with a copy of the minutes relative to the "Black Sea."
The Board took no action upon the letters, they having already decided upon the question.
[BNA:Link.]
South London Press, 31 August 1867
[FINISH OFF & EDIT]
WANDSWORTH DISTRICT BOARD OF WORKS . . . the Wandsworth District Board of Works have agreed the destruction of the ornamental water called the Black Sea, on Wandsworth Common: 'and to make or and making roads to facilitate the 'en.-Insure and building on Wandsworth Common Earl . . .
[Is this a duplicate of an artile, already transcribed above?]
South London Press — Saturday 31 August 1867
WANDSWORTH DISTRICT BOARD OF WORKS. This body met on Wednesday last at their offices. Present: Messrs. Meaden (in the chair), Carter, Sarson, Rolls, Gaitskell, Dagnall, Purdy, Riches, Loat, Barringer, Bemish, Lacey. Watlin, Young, Hewett, Turner, Poupart, Selwood, Clarke, Silvester, Clayton, Greenwood, Langton, G. Todd, C.W. Todd, Osborne.
. . .
WANDSWORTH COMMON.
The following letters were received on this subject: " The Elms. Wandsworth Common. " Sir, —I have been served with notice t hat the roads by and across the Black Sea contemplated the parish are illegal. It certainly seems to me an unwarrantable expenditure of the parish funds.— Dear sir, yours truly, 'Chas. Lambert.
"A. A. Corsellis, Esq." " 11, Salisbury-street, Strand, London, lir ~ T 23rd August, 1867.
Gentlemen,—l informed that the Wandsworth District Board of Works have agreed the destruction of tho ornamental water called the Black Sea, on Wandsworth Common : 'and to make or and making roads to facilitate the 'en.-Insure and building on Wandsworth Common Earl Spencer. I hereby give you notice that any such expenditure on the part of the board is utterly unwarrantable, and is, I believe, illegal; and that I shall oppose by eveiy means in my power, by legal proceedings or otherwise, any such expenditure by the board I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant, "J. Anderson Rose. " The District Board of Works." " 11, Salisbury-street, Strand, London, " 23rd August, 18(57. "Dear sir, believe I am entitled under the Local Management Act to inspect and take a copy of the minutes of the board. " I understand the board has passed a resolution with reference to the Black Sea on Wandsworth Common, and it would be a convenience to me, and save the trouble of my personal attendance, if you would allow your clerk to send me a copy of the resolution of the board, for which I shall be happy to pay any charge.—l am, dear sir, yours truly, Mr. A. A. Corseelis, Clerk to District Board.
A long letter was also received from Mr. Buckmaster. In it he stated thart he was directed the committee for the Preservation of Commons and Open Spaces to inquire if the board intended to take any steps to preserve the footpaths on Wandsworth Common—especially the footpaths taken away by the Brighton Railway Company, and the one referred to by Mr. Corsellis in a case drawn up by him to be submitted for counsels' opinion, as having been used without interruption for years—(Mr. Corsellis : "I may say that is incorrect")—and if the board did not intend to do so, if they would kindly inform him of their reasons for non-interference. He begged also to direct the attention of the board to tho destruction an elm tree near Battersea cemetery, and asked, conclusion, that the board would allow the committee to meet the offices of the board occasionally, in order to avoid the expenses of meeting at a public-house. The Chairman : The first letters are with regard to the road. I suppose our clerk can say whether or not we have legal right to make that road.
Mr. Purdy thought that as it was usual for holders of private property to make their own roads, they ought to have any departure from the ordinary custom brought prominently forward on the agenda paper and properly investigated.
Mr. Dagnall remarked that the board had already agreed that the road should be formed. [At the previous meeting it was resolved, " That the Battersea and Wandsworth surveyors be instructed to prepare an estimate of the cost of the proposed new road across Wandsworth Common, and to report as to the relative lengths abutting upon private property aud the Common iv each parish."] Mr. Meaden apprehended that no mischief could occur by waiting till the full report was ready, which would state the exact length abutting on private property. He thought every one would highly approve making a good road. The only thing was that in the minds of some persons there existed an impression that there were reasons yet behind the scenes why this road should not be constructed. The only notice the board had the matter was the desire to act for the public good, and no more could be done if the Common was the hands of the Metropolitan Board. If any member desired to oppose the construction of this road, he could call a special meeting of the board.
Mr. Turner desirod to give notice of special motion to be taken into consideration at the next meeting of the board—"That the condition of Wandsworth Common be taken into consideration by this board " —as there had been a good deal of discussion on the matter out of doors—" with a view of ascertaining whether this board has any power, aud, if any, what power, to preserve the Common." Mr. Dagnall: Better let it alone, for we have the promise of Lord Spencer that it shall be appropriated to public recreation.
Mr. Sarson: Lord Spencer wants to help the parish, and the parish won't let him.
Mr. Turner: It's said outside there's no member of the board who takes any interest in the matter.
The Chairman: I believe every member of this board is as anxious as any one can be out of doors to preserve our open spaces, if possible, but I fear our powers are limited. When the discussion comes on we shall know exactly what they are. I know what the feeling of the Metropolitan Board is in this matter. I have tried to find out what reason those members who oppose the making of this road have for opposing it, and I should like to ask Mr. Turner what it is that he wants done.
Mr. Turner: If you ask me, I don't want anything done at all.
Mr. Gaitskell observed that the board had a meeting about a month ago on the very same subject. It appeared now that the surveyors for Battersea and Wandsworth were instructed to prepare estimates of the cost of the proposed road across Wandsworth Common, and to report as to the relative lengths abutting on private property. was given to understand that the property belonged to Earl Spencer, who had conveyed his interest in it to the board, and considered that the only thing that remained to be done by the board was formally to adopt the surveyor's estimates.
Mr. Meaden observed that it was meant to indicate on the plan private property as distinguishable from common land, which had not yet been done. He advised the board to go on the right way, and take no notice of what was said outside.
Mr. Sarson remarked that if Lord Spencer had been paid £1,000 for the land, it would have been all right. He hoped that as Lord Spencer had signed deed of gift
The Clerk: It's not deed of gift. It's a deed of dedication.
Mr. Sarson: Well, then, a deed of dedication. I hope it will be returned to him in common honesty, if the road is not made. The clerk said that the matter was still incomplete, as Earl Spencer had not signed the plan of the proposed road.
DRAINAGE EXTRAORDINARY Mr. Loat complained of the excessive depth of a main sewer that ran across Clapham Common. It lay so deep that it put those who had houses near it to enormous charges.
Mr. Irving had to pay £i > [??] for the simple connection of his house drainage with the main sewer. The chairman suggested that four or five neighbouring residents should conjointly lay down a subsidiary drain to take the drainage off all their houses, having only one connection with the main sewer.
Referring to Mr. Buckmaster's letter afterwards, he observed that there were three points in that letter for reference - the footpath, the elm tree, and the committee room.
Mr. Poupart contended that the track referred to by Mr. Buckmaster never was a footpath. When the South-Western Company went across the Common long before tho Brighton Railway was made, there was a footpath across by tho Plough, near where the elm tree was now destroyed. On the railway taking away that path, the parish insisted on a footbridge being made the company, and one was made near the Freemasons' Schools. When the Brighton Railway Company came afterwards, they paid the parish as compensation, and entered into an arrangement with it to keep the arches and bridges in repair.
Tho footpath they took was the one tlmt went across from Wandsworth to Nightingale-lane. Those were the only two recognized footpaths. There was also a track by the Plough towards the Freemasons' Almshouses, but it never was recognized. Those to which he referred were the only two shown upon any maps. With regard to a path referred to as having been mended at the expense of the board, he would mention that when the board met at Bonnervilleroad, many members got out at the New Wandsworth Station, tho nearest way from which was by track across the Common, and that being in bad state, requested the surveyor to lay a little gravel on it to make it a little cleaner.
Mr. Dagnall corroborated this statement.
Mr. G. Todd remarked that he had spoken to Sir Charles Forbes respecting it, and he said it was merely a beaten track, and not a footpath at all. He remembered when first it was made. The subject of the preservation of open spaces, more particularly that of Wandsworth Common, was dear to all. Many gentlemen then present had a great stake iv tho neighbourhood, and it was manifestly to their own personal advantage, even if they were actuated by no more praiseworthy motive, to seek to preserve such open spaces. What they wished to do, however, was to act as the board desired to do—legally, honestly, fairly The chairman reminded the speaker that the subject was simply oue of the footpath.
Mr. G. Todd said that the question had been discussed often, and invariably it had been decided that the footpath was not public, and that therefore the board had no right to interfere all in the matter.
Mr. Turner had known the place 10 years, and certainly there was footpath there on which he could walk. All he would say was this :It is very desirable that the board should ascertain what is a footpath. If have any power to preserve that footpath, by all means let them preserve it full force.
Mr. Meaden remarked that many years ago persons were very anxious respecting the Putney Park-lane question. It was told the board over and over again that they ought to press the question. They did so. It cost immense deal of money, and they found to their cost that the mere fact of a path being made and used for a term of years did not establish right. The Battersea Local Committee had decided this was not a public path. Should the board be justified in going to law on a question, compared to which that respecting the Park-lane at Putney was clear ?
Mr. C.W. Todd: Supposing they gained their point, and found it was a parish footpath; if they tried to use it, they'd find themselves walking into the company's coal bunks. It leads nowhere.
Mr. George Todd hoped that if the board interfered at all, it would be to take the Common upon a lease the same as that at Streatham. It seemed to him a very simple matter to do so.
Mr. Poupart asked whether the board had not already passed resolution in regard to Mr. Buckmaster's correspondence?
Mr. Sarson was quite willing to give up a portion of his time for the public good, but certainly demurred at having it frittered away by useless repetition of the same discussion. The subject had been carefully gone into, and so satisfied were the board in their own minds that they had no power whatever to interfere, that, his opinion, all that it was necessary to do, would be to refer Mr. Buckmaster to the former communication of the board. As to entering into any wildgoose scheme for no purpose and no end, he never would endorse such a step.
Mr. Turner: Have the board ever had any legal opinion on the subject besides the clerks ? The Chairman: Well, sir, why should the board take action upon it at all, when the matter has been referred to the local committee, and they say it's not a public path at all ? We are met here by Mr. Buckmaster.
Mr. Turner: It's not Mr. Buckmaster! It's idle to disguise the fact. It's the inhabitants as well. The meeting originated entirely apart from Mr. Buckmaster — (Mr. Todd: "No, no") — with a man little known in this district. I don't want the board to bother itself about this matter, but if we have counsel's legal opinion, there's our answer to Mr. Buckmaster.
The Chairman: Why should Mr. Buckmaster, or any one else, force us into court of law?
Mr. Dagnall: If Mr. Buckmaster wants opinion, let him go and take it.
Mr. Turner: He's a ratepayer, and has a right to ask us if we can do anything in the matte* — .
Mr. Dagnall had been a good many years the parish — ever since boyhood; but there was no footpath across the Common in the place referred to.
Mr. Sarson: The argument amounts to this. If you take opinion for every dissatisfied ratepayer who comes up here with a crotchet and says : "Oh, you're only falling back the opinion of your clerk. Why don't you take counsel's opinion?" you would take it on the merest rubbishy trash possible. But we have not only the opinion of our legal adviser, but also that of Mr. Poupart, who is an authority in himself, and who was for years connected with the Highway Board. All the evidence that we can collect shows that this is not a footway at all.
Mr. Poupart: I have taken the trouble privately with Mr. Buckmaster of going over every map and plan of the parish I could get at — Lord Spencer's private maps and the tithe maps. There's not one that shows this track across the Common.
The chairman remarked that it was an entire mistake to suppose that the board set itself opposition to the wishes of the ratepayers as regarded the enclosure of the Common. The only bit ever enclosed since they were a board, was the little piece taken for the schools. They did all they could to prevent that being done. The other piece was taken by the railway, and belonged to it years before the Board of Works was existence.
Mr. G. Todd: it's not all wind of that great agitator, Mr. Rose, he distinctly said he should take a legal opinion on it. He told a falsehood, saying I was the nominee of the railway company — The chairman stopped the speaker.
Mr. Sarson: They are collecting funds for the purpose of litigating this question. Let them take the opinion.
The Chairman : Can make this plain to them ? So far as have evidence, and in the opinion of our law clerk, this is not a public footpath, and therefore the board cannot interfere.
Mr. Todd: We don't need counsel's opinion. You may depend Mr. Rose will get one if he wants it. He had given notice of injunction against the Brighton Railway Company. He told me he thought he hadn't a leg to stand on, but thought it a good way of coming to a settlement. ("Laughter.) Excuse me for feeling rather warm on the subject, but I suffered little at the hands of the mob. An answer was settled to be returned that all information had been already given.
With regard to tho elm tree, Mr. C W. Todd observed that people shouldn't tell lies, and say the whole of those trees were going to be taken down.
The chairman remarked that the board were most anxious to preserve all the trees if they only had the power to do so. There were other trees they would be very glad to get rid of, but they hadn't the power to do so. How would that part be answered respecting the application for the use of the offices
Mr. Todd: I have gone into a society that wish to save your rates very much—the teetotal society. I should like the use of this board-room for them immensely, and have as much right to ask for it anyone else.
Mr. Dagnall observed: They have got their Lammas Hall. Let them meet there.
Mr. Turner thought the application very reasonable. The matter had been taken by many influential persons, and the board-room was a very central place to meet at. There could be no objection to let them have a little room once fortnight or once a month. The board ought to sympathize with their object. He thought any refusal of the room might be construed into the opinion that the board not only took no interest in the Common, but was opposed to the movement for its preservation.
Mr. Meaden could see why they should be asked if the committee consisted of gentlemen who lived in the neighbourhood, but it was a general committee collected from all parts of the metropolis he could see no reason for the grant.
Mr. Purdy also thought it would be wise to avoid ill-feeling granting the application on the understanding that the committee was composed of local residents.
Mr. G. Todd objected on the ground that the committee only sought to come there to get certain status to fight their battles with. He belonged to a private committee that had attempted to arrange the matter by taking the Common from Earl Spencer on lease or to buy the freehold of him. But they had been thoroughly thwarted the fact that people had been calling him names, that he refused to see anybody on the subject.
Mr. Barringer seconded Mr. Turner's motion, that the committee should have the room if it was composed of local men.
Mr. Dagnall, Mr. Sarson, and Mr. Todd opposed the motion, which was after a long discussion lost by a very large majority. The board then adjourned.
[BNA: Link.]
South London Press — Saturday 7 September 1867
WANDSWORTH COMMON
To the Editor of the South London Press Sir, In a very interesting discussion, reported in your journal of the 31st ult., I find that the Board of Works gravely discuss the point of what is a pathway, it appearing that a beaten track is not footpath.
May I be permitted to remark that I, for one, never walk on a beaten track when I can fresh turf for my feet; and it really monstrous to spend time in settling whether an open Common, traversed for thousand years from all points of the compass, is not altogether a footpath although not worn down into ruts and straight lines, as it is evident the public must learn to do.
Is there human being who can desire to have the only pretty walk within 10 miles abolished, and to satisfy practical builders, permit the Black Sea, with its islands, to be levelled and covered with angular villas, fitted up with backyards for the children to play in and annoy the neighbours. I shudder at the thought.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Rus in Urbe.
[BNA: Link.]
[Rus in urbe!]
South London Press — Saturday 14 September 1867
DISTRICT MEETINGS. DISTRICT BOARD OF WORKS the fortnightly meeting of this board ou Wednesday there were present: Messrs. Meaden (in the chair), Bemish, Lacey, Watlin, Alder, Purdy, Sarson, Riches, Loat, Gaitskell, G. Todd, Rawlings, Daguall, Hodgson, Powell, C.W. Todd, Greenwood, Clayton, aud Plumridge.
. . .
WANDSWORTH COMMON RIGHTS ?? notice of motion stood on the paper in the name Mr. J. P. Turner, "That committee be appointed ascertain and report, with the advice of the clerk, powers the board possess for preserving the spaces of Wandsworth Common, and the jhstrict generally; or by what means the same can effected?" When the time came for discussing 'he matter, a letter was read from Mr. Turner, regretting his inability to attend tho board that day, begging the chairman to allow some other Jheinber to bring the matter forward, and procure 'he appointment of a committee to thoroughly con-Blder the question. .. It was considered best to adjourn the matter "'l the next meeting, to allow Mr. Turner "Opportunity of personally advocating his motion. defective drainage battersea. The chairman announced that information, rather yoluminous in its extent, had been collected respeetlQg the drainage in Battersea. He hoped to lay the fatter before the committee of investigation that da y week, and asked that the committee might be power to employ an engineer if requisite.
Mr. George Todd observed that it was matter of Sreat importance to people who held property in that locality. The flooding of the district had got such a wretched name that it had lately reduced the value of property there 15 per cent.
. . .
DISSECTING WANDSWORTH COMMON The committee further stated that the surveyor laid before them a report from himself and the J/andsworth surveyor, relative to the proposed road Wandsworth Common, showing the following reticulars : ot road abutting upon the Common, L» tho parish of Wandsworth 1,144 feet. abutting upon private property . . . 400 „ abutting upon the Common, in the Parisb of Battersea „ Total feet. £sti!!' ated cost the road Wandsworth £1,195 Hated cost of the road in Battersea . . . 193 £1,388 Purdy stated bis belief that the parish of rBea had not been treated fairly in ;tbe matter. the ? not to have been called upon to spend "latt the Parish in private road before the had ecu one iuto thoroughly, and its repret c es wished to express their disapprobation of nner w hich it had been done. It was 6w J all instances to refer any proposition for a had to local committee for approval. It kn been done in this instance, nor did they an all about it till it was done. The e — rs ver warm indeed upon the subject, s aid,
There's a thoroughfare there already : e wants to pass his carriage, it ut farther for it to go rouud the road, with- WiH Bl)ouill g a place where our children can play danger being run over, and where it's c t* to walk, because there's no dust." Another that h private property. A very inter" h»-'r did not scruple to say that private 01l of Were concerned and consulted the forma- this road. At any rate, the Battersea Comthought they should given time before they were called upon to do their part of the work. They felt they should be totally powerless to make any successful attempt to rescind the resolution, but appealed to the board for time to see what could bj done the matter.
Mr. Daguall replied that unfortunately the Battersea gentlemen were not placed on the committee appointed to consider the subject. The committee had several meetings. The board had all the information that could be given, for, as they well knew, the subject was brought forward there repeatedly. The committee had various interviews with Mr. Page, agent to Lord Spencer, who would see the work carried out. At the same time they had other things under consideration, which he hoped would tend to benefit both Battersea and Wandsworth. They did not purpose to carry out the formation of the road immediately, but to leave it to the convenience of the surveyor. They wanted to save expense, and there was no fear of its being forced on unnecessarily. The chairman observed that if, when tho committee brought their report, it had been objected to by Battersea members, and they had said, " It also affects us; let it be also referred to us," it would have been done. At the time the general feeling of the board was, that it was thought to be a very good thing. Mr. Dagnall repudiated any insinuation of interested motives on the part of the committee.
Mr. George Todd did likewise ; observing, that so long as a man was going the right way, he needn't care for the row of the rabble. He believed the road would be a very great advantage, as they would have a straight feet road instead of dangerous footpath. In addition to this, the main road last Mr. Wilson's would bo widened by the cession of private land adjoining. Mr. Poupart hoped they would not be obliged to carry out the work directly. It would take two or three years to fill up the disused gravel pits with surplus rubbish. Mr. Sarson, in promoting the formation ot a road, was only actuated by the desire for public improvement, which would save 000 yards' journey, or a third of a mile, to an important station ; whereas it was now questionable if road footpath existed there. The matter then dropped, and after appointing committee to receive the report of the deputation to Guernsey respecting stone for the roads, the board adjourned.
[BNA: Link.]
The Times — Saturday 5 October 1867
(Click on image to enlarge)
THE ENCLOSURE OF WANDSWORTH-COMMON A deputation from the Wandsworth-common Preservation Society, headed by Mr. Anderson Rose, waited on the Board for the purpose of presenting a memorial praying for the assistance of the Board in resisting the encroachment which were being made on the rights of the inhabitants of Wandsworth and Battersea by the further enclosures that were taking place of large portions of Wandsworth-common. It stated that great anxiety was felt to preserve what remained of the common for public use and recreation, for more than one-half of the common had already been enclosed — in the first instance for semi-charitable purposes, and on that account those enclosures had not been opposed.
Since that time, however, enclosures had been made by private persons in collusion with the lord of the manor, and an enclosure bad been made by the Brighton Railway Company, not for the purposes of the railway, and not under the powers of their Act of Parliament, but as a building speculation.
The purchase of that part of the common had been made by Mr. Laurie and Mr. Slight, as appeared by the conveyance deed for their own use, but purchasers of some of the lots refused to complete on the ground that there were commonable rights, and that the Brighton Railway Company had no power to extinguish them; whereupon the railway company allowed the objection and returned the deposits, therefore it was with a full knowledge of all these defects of title that the land had been purchased.
Notwithstanding this, several footpaths had been stopped up, but these fences had been repeatedly broken down, and yet the railway company refused to try the right.
The Brighton Railway Company had made enclosures for dust and refuse of the district, and a vast heap of accummulated filth had been deposited, and was constantly sorted and sifted there, and a Mr. Todd and a Mr. Hewitt were building a public house on the common land so illegally enclosed by the Brighton Railway Company.
["constantly sorted and sifted" — remember what Mayhew as to say on the [sorters]. And where was this exactly? The Freemasons is on the other railway, on the other side. See below Anderson Rose, for hints. I also recall JCB was [prosecuted] for breaking a window on a beer house here, and I think I found the name of the place. Presumably a beer house that didn't last very long? Where, I wonder? Yes, it was the "Lord of the Manor", on the corner of Bolingbroke and Battersea Rise, opposite the cemetery.]
An avenue of trees a mile long, skirting the east side of the common [i.e. Bolingbroke Grove], was being destroyed by Mr. Todd, although it was outside the fence and on the public footpath, and the line of building it was believed was proceeding illegally, and set; most injuriously to the public traffic. The width of the main road was only 25ft. from curb to curb, and the carriage road was only 18ft. 4in. For these reasons it was prayed that this Board would take such steps as might be necessary to prevent the enclosure of Wandsworth-common by the Brighton Railway Company and their agents; as a building speculation, and to stop the buildings now being erected thereon.
After a short discussion the subject was referred to the Works and General Purposes Committee for consideration and report.
[Source: Link]
CHECK IF THIS IS THE SAME AS THE TIMES ARTICLE above
Morning Advertiser — Saturday 5 October 1867
THE ENCLOSURE OF WANDSWORTH COMMON A deputation from the Wandsworth-common Preservation Society, headed by Mr. Anderson Rose, waited the board for the purpose of presenting memorial praying L* the assistance of the board resisting the encroachmente whioh were being made the rights of inhabitants of Wandsworth and Battersea the further enclosures that were taking place of large portions Wandsworth-common. It stated that great anxiety was preserve remained of the common for tbe public recreation; for more than one-half of the common had already been enclosed, in the first instance tor semi-chari'able purpose#, and on that account those enclosures had not been opposed. Sicos that time, however, enclosures had been made by private individuals in collusion with the lord manor, and enclosure had been made by the Brighton Railway Company, not for the pnrpoeee the railway, and not undbr the p.iwere of their act of Parliament, but building speculation.
The purchase of that part of the common had been made Mr. Lawrie and Mr. Blight, as appealed the conveyance deeds, for their own nse; but parobasere of some of the lots refused to complete, on tbe ground tha'. there were common right#, and that the Railway Company had no power extinguish them, whereupon the railway company allowed the objection and returned deposits; therefore was with full knowledge all these defects ol title that the land had been purobated.
Notwithstanding this several footpaths had been stopped up, and though the fences had been repeatedly broken down the railway company refused to try the right. The Brighton Railway Company had made enclosures (or dust and refuse of tbe district, and vast heap of accumulated filth had been deposited and was constantly sorted and sifted there, and a Mr. Todd and Mr. Hewitt weie building public bouse on the common land so illegally enclosed the Brighton Railway Company. An avenuo trcee, mile long, skirting tbe eaat side of the common, were being destroyed by Mr. Todd, although they were outside the fence and on the public footpath, and the lice building it was believed was proceeding illegally, and would be most injurious to the public traffic. The width of tbe main road was only 26 feet from kerb to kerb, and tbe carriage-road was only 18 feet inches. For these reasons it was prayed that the board would take suoh steps might necessary to prevent the enclosure of Wandsworth-common by the Brighton Railway Company and their agents a building speculation, and to stop the buildings now being erected thereon. After a short discussion the subject was referred to the Works and General Purposes Committee for consideration and report.
[BNA: Link ]
[See also: Link ]
[NOTE]
[BNA: Link.]
South London Press — Saturday 5 October 1867
WANDSWORTH COMMON PRESERVATION The Wandsworth Common Preservation Society presented a memorial, asking the assistance of the board in resisting the encroachments being made on the rights of the inhabitants of Battersea and Wandsworth, by the enclosures now being made on Wandsworth Common.
It set forth that great anxiety was felt to preserve what remained of the Common for the use and enjoyment of the public; that more than half of the Common had already been enclosed — in the first instance for semi-charitable purposes, and on that account those enclosures had not been opposed.
Since that time enclosures had been made by private individuals in collusion of the lord of the manor; also that enclosure had been made by the Brighton Bailway Company, in collusion with the lord of the manor, not for the purpose of the railway, and not under the provisions of their Act, but as a building speculation only. The part of the Common was not within their line of deviation, and they had no power or right to make the purchase. purchase of that part of the Common was, in fact, made by Mr. Lawrie and Mr. Slight, appeared by the conveyance deed for their own use. Purchasers of some of the lots rofused to complete, on the ground that there were commonable rights which the railway company had no power to extinguish, that the Brighton Railway Company thereon allowed the objection and returned the deposits, stating that they had a person who would take the property. Under those circumstances, Mr. Todd purchased (if he purchased) with full knowledge of the defects the title.
The memorial then set forth that several footpaths had been stopped up, and the fence continually broken down to try the right. But the railway company having made inquiries and found the paths were as old as the memory of man, continually repair the fence and refuse to try the right; that a certain portion of the land enclosed, in connection with the other enclosures, entirely blocked out the inhabitants from the use of what remained of the Common: on this a depot for dust and filth was made; that Mr. Todd and Mr. Hewitt were building a public-house on the land so illegally enclosed; that Mr. Todd had already begun to destroy an avenue of trees called Bolingbroke Grove, though they were outside the enclosing fence and on the public footpath; that the builders were proceeding illegally, it was believed, without proper notice and consent of the board and that the line of front was set illegally and injuriously to the public, the width of the main road being but 25 feet, and the carriage-way 18 feet inches. The memorialists therefore prayed the board to stop the building and any further enclosure.
"Mr. Todd and Mr. Hewitt were building a public-house on the land so illegally enclosed"
Mr. J. A. Rose, who headed the deputation, remarked that they did not desire the board to take the matter entirely into their own hands, but simply to assist the inhabitants to stop the encroachments now being made upon the Common -- particularly as referred to the building of the public-house, of which the memorial just read had complained, and as regarded the road which himself had measured and found to bo but ?? feet wide. He also applied to the board to preserve the trees from destruction.
Sir John Thwaites replied that an application had been received by the board for permission to build the public-house referred to, but that as the board thought its erection would interfere with existing rights, they had declined to grant the desired permission. With regard to the trees, he feared they had no control over them. Mr. Newton considered that the board could not interfere with Mr. Todd. Eventually the matter was referred to the Works and General Purposes Committee, the officers of the board to examine the road and premises, and report thereon.
An application and memorandum thereon the superintending architect as to width of road and erection of houses at Wandsworth Common was read. It was stated that the erection had not received the approval of the board, and was already one storey high. Mr. Vulliamy, however, thought Mr. J. A. Rose's measurement mistake. This also was referred to the Works Committee.
[BNA: Link ]
London Evening Standard — Friday 4 October 1867
(Click on image to enlarge)
METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS This morning the board met at their offices, Spring-gardens; Sir John Thwaites in the chair. Reports and official communications were disosed of, after which a deputation from the Wandsworth Common Preservation Society, presented a memorial praying for the assistance of the board in resisting the incroachments of the Brighton Railway Company, speculative builders, and others. The memorial was referred to the Works and General Purposes Committee.
[BNA: Link.]
["the Wandsworth Common Preservation Society" — is this the first mention of the name?]
South London Press — Saturday 5 October 1867
(Click on image to enlarge)
WANDSWORTH COMMON PRESERVATION The Wandsworth Common Preservation Society presented a memorial, asking the assistance of the board in resisting the encroachments being made on the rights of the inhabitants of Battersea and Wandsworth, by the enclosures now being made on Wandsworth Common. It set forth that great anxiety was felt to preserve what remained of the Common for the use and enjoyment of the public; that more than half of the Common had already been enclosed — in the first instance for semi-charitable purposes, and on that account those enclosures had not been opposed.
Since that time enclosures had been made by private individuals in collusion of the lord of the manor; also that enclosure had been made by the Brighton Bailway Company, in collusion with the lord of the manor, not for the purpose of the railway, and not under the provisions of their Act, but as a building speculation only. The part of the Common was not within their line of deviation, and they had no power or right to make the purchase. purchase of that part of the Common was, in fact, made by Mr. Lawrie and Mr. Slight, appeared by the conveyance deed for their own use.
Purchasers of some of the lots rofused to complete, on the ground that there were commonable rights which the railway company had no power to extinguish, that the Brighton Railway Company thereon allowed the objection and returned the deposits, stating that they had a person who would take the property. Under those circumstances, Mr. Todd purchased (if he purchased) with full knowledge of the defects the title.
The memorial then set forth that several footpaths had been stopped up, and the fence continually broken down to try the right. But the railway company having made inquiries and found the paths were as old as the memory of man, continually repair the fence and refuse to try the right; that a certain portion of the land enclosed, in connection with the other enclosures, entirely blocked out the inhabitants from the use of what remained of the Common: on this a depot for dust and filth was made; that Mr. Todd and Mr. Hewitt were building a public-house on the land so illegally enclosed; that Mr. Todd had already begun to destroy an avenue of trees called Bolingbroke Grove, though they were outside the enclosing fence and on the public footpath; that the builders were proceeding illegally, it was believed, without proper notice and consent of the board and that the line of front was set illegally and injuriously to the public, the width of the main road being but 25 feet, and the carriage-way 18 feet inches. The memorialists therefore prayed the board to stop the building and any further enclosure.
Mr. J. A. Rose, who headed the deputation, remarked that they did not desire the board to take the matter entirely into their own hands, but simply to assist the inhabitants to stop the encroachments now being made upon the Common$particularly as referred to the building of the public-house, of which the memorial just read had complained, and as regarded the road which himself had measured and found to bo but feet wide. He also applied to the board to preserve the trees from destruction.
Sir John Thwaites replied that an application had been received by the board for permission to build the public-house referred to, but that as the board thought its erection would interfere with existing rights, they had declined to grant the desired permission. With regard to the trees, he feared they had no control over them.
Mr. Newton considered that the board could not interfere with Mr. Todd.
Eventually the matter was referred to the Works and General Purposes Committee, the officers of the board to examine the road and premises, and report thereon.
An application and memorandum thereon the superintending architect as to width of road and erection of houses at Wandsworth Common was read. It was stated that the erection had not received the approval of the board, and was already one storey high. Mr. Vulliamy, however, thought Mr. J. A. Rose's measurement a mistake. This also was referred to the Works Committee.
[BNA: Link]
Bell's Weekly Messenger — Saturday 5 October 1867
Metropolitan Board of Works At meeting yesterday a deputation from the Wandsworth Common Preservation Society presented a memorial praying the board use its power to prevent the erection of any more buildings on the common, and especially restrain tbo Brighton Railway Company from constructing houses near station. the inhabitants had allowed buildings to be crofted [??] on the common for charitable purposes, and of this it was said the lord of the manor has taken advantage, allow private persons and companies to build. The chairman directed that the officers of the board should surrey the projected buildings of the Brighton Company, and report to whether any of the regulations of the board have been infringed. It was stated that a bill in Chancery is being prepared against Lord Spencer and the Brighton Railway Company.
[BNA: Link.]
Clerkenwell News — Saturday 5 October 1867
[I CAN'T FIND THE ORIGINAL .PNG or .JPG — remake.]
[NEEDS EDIT. CHECK IF THIS IS THE SAME AS e.g. THE SOUTH LONDON PRESS ARTICLE above]
(Click on image to enlarge)
ENCLOSURE OF WANDSWORTH COMMON
A deputation waited on Board reference to the encroachments on Wandsworth-common, and presented a memorial which set forth that the inhabitants of Wandsworth and Battersea were most anxious to preserve what remains of Wandsworth-common for public use and enjoyment. More than one-half of Wandsworth-common had already been enclosed in the first instance for semi-charitable purposes, and on that account the inhabitants were inti need not to oppose such inclosure.
Reinsures w re then bv private individuals in collusion with the Lord of Manor, and lastly, an had now in made the Brighton Railway Company, not for the purposes of the railway, and not under the powers and provisiens of their Act of Parliament, but as speculation only. That part of the common now inclosed was not wiihin the limits of deviation iu the plans deposited Brighton Company, and they had no power or right by their Act to the pnrehas*. The purchase this part of the common fact was ido by Mr. Lawtio and Mr. Blight, a appears conveyance deed for thiir own use. 8 v ral of the footpaths have be. d up, although the inhabitants have repeatedly broken down the fences to try the right, but the Brighton Railway Company have continually repaired the fence and refused to try the right the enclosure of the portionaof the common alluded to, caused tbo greatest inconvenience and obstruction inhabitants of New Wandsworth and Battersea, and entirely blocked them out from the n*o of what remained of the common.
The memorialists, therefore, prayed the Board to take such?? might be nessary to prevent the inclosure of Wandsworth-common Brighton Railway Company as a building speculation, and to step the buildings now in progress. the matter was referred to the General Purposes Committee.
[BNA: Link.]
Morning Advertiser — Tuesday 15 October 1867
Wandsworth Common The spoliation of Wandsworth Common has, we hear, been submitted to the consideration Sic Bonndell Palmer and Lord Cairns, whose opinions hare been expressed unreservedly favour of the mews entertained by the Commons Preservation Committee, and against the usurpation any portion of the land recently enclosed by the railway company or built by the Imsm oi Earl Spencer. South London Press.
[BNA: Link ]
[NOTE]
South London Press — Saturday 12 October 1867
METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS — YESTERDAY . . . consideration was adjourned. DESTRUCTION OF WANDSWORTH COMMON. Permission was given the Wandsworth District Board to construct sewers in Broderich-road, Nottingham-road, Althorpo- . . .
Pall Mall Gazette — Thursday 17 October 1867
The sixtieth quarterly report of the Conservative Land Society, read at the meeting held at the offices in Norfolk-street, Strand, yesterday, states that the receipts for the fifteenth financial year, ending September 30, were £116,983 0s. 11d., and the grand totals to Michaelmas, 1867, £1,100,603 7s. 9d. The shares issued were 27,783 at £50 each, making £1,389,150 and the total withdrawals since the formation of the society (1852) to Michaelmas, 1867, £306,749 Os. 2d. The total sale of land for the same period was £537,050 19s. 6d. The reserve fund to Michaelmas was £13,348 3s. The second portion of the East London Estate was allotted on the 2nd of August, and building operations are in active progress thereon.
Additional portions of the Forest estate will be offered in due course; the continued demolition of houses owing to the extension of the metropolitan railway system rendering the opening up of new districts within an easy distance of town absolutely necessary.
Bolingbroke Park, with its mansion and grounds, its extensive frontage to Wandsworth Common on the one side, and frontage to Battersea Rise on the other, the whole being close to Clapham Junction and New Wandsworth stations, had been acquired for the society. Mr. Perse Stace, public accountant, and Mr. Newnham Winstanley, for the Board, and Mr. W. H. Clermow and Mr. James Goad, are the four auditors to report as to the accounts and balance sheet for the financial year ending September 30, 1867, to be presented at the annual meeting early in December next.
The executive committee, in conclusion, congratulated the members on the happy auspices under which the sixteenth year of the Conservative Land Society had commenced.
There were present at the meeting Viscount Ranelagh (chairman), Colonel Brownlow Knox, M.P., Hon. and Rev. W. Talbot, Major Jervis, M.P., Mr. Currie, Mr. T. H. Holmes, Mr. Newcomen, Mr. Winstanley, Mr. Goad, Mr. Stewardson, Mr. Hugh Thomson, Mr. Rentmore, &c. &c.
[BNA: Link]
[BNA: Link.]
South London Chronicle — 23 November 1867
WANDSWORTH The members of this Board met on Wednesday afternoon. Mr. G P. Meaden presided, and there were also present — Messrs. Rolls, Coombe, Lucas, Kiches, Alder, Dulley, Loat, Lobjoit, Poupart, Young, Barringer, Mitchell, Manchester, Purdy, Leach, ltagnall, Clayton, Langton, C.W. Todd, Greenwood and Hodgson.
Medical Reports.
Battersea, fortnight ending 9th Nov.; births 86, deaths 25. The health continued good. Dr. Conner begged direct the attention of the Board to a fearful nuisance carried the premises Messrs. Becker and Townsend's pippery, Falcon-lane, boiling tripe for food for the pigs, from which a most disgusting and deadly stench arises, poisoning the atmosphere of the surrounding neighbourhood, and not unlikely to generate disease of a serious character. He considered it not only to be a nuisance, but one highly injurious to health, and would urge the Board to take active and decided steps for its immediate suppression.
Wandsworth. The births were 29, deaths 15. The deaths were slightly above the average, but looking to the circumstances that 5 of the deaths took place in public institutions, the numbers are favourable.
Clapham. Births 33, deaths 14. The health was good, and the mortality below the average. Amongst the parish poor there were 42 new cases of illness, and one death due to consumption in male residing in Nelson's-row.
Streatham, Tooting, and Balham, fortnight ending 2nd Nov. Births 10, deaths 6. The health was in a satisfactory condition. There Were no deaths from zymotic diseases.
Putney and Roehampton, 2nd November. Births N, deaths, nil. The public health was most satisfactory.
Battersea Matters answer to a letter from Mr. Muspratt, the Board decided adhere their previous decision in respect of making up St. George's-street, West-street, and South-street, Battersea-park. Apportionments of the cost of constructing new Sewers in Speke-road, Livingstone-road, Althorpe-road, Broderick-road, lugrove-street, Ashurst-street, Latchmere-lane, Henley-street, Landseeretreet, anil Nottingham-road, were approved. Mr. Geo. Nichols was appointed collector.
Two new lamps are to placed in Basnettgrove, and in St. John's-hill, and 4 in the latter place arc to be shifted. Mr. Hulls is to be called upon to divert the drainage from his premises in Lombard-road into the sewer there, and in default legal proceedings are to be taken.
The Surveyor has instructed to have the dust removed from Mr. Buckmaster's residence and other houses, the cost thereof to be charged to the contractor. Mr. Hudson. Tue Draw-dock at Putney. In accordance with the recommendation of the Putney Local Committee, the Clerk was instructed write and inform Mr. Young that the drawdock at the bottom of Brewhouse-lane was not formed by the Board, as stated in his letter the Bth inst., but that the roadway to same was simply repaired by the Board in 1860; that there was not any earth or ballast removed as stated; and that the damage to the wall has been partly caused by the increase traffic in the dock; and that this, together with the action of the tides, has caused the foundation of the wall to be visible for about 10 yards, and that this required undermining, and the roadway making up to its former level. College-street, Putney.
The Clerk was instructed to write to Mr. Wilson, Surveyor to the Conservative Land Society, calling his attention to the disgraceful state the above street. Point-pleasant, Wandsworth. The Clerk stated that the Metropolitan Board had declined to sanction the frontage of houses proposed to be built by Mr. J. Stewart, as also approach five feet wide to the rear. Several members were of opinion that the court should allowed, otherwise they were interfering with Mr. Stewart's private rights. The Chairman was opposed to the plan, and so were majority in the Board, as upon being put to the vote the application was not agreed to.
Wandsworth-common The Clerk reported on the question referred to him as to the public rights over the common. WHe ws of opinion that there had not been a defined and distinct footpath that had been interfered with.
A letter from Earl Spencer was read in answer to the Board's application for a perpetual easement over the common, and in the event of that being declined, to know upon what terms he will part with his interest, with a view to its being secured to the public for ever.
The Earl replied that he should postpone any action in the matter until after a decision is given with reference to Wimbledon-common. It will be more satisfactory to wait for that decision than to act upon any course which may afterwards be set aside.
Clerkenwell News — Friday 27 December 1867
(Click on image to enlarge)
WANDSWORTH-COMMON PRESERVATION SOCIETY The following circular has been issued: "The attention of the inhabitants of the districts surrounding Wandsworth-common is urgently requested to its condition, more especially on the fallowing points:
1st, The enclosures of common which have taken place;
2nd, The enclosures and building now began or threatened;
3rd, The stopping up of public footpaths;
4th, The numerous nuisances now existing on the common; and
5th, The necessity for the improvement of the condition of the common generally.At present Wandsworth-common is a receptacle for species of filth, which is brought from the most distant parts and there deposited. It has been made a depot for dust, ashes, and excrement of the district, and has been excavated to such an extent that parts are covered with water during winter, and are consequently very injurious to the public health both of the immediate and adjoining districts.
All these and other matters relating to the deplorable state of Wandsworth-common were specially brought under the notice of Earl Spencer, Lord of the Manor, in 1865, when evidence was given before The Open Spaces Committee uf the House of Commons. Earl Spencer was present and heard a lengthened detail of the nuisances complained of.
It is not saying too much to add that every grievance then complained of has een aggravated since that time. Very large public meetings have been held at Wandsworth, at which resolutions have been unanimously passed for the purpose of preserving and amending the condition of the common.
A committee has been appointed, consisting of the following gentlemen, with power to add to their number:
Mr. Samuel B. Bevington, Lake-terrace, Wandsworth-common;
Mr. Bickerdike, 1, Elm-terrace, St. John's hill, New Wandsworth;
Mr. J. C Buckmaster, churchwarden of the parish of Battersea, Si John's-hill, Wandsworth;
Mr. J B Cummins, Heathbourne, Wandsworth-common;
Mr. J. G. Jennings, Nightingale-lane;
Mr. Charles Lambert, the Elms, Wandsworth-common;
Mr. Ord, St. John's hill;
Mr Paine, Belmont Lodge, St John's-hill;
Mr. J. Anderson Rose, Wandsworth-common;
Mr. Compton Smith, Wandsworth;
Mr. Warrington, corner of Nightingale-lane, Wandsworth-common;
Mr Wix, Loraine-road, St John's-hill;
C. Lambert, Esq, of the Elms, Wandsworth-common, has been appointed treasurer.
The following gentlemen are authorised to collect subscriptions in districts the east and south sides of the common ;
Mr. Cummins, Heathbourne, Wandsworth-common;
Mr. Jennings, Nightingale-lane;
Mr. Rose, Wandsworth-common;
Mr. Warrington, Wandsworth-common;
and in the districts on the north and west sides of the common:
Mr. Bickerdike, Elm-terrace, St John's bill ;
Mr. Gammon, Spencer-road;
Mr. Ord, St John's-hill;
Mr Paine, Belmont Lodge, St John's-hill;
Mr. Wix, Loraine-road, St John's-hill
Committee Room, Freemasons Hotel, New Wandsworth Station.
BNA Search: I think I have now completed 1867: Buckmaster Spencer Wandsworth Common.]
1866 | 1868