[BNA Search: "Wandsworth Common"]
[South London Press: "Wandsworth Common"]
[The Times: Search: "Wandsworth Common"].
[BNA: Buckmaster Battersea 1870]
[BNA: Buckmaster Wandsworth 1870]
[London Evening Standard: Buckmaster Wandsworth 1870]
CARRY ON SEARCH: BNA_BUCKMASTER WANDSWORTH_LONDON_EVENING_STANDARD_1870-1879
[London Evening Standard: Buckmaster Wandsworth 1870]
[Pall Mall Gazette: "Wandsworth Common" 1870]
[London Daily News: "Wandsworth Common" 1870]
TO ADD:
[South London Chronicle: "Wandsworth Common" 1870 [DONE — ALL ADDED TO THIS PAGE]]
[Daily Telegraph: "Wandsworth Common" 1870]
[Clerkenwell News: "Wandsworth Common" 1870]
[London Daily News: "Wandsworth Common" 1870]
[Globe: "Wandsworth Common" 1870]
OTHERS? NORWOOD?
Or SEARCH BY MONTH.
On April 13th 1870, "a large number of persons assembled and asserted their right of way by breaking down the fences". Some 300-400 people armed with hatchets and pickaxes re-established a footpath enclosed by a Mr Costeker at Plough Green. "At each crashing of the fence there was a great hooting and hurrahing." In June of the same year there were protests at Spencer's plans to enclose part of Putney Common. [A]
Eventually Earl Spencer agreed to transfer most of the common to the Defence Committee excluding the area which later became Spencer Park.
The agitation to save Wandsworth Common, although led by wealthier residents, involved working class mass involvement, including mass meetings in local factories.[A]
["Hatchets and pickaxes" — I haven't seen a specific reference to these.]
Digby v Spencer
Common Rights.
In the case "Digby v. Earl Spencer," in which a question was raided to rights of Wandsworth Common, an application was made to the Chief Clerk, Mr. Church, at the Rolls Chambers, on Friday, for time to amend. The bill of complaint was filed in January, 1868, and Earl Spencer has filed his answer, and time was required to amend. The Chief Clerk gave to the 10th January, on which an objection was made on the part of his lordship, and the matter was referred the Master of the Rolls.
[BNA: Link]
A fund is being raised to defray the coats of Mr. J. Buckmaster, B.A., of St. John's-hill, New Wandsworth, defending the action brought against him in connexion with his assertion of the public right of way over Wandsworth Common. Sir Charles Dilke, Bart., SI.P., has subscribed £5 it.
[BNA: Link.]
BERKHAMPSTEAD COMMON
OUR readers may remember the great battle of Berkhampstead fought a few years ago, when the fence thrown up by the lord of the manor was levelled during the night by a detachment of navvies from London. The campaign opened by that vigorous action has been raging ever since, although transferred, from the field to the courts of law, and carried on by pleading instead of pickaxes. We are glad, however, to observe, that victory still adheres to the same side. The Master of the Rolls gave judgment on Friday last in favour of the rights of the commoners; and we may hope that one very charming bit of scenery will henceforth be preserved for public enjoyment.
It is a pity that Berkhampstead is not a little nearer to the metropolis; but every open piece of land, even at a distance of thirty miles, is beginning to have an increased value. The evidence taken before the House of Commons committee in the last session showed how rapidly and with what disregard to the interests of the poorer classes many waste pieces of land have disappeared before the advances of cultivation. It is a matter of congratulation when it is discovered that any unbroken stretch of gorse and heather is likely to be free from park walls, or from the worse fate of a settlement of suburban residences.
The case of Berkhampstead is in many ways peculiar. The warfare of which the present judgment is the last event began 250 years ago. A settlement was originally made in the year 1619, by which the lord of the manor — at that time the Duke of Cornwall — was allowed to enclose 300 acres, which it was agreed would leave a sufficient remnant for the commonable rights of the tenants. After this, in 1649, another attempt was made to enclose the same, or very nearly the same, tract of 400 acres which has been the subject of the present dispute.
The village Hampdens who resisted that attempt successfully were nearly the contemporaries of the original hero of the ship-money; and we are glad to see that their spirit is still extant. Mr. Augustus Smith, as their representative, has succeeded in establishing their rights of "herbage, pannage, and the cutting of furze and gorse."
The Master of the Rolls decided that, under the circumstances, it was incumbent upon the lord of the manor to prove that his enclosure would leave sufficient for the commonable rights of the tenants. This the lord neither did nor even attempted to do, and a perpetual injunction is accordingly granted against him.
This principle is obviously of great importance, and much in favour of the preservation of commons. It is very difficult — in any given case to determine precisely who are the commoners, what are their rights, and how much will be sufficient to satisfy those rights.
The difficulty is of course increased in the case of commons near the metropolis, where rights of the nature described have been allowed to fall out of use in consequence of the increase of population. If it were necessary to prove what was the precise extent of these rights in each case, the task would often be impossible, and the lord of the manor would get the whole advantage resulting from their practical disuse.
If, on the other hand, he is bound to show that he has left a sufficiency before proceeding — to enclose the surplus, the difficulty will rest with him, and the commons may remain in their native wildness.
We may therefore take the decision as a good thing in itself, and as a good omen for the various suits now in progress. We hope that the case may at any rate encourage persons now engaged in the defence of our remaining open spaces.
It is difficult to attract any attention to the matter while questions of more general interest are being agitated. Yet it is very important that something should be done, while we still have the commons, or some considerable fragments of them, among us.
It is due to a fortunate combination of circumstances that there are still within a few miles of London pleasant bits of unbroken country free from the formality of parks, and becoming every day more valuable as our great masses of hideous brick push their advanced forces farther into the green fields.
There are few pleasanter rambles than across Wimbledon Common or the still unannexed stretches of Epping Forest. The indifference of the inhabitants and the natural accumulativeness of lords of the manor have combined to fritter away many such open regions. Wandsworth Common is only a shadow of its former self; and railways and encroachments of various kinds have made sad havoc of several others.
The Commons' Preservation Society has done something to arouse public attention; and the lawsuits which are now being carried on will, it may be hoped, succeed in some cases in effecting a permanent rescue.
The Berkhampstead victory should encourage them to fresh efforts. If Mr. Lowe's principles of economy are to be carried out at all hazards, we may fear that Epping Forest will be simply given away to the landholders of the district. We will hope for better things; but meanwhile it is some consolation that the law does not seem to be so unfavourable to the rights of commoners as lords of the manor had generally assumed, and that a good deal may be done to prevent the whole face of the country being overrun by suburban villas — perhaps the most detestable variety amongst the various detestable performances of modern architects — or being surmounted in every direction by placards against trespassers, by simply putting in force the existing rights. Berkhampstead is but a small place, and rather too far for a Sabbath day's journey. But the precedent may be applicable nearer home. It is rumoured that the Metropolitan Board of Works is about to cut the knot in the case of Hampstead by the payment of £50,000 to the lord of the manor.
The Berkhampstead case should surely suggest that it would be as well to wait till the rights thus bought should be first established at law. If it is decided that the lords of the manor may simply appropriate our commons, it may become necessary to buy them out. But to buy them out unnecessarily is not merely to throw away money — a process to which the Board of Works may not be specially reluctant — but to form a very inconvenient precedent. The sums of money which would be necessary to purchase some of the larger commons would be so great that a purchase might well be impracticable, and though we would make sacrifices rather than lose them, we have no desire to raise difficulties by acknowledging rights shown by the case of Berkhampstead to be very questionable.
[BNA: Link.]
["Village Hampden" — John Hamden, staunch defender of democracy during the C17, whose attempted arrest by Charles I in the House of Commons in 1642 sparked the English Civil War.
Wikipedia: John Hamden:"Hampden was used as an example of how rebellion against the state could be reconciled with patriotism, particularly as his death in battle allowed him to be positioned as a martyr to the cause of liberty.
It is in this light that he is referenced in a well-known stanza of one of the most famous of English poems — Thomas Gray's 'Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard' (1751) — where the poet speculates that the churchyard's dead may include 'Some village-Hampden, that with dauntless breast/The little Tyrant of his fields withstood' . . .
The early 19th century British radical movement set up Hampden Clubs, while he was referenced by Radical poet Percy Shelley. In Mary Shelley's novel, Frankenstein, he appears as a symbol of rebellion against patriarchal authority."
Wikipedia: "Thomas Gray's poem "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard" refers to the heroism of Hampden in the stanza: 'Some village-Hampden, that with dauntless breast / The little tyrant of his fields withstood;/ Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest, / Cromwell guiltless of his country's blood."
["to prevent the whole face of the country being overrun by suburban villas — perhaps the most detestable variety amongst the various detestable performances of modern architects" !]
A bitterly angry letter from John Buckmaster, looking back to c.1855. Notice his approval of Smith v Brownlow — the Berkhamstead fence-breaking case that had rumbled on for some years. Also "the tailor" — I assumed this was McKellar rather than his successor, oe even the "tailor" De Selincourt, ([owner of] Swan and Edgar.). But perhaps it's actually Costeker — prominent in the Merchant-Tailors Guild.]
WANDSWORTH COMMON.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.
SIR, — The decision in the case of Smith v. Brownlow will inspire hope in the hearts of those who, under enormous difficulties and discouragements, have been for years fighting almost alone the question of common rights.
It is now fifteen years since I waited upon the late Lord of Old Farthing Manor [Spencer #3?], and pointed out to him the gradual encroachments and enclosures on Wandsworth-common, and since that time, according to my ability and judgment, I have resisted and shall continue to resist these enclosures.
The late lord of the manor said, "I quite agree with you, that no further enclosure of the common ought to take place," but since that time upwards of one hundred acres of the best part of the common has been enclosed, and these enclosures have been made, not by the poor but by the selfish aggrandisement of the rich.
The south part of the common was enclosed by a wealthy tailor, who was at the time lessee of the common, and ought to have protected it.
Ten acres was enclosed for the erection of a telescope, 12 acres by the railway company, 10 [?] acres to improve a garden, 60 acres for a girls' patriotic school, 20 acres for the prison, and very recently a lawyer and another [who?] have enclosed three or four acres which was out off the common by the South Western Railway.
Now these enclosures have deprived the public of several old footpaths and rights of way, which the [Metropolitan] Board of Works pretend they are powerless to preserve, or even attempt to protect, and they have kindly informed me that it was quite competent for me, if I felt aggrieved, to bring actions against the lord of the manor, two railway companies, a speculating builder, gravel contractors, and others.
I believe it to be the duty of the district board, in the interests of the public, to preserve the footpaths, and it is clearly the duty of the copyholders to preserve the common and the rights of common, if indeed there be any such rights outside the lord of the manor.
It is not difficult to understand how many of these enclosures have been brought about.
Many of the copyholders — and there are now more than 40 left — are under small obligations to the agents and hangers-on of the lord. A beershop has recently been erected on the common in remembrance of his lordship's many virtues, and the servile obsequiousness of some men in presence even of the agent produces in me a feeling akin to sea-sickness, and in the presence of the lord himself they would go on their stomachs.
Was this the spirit of our forefathers? Even in my time these enclosures would not have been permitted without a struggle. The decline of that old Saxon spirit which obtained many of our rights and privileges, and preserved them for our enjoyment, is a sad characteristic of our time.
I have seen a monument in Scotland erected to the memory of men who lost their lives in preserving their common lands against enclosure. Indecision and weakness give courage to those who have an interest in these enclosures, who are everlastingly whining before boards and sympathising friends that an open common brings a nuisance to their property, and the only remedy is, of course, to add the nuisance to their kitchen garden and croquet ground.
On a part now enclosed I can recollect out-door games which were encouraged by adjoining owners of property on summer evenings, Fruit was given to the children while the men played at cricket, bowls, and quoits. In place of all this we have beershops and dirty prostitutes — and for this decline in the morals and social habits of the place I hold those who have encouraged and defended these enclosures as chiefly responsible.
Not a single copyholder has derived any recompense or consideration; the most objectionable enclosures have been made without their knowledge or consent; they have been quietly arranged between the agents and the party enclosing.
I have been circumvented by a beershop keeper and a builder for breaking down the fences, but this reverse does not discourage me. I have faith in the ultimate triumph of what is right. If the public, the copyholders, and freeholders have no rights, then they are [illegible], and I want this position clearly defined and determined by [illegible] in any spiteful spirit. I am willing to recognise defined rights, and protect them: but the very idea of common right in land must mean something different to the right by which a man owns a freehold. I want this difference understood.
I am, &c., J.C. BUCKMASTER.
[ADD notes on "Smith v Brownlow"? "Wealthy tailor"? "Lessee of the common"? NB JCB includes the prison as once part of the common.]
The action raised against Mr. J.C. Buckmaster, M.A., of St. John's Hill, New Wandsworth, for breaking in the windows of a beerhouse erected at the corner of Wandsworth Common, to assert the public right to the use of the Common, and to protest against the lord of the manor (Earl Spencer) leasing the ground to builders, is still pending. A fund is being raised to defray the costs of the action, as Mr. Buckmaster acted exclusively in the public interest. Sir Charles Dilke, Bart, M.P., has subscribed £5 towards the fund.
[BNA: Link.]
[PB: this appears to be an editorial.]
Wandsworth Common Enclosures.
Admirable in every way is the letter which Mr. Buckmaster has addressed to the papers in reference to Wandsworth Common. Its tone is manly, earnest, and unflinching, and the issue to which he is now sacrificing himself is simply and temperately stated.
The question involved is: What is Commonright? As understood by Earl Spencer, Lord of the Manors of Wandsworth and Wimbledon, it is something differing widely from that which the public, the copyholders and freeholders suppose, and it is gratifying to find that Mr. Buckmaster is determined on behalf of Wandsworth (as Mr. Peake is on behalf of Wimbledon) to have the point "clearly defined and determined by law."
For want of this being done (as it should have been done by those in authority long ago, instead of being left to individual pluck), the public have been injured to the most serious extent. The statement Mr. Buckmaster has to make is enough to arouse the indignation of the most phlegmatic.
Here is a noble Common, becoming more and more valuable every day in consequence of the land about it being built on, which has been nibbled at by one and another — apparently with the full knowledge of the Lord of the Manor, — and even within the last fifteen years over one hundred acres of it have been quietly appropriated.
The District Board has watched this appropriation without a word of protest. There is no authorised Conservator of the Public Rights, no public Prosecutor even, who might have interfered with the tailor, the tapster, the lawyer, and the rest of the individuals with a taste for brigandage, who have taken what they wanted without molestation, and now there is every prospect of the rest of the Common going, since the Board of Works pretends that it is powerless, and Mr. Buckmaster can hardly be prepared to sustain actions against the Lord of the Manor, two railway companies, a speculating builder, gravel contractors, and other unscrupulous individuals concerned.
The thing is monstrous to reflect on — as monstrous as the picture Mr. Buckmaster draws of the sneaking obsequience and lick-spittle devotion of the copyholders to Earl Spencer and his underlings — and reveals a state of things which could have happened in no other country. Even in Ireland public spirit would have asserted itself, and the Lord of the Manor, or some one of his agents, would have experienced the benefit of an ounce of cold lead in his inside.
["the benefit of an ounce of cold lead in his inside" !]
Such a thing is, of course, out of all question here. Agrarian outrage is, happily, the last thing to which an Englishman turns his thoughts; but there is surely a miserable want of patriotism, of public spirit, of all that elevates and digsflea manhood, in the tame submission and obsequious concurrence of those immediately interested in this outrage on their rights and privileges.
The question is a very simple one. If, as Mr. Buckmaster puts it, the public have no rights, then they as [are?] trespassers; if they have rights which have been violated, then the aggressors are well, we will not say more than that they are worthy of the severest punishment known to the laws of any civilized community. That they will receive any such punishment nobody is sanguine enough to suppose; but a stop may be put to further exploits in the way of enclosure, and if the neighbourhood is not sufficiently on the alert to back up Mr. Buckmaster in his patriotic exertions, why it deserves to lose the Common altogether, and to suffer all the consequences of its truckling flunkeyism and moral cowardice.
[BNA: Link]
LETTERS BY RADICAL.
London, January 20th 1870.
The Duke of Cambridge, it is said, yahemonttv objects, he has always done, the removal of his office the Horse to the War Office in Pall, and powerful the present Government may be, will have to confess to Parliament that it accomplished this useful little bit of reform. Not that the change in itself is of any very great moment. A messenger two mi"ht probably saved, and Mr. Cardwell, whenever might wish to see the Duke, would only have to step into the next room, instead of walking across the Park. The real importance His Royal Highness refusal to move, lies in this — that it is typical of his obstinate opposition to all attempts at economy and improvement. It is of no use blink the fact, that so long is Commander in Chief we shall have to wait for the least approach to any of those brilliant successes which have diatineruished The administration of Mr. Childers the Admiralty. It ii very foolish of His Royal Highness, bat than ho is not over wise.
My Uncle Toby in Tristram Shandy tells a story of Walloon officer, at the battle of Landen, who had one part of brain shot away by musket ball, and another part of it taken out by a French surgeon, and after all recovered, and did his duty verv well without it," which is not all improbable, our experience in the Crimean war having proved that many noble and gallant officers, enormously praised, had no brains whatever. It seems for long while past to have been favourite theory in this country, that not want any brains even for the place Commander in Chief, although prima facie to a non-professional observer it would appear that if there is one post on earth where they are necessary, it is the^e.
One the essayists in the volume recently published by the Cobden Club, calls attention to the extraordinary cost of conveying land in England, and mentions a case where £'23 14s. 7d. was spent to transfer land worth only iJIOO. Ido not recollect anything quite so bvl that, but I distinctly remember .£23 b.'ing paid to transfer land worth only .£l5O, and in addition there was all the waste of time in visits and correspondence, worth, at least, another j£lo. The investigation of the title meant going through mass of pipers a foot thick, searches the General Register Office, Inland Revenue Office, and the Will Office, while the now title to the purchaser was solemn, massive piece of sheepskin, ponderous enough to convey a principality.
What crying evil is this, and yet if any improvement were to be suggested in the House of Commons, the lawyers would one and all sit upon it and declare that any alteration for the better was impossible, and that the present system is simply perfection. Nay, it is very doubtful whether any improvement could suggested, seeing that the proposal must come from the lawyers, who of coarse prefer that conveyancing, to suit their own ends and those of the solicitors, should be made intricate and expensive.
The preservation of open spaces is serious matter for the people that Mr. Augustus Smith, who has been successfully resisting Lord Brownlow in his attempts enclose Great Berkhampstead Common, deserves public thanks. Mr. Augustus Smith was formerly in the where he was usually considered a bore. had oiie pet subject, that of foreshores, on which he would talk, ia season and out of season, to alarming extent. However, all that is cheerfully forgiven quia muHum amavit the poor and their rights. When Lord Brownlow's agents put np the fence, some two years ago, Mr. Smith chartered train on the London and North Western Railway, filled it full of navvies, sent it down one night quietly to Berkhampstead, and by the morning the fence had vanished. Thereupon ensued an action at law, bravely defended Mr. Smith, who ia, fortunately, able to hold his own even against an Earl, and on Friday last judgment was given by the Master of the Rolls, that Mr. Smith had succeeded in establishing rights of u herbage, pannage, and the cutting of furze and corse," A perpetual injunction has consequently been granted against the Earl.
This is glorious, but "the misfortune is that every Common has not got a Mr. Augustus Smith for its champion. The profits of enclosing are enormous, and far more than sufficient tempt a wealthy lord of dho manor to spend years in the to gain possession of piece cf waste, while the commoners are generally poor, and have no such overwhelming interest in defending their interests.
The House of Commons ought to interfere — and would have interfered long ago if it had been anything else than what it always has been, is now, and apparently for vet will bo, a House of rich men. What these gentlefolks who lire in parks care about commons? What do they car , that T, who am forced to dwell in a suburb, am being gradually shut out from every breath of fresh air by the greed of man like Lord Spencer, the lord of Wandsworth and Wimbledon Here, at least there is one question which few working men in Parliament would help to solve little more satisfactorily than have done hitherto. Wandsworth Common has nearly gone, Wimbledon is threatened, Banstead Downs are completely rained, and Epsom, most magnificent of all, is merely waiting to swallowed, half of the neighbouring Common at Leatherhead having already disappeared.
It is generally understood that the Education Bill, despite Mr. Forster's confident predictions, will not pressed this session. may be introduced, but that will be all. Mr, Forster, for a variety of reasons, some public and some personal, is very anxious to get the Bill through, but he will have to wait Waiting a very hard task for him. He says that the work of holding his tongue, when ho wishes to say something, is harder than sitting five or six hours in the House. Undoubtedly for him this so. marvellous and utterly unaccountable as it may appear. But he must not so anxious. Mr. Bright's is the wiser course, and Mr. Bright's opinion is that of every other member of the Cabinet. Mr. Forster would drive the six omnibuses through Temple Bar one after another, and would like the session to on." Oh, mercy
[BNA: Link]
[Reminds us that the area was still largely rural. The Surrey Tavern was used by people of horseback or with carts, carriages etc [I have an advert somewhere] — hence there would have been stables — but presumably they also turned animals out into the field.]
FIVE POUNDS REWARD — LOST, on the night of 28th December, 1869, from a field opposite the Surrey Tavern. Wandsworth-common, a BAY HORSE, nearly 16 hands high, the near hind hock enlarged. Whoever will give information to G. Smith, at 21 Warwick-street, Pimlico, that will lead to the recovery of the horse, shall receive the above reward.
[BNA: Link]
Tours Round London: Wandsworth
London City Press — Saturday 5 February 1870
TOURS ROUND LONDON. No lV. Wandsworth.
On the Richmond and Windsor branch of the London and South-Western Railway, four miles and-a-half from Waterloo, is a pleasant little town — with its police office, and high street, churches and chapels situated on the river Wandle, and hence known to an intelligent public as Wandsworth, formerly Wandlesworth. The crystal Wandle, as some one has termed it, which here runs with the Thames, is a useful stream. The earliest records name it Vandal, and Pope, latinizing the title for the exigencies of metre, writes about "the blue transparent Vandalis." It rises near Croydon, and receives some additions to its volume near Carshalton, whence it flows past Mitcham and Merton, till its career of ten miles terminated by peaceful absorption in the bosom of the Thames.
A local antiquary has recently maintained that in the depths of the primaeval forest which clothed the northern part of Surrey, and near where Croydon now stands, the Scandinavians who found their way into these parts, erected a temple to Wodin, and that the locality was consequently named Woden's-dale, from which comes Wandle. It may be so, where nothing positively known, one guess may be as good as another, I shall give no opinion on the subject; I can state, and that however is quite interesting and a great deal better known, that it used to be said it, that it turned more mills than any stream of its length England, a fact oertainly very much to its credit. Anglers also must cherish kindly feeling towards the Wandle, I am told are still occasionally caught in it, but, adds my informant, with difficulty. Of course with difficulty; fishes, like men, undoubtedly nave their wits sharpened by living the neighbourhood of towns. Let not the Wandle be despised. has done good service in its day and Munition. In the eye of a utilitarian, it will vie in beauty with England's loveliest and most romantic streams.
The annals of Wandsworth are by no means of a sensational character. No great battles have been fought; no great crimes committed in its vicinity. I find the 8th of July, 1539, Griffith Clarke, vicar; liia servant, and Friar Ware, were hanged and quartered. The fact is recorded, the reason for it is not. Mr. Lysons imagines that they were executed for denying the King's supremacy in religion. We can quite believe it chop off a man's head was always with monarchs a favourite method of removing doubts, or at any rate silencing the expression of them. It was thus in France, and Belgium and Spain, Popery made such way among people at one time danger of lapsing into heresy and common sense. On Wandsworth-common, at Mulberry-cottage, lived a fanciful antiquarian known as Francis Grose.
Wandsworth contains one public building to all the country dear the Surrey Pauper Lunatic Asylum. It occupies about ninety-six acres of land at the south-west corner of the common, which were purchased by the county magistrates in 1839. The gentry of the place avoid the locality, and pitch their tents in preference on East and West Hills.
I am not mistaken, at one time Mrs. Shelley, wife of the poet, lived at Wandsworth; I know Bailey, the author of Festus, did. Numerous elegant villas, says a local guide, have been erected at Wandsworth within the last few years. I write this regretfully. In our day the art of erecting elegant villas is extinct Architecture of the genteel semi-detached order all the rage.
The present church was rebuilt in 1780, and the tower 1841. It contains one mural monument which, at any rate, should be dear to posterity, at least in that particular locality. In London there was alderman of the name of Smith. In his time he was a Mr. Peabody. He gave to Croydon, Kingston, Guildford, Dorking, Farnham, Reigate, Richmond, 1,000l.; and to Wandsworth, 500l., for the benefit of the poor. When he died, in 1627, he left all his money in charity; one object of his legacies being to find suitable employment for the needy, and another being "to redeeme poor captives and prisoners from the Turkish tyrannie."
What has become of this latter bequest? One would really like to know. It is clear that we have no poor captives and prisoners to redeem from "the Turkish tyrannie," and if we had, the spirit of Britannia, we trust, would make short work of it, and redeem the poor captives, not with Alderman Smith's moneys, but with iron clads and cannon balls. We who sent an expedition right into the heart of Abyssinia to rescue a consul and a few missionaries, and succeeded in the attempt, assuredly will not buy our way where we can win it by prowess of our own. Besides the parish church, Wandsworth can boast of three others. The denominations are strong. There is a Friends' meeting-house, a Roman Catholic chapel on the West Hill, and a Baptist chapel in Brook-field.
In dissenting eyes, Wandsworth must ever appear invested with peculiar transactions. It was the first place in England where they were permitted to worship in their own fashion. In the old church, I ought to have said, besides Alderman Smith, there is buried one of the officers of Henry V., who ' served at Agincourt In oar day Wandsworth and all its surroundings are being rapidly absorbed in the great metropolis. Day by day it has less and less the air of a little country town, and more and more that of a London suburb. The area of the parish is 1,820 acres; its population, according to the last census, 9,611. In the neighbourhood are the Fishmongers' Almshouses, removed in 1850 from Newington Butts, and the Patriotic Asylum. Its High-street is of the town, towny. At its shop you see the latest fashions; in short, London goods at London prices. Need I say more?
We hear much now-a-days of local institutions. In Wandsworth there was a local institution of remarkable kind. About 1750, several persons who lived near that part of Wandsworth which adjoins Garratt-lane, formed a kind of club, not merely for eating and drinking, but to concert measures for resisting encroachments made on that part of the common, and to prevent any others being made in future. As the members were, most of them, persons in a humble position of life, they agreed at every meeting to subscribe a trifle in order to make up a purse for the defence of their common rights. When sufficient sum had been subscribed, they commenced an action at law in the name of their president, or as they called him the Mayor, and gained the day; and ever after the president, who lived many years, was called Mayor of Garratt "This event happening at the time of a general election," writes Dr. Hughson, "the ceremony, upon every new Parliament, of choosing out-of-door members for the borough of Garratt has been constantly kept up, and is still continued to the great emolument of all the publicans at Wandsworth, who annually subscribe to all the incidental expenses attending this mock election. '' It is needless to add no such custom exists now. Why does not E. T. Smith revive it! Interesting particulars two distinguished Mayors of Garratt may be found in Wilson and Caulfield's Wonder Jul Characters. One, Sir Jeffery Dunstan, as he was subsequently termed, was found, in the year 1759, wrapped up in a cloth at the door of a churchwarden of the parish of St Dunstan-in-the.East Twelve years in the workhouse of his parish; twelve years of miscellaneous industrious employment in London, Birmingham, and elsewhere, seem to have fitted him pre-eminently for public life. At the time of the celebrated contest for Westminster, in 1784, between Hood, Fox, and Wray, he was unanimously elected Mayor of Garratt, which hononr he retained till his death. He appears to have done honour to his constituents, amongst whom he appeared in a phaeton decorated as gaudily and magnificently as possible. His speech, of which he was proud, was grand in promise as are the speeches of most candidates. He was a dealer in old wigs, and represented in his portrait with bag thrown over his shoulders, and his shirt over his breast thrown open. In his person he was remarkably dirty, nor were his habits the most temperate order. Thus, indeed, he met his sudden death, in the year 1797, being at a jovial meeting near Saltpetre-bank, and drinking rather more than his usual quantity of gin, his companions placed him in a barrow and wheeled him home, where soon after died. Sir Jeffery was a favourite subject for the print shops, as a ridicule on the politicians and orators of his day. He was represented, standing on a stool, asking this question, "How far was it from the first August to Westminster-bridge?"
The next Mayor was a poor idiot, born in 1758, and known as Sir Henry Dimsdale. His elections were generally contested ones. 1807 his procession to Garratt-lane exceeded anything of the kind ever seen in London. He was placed, or rather tied, on an eminence in a carriage somewhat resembling a triumphal car, drawn four horses, which were profusely decorated with dye-wood shavings, a substitute for ribbons. The dress of Sir Harry was in keeping. To make it pains or expense had been spared. His hat alone cost the committee the enormous sum of 31. lU*. In addition to his office of mayor, he was nominated as a proper person to opposed to the then all-powerful Bonaparte, whereupon he was elected emperor. His garb now assumed all the show of royalty, lout, unlike most monarchs, he carried his crown in his hand, it not being correct, he said, for him wear it until he had ousted his more powerful rival. In this character Sir Henry levied handsome contributions on the good Ole of London. This was only for a time, ana he in the year 1811, in the fifty-third year of his age. On his demise the mayoralty was invested in Sir John Coke, well-known and eccentric costermonger, of Tothill Fields, Westminster. It appears the greatest acquirement necessary to qualify a candidate for the representation of this most noble and ancient borough was, writes the editor of the work already referred to, some great deformity, idiotism, professed bacchanalism, for at a later election, we observed on a hand-bill one the candidates that his principal recommendation was his being the tried friend 'lodges' best Itand in another the tried friend and Combe % . . . We hear of no more Mayors of Garratt. n farce Foote they, however, still occasions' Uy appear upon the the Revocation of the Edict first made Wandsworth famous; that act which inflicted on France a blow from which she has ot y%*. covered, and drove away by thousands the .industrious Huguenots, the very flower of her people. . Many o them settled in this country. " Perhaps, "saygth%'*^ r " of Cassell's Guide to Surrey, "they were attract**, by the fact that it was the first place in Eng. 411(1 where Dissenters from the Established Church were permitted to worship in their own fashion." I an.'' with all due deference, inclined to think that the Huguenots settled there because already there had been there, and in that neighbourhood, considerable foreign immigration. When Roman Catholicism, under the rule of Philip IL, was ruining the grand cities Belgium, and reducing that country into a state of poverty and slavery, England swarmed with Flemish refugees. One body of them settled at Wandsworth and began several branches of industry, such as the manufacture of felt and the making of brass plates for culinary utensils, which, says Aubrey, they kept a mystery.
The Flemings, also, were large gardeners, the best Europe, and many of them settled around Wandsworth, Battersea, and Bermondsey as market gardeners. There happened to be an uncommonly fine opening for them just then. Gardening had become almost a lost art in England; and it is said that Katherine, Queen of Henry VIII, unable to obtain a salad for her dinner in all England, had her table supplied from the Low Countries. Be that as it may, it is a fact that vegetables were formerly so scarce that they were salted down; and even in the sixteenth century a cabbage from Holland was deemed an acceptable present. The Protestant Walloons brought with them their religious observances. Having formed themselves into a congregation, they erected chapel for worship, which is still standing, nearly opposite the parish church. The building%l quote Dr. Smiles %bears thia inscription on its front.- " erected 1573; enlarged, 1685; repaired, 1809,1831." Like the other refugee churches, it has ceased to retain its distinctive character, being now used a Congregational chapeL The French there also had a special burying, ground, situated at the London entrance Wands, worth, in which several distinguished refugees have been interred, amongst others David Montoliere, Baron de St. Hyppolite, in 1761, aged ninety-three, one of the pastors Boisbleau de la Chapelle, usually known as Armand de la Chapelle, who left France at the Revocation, and was subsequently minister of the Artillery Church, and of the French Church at the Hague. He was a very voluminous writer. At Wandsworth he must have felt himself at home. The French beavers, which had before been imported, were made by the French refugees. At Wandsworth several hat makers began their operations on a considerable scale. It is computed that in England alone, in consequence of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes,} 100,000 French manufacturers and workmen found a home. In modern times Wandsworth may boast of having given birth to William Edward Frost, the painter, who was born there in 1810. "No living artist has been," says the writer of the notice of him in Men of the Time, " an equally indefatigable student of the living model j and within the walls the Academy for twenty-six years — during the long period of his devotion to portrait painting for a maintenance, and during that which succeeded of freedom and of high repute he has remained uniformly constant to that study."
At present, paper-making and brewing are the most important trades carried on. Mr. M'Murray's paper mill are known far and near. As to the beer, I can say nothing. I am by no means an enthusiastic admirer of that beverage, and if others were of my taste in that respect, I fancy some of the working classes, especially tneir wives and families, would be better off. Wandsworth-common seems in a fair way of being appropriated by Rome to the injury of the community in general.
Within the last fifteen years, writes Mr. Buckmaster, one hundred acres of the best part have been enclosed. The south part was enclosed by a wealthy tailor, who was at the time lessee of the common, and ought to have protected it. Ten acres were taken for the erection of a telescope, 12 by the railway company, 10 to improve a garden, 50 for a girls' patriotic school, 20 acres for the prison, and very recently a lawyer and another have enclosed three or four acres cut off the common by the South-Western Railway.
Mr. Buckmaster adds: "On a part now enclosed I recollect out-door games which were encouraged by adjoining owners of property on summer evenings. Fruit was given to the children while the men played at cricket, bowls, and quoits. In place of all this we have beershops and dirty prostitutes!"
R.
WANDSWORTH. A Scene in Court.
Catherine Howell, 29 alias Mary Ann Lewis, Ann Morgan, 64, Johanna Morgan, 20, and Margaret Morgan, 26, were charged as suspected persons
Inspector Egerton, Y division, said that on Friday afternoon his attention was called to the prisoners, who were with three other persons, on the platform of the Clapham Junction Station. They were under the influence of liquor, and knowing two of them to have been convicted, he instructed an officer to stop Howell.
On opening her bundle, a quart pewter pot was found, belonging to the landlord of the Freemasons' Hotel, Wandsworth Common. The old woman began to scream, causing a great disturbance, and the other three persons made their escape in the confusion.
The inspector further said that Howell and Margaret Morgan only came out of prison on Friday morning. Howell afterwards told him that her husband had been transported for uttering counterfeit coin, and was her intention to set in that line.
The prisoner said she told the inspector that the man that transported her husband wished her to make counterfeit coin to put her the same position. —
Mr. Dayman discharged the Morgans, and committed Howell for two months for the unlawful possession of the pot.
The prisoner here became very excited, and exclaimed, "Don't do it, it will ruin me for life; deal leniently with me."
To the officer, who went into the dock to take hold of her: "I shall commit suicide if you take me into the cell."
The officer had to use force to remove her and she left the court screaming.
[BNA: Link.]
Buckmaster lecture at the Holloway Working Men's Club on "education applied to trade".
Interesting references e.g. to the need to teach freehand drawing, for workers not to think the vote will save them, national advantage, need to learn about "correct art" and beauty in design, how the "mass of men . . . will make no progress until they learnt to discipline their minds and control their passions by the study of such a subject as geometry" &c.
And a very odd reference to "If workmen would bring the same perseverance to bear in the solution of possible as they did in the attempted solution of impossible problems, such as the discovery perpetual motion and squaring circle, they might their country good and themselves honour", which relates to a story he told in the 1860s about a man he knew. Does he also mention it in his autobiography? See Mary Tasker's New Scientist article of 25 August 1977: "He gave an example, when speaking on this point, in 1860 of a very steady and ingenious workman known to him as a boy, who spent 15 years of his leisure time in an effort to discover perpetual motion as he believed it could be created by a combination of wheels, bands and cranks."
HOLLOWAY WORKING MEN'S CLUB.
Education Applied to Trades.
On Monday night an able, exhaustive, and interesting lecture was delivered to a crowded audience at the Holloway Working Men's Club and Institute by Mr. J.C. Buckmaster, B.A., F.G.S., of the Science and Art Department, South Kensington Museum, on "The industrial and educational importance of elementary science; and explanatory of the Government scheme for promoting technical education in science and drawing, by means of evening classes." The chair was occupied the Right Hon. the Earl of Lichfield.
The noble Chairman, in opening the proceedings and in introducing the lecturer, took occasion to remark upon the superiority of that to similar institutions of the kind which he had visited. He was really pleased to notice what a fine commodious building they had got, and how much the advantages offered by the club were appreciated.
Mr. Buckmaster, after a few preliminary remarks, proceeded to speak of the lack of a correctness of taste on the part of the people of this country, which was evidenced in the abominable patterns that manufacturers found it to their interest to produce. Any improvement this direction must first come from the people, and the foundation of their art taste must be securely laid in the first instance by teaching them to draw. Free-hand drawing should form port of an elementary education as much as reading, writing, and arithmetic. To the end of cultivating art and science the Government had established schools of art mainly intended to benefit skilled manual labour. There never had been period in the history of correct art that was not preceded by a considerable amount of knowledge upon which the attainment of that art depended. Art occupied itself chiefly with work, science with knowledge, and it was the application of that knowledge that constituted art.
During the last year or two they had heard a great deal of talk about technical education, and he confessed it was exceedingly difficult for him to give anything like an exact definition of what was meant "technical education." He could understand teaching a man any particular science pure and simple, but the practical application of that knowledge must be learnt in the workshops, and it was impossible for the Government to establish workshops all over the country.
Skilled workmen of the present day knew little nothing about drawing. It was of the utmost importance that they should know the principles upon which a drawing was constructed. To begin at the beginning, any system of elementary education would be incomplete without drawing were taught.
A man ought to be educated, not because he had to work, but because he was a man. The foundation every man's education was to found in that deep spiritual education which God had given him, and not in the work which God had given him to do. (Applause.) Education its high and proper sense had made progress among the mass of men in this land, and would make no progress until they learnt to discipline their minds and control their passions by the study of such a subject as geometry, which the evening classes in connection with the Science and Art Department sought to promote. Any young man or young woman who mastered the first twenty propositions of the first book Euclid, apart from industrial application, would after that enjoy much higher intellectual power, and that discipline of mind might be usefully carried out in the ordinary business affairs of life.
The lecturer wont to say that the object employers now-a-days seemed to not good work, but a largo quantity work. (Applaud.) He did not know whether they would ever eomw back to the time when it would the dearo and interest ever}' man to encourage good work instead of bad. * The morality industry this country was disgrace to a civilized community. ( Applause.) It had not been what it ought to He, however, hoped that the time would come when at least would assume a character very different to what it now possessed. If workmen would bring the same perseverance to bear in the solution of possible as they did in the attempted solution of impossible problems, such as the discovery perpetual motion and squaring circle, they might their country good and themselves honour.
The progress of civilisation and industry was in constant conflict with natural laws and forces. Man was subjugating them to his use, making them to do his work, and he was placed in this world to make them his slaves, and not permit them to become his masters. It was the proper business of workmen educate themselves those laws and forces, to try to utilise them, and to soften to some extent the primeval curse, "By the sweat of thy brow thou eat."
He combated the notion that there was anything mean and snobbish the diligent and conscientious pursuit of any particular handicraft. the contrary, there was dignity in all labour. saw no reason why the home of the poorest labourer should not cheered wit, exhalted intelligence, the abode of peace and happiness — but that was to come not any short easy road. They must be prepared for the work necessary to be done. It was not to come to them any plan which they could extend the suffrage, or secure the protection of the ballot box, — it would come from better education of those whose lot it was to live labour. In eloquent peroration Mr. Buckmaster urged upon the working classes, especially the younger members, to avail themselves of the opportunities of mental improvement now placed within their reach, and thus render the country which they lived and laboured more prosperous and happy.
The noble Chairman then invited any person in the room to offer suggestions with regard to the practicability of forming a class in connection with the Science and Art Department in that district.
Mr. Li ckakt complained that the fees demanded at a class of the kind with which was acquainted were too much for working lad to pay out of his scanty wages, namely, 2s. 6d. per month. That the working classes of Islington were not indifferent to the importance literary and technical education, was evidenced their recent movement to cam — into force the Public Free Libraries' and Museums Act. Although public meeting had in strict accordance with the Act determined adopt its provisions, the Vestry a majority of 50 to 4, resolved not to give effect to the decision arrived at. and referred the workingmen for redress to the Court of Queen's Bench, of course they wore unable bear the cost of any litigation in that court, and here the matter stood present,
Mr. Buckmaster said the establishment of free libraries in Cardiff, Dundalk, and other places had been attended with great success, and met with much appreciation. They had also proved very useful. Government were prepared, the event of the adoption act, and the attachment of museums to the libraries, to assist by means of grants. to the payment of half-a-crown a month for learning to draw, ho considered it too much, hut there was no reason why lower figure should not be charged, providing the teacher had a large number of pupils under him.
After a few words from Mr. Jordan, the noble Chairman advised the meeting at once to set about establishment of evening class in that locality. He thought the work was one which employers and all classes should co-operate. Where there' was a will there was a way. was of opinion that the Vestry acted wrongly throwing difficulties in the way of the adoption of the Free Libraries Act, because in the end it would tend to decrease the rates, and the parish would eventually foci that although the taxes were high, they had done a wise thing. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Tattersall., hon. secretary, suggested that they should hold another meeting on this subject early in September, and meanwhile concert measures among themselves with a view to the establishment of a strong class in that neighbourhood. The charge need not necessarily half crown per month. Probably some teacher would find it worth his while to accept lesser foe. the Rev. Mr. moved a resolution recognizing the importance of the cultivation of science an element in the success of British industry, the necessity of teaching at least one branch freehand drawing any national elementary system of education, and thanking Mr. Buckmaster for his able lecture. the motion having been seconded, was put and carried with acclamation.
Mr. Startin' proposed vote of thanks to Lord Lichfield for his kindness in presiding over the meeting. In so doing the mover took occasion to advert to some sensible remarks which his lordship made at Birmingham, relative to continental superiority in certain manufactures for which formerly this country had been most noted — a superiority ascribable to the greater means of technical education which the foreigner enjoys over our own countrymen. Mr. Tattersall, seconded the motion, and alluded to the good effect produced by that club in the bringing together and intermingling of classes. the resolution was put, and carried amid much?
The noble Chairman, acknowledging the compliment paid to him, expressed the pleasure experienced at the comparison which that mooting presented to kindred assemblages had attended. Instead of being disappointed the paucity of the attendance he was gladdened at its magnitude. really believed that the foreigner was surpassing the Englishman in some branches industry wherein the latter used formerly to excel, and this he attributed to the opportunities which the continental artisan possessed to acquire a scientific knowledge of his trade.
The Paris Exhibition revealed the superiority of the foreigner in some things. However, abroad, not only was scientific education, hut elementary education, carefully attended to, and boys grew up to be more intelligent and accomplished men. fully agreed with Mr. Buckmaster that system of national elementary education would incomplete without it included drawing.
He had been considerable pains to ascertain the state of the exports of this country during the past few years in comparison with those other nations. He regretted to say that in proportion to the increase of population we had retrograded instead of advanced compared with foreign countries. Nor were the working classes alone to blame this matter. He believed that all classes were to blame. However, latterly, was glad to say, a strong feeling had grown up that improvement was needed, not only in elementary education, but scientific instruction also, and not only was there that strong feeling on the part of all classes the coaunanity as the necessity, but there were evidences of a desire to co-operate in this matter for the common good. (Applause.) While he did not disparage the benefits of co-operation among the working classes, he contended that what is most needed m co-operation of all classes for the good of our common country. (Applause.) If upon subjects like these all classes were found united to do their best, should soon find that this county is not only able to sustain its old prestige, but surpass others a manufacturing nation. Thus should we regain our old supremacy. (Applause.) concluded again expressing the gratification felt being present on the occasion.
The proceedings then terminated.
[BNA: Link]
I assume this is Lord Lichfield:
Thomas George Anson, 2nd Earl of Lichfield (15 August 1825 — 7 January 1892), known as Viscount Anson from 1831 to 1854, was a British politician from the Anson family . . .
. . . On 10 April 1855, Lord Lichfield married Lady Harriett Georgiana Louisa, daughter of James Hamilton, 1st Duke of Abercorn and Louisa Hamilton, Duchess of Abercorn (the eldest daughter of John Russell, 6th Duke of Bedford, by his second wife, Lady Georgiana Gordon, and the sister of Prime Minister John Russell, 1st Earl Russell).
Together, they were the parents of nine sons and four daughters:[2]
links[Wikipedia: Thomas Anson, 2nd Earl lof Lichfield.]
The Wandsworth House of Correction
A letter from Mr. Richard Onslow, on behalf the visiting justices of the Wandsworth House of Correction, complaining of the state of the i and footpaths from Alma-terrace to Heathfield Lodge, Wandsworth-common, was referred the surveyor.
Wandsworth Matters. The north side of the Plain, from Mr. Dornay's, comer of Bell-lane, to be kerbed with Aberdeen kerb, and paved with 3-in. York paving.
The board repudiated liability in the matter of the claim of Mr. H. W. Hatfield for compensation (or alleged injuries by falling into a gravel pit on Wandsworth common on the evening 26th December last.
[BNA: Link.]
[SOURCE - where does the following come from? I found in 1868, so I;ve movd it here. Is it duplicated?]
1870. — March 14th. — A large and influential meeting was held at the Lammas Hall, Battersea, convened by Mr. J. C. Buckmaster, churchwarden of the parish of St. Mary's, Battersea, at the request of seven influential parishioners, including the vicar and the late Tom Taylor. The hall was filled by eight o'clock, amongst those
5
present being Messrs. Lord, Eccles, H. Whiting, Lambert, Bertolacci, Buckmaster, Ransome, Bass, Bickerdike, Carter, Taylor, Goldsmith, Coventry, B. Smith, Clark, Owen, Noir, Griffiths, Poupart, Todd, and others.
Mr. Buckmaster, having been voted into the chair, read Mr. Peek's letter, addressed to himself, as follows:
"Wimbledon House, 7th Feb. 1870.
" My dear Sir – I read your remarks in the City Press of Saturday, and I have sent a copy of the paper to Earl Spencer. The public may grumble as much as they please; that will never stop encroachments or enclosures. What I have been thinking of is this: round Clapham common there are many wealthy gentlemen, some of whom are beginning to feel alarmed at Lord Spencer declining to renew the lease of that part which belongs to him. And in the neighbourhood of Wandsworth there are also many well-to-do people. If these will pay £4,000 into a bank I will add £1,000, and, as a Battersea copyholder, would at once commence proceedings to take up everything irregular during the legal term, which, I believe, is 20 years. " We are vigorously defending this common, and intend to leave no stone unturned to settle the question once for all. I have my hands very full, but am quite willing to do what I say, but not on a less scale, having named the precise sum we fixed on here.
Yours faithfully, HENRY W. PEEK .
To J. C. Buckmaster, Esq.
PS — I will hold myself bound to this offer to June, 1870, but no longer."
. . .
A substantive resolution, pledging the meeting to use its utmost endeavours to raise the sum requisite to secure Mr. Peek's offer of £1,000, was moved by Mr. Eccles, and seconded by Mr. Lord, who said he appeared on that platform as one interested, like them all, in the present movement, and he considered the time had now arrived when this long-vexed question ought to be submitted to a proper tribunal for a legal settlement once for all, and announced, amidst loud cheers, his subscription of £100.
Mr. Ransome, from the body of the meeting, congratulated those present on the practical turn it had assumed, and submitted that a committee of management should be then named, with power to add to their number, and that meetings be held at Wandsworth and Clapham, and sub-committees formed for raising subscriptions throughout the neighbourhood, and his £50 should be ready at any moment. Mr. Ransome spoke with much earnestness, and was deservedly cheered.
Mr. Lambert and Mr. Bertolacci also addressed the meeting, also several working men, whose remarks were listened to with marked attention, as showing how largely they participated in the movement and suggestions were made for establishing district committees amongst themselves for raising penny subscriptions.
The following gentlemen were named on the executive committee, viz.: — Messrs. Lord, Lambert, Eccles, Whiting, Ransome, Bertolacci, Rose, Bickerdike, and the chairman (Mr. Buckmaster).
Subscriptions were announced amounting to nearly £400.
A cordial vote of thanks having been given to the chairman, some of those present went home with a deep-seated determination to be up and doing, which augured well for the successful issue of this movement. In order to carry out the resolution for raising funds the members of the committee, with subsequent additions in numbers, divided the district for house to house visitation.
Mr. Ransome undertook the residents on the edge of the common. He called upon the late Mr. Du Buisson and told him he wanted £100, which he agreed to give, and invited the committee in future to hold their meetings at his house. The members of the committee used to go daily (mostly in the evening) to the various houses, perhaps ten or twelve in a day, and thus helped to rouse a wide-spread interest in the movement.
Collecting subscriptions involved a great deal of time and labour but nothing seemed to deter some of the more earnest workers.
Mr. Ransome stated that the moving cause of zealous efforts on his part was a religious conviction that it would be good, both morally and spiritually, for those who might succeed him, to have such an open space as this preserved for public use; that he himself had often felt the benefit of being able, even for a short time, to retire from the noise and bustle of city life, and quietly to enjoy what there might be left of country. This feeling, no
6_1
doubt, actuated others. We are now enjoying the outcome of labours but for which other portions of the common would long since have been devoted to building purposes, and Wandsworth-common by this time would have been a thing of the past.
On April 4th, 1870, a public meeting was held at Price's Candle Works Institute, York-road, Mr. Lord being the chairman, supported by Messrs. Buckmaster, Ransome, Bertolacci, Hatcher, and others, and a large number of working men of the neighbourhood.
Mr. Lord briefly alluded to the movement, and said that now or never was the time to be in earnest, that they might have an uphill battle to fight, but by all putting their shoulders to the wheel they would, he felt sure, ultimately triumph.
Mr. Buckmaster next addressed the meeting with his accustomed earnestness and fluency, pointing out the various enclosures and encroachments by which the area of the common had been greatly reduced, and rousing the enthusiasm of the audience to do their part towards putting a stop to further encroachments.
Mr Ransome followed in a somewhat similar strain, remarking that they were not there to interfere with Lord Spencer's rights, if he had right on his side, but they were there to vindicate their own rights, which they believed were being invaded. He preferred conciliation to coercion, believing that more flies were caught by sugar than by vinegar; but at any rate they were determined to come to an issue.
He exhorted the working men to believe that much could be done by small contributions, and urged them to take the matter up in a spirit of determination, as one in which their health and that of their families was largely concerned.
Mr. Fithian, Secretary of the Commons Preservation Society, stated the peculiarities of the law of common rights as between one party and other. Manorial rights differed in various counties; but the rights of copyholders and inhabitants were one and the same.
Mr. Ounds, as representing the artisans in Messrs. Price's establishment, stated the strong interest felt in every workshop on the question, and said that before June arrived they would be prepared with substantial evidence, by their subscriptions, to show their sympathy with the movement.
Mr. Conder and others made a few remarks, and Mr. Turner pledged himself to collect £5.
In the early part of April, 1870, Mr J. G. Mason and Mr Ransome were deputed by the committee to call upon the Lord Mayor for permission to have a meeting at the Mansion House, with the view of enlisting public sympathy and help, but the Lord Mayor did not at that time see his way to assent, although in the following July he consented to a public meeting.
[On April 13th, 1870, about 150 men in midday attacked some gates and fencing which had been put up at the rear of the "Plough" Inn, where there had been a footpath in constant use across that portion of of the common known as Plough-green.]
On the evening of this memorable April 18th [CHECK TEXT — actually 13th?], 1870, a crowded public meeting was held at the "Spread Eagle" Assembly Rooms, under the presidency of Mr. Bevington, J.P., supported by Messrs. Buckmaster, Ransome, Eccles, Coventry, Boyson, Hunter, [p.7] Mason, Conder and others.
The Chairman, who was received with loud applause, said that it was very inspiriting to himself and his friends to be received with such cordial marks of approval as had been evinced towards them that evening.
After referring to Mr. Peek's letter, he observed that they wished the work to be prosecuted in a temperate and strictly legal manner, and that he could not, as a magistrate, countenance the proceedings which had that day taken place near the "Plough" Inn, for such doings were calculated to prejudice rather than assist in determining what the rights of the Lord of the Manor really were.
He understood that Battersea had already commenced liberally to contribute towards this fund, and he hoped Wandsworth in this respect would not allow itself to be out-distanced.
Mr. Ransome then rose and announced that their chairman had just told him he would give £50.
The applause excited by this announcement having subsided, Mr. Buckmaster, who was greeted with a perfect ovation, came forward and said he was glad to have been privileged to bring before their notice a question, not of local, but national importance. He was there to deprecate, with just indignation, the gradual absorbtion of Wandsworth Common, an open space surrounded, for the most part, by poor people unable to help themselves, and which should therefore remain open and unenclosed. (Applause.)
He then described with great earnestness the various enclosures and encroachments made since the year 1846. His humorous reference to the Telescope piece and House of Correction served to mingle good humour with earnest determination. He stated also that the attention of the Board of Works had been repeatedly drawn to these enclosures, but that this had produced no practical effect.
The Chairman observed that after Mr. Buckmaster's eloquent address, he should like some gentleman on the other side to say a few words on the subject.
No one responding to this invitation, a motion was brought forward by Mr. E. Coventry, pledging the meeting to raise as large a proportion as possible of the sum of £4,000 for the parish of Wandsworth.
Mr. Boyson, in seconding the motion, observed that they should strive for their rights in a legal manner. He was quite sure they would do their best to collect the money, remembering that not themselves only, but all London was interested in the matter,
[NB We must include info about Mr Clark(e). And what was the name of the man who was paraded at one or more of the demos for having been fined for fence-breaking in the 1840s? Parsons! https://www.historyofwandsworthcommon.org/years/1849.html]
On the evening of this memorable April 18th [CHECK TEXT — actually 13th?], 1870, a crowded public meeting was held at the "Spread Eagle" Assembly Rooms, under the presidency of Mr. Bevington, J.P., supported by Messrs. Buckmaster, Ransome, Eccles, Coventry, Boyson, Hunter, [p.7] Mason, Conder and others.
The Chairman, who was received with loud applause, said that it was very inspiriting to himself and his friends to be received with such cordial marks of approval as had been evinced towards them that evening.
After referring to Mr. Peek's letter, he observed that they wished the work to be prosecuted in a temperate and strictly legal manner, and that he could not, as a magistrate, countenance the proceedings which had that day taken place near the "Plough" Inn, for such doings were calculated to prejudice rather than assist in determining what the rights of the Lord of the Manor really were.
He understood that Battersea had already commenced liberally to contribute towards this fund, and he hoped Wandsworth in this respect would not allow itself to be out-distanced.
Mr. Ransome then rose and announced that their chairman had just told him he would give £50.
The applause excited by this announcement having subsided, Mr. Buckmaster, who was greeted with a perfect ovation, came forward and said he was glad to have been privileged to bring before their notice a question, not of local, but national importance. He was there to deprecate, with just indignation, the gradual absorbtion of Wandsworth Common, an open space surrounded, for the most part, by poor people unable to help themselves, and which should therefore remain open and unenclosed. (Applause.)
He then described with great earnestness the various enclosures and encroachments made since the year 1846. His humorous reference to the Telescope piece and House of Correction served to mingle good humour with earnest determination. He stated also that the attention of the Board of Works had been repeatedly drawn to these enclosures, but that this had produced no practical effect.
The Chairman observed that after Mr. Buckmaster's eloquent address, he should like some gentleman on the other side to say a few words on the subject.
No one responding to this invitation, a motion was brought forward by Mr. E. Coventry, pledging the meeting to raise as large a proportion as possible of the sum of £4,000 for the parish of Wandsworth.
Mr. Boyson, in seconding the motion, observed that they should strive for their rights in a legal manner. He was quite sure they would do their best to collect the money, remembering that not themselves only, but all London was interested in the matter,
PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
The Threatened Enclosure of Suburban Commons.
Last evening a meeting of copyholders and free-holders was held at Lammas Hall, Battersea, to organise measures of resistance against the encroachments of the lord of the manor of Wandsworth-common (Earl Spencer). Mr. Churchwarden Buckmaster presided, it appeared that Mr. Peek, M.P., had offered to contribute £1000, if the inhabitants of Wandsworth, Battersea, and Clapham could raise £4000, to form a fund with which to contest at law the claims of the lords of manors to dispose of these commonable lands.
It was forcibly contended that Clapham and Wandsworth were interested in this question, and the meeting pledged itself to raise £1000 of the amount required, and appointed a committee to carry out the matter. A resolution was also agreed to expressing the appreciation the inhabitants of Battersea felt of the handsome manner in which Mr. Peek had come forward at this critical period.
[BNA: Link.]
A Meeting of copyholders and freeholders was held at Battersea last night to organise measures of resistance against the encroachments of the lord of the manor Wandsworth Common (Earl Spencer). Mr. Peek, M.P., has offered to contribute £1,000, if the inhabitants of Wandsworth, Battersea, and Clapham could raise £4,000, to form a fund with which to contest at law the claims of the lords of manors to dispose of these commonable lands. The meeting pledged itself to raise £1,000 of the amount required, and appointed a committee to carry out the matter.
[BNA: Link]
Preservation of Wandsworth Common.
Influential Meeting at Battersea
On Monday a meeting was held, which was called in consequence of a requisition to Mr. J.C. Buckmaster, churchwarden, with reference to a letter from Mr. H. W. Peek, M.P., in answer to one from Mr. Buckmaster to the City Press, complaining of the encroachments upon Wandsworth Common which are made, sanctioned by Lord Spencer, the lord of the manor.
Mr. Buckmaster was called to the chair, and amongst those present we observed Messrs. W. Carter (coroner for East Surrey), Bertolacci, G. Durant, C. Eccles, Whiting, H. Whiting, M. Whiting, C. Ransom, Jukes Lord, C. Lambert, and Fithian, of the Commons Preservation Society. /p>
The chairman [i.e. John Buckmaster] said: The letter referred to from Mr. Peek was written in answer to one which I had written to the Daily News, and which had been copied into the City Press, extracts from which letter I will now read to you:
The decision in the case of Smith v. Brownlow, the lord of the manor of Berkhampstead will inspire hope in the hearts of those who, under enormous difficulties and discouragement., have been for years fighting almost alone the question of common rights. It is now 15 years [i.e. c.1855?] since I first waited upon the late lord of Old Farthing Manor [4th earl, dates], and pointed out to him the gradual encroachments and enclosures on Wandsworth Common, and since that time, according to my ability and judgment, I have resisted, and shall continue to resist, these enclosures.
The late lord of the manor said, "I quite agree with you. that no further enclosure of the common ought to take place," but since that time upwards of 100 acres of the best part of the common has been enclosed, and these enclosures have been made, not by the poor, but by the selfish aggrandisement of the rich.
The south part of the common was enclosed by a wealthy tailor, who was at the time lessee of the common, and ought to have protected it. Ten acres were enclosed for the erection of a telescope for pretended scientific purposes, 12 acres by the railway company, 10 acres to improve a garden, 50 acres for a Girls' Patriotic School, 20 acres for the prison, and very recently a lawyer and another have enclosed three or four acres which was cut off the main common by the South-Western Railway.
Now these enclosures have deprived the public of several old footpaths and rights of way which the Board of Works pretend they are powerless either to preserve or protect, and they have kindly informed me that it was quite competent, if I felt aggrieved, to bring actions against the lord of the manor, two railway companies, a speculating builder, gravel contractors, and others, who have disfigured and appropriated to their private use parts of the common.
I believe it to be the duty of the district board, in the interests of the public, to preserve the footpaths, and it is clearly the duty of the copyholders to preserve the common and the rights of common, if indeed there be any such rights outside the lord of the manor. It is difficult to understand how several of these enclosures have been brought about. Many of the copyholders are under small obligations to the agents and hangers-on of the lord of the manor . . .
On a part now enclosed I can recollect out-door games which were encouraged by adjoining owners of property on summer evenings. Fruit was given to the children while the men played at cricket, bowls, and quoits. In place of all this we have beershops and dirty prostitutes and for this decline in the morals and social habits of the place I hold those who have encouraged and defended these enclosures as chiefly responsible.
Not a single copyholder has derived any recompense or consideration, and the most objectionable enclosures have been made without their knowledge or consent; they have been quietly arranged between the agents and the party enclosing. If the public, the copyholders, and freeholders have no right., then they are trespassers; and I want this position clearly defined and determined, but not in any spiteful spirit.
I am willing to recognize defined rights, and protect them; but the very idea of common rights must mean something different to the right by which a man owns a freehold. I want this difference understood, and I think the present time very unfavourable for lords of manors to raise the question of absolute right in the disagreeable way in which it has been raised by some of them.
The letter from Mr. Peek is as follows: I read your remarks in the City Press of Saturday, and I have sent a copy of the paper to Earl Spencer. The public may grumble as much as they please that will never stop encroachments or enclosures. What I have been thinking of is this: round Clapham Common there are many wealthy gentlemen, some of whom are beginning to be alarmed at Lord Spencer declining to renew the lease of that part which belongs to him. And in the neighbourhood of Wandsworth there are also many well-to-do people.
If these will pay .£4,000 into a bank, I will add £1,000, and as a Battersea copyholder, would at once commence proceedings to take up everything irregular during the legal term, which I believe is 20 years. We are vigorously defending this common, and intend to leave no stone unturned to settle the question, once for all. I have my hands very full, but am quite willing to do what [say, but not on a less scale, having named the precise sum we fixed on here. I will hold myself bond to this offer to June, 1870, but no longer.
Well, it was in consequence of that letter of Mr. Peek's that this meeting was convened, and I hope it will be productive of good.
It is now nearly 30 years since I first saw Wandsworth Common. The late Dr. Lindley [Wikipedia: John Lindley (1799-1865)] used to assemble his students, at 7 o'clock, at the Falcon, and after a very plain breakfast, which cost ninepence each, we used to proceed to the common in search of plants. It was a lovely spring morning. The cows and sheep were feeding among the yellow gorse, the linnets were singing, and nightingales could be heard in the evening.
Under the shade of the furze bushes the violet and heath blossomed, the air was soft and balmy, and here and there the majestic elm and chesnut reared their lofty heads. An avenue of trees, nearly three-quarters of a mile long, lined the main road, and from the eastern sky, pure from the throne of God, the sun streamed in all its golden splendour, as the lark ascended at the sound of our footsteps.
Undisturbed by lords of manors, or speculating builders, or beershop keepers, or railway companies, we could wander from the Plough to Tooting Corner.
I felt thankful that within a radius of four miles from Charing Cross, from some cause or other, such a place had been left for public enjoyment. Men may tire and grow weary over picture galleries and works of art, but Nature never wearies.
I never dreamed I should live to see the common as it now is — heaps of unsightly ashes and filth, beershops, houses neither wind-tight nor water-tight, trees cut down and injured. Railway companies, gravel diggers, schools, and private individuals have scrambled for the common, and we are told by Lord Spencer that the common belongs absolutely to him.
Now, on this we join issue. We think that others have rights beside Lord Spencer, and among these we think the copyholders and freeholders of the manor have some reasonable pretensions. (Hear, hear.) The rights of the public may be rather narrow; but if the rights of others are secured beside the lord of the manor, we indirectly secure the privileges which the public have always enjoyed without any obstruction or hindrance.
For all the enclosures which have been made on the common amounts to nearly 200 acres, neither the copyholders nor anyone beside the lord of the manor and his agents have derived the smallest consideration or benefit. All this has been done by the absolute will and order of one man.
Now, I have no wish to question or interfere with the rights of anyone (hear, hear) but when I and others have exercised from time immemorial the privilege of walking across the common, it does seem rather strange that we should now be told that we are trespassers, and that the common is Lord Spencer's private property as sacred as Althorp Park (cheers) for if Lord Spencer's claim, as set forth by his lawyers, means anything, it either means that or nothing.
If, however, there are other rights, we think the rights of the poorest man as sacred as the rights of Lord Spencer (cheers) and that these rights are not to be yielded without a struggle.
I regret very much that a nobleman, blessed by Providence with wealth, and rank, and civil distinctions, and to whose family this country must always feel indebted for much of the liberty we enjoy (hear, hear) that he should now place himself in the attitude of resistance to the wishes, not merely of the wealthy, but 600 working men, who have asked him in respectful language to preserve the common. ("Shame, shame.") I should think the part already enclosed a sufficent equivalent for his rights across Wandsworth Common.
[600? Was this the memorial signed the previous year? Follow up.]
There were several pleasant and convenient footpaths. There was one round the Black Sea; that path has long since vanished into a private garden, and the sea itself is going. There was another path which was taken away by the patriotic school, another by the enclosure of the railway company, and very recently footpaths and a portion of the common have been added to the gardens of two private individuals.
From the Board of Works [MBW or District i.e. Wandsworth?] we have received not the smallest assistance. They have defined all footpaths across the common as trespass paths [PB i.e. used without the backing of law]. Now every path must in the first instance be a trespass path; but if men for ages have been in the habit of going from one point to another across a common or fields without let or hindrance, it seems to me that a right has been established, and I this is the interpretation always put upon the right to a footpath.
Now we are able to prove beyond doubt or dispute the uses of many of these paths, and if we cannot retain the common we mean to fight for the paths. (Hear, hear.)
We commence this battle not in any spiteful or angry spirit we feel indignant at what has been done and the way in which it has been done and we are determined that those who come after us shall not reproach our memory with any want of spirit in endeavouring to hand down to others, uninjured and unimpaired, the same rights and privileges which we inherited from men who were prepared to sacrifice everything in defence of what they believed to be right and just. (Loud cheers.)
We feel the moral and physical importance of preserving the commons and open spaces against the army of invading builders and speculators who are fast covering every blade of grass round London with bricks and mortar, especially in the interest of the poor, blocked in by narrow streets, and condemned to badly-ventilated houses, without gardens or backyards large enough for a washing-tub.
O where, O where shall Poverty reside,
To 'scape the pressure of contagious pride?
If to some common's fenceless limits strayed,
He drives his flock to pick the scanty blade.
These fenceless fields the sons of wealth divide,
And e'en the bare-worn common is denied.(Loud cheers.)
[This is from Oliver Goldsmith, The Deserted Village. The article mistakenly says "And e'en the base man common is denied", which makes little sense and is not in the original. Probably the journalist's or typsetter's error, not JCB's.]
Mr. C. Eccles asked if there were any freeholders present, and upon several gentlemen holding up their hands, he advised them to look well into their title deeds and see if they held from Lord Spencer or not. Because he apprehended that those who wore freeholders still had the rights of copyholders. (Hear, hear.) They had never been compensated at all, and they had still the rights of pasturage and other things over Wandsworth Common. It was generally supposed that the simple copyholders had rights, but he believed the freeholders had rights as well, and if they had cattle, and so wished, they could put them there.
[1847 meeting — try to find out more.]
He remembered in 1847 a meeting being held, when Lord Spencer's representative said his lordship would sell the common for a very small sum if it was to be kept open for recreation purposes; and if he (Mr. Eccles) remembered correctly, on that occasion the ratepayers refused to entertain the proposal, and it was thrown over. He supposed the majority of the ratepayers thought at the time that the copyholders and freeholders were endeavouring to steal a march on them, but that was not the case. He called upon them to subscribe amongst themselves, and resist Lord Spencer's encroachments. (Cheers.)
[Mr Eccles "remembered in 1847 a meeting being held, when Lord Spencer's representative said his lordship would sell the common for a very small sum if it was to be kept open for recreation purposes". Follow up.]
He considered that Lord Spencer had been going on in an underhand way and in an ungentlemanly way. If the aristocracy went on disgracing themselves as they had been doing, people would cry out against an hereditary peerage. Really, if Lord Spencer did not mind, he would go down to posterity, not as a distinguished member of the House of Peers, but as the contractor of the common. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. George Durant said he very much regretted that the encroachments had taken place for such a long period of time. It would have redounded more to the credit of the freeholders and copyholders long and long before then if they had reaisted the encroachments of Lord Spencer years ago. (Hear, hear.)
Still, at the same time, he was wishful to endeavour, if possible, to settle the question then and for ever. He thought it would be well if that could be done. The expense would be very great, and he had some misgivings as to whether they could raise the proper amount. He hoped, however, they would so, and his humble mite would be ready at, the proper time. (Cheers.)
The chairman said that although not a rich man he would give £25. (Cheers.) Amongst several smaller subscriptions the following sums were at once guaranteed: Messrs. Jukes Lord, £100; C. Eccles, £5O; Whiting, £3O; M. Whiting, .1150; H. Whiting, 4 5 0; P. Ransom, £5O; J.C. Buckmaster, £25; and C. Lambert, £25.
Mr. C. Ransom said there were one or two points which it would be well to bear in mind. There had been a few meetings with regard to the common, and they had also been to the Metropolitan Beard of Works, asking them to buy the common, but the question was in abeyance, because, when the rights of the lord of the manor were in such an unsatisfactory condition, they naturally could not entertain the question. But if that point was once settled, perhaps the Metropolitan Board of Works would buy it and keep it open for ever; so that, in duty bound, they ought to look well after it.
Every inhabitant ef Battersea was interested in the matter (hear, hear) and if the working men would help them by doing what they could, and would give what they could, if it was only a penny, he felt quite sure the money would be forthcoming. (Cheers.) He believed the working men of Battersea would fight as hard as any one. (Hear, hear.) If it was put forth and circulated, he did not think there was a working man in Battersea who would not subscribe. No one knew better than the working men the value of the common. (Cheers.)
Mr. Jukes Lord said that he came there that night to learn, and he had learnt a great deal. They did not want one acre of Lord Spencer's ground, and they did not want Lord Spencer to take one acre of theirs. (Hear, hear.) After suggesting the appointment of a committee, he contended that the right of taking gravel not last for ever. He coincided with the views of Mr. Peek, who was a most practical man, and they ought to show themselves to the best of advantage, and raise their share of the money as quickly as possible.
Mr. Bertolacci believed that the question was one of very great importance. It affected the whole of the metropolis. (Hear, hear.) Very many people would go to Wandsworth Common from all parts of the metropolis. On public grounds, therefore, he was quite sure that Mr. Peek deserved great thanks. (Hear, hear.) He believed Mr. Peek had been actuated by good motives, and he thought they ought to pledge themselves to support his ideas. (Cheers.)
They had all seen how their common had been encroached upon, and if they went to the other side of the common they would find immense pits had been dug up, which were of course spoiling the common, and they were becoming stinking pools, and very prejudicial to health. Unless they took some steps to throw open these enclosures, it would be more expensive to do so hereafter. If these encroachments were allowed to go on, the lord of the manor would at his will and pleasure go on enclosing. (Hear, hear.)
There was a meeting the other day about throwing open Battersea new bridge. Shortly after the bridge was built there were deputations went to Lord Palmerston and to Lord Derby. The first one did not succeed, but with the latter, although they did meet not succeed with regard to the week days, they did with regard to the Sundays, and upon the first Sunday it was thrown open there were 140,000 people flocked into the park. (Cheers.) That showed the use of these open spaces. Now was the time, therefore, to set an example, which he was sure would soon be followed by Wandsworth and Clapham. (Cheers.)
Mr. Eccles asked who ordered the roads to be made, as he thought that would show the right to the common.
Mr. Buckmaster explained that the parish made and sustained the roads. After some further conversation, — Bodes proposed, "That this meeting thankfully accepts the generous offer of Mr. Peek, and pledges itself to use its best efforts to raise such proportion (£1,000) of the sum named in the parish of Battersea." He earnestly hoped Wandsworth and Clapham would follow their example. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. North seconded the resolution, and said there were 80,000 inhabitants in Battersea, and if they would put their hands in their pockets and pull out a threepenny or a fourpennypiece, there would not be much required to be raised by the wealthy of the parish. It ought to be raised in a month or six weeks.
Mr. Loaf, as a representative of the working men from Wandsworth, said that with respect to the working men of Wandsworth he thought they would do their duty. It was certainly the working men who most required the common. It was of vital importance, not only that the working men should move themselves, but that the wealthy classes should assist them. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Lambert observed that there were a great many inhabitants in his neighbourhood who would subscribe good amounts. The motion was then carried unanimously.
Mr. Bass proposed that a committee should be formed, to consist of Messrs Ransom, Lambert, Whiting, Eccles, Lord, Buckmaster, Bass, and Hall, with power to add to their numbers.
Mr. Ashley seconded the resolution.
Mr. Clare thought that the whole metropolis should be appealed to for money. The Metropolitan Board of Works made them pay for parks in all parts of the metropolis, and it seemed rather hard that the park they had ready made was to be snatched from them. (Hear, hear.)
Would it not be better to appeal to the whole of the metropolis? The resolutions were then carried, ands copy of the two motions directed to be sent to the vestry clerks of Wandsworth and Clapham, and a vote of thanks to the chairman closed the proceedings.
Link.]
THE THREATENED ENCLOSURE OF SUBURBAN COMMON
[??] Monday evening a meeting of copY, holders and freeholders was held at Lammas-hall, Battersea, to organise measures of resistance against the encroachments of the lord of the masher of Wandsworth-common (Earl Spencer). Mr. Church-warden Buckmaster presided. It appeared that Mr. Peek, M.P., had offered to contribute £1,000, if the inhabitants of Wandsworth, Battersea, and Clapham could raise £4,000. to form a fund with which to contest at law the claims of the lords of manors to dispose of these commonable lands.
It was forcibly contended that Clapham and Wandsworth were interested in this questions and the meeting pledged itself to raise £1,000 of the amount required, and appointed a committee to carry out the matter. [It?] was also agreed to expressing the appreciation the inhabitants of Battersea felt of the handsome manner in which Mr. Peek had come forth at [??] critical period.
[BNA: Link.]
Costeker et al at St Mark's School discussing whether reading the Bible should be excluded in schools.
Biblical Education in Schools.
A public meeting was summoned at the St. Mark's Schoolroom, Battersea Rise, on Thursday afternoon, for the purpose of considering whether the Bible should be excluded or not from public schools. There were not more than 40 persons present, among whom were the Rev. G. Jenkinson (rector), General Sir Arthur Peel, Colonel Pitcairn (late of the 92nd Highlanders), Rev. E. Daniel (Battersea Training College), Rev. M. Ince (vicar of Christchurch), Rev. Mr. James (Congregationalist), Mr. Costeker, &c..
The chairman spoke at some length on what he believed to be the sources of ignorance among the poorer classes, chief among which he ranked intemperance. He deplored the apathy on matters scholastic, the degradation, dissoluteness, rudeness, and in some cases dishonesty of many of the children in Battersea, and said they were directly attributable to the dissolute habits of parents who left their offspring to shift for themselves.
He admitted there were many poor people in the district who really could not afford to send their children to school, but feared intemperance was often the cause among many others. He believed Mr. Forster's bill for Elementary Education would be of great use to those who were very poor, and who could not give a satisfactory reason for neglecting their children's education; they would be assisted.
The rev. gentleman then referred to the speech of Mr. Forster, showing that there were 80,000 children who ought to be educated in the town of Liverpool; out of that number there were 20,000 who received no instruction whatever. In Manchester there were 65,000, and Leeds and other places were in just as bad a condition.
With regard to Battersea, there were lots of children running about the streets exceedingly wild and rude; nor did he see how they were to be educated. He felt that the Bible should not be excluded from schools, as the general feeling throughout England was, whether rightly or wrongly, in favour of education being based on religion, and to strike a blow against that system would be tantamount to striking a blow against religion itself.
In a committee of the House of Commons, all these matters would be discussed. Mr. Forster had admitted the religious difficulty of the educational question to be a great one, but felt that, in their educational zeal, to exclude that work by Act of Parliament would be to create a still greater religious difficulty. He therefore approved of the teaching in schools being left to religious men. There need be no fear about sectarianism, for children did not deal in abstruse theological questions; they simply received the grand recognized truth of Christianity. The great difficulty was not to instil one class of doctrines to the exclusion of others, but to get them to know anything they got to know the simple truths of the 0. [??]
Mr. Costeker moved a resolution to the effect that the Government Elementary Education Bill deserved support, inasmuch as it contemplated making provision for the education of a vast number of children in this country, who were at present totally neglected either through the dissolute habits of parents or the want of means, from sheer poverty, to provide proper schooling. He could not approve an education that was not based on the truths of the Bible, for if they looked to ancient Rome or Greece, where the arts were cultivated as much as in England at the present day, there were of brilliant minds, but, for want of religion, all their knowledge was vain. The bill now provided by Government was more satisfactory than anything he had anticipated.
Colonel Pitcairn seconded the resolution. He believed the difficulty experienced by the poor people was not so much the expense of education as the loss suffered by the children being prevented earning money by work. This bill, he rejoiced to say, would involve the Government, and place upon it the onus of providing an education for every child. He considered this to be a scheme which would put the Government on its trial.
The resolution was carried unanimously.
The Rev. Mr. Ince moved that the bill should be accepted as deserving the special support of all Christian people, because it recognized the necessity of religious education, and would not prohibit the reading of the word of God. He contended that it was quite practicable to use the Bible in schools, with [??] teaching sectarianism.
General Sir Arthur Lawrence seconded the resolution, taking the latter part of it for good. although not all that could be desired, but the great object should be to secure the use of the Scriptures in schools. They must watch with great jealousy any changes that might take place in committee, or there would be no use in holding meetings like the one at which they were assembled. They should endeavour to obtain for every child in the country such an education as they would each wish to give to their own. The motion was adopted nem. con.
The Rev. E. Daniel moved that the meeting highly appreciated the provisions of the Government bill in seeking to supply the needs of education without doing injury to, and distinguishing existing schools by the costly and persevering labours of the best friends of the people. Mr. Payne seconded the resolution, which was adopted, after which the Rev. Mr. James moved that the bill should be considered as defective in not providing a form of compulsory attendance.
The motion being adopted. a petition was framed to be presented to Parliament.
[BNA: Link.]
[NB This is Wimbledon Common. But notice the persistence of customary rights . . . Spencer's responsibilities as lord of the manor, not criminal proceedings etc]
WANDSWORTH. Common Rights Wimbledon.
John Beadle, John Croft, and James Lambert, were summoned for stealing the underwood from Wimbledon Common, the property of Earl Spencer, the lord of the manor.
Witnesses were called prove that Earl Spencer had exorcised the rights of the lord of the manor over the common, and that the young oaks, hazel, and underwood had not been allowed to be cut, and, further, that it was not until about a month ago persona commenced cutting. The defendants were seen cutting hazel sticks, they sold to Mr. Thompson, nurseryman.
The defence was that it had been a custom time immemorial for poor people, born and bred the pariah, to cut the underwood. One witness stated that the beadle used to go round and cry, "Oh yes! This is to give notice that you are not to cut underwood until near Michaelmas-day." The time for cutting was between Michaelmas and Lady-day.
[i.e. 29 September to 25 March — the other "quarter-days" are Midsummer Day (24 June) and Christmas Day (245 December)].
Mr. Ingham said the defendants had done an act which they had no right to do, but the question was whether Earl Spencer ought not bring an action against them instead of taking these proceedings.
The summonses were adjourned for inquiries about the custom of the crier.
[BNA: Link.]
ANSWER TO "GRANDMAMMA'S" ADVERTISEMENT
"L. R." 12, Bolingbroke-terrace, Wandsworth-common, TEACHES SPINNING, and Sells Anglo—Saxon and Saxe-Coburg Gotha Spinning Wheels and Winders, from 2 to 10 guineas the pair. Flax, Wool, Silk — Combs it for Spinning. Keeps all the necessary apparatus, She weaves the yarn of her pupils, and can give the highest references.
[BNA: Link.]
[NB — the Reformatory was on Spanish Road — it was that the St James's Industrial School.]
At the Wandsworth police-court yesterday, three boys named Richard Ross, aged sixteen, George Jackson, fifteen, and James Dwyer, fifteen, were charged with wilfully setting fire to the stable at the Wandsworth Reformatory, Wandsworth- common, on Tuesday last. The boys svere inmates of the reformatory, under orders of detention. Jackson was suspected by the superintendent of hlaving caused the fire, and on being questioned he admitted that he set fire to the stable.
The super-intendent afterwards questioned Ross, who said he supplied Jackson with matches and tapers. He said he did not know for what purpose Jackson required them, but he suspected it was for a bad one.
Dwyer was next questioned, but he denied having had any conversationa with Jackson during the dinner hour about setting fire to the place. It, however, appeared that while the fire was raging Dwvyer clapped his hands and hurrahed, inciting the other boys to insubordination.
Mr. Dayman considered there was no evidence against Dwyer, and ordered him to be discharged. The other prisoners he remanded. The damage done by the fire was stated to amount to £2,500.
[BNA: Link]
Meeting at Price's Lecture Hall, York Road urges court action against enclosures
[What was the relationship between Lecture Hall and Candle Works?]
Wandsworth Common
On Wednesday a meeting was held at Price's Lecture-hall, York-road, Battersea, to take steps for the commencement of proceedings against Earl Spencer, the lord of the manor, for enclosing several portions of the common, with a view to obtaining a decision of the Court of Chancery as to the extent and nature of the common rights possessed by the lord of the manor and the commoners.
Mr. James Lord (late candidate for East Surrey), was in the chair, and the meeting was afterwards addressed by Mr. Churchwarden Buckmaster, Rev. Conder, Mr E. W. Fithian, secretary of the Commons' Preservation Society, Mr. Ransome, Mr. Turner (vestryman), and others.
There was an unanimous feeling against the enclosure of any portion of the common, and a strong determination was manifested to raise the necessary funds to try the question in the courts of equity. A vote of thanks to the chairman terminated the proceedings.
[BNA: Link.]
Shooting Rubbish on Wandsworth-common.
Mr. C. Stenning, Holme house, Wandsworth-common, has had to complain of refuse being deposited against his garden wall, and he requested that the board of works would order its removal, and, if possible, prevent any further accumulation by placing a notice board there. The clerk, in reply, recommended Mr. to apply to the owner of the land adjoining to enclose the same, it is private property.
[BNA: Link.]
IT is not very creditable to our legislation, that notwithstanding all the agitation of the past few years, the few bits of common land which still exist in the neighbourhood of the metropolis are every now and then in peril from the land greed of neighbouring landowners.
Notwithstanding the Metropolitan Commons Act, Wimbledon Common is threatened, Wandsworth Common is at this moment in great peril, and even Clapham Common is not in perfect safety. In these three cases Earl SPENCER has put forward claims which are inconsistent with the public rights. Wandsworth Common has already suffered serious encroachment; only 150 acres are left, and the Earl claims even that remaining bit of open land. Certain parts of Clapham Common are also claimed by the same landowner, and of Wimbledon he has taken part possession.
In these circumstances the public has no power to protect itself, and but for the efforts of public-spirited individuals who, are Commoners of the Manor, the common right would be lost, In the case of Wimbledon, Mr. HENRY PEEK M.P., is already engaged in an expensive suit against Earl SPENCER, and he is prepared to undertake a similar suit on behalf of Wandsworth Common, if the public will help him in his efforts.
Mr. PEEK has liberally put down a thousand pounds for this purpose, on condition that four thousand more are subscribed by June next. Such a fund would be sufficient to carry on a suit which would not only settle the question of present encroachments but would extend to those of the past twenty years.
It is much to be hoped that the four thousand pounds will be forthcoming. That the public right to public land can only be protected by costly suits, in which the rich landowner ba! all to gain, and the nation all to lose, is a scandal that a popular Legislature will some day look into t But, meanwhile, the commons may be lost, and the only chance of saving them is for the public to come forward and protect its own.
[BNA: Link]
This meeting took place on the evening of the day the attack took place on the fences erected by Costeker and Compton-Smith enclosure but had not been generally reported in the press until the next day (see below)
[NEEDS EDIT . . . ]
THE THREATENED ENCLOSURE OF WANDSWORTH-COMMON
A large meeting of the inhabitants of Wandsworth was held last evening at the Spread Eagle Assembly Room, Wandsworth, to consider and adopt the best means for raising a portion of the fund required for the purpose of preserving to the public Wandsworth-common.
Mr. James Bevington, JP, who occupied the chair, in opening the proceedings, said that the member for Mid-Surrey (Mr. Peek), had offered to give £1000 if the inhabitants of Wandsworth, Clapham, and Battersea would pay £4000 into a bank to effectually resist the encroachments of the lord of the manor, and to preserve the rights which their fathers and forefathers had so long enjoyed in the use of Wandsworth-common. He hoped that they would act in the same spirit as Mr. Peek (cheers), whose offer, however, would only hold good until June, 1870. They had, therefore, two months to work in.
Battersea had taken up the matter very liberally, and had raised a considerable sum. They wished to resist the lord of the manor (Lord Spencer), in good temper, legally, and with good hard cash (cheers).
As a magistrate he wished to repudiate the destruction of some fences on the common which, as he had heard, had been perpetrated that day. It was scarcely the right way to go to work when the matter could be effectually decided by law, whether the lord of the manor had the right to enclose the common. He had no doubt that those who broke down the fence did it with a good motive, and he respected their motive, but he hoped it would not occur again (laughter).
He knew nothing, and had had nothing to do with this proceeding; his anxiety was to force the lord of the manor to resign his pretensions in a legal manner (cheers). There were many gentlemen who resided in the neighbourhood present who knew more about the question than he did, and who understood the knotty legal points involved.
[John Buckmaster]
He therefore called upon Mr. Buckmaster, who said that they had been asked to deal kindly with Lord Spencer, but he would ask if lord Spencer had dealt kindly by them? (cheers.) That nobleman had rights, and he was willing to respect those rights, but he thought that other people had rights, too (cheers). Did Lord Spencer respect other people's rights? (no, no, and cheers.) He was under no obligation to the lord of the manor, and, therefore, was at liberty to say what he thought on this subject.
In 1846 Wandsworth-common was as it had been for 200 years previously; but in that year the late Lord Spencer granted a piece of the common for an industrial school. This was the first enclosure, and the parish of St. James probably thought that it was very nice to get rid of some of their children by establishing an industrial school on Wandsworth-common. The principle ought to have been tried then, and one copyholder expressed his intention to fight out the question at law. However, the lord of the manor's agent dined with this copyholder at this very place (the Spread Eagle), and it was wonderful how his courage and determination evaporated (laughter and cheers).
The next enclosure was against the "Black Sea," by the erection of a large house. At that time there was a path all round the Black Sea, and people were in the habit of using it. It was found that the garden of this house was not so private as the owner liked, so he complained of the nuisances which a large number of people constantly passing caused, and on the strength of this nuisance a large piece of the common was enclosed (shame).
At that time there existed a court known as the "court leet," whose duty it was to preserve and protect the rights of the public in commons. There were, however, certain gentlemen of that court who looked with longing eyes on the common, and ten acres on the east side of the Black Sea were added to the gentleman's garden to whom he had previously alluded. Some of those enclosures had become private property through lapse of time.
The lord of the manor next made a road across the common, and every one knew what a road was made for. The object of making that road was to build houses on each side of it (cheers).
Lord Spencer said that the common was absolutely his to do what he liked with; to sell or build on just as he pleased. They had a right to it too and tbey were determined to protect it (loud cheers). A certain gentleman of a scientific turn of mind (laughter) then erected a large telescope on another portion of the common and put a fence round it. He (Mr. Buckmaster) spoke to the late Lord Spencer on the subject of this telescope, and was told that it had been only erected for a temporary purpose, and when the object for which it was so placed had been served the fence would be removed. The fence was still there (loud cheers), and the enclosed land was cultivated for some gentleman's use and pleasure.
Then the prison wanted a little bit of land for the benefit and recreation of the prisoners (laughter and cheers).
The next step was to take 60 acres for a girls' school. He did not approve of agricultural labour for women, as it was apt to demoralise them, and he did not know what they wanted with 60 acres of ground (cheers). It was certainly a patriotic school — and they were all patriotic — but he thought that ten acres would have been quite sufficient.
There had also been a number of enclosures for railway purposes.
The most objectionable enclosure of all had been that on the east side of the Black Sea by one of the court leet, who had obtained it for a very small consideration, exclusively for his own benefit. The enclosure commissioners were appointed at a time when provisions were very dear, and it was thought desirable to cultivate some of the waste land of the country, but most of the commons around the metropolis were, thank God, too barren even for agriculture. This common had not even been enclosed for agriculture, but merely to satisfy the cupidity of some few rich men (cheers). He regarded these enclosures as disgraceful, and should be glad if Lord Spencer could hear what he said without the interposition of his agents and others, who probably were interested in keeping back the opinions of the inhabitants of Wandsworth (cheers).
Three gentlemen connected with the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway had also enclosed twelve acres of this common, across which a much-used footpath ran, under the sanction of the Board of Works. He felt so indignant at this proceeding that be asked the Board of Works to show what authority they had to authorise this; but it was a poor board to apply to (laughter). He wondered what they met for and why they existed.
In answer to his inquiry he received a polite note — they could write no end of polite notes — in which he was informed they had acted under the authority of their act of parliament. He then inquired what particular act this was, and was told that if he felt aggrieved he could commence an action against Lord Spencer, the railway companies, and 50 gravel diggers, and others (laughter).
He then remonstrated with the Highway Board as to the footpath which had been destroyed by this enclosure, but was informed that it was not a footpath but "a trespass path." However, as he was very obtuse on the subject, be asked the difference between a "trespass path" and a footpath, and was again told that he might bring an action against numerous persons. He did not see his way clear to do that.
This footpath, which extended from the corner of Plough public-house to Bollington House [Bollington?] should have been rendered sacred by long usage. He had known the footpath for 20 years, and old men who had been born in the parish, and had used it for a much longer period, had given affidavits to that fact. He had even broken down a portion of the fence and asked the Board of Works to keep it open, but all to no purpose.
Another and more recent enclosure, and one which he saw with deep regret, had been made near the Plough. The late owner of property adjoining had tried hard to get this piece of land, but had been refused by a public vestry convened specially to consider the question. He had even offered to give £200 to the parish for it, but the parish thought that the principle involved was of more importance than £200. (cheers). Now his successor had got the land without paying anything (shame).
An attempt was now to be made to protect the rights of the copyholders and freeholders of the manor, and secure to the public a great national benefit (cheers). Battersea was doing her part, and Wandsworth must do hers also. They had not much time to spare, and they must all work hard in the cause. The lord of the manor had a right to dig gravel, cut down timber, hunt wild beasts (a laugh), and to cut turf: he might do all that, but the copyholders had also rights. They had a right to cut furze and to pasture cattle, and he was old enough to remember both these rights exercised.
It might be asked — why did they not do so now? But could they pasture cattle on heaps of cinders and ashes, or on a common terribly cut up with gravel pits? (cheers). He supposed it was intended to make the common a nuisance, and so gain an excuse for entirely enclosing it (cheers).
No less than two hundred acres of it had already been enclosed, and he thought that the lord of the manor and others had gone quite far enough. If Lord Spencer could do as he liked with Wandsworth-common by virtue of his absolute right, he could, of course, as lord of the manor, do what he liked with Wimbledon and two-thirds of Clapham commons.
Why, then, did be bring a bill into parliament for the purpose of enclosing 300 acres of Wimbledon-common if he had an absolute right to do as he pleased? The House of Commons rejected his bill (cheers), and he could not make his enclosure. The old common was valuable for purposes of health and recreation; they wanted the common, and they would do all they could to preserve it (cheers). He was prepared to do his share as far as subscriptions went, and he hoped every one present would do the same. (The speaker sat down amidst great applause.)
Mr. Edward Coventry moved "that this meeting thankfully accepts the spirited offer of Mr. Peek, and pledges itself to raise as large a proportion as possible of the sum required in the parish of Wandsworth."
Mr. Boyson briefly seconded the motion, and said that they were prepared to test the rights of the lord of the manor in a perfectly legal manner. The metropolitan commons were the lungs of London and an inestimable benefit to the working classes (loud cheers).
The resolution was carried unanimously, and several gentlemen, including the chairman, Mr. Buckmaster, and Mr. Boyson, commenced a subscription list by 50/-. each.
A committee was appointed to carry out the first resolution, and the proceedings, which were very enthusiastic, were terminated by a vote of thanks to the chairman.
[BNA: Link.]
[PB: By fine irony (or design?), the Spread Eagle was where by tradition Spencer's tenants paid their rent. In the centre of Wandsworth town. Present by 1745 — at the same place? Its current address is 71 High Street, Wandsworth. More info at Pubwiki: Spread Eagle.]
Once more Wandsworth-common is menaced with wholesale confiscation and enclosure, Earl Spencer, who is lord of many manors, has raised his pretensions against the rights and customs of the inhabitants; and the inhabitants, taking up the challenge, defy him to enter the lists of las Ww. No} doubt the Earl has a certain prerogative; but the advantage taken by him of ambiguous points, invariably to the public detriment, has not been generous, and may not be proved legal.
Twenty-four years ago that fine open space, a source of health to a wide neighbourhood around, wore the aspect which it had worn for two centuries and more. Then commenced the inroads, which, unless resisted before too late, will obliterate it altogether. in tho name of a slice was cut off as the site of an industrial school. An opposition sprang up, but melted away in convenient convivialities.
The stop taken, others followed, and the curious old spot known by tradition "from a time whereof no man living hath memory " as the "Black Sea" began to be parcelled out in a private way. Then, a road was cut across the common — with a view to a double line of houses being built. The lord of the manor scouted all remonstrance. He was doing what he liked with his own, he declared, and would persist in doing it. He fenced in a of the common ground for the accommodation of an amateur astronomer; he gave a bit to the prison, and a bit — a rather large one — for girls' school; then, the railways wanted land, Ancient footpaths disappeared, and, at last, the entire expanse is threatened, and is perpetually being disfigured by engineers, contractors, gravel diggers, the manor agents, and the whole tribe of who represent Earl SPENCER's claims — not there only, but at Wimbledon and Clapham in addition. which utterly ignore the rights not only of the copy. holders, but of the freeholders of the vicinity algo, Once has Lord Spencer had a Wandsworth Common Bill rejected by Parliament. If the public who are interested in tho matter stand firm to their purpose, he will fail again, and one, not least, of our playgrounds may be spared,
[BNA: Link.]
Fund of £5,000 for the Preservation of Wandsworth an Clapham Commons
Subscriptions up to April 14th 1870
H.W.Peek, Esq, MP, £1000.
Battersea Committee
Mr James Lord
Mr M Whiting
Mr Noel Whiting
Mr H Whiting
Mr C Eccles
Revd J S Jenkinson
Mr E R Ransome
Mr C Lambert
Mr J C Buckmaster
Mr Millis Coventry
Mr Hunter
Lady Pollock
Mr Hadfield
Mr Scrivens
Mr J Hewitson
Mr Tom Taylor
Mr Young
Mr Turner (on collecting card)
Mr Clark Butcher
Mr Gravell
Mr Bickerdike (on collecting card)
Mr Conder (on collecting card)
Mr Amor
Mr Creasey
Mr Godfrey
Mr J Horrocks, Stationer
Mr Price
Mr Benison, the Newsman
Wandsworth Committee
Mr James Du Buisson
Mr J.B. Bevington
Mr Ambrose P Boyson
E R Ransome
Mr T S Watson
Mr T S Howell
Mr Edward Coventry
Mr Geoffrey Bevington
Mr Mason (on collecting card)
Mr N G Walsh
Mr C Bell (on collecting card)
Mr W Atkinson (on collecting card)
Mr Messers Gray & Lucas Ironmongers
Mr Heisch
Mr R Moir
Mr T Worsfold, Gardener to J.B. Bevington, Esq.
A Working Man named Forrester, at Public Meeting
A young man named SULLINGS was yesterday brought before the police magistrate at Wandsworth, and charged, together with other persons, more than 300 in number, with breaking down the fence of a garden on Wandsworth Common, and destroying the trees and vegetables. This proceeding arose out of a movement to resist any further encroachments upon the common.
The ground in question had not been enclosed till 1868, but the complainant alleged that he bought a right to it from Earl SPENCER in 1836.
Defendant was fined 40s., with £15, the amount of damage.
[BNA: Link.]
Samuel Sullings becomes a martyr to the cause of Wandsworth Common . . .
[Came to court "yesterday", i.e. Thursday 14 April, the day after the event, i.e. Wednesday 13 April.]
A young man named SULLINGS was yesterday brought before the police magistrate at Wandsworth, and charged, together with other persons, more than 300 in number, with breaking down the fence of a garden on Wandsworth Common, and destroying the trees and vegetables. This proceeding arose out of a movement to resist any further encroachments upon the common. The ground in question had not been enclosed till 1868, but the complainant alleged that he bought a right to it from Earl SPENCER in 1836. Defendant was fined 40s., with £15, the amount of damage.
[BNA: Link.]
WANDSWORTH.
Samuel Sullings, a sawyer, aged 21 years, was charged with being concerned, with other persons not in custody, in wilfully damaging a wooden fence enclosing a kitchen garden belonging to Mr. John Costeker, of St. John's-hill, Wandsworth.
Mr. Charles Costeker, solicitor, conducted the case. He said the complainant was lessee of a piece of ground running by the side of the railway, and facing the Wandsworth-road. It was enclosed by him in December, 1868, and since then put into cultivation. Persons had the liberty to wander over it for a number of years, and erroneously supposed that they had a right of way across it.
In September last [i.e. September 1869] Mr. Clark was found injuring the fence by hacking the gates at night, muffled up, which would be in the recollection of the magistrate, who fined him forty shillings in addition to the damage of ten shillings. Since then he had trespassed upon the land, and the complainant commenced an action in the Court of Queen's Bench, in which the question of the right of way was raised. Certain pleas were entered, but the defendant in the case suffered judgment to go by default with costs.
The complainant had remained in possession of the land ever since, but on Wednesday last about 300 men of the roughest kind came to the place and knocked down the gates fronting the Wandsworth-road, and a considerable portion of the fence. Fruit trees were damaged, and an immense amount of injury was done to the property. He submitted that even if there was a right of way it did not extend to more than a path of four feet wide, and that the parties had no right to act in the way they had done.
Police-constable West said that on Wednesday afternoon he was on duty at New Wandsworth, where he saw the prisoner, who called upon the mob to assist him to break down the gates. He threw a heavy stone at the gates, and after he got them down he jumped upon them and broke the panels. He picked up a large stick and walked across the ground. He said, "This is our place, boys, and we'll stick to it." Witness went after him and took him into custody.
In reply to the magistrate the complainant said Earl Spencer was Lord of the Manor. The land was formerly part of Wandsworth-common, but the Lord of the Manor sold his right over it in 1836.
Dr. Dayman said he was bound by the decision in the action. It was very desirable, no doubt, that open spaces in crowded localities should not be enclosed, but he doubted whether the public could claim to keep open Wandsworth-common without an Act of Parliament. He fined the prisoner 40s., in addition to £15, the amount of damage, and in default ordered him to be imprisoned for six months.
[BNA Link.]
WANDSWORTH
RIOTOUS PROCEEDINGS ON WANDSWORTH-COMMON
Samuel Sullings, a sawyer, aged 21 years, was charged with being concerned with other persona, not in custody, in wilfully damaging a wooden fence enclosing a kitchen garden, belonging to Mr. John Costeker, of St. John's Hill, Waudswortb.
Mr. Charles Costeker, solicitor, conducted the case. He said the complainant was lessee of a piece of ground running by the side of the railway, and facing the Wandsworth-road. It was enclosed by him in December, 1868, and since then put into cultivation. Persons had the liberty to wander over it for a number of years, and erroneously supposed that they had a right of way across it.
In September last year a man named Clark was found injuring the fence by hacking the gates at night, muffled up, which would be in the recollection of the magistrate, who fined him 40s, in addition to the damage of 10s.
Since then he had trespassed upon the land, and the complainant commenced action in the Court of Queen's Bench, in which the question of the right of way was raised. Certain pleas were entered, but the defendant in the case suffered judgment to go by default, with costs. The conplainant had remained in possession of the land ever since, but Wednesday last about three hundred men of the roughest kind came to the place and knocked down the gates fronting the Wandsworth-road, and considerable portion of the fence. Fruit trees were damaged, and an immense amount of injury was done to the property.
He submitted that even if there was right of way it did not extend more than a path of four feet wide, and that the parties had no right to act in the way they had done.
Police-constable West said that on Wednesday afternoon he was duty at New Wandsworth, where he saw the prisoner, who called upon the mob to assist him break down the gates. He threw a heavy stone at the gates, and after he got them down he jumped upon them and broke the panels. He picked up a large stick and walked across the ground. He said, "This is our place, boys, and we'll stick to it" Witness went after him, and took him into custody.
In reply to the magistrate, the complainant said Earl Spencer was lord of the manor. The land was formerly part of Wandsworth-common, but the lord of the sold his right over it in 1836.
Mr. Dayman said he was bound by the decision in the action. It was very desirable, no doubt, that open spaces in crowded localities should not be enclosed, but doubted whether the public could claim to keep open Wandsworth-common without an Act of Parliament. He fined the prisoner 40s, in addition £l5, the amount [of the?] damage; and in default ordered him imprisoned for six months.
[BNA: Link.]
Very similar wording: Morning Post — Friday 15 April 1870
[BNA: Link.]
[BNA: Link.]
2167 — Samuel Sullings — 21 — 5 feet 5 inches — Brown hair — Blue eyes —? — Other marks: Top left thumb [smashed?] Scar over right eye. — Sawyer — Magistrate: C.O.[?] Dayman Wandsworth — When committed: 14 " [April?] — Offence: [illeg.] damaging a fence — Sentence: 6 months — Fine: £17 — Expiration of term: 13 Oct 1870 — State of instruction: Read/Write/Religion: [illeg] — Weight coming in: 10 stone — Birthplace: E [England]
[Ancestry: Link.]
[Largest size: 1870-samuel-sullings-in-wandsworth-prison-5524px.jpg.
[The next article in the Telegraph . . . i.e. on the same day — was local violence contagious?]
SETTING FIRE TO REFORMATORY
onrw mand, charged with wilfully setting fire hay loft, which several workshops were destroyed. Mr. John Leyland, the manager, said that questsing Jackson, he stated that Ross told him to set fire to place, and gave him the materials do with. In answer the charge, Jackson said Ross did not tell him to do it. . ~ . t *• Mr. Dayman committed both boys lor trial.
[BNA Link.]
A SUBURBAN WARFARE.
Wandsworth common is still the field of battle. Earl Spencer threatens enclosure, the inhabitants prepare for active resistance, and as a matter of course, a public meeting is the first weapon of defence.
The residents mustered in considerable force, a night or two since, under the presidency of Mr. James Bevington, one of their magistrates. Mr. Peek, the member for Mid-Surrey, has offered to give £1,000 towards the common fund, if the inhabitants of Wandsworth, Clapham, and Battersea would give £4,000. This offer, however, only holds good until next June, so it is to be hoped that the subscription list, opened at the meeting, was a long and liberal one.
In the course of the discussion a Mr. Buckmaster stated the aggravating fact that 200 acres of the common had already been enclosed; and he not inaptly asked if Lord Spencer, as lord of the manor, could do what he liked with his own, why was it necessary for him to bring an enclosure bill into Parliament?
[BNA: Link.]
Cuckoos on Clapham and Wandsworth Commns
The Cuckoo. On Thursday morning a flight of cuckoos, which had emerged from their winter quarters located on Clapham and Wandsworth-commons. The appearance of these harbingers of spring in the south is this year earlier than usual; they continued to pour out their welcome notes for some time and then dispersed over the country. They are migratory birds, and although they breed during their sojourn in this country, they are seldom seen or heard after September, as they make their exit about that time to other and warmer climates.
[BNA: Link.]
[PB: "Emerged from their winter quarters located on CC and WC"? Incidentally, I wonder when the last cuckoo was heard on WC?]
I thought the following implies there was a previous published letter from "Mr. Costeker, jun.", but I now see this is a reference to the solicitor Charles Costeker's claims in court. JCB that "a mob of 300 persons, who broke down a fence erected by his father over a portion of the common known as Plough-green, and over which there is abundant evidence to prove that a footpath, or right of way, has existed for more than 50 years, slightly deviated from time to time by holes excavated by the digging of gravel, but on each occasion a temporary fence was erected to prevent accidents to those who used the footpath.
THE PRESERVATION OF WANDSWORTH COMMON.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE STANDARD.
Sir, I think it desirable in the interests of the parishioners of Battersea and the public generally to explain more clearly the circumstances which led to what Mr. Costeker, jun., calls a mob of 300 persons, who broke down a fence erected by his father over a portion of the common known as Plough-green, and over which there is abundant evidence to prove that a footpath, or right of way, has existed for more than 50 years, slightly deviated from time to time by holes excavated by the digging of gravel, but on each occasion a temporary fence was erected to prevent accidents to those who used the footpath.
A postman in the neighbourhood has used this footpath for 40 years; old men in the workhouse have known this footpath and used it for more than 60 years. I have known it for more than 20 years, and many others for a much longer period.
I should like to know whose duty it is to protect this footpath against the encroachments of Mr. Costeker. The talk in which the district board occasionally induce about trespass paths is simply ridiculous, there is no such thing known in law; it is either a path or it is not a path.
From much careful inquiry into the matter, I believe there is no path in the parish to which the public have a stronger claim than the one fenced off by Mr. Costeker and a Mr. Smith, with doors or gates lined with iron. "Two are better far than one for plunder or for fight" (Old Song.)
Plough-green is, or was, a portion of Wandsworth-common. It was cut off the main piece by the London and Southampton Railway in 1837, the year after Mr. Costeker's predecessor purchased it of the lord of the manor, and till last September it has been kept open to the public, after many fruitless attempts at enclosure. The back gardens of two bouses, one occupied by Mr. Costeker, the other by Mr. Compton Smith, who, I believe, is a lawyer, and knows what is right, and Mr. Costeker's son is also a clever lawyer; they are on the most friendly terms, Mr. Smith using all the little influence he could command to secure Mr. Costeker, jun., being appointed vestry clerk of the parish.
I mention this to show how complicated local things sometimes become, and what a number of interests and influences are at work, which the public never see or understand. If it is not a rude question I should like to ask Mr. Costeker what price was paid to the lord of the manor for this piece of common; we could then imagine whether it was such a price as land in that position ought to fetch, and what sort of a title he received with it? There is an impression that the lord of the manor never received a single farthing for this land.
Mr. Huchins and Mr. Gillott, predecessors of Mr. Costeker, tried to do what Mr. Costeker has done, but they failed, and so will Mr. Costeker, sen., Mr. Costeker, jun., and Mr. Compton Smith. The latter gentleman is now making a 40 feet road on his portion, and so far as I can learn he has never pretended to the same claims of purchase as his neighbour. But does Mr. Smith intend joining to his kitchen garden all the remainder of the common not occupied by this road, and if so, I hope he will not think me impertinent in asking from whom he purchased his piece of common.
All this is no doubt very impertinent but it is very important. I regret very much the cause of all this irritation and the punishment or fine of 171., which has been visited on a poor man who felt indignant at the encroachments of those who ought to have shown him a better example. To a poor man that he has his remedy at law against lawyers is simply an insult, and no private individual will take upon himself the worry and expense of a lawsuit for the benefit of the public. It is for this reason that public rights are never so well protected as private rights. If Mr. Costeker and Mr. Smith succeed it adds a larger value to their property.
The public is made up of individuals, and one individual interest in these struggles is as nothing, but in the aggregate it is all powerful.
For nearly twenty years I have been one of the skirmishers of a great army; that army is now being organised and increased through the liberality of Mr. Peek; and if Wimbledon and Clapham commons are to be preserved for those who have large gardens, we ask that Wandsworth-common shall be preserved from further destruction from the herd of speculating builders, gravel-diggers, railways, land societies, and private gentlemen who are greedy for what remains of the common.
Among the working classes of the parish (not the roughs) the name of Spencer, which was once the charm of the parish, is now received with expressions of derision and scorn, because they feel, with some reason of truth, that Wandsworth-common has been sacrificed because they were too poor to protect it, and but for Mr. Peek in a few years the remainder of the common would have been covered with beer-shops and houses of the type of those recently erected on that portion of the common which was taken by a species of kleptomania by the railway company, not for any purposes of a railway, but for the purpose of selling at about £750 an acre more than they gave for it.
Need you wonder at men growing disgusted and indignant at such a state of things? If the common belongs absolutely to Lord Spencer, let it be disposed of openly, and not filched away piece by piece, till half of it has been absorbed, and a considerable portion covered with houses, neither wind tight nor water tight; but they bring percentages to somebody, and that is of far more consequence to some men than either earth or heaven, or lords of manors.
Yours truly,
J.C. BUCKMASTER.
[BNA: Link.]
Or is it:
[BNA: Link.]
The Riot at Wandsworth
[Accusation that the men were paid in drink to break down the fence. This letter implies there was an earlier letter or article, presumably by or about JB. Try to find. Found — see above.]
THE RIOT AT WANDSWORTH. TO THE EDITOR OF THE STANDARD.
SIR, — Can Mr. Buckmaster state at what hour of the day the men who broke down Mr. Costeker's fences, on Wednesday last, began to get "disgusted and indignant?"
Was it not after they had been plentifully supplied with beer at the neighbouring public-houses, and been promised a few shillings reward for their day's work, "by those who ought to have shown them a better example?"
Your faithful servant,
INQUIRER. April 18.
[BNA: Link]
The late riot at Wandsworth Common a gentleman named Smith, residing at Ivy Lodge, applied under the 7th and 8th Geo. IV, c. 3, ss 2 and 3, for the purpose of having a deposition taken in the case of the riot on Wednesday last, in which a young man named Sullings was convicted for damaging the gates and fence of Mr Costeker. It will be remembered that a large mob forcibly entered upon some ground which was enclosed under a claim of right that it formed part of Wandsworth Common.
Mr Smith said his property was damaged at the same time. A fowl house was completely demolished, and he estimated the total damage at £50. His object was not to take criminal proceedings at present, but to put himself within the operation of the statute to enable him to recover compensation from the hundred.
The gardener's deposition was taken, also recognisances for the prosecution of the offenders when apprehended.
Source: Link.
[Smith, Ivy Lodge, is called "Compton-Smith" below, 21.4.1870. Both neighbours, Compton-Snith and Costeker, are involved. ]
The Preservation of Wandsworth Common
[BNA: Link.]
THE PRESERVATION OF WANDSWORTH-COMMON.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE STANDARD
Sir, — Your impression of yesterday contains a letter with the above heading, signed "J.C. Buckmaster," of which I should not have taken the slightest notice had the truth been fully stated; but the suppression of truth is the suggestion of falsehood, and as the writer wilfully omits every fact tending to justify my proceedings, I feel bound to make them known.
I pay the heavy rent of £25 per annum for the piece of land in question, and this solely to put an end to disgusting nuisances which were constantly occurring, and which every gentleman in the neighbourhood was cognisant.
[PB: does he imply prostitution? Booth says something about this on WC and Clapham Commons.]
Ten months before I enclosed it I offered to the parish, through Mr. Buckmaster, then churchwarden, to submit the question of the supposed right of way to any counsel of eminence, binding myself to abide by its decision. I also offered publicly, at a vestry meeting, to give up a footway of ten feet in width, whether a right of way existed or not, conditionally that the parish would bear half the expense of the additional fence required. The vestry clerk pointed out that by recent legislation the consideration of such matters had been transferred to the Board of Works, consequently no action was taken until I had enclosed the land; but immediately after I had done so formal complaints were laid before the board.
I then made to the Board of Works the same ones which I had made to the vestry, when the board decided to take counsel's opinion. A committee was appointed to prepare a case, which, with their solicitor, they did; and it was, I believe, assented to by the board unanimously — not one alteration' was made by me, and a wish being expressed that the case should be laid before the gentleman who acts as standing counsel to the Metropolitan Board I at once agreed to act in conformity with his opinion. The opinion was adverse to the supposed right of way, and good faith has been observed by the board.
Mr. Buckmaster knows wait that the original track was intercepted by the London and South-Western Railway in 1837; he also knows that since that time no track has existed uninterruptedly for a period of twenty years. Were I to give an opinion on the intricate question of Earl Spencer's rights, I should be guilty of impertinence. I merely state that before conveying it to any predecessor a legally constituted court was called by him, it- lord of the manor, that the copyholders' rights were surrendered to him, and that the proceedings of that court were duly enrolled.
I intend to maintain my rights, but by lawful means; and I have instructed the police to take into custody every trespasser, offering a liberal reward for such evidence as will lead to the conviction of any one who has incited, or who may incite poor ignorant men to oommit unlawful acts. I was certainly surprised to find a communication in your respectable columns from one holding opinions so violently opposed to those advocated by you, but I presume he selected that source of publicity, believing it more likely to come under my notice.
Requesting that you will favour me by giving space for this letter, if possible, in your paper of to-morrow, and assuring you that I will not trouble you again on the same subject,
I remain, Sir, very respectfully yours,
JNO. COSTEKER, St. John's-hill, Wandsworth, April 19.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE STANDARD.
Sir, — You have opened your columns to the question of the recent enclosure of a portion of Wandsworth-common, over which, from time immemorial, there has been a public way. By so doing you have given the matter an importance which it could otherwise with difficulty have obtained an importance, however, of which it is by no means unworthy, since, although only local in its detail, it is general in its principles.
All those who are impressed with the importance of preserving for the middle and lower classes of the metropolis the advantages of free and open spaces for recreation and exercise, trust that you will continue to aid them in their endeavours. It is hoped, too, that you will not merely content yourself with admitting the remarks of correspondents, but that you will lend the powerful aid of your organ to those who are seeking to establish, by strictly legal means, the rights of the public over their common.
Meanwhile I would ask you to put one question to those in authority — By whose direction is it that a strong body of police hurried to support the encroachment, and that members of the force have been ever since patrolling the spot? thus lending a semblance of authority to one side of a question which has yet to be decided by the courts.
Your obedient servant,
X.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE STANDARD.
Sir, A letter signed "J.C. Buckmaster" appears in your impression of to-day, in which my name more than once occurs. Mr. Buckmaster is pleased to say, but not by what authority, first, that "the bitter gentleman (meaning your humble servant) is now making a 40-foot road on his portion" of the common); and secondly, "I hope he will not think me impertinent in asking from whom he purchased his piece of common."
1. I am making no 40-foot road, but am now merely leaving out of my enclosure a piece of ground 40 feet in width, of which I have the right of user and pre-emption, and having had liberty given me by my vendors to enclose it, I did so, after the opinion of an eminent counsel had been given, on behalf of the local board of works, that the public had no right of way across it.
2. I have not purchased any "piece of common;" but the ground, as now enclosed, was purchased by me with a freehold title, as an adjunct to my other property (also freehold from trustees at its full building value — to which I purpose shortly to devote it — with the usual covenants, and amongst them a covenant for quiet enjoyment.
Having answered Mr. Buckmaster so far as I deem it necessary I beg to add a few words for the information of the public on my own account.
Last Wednesday evening, on my return home, I was not a little surprised to find my premises under the protection of a strong body of police. On inquiry I learned that at about midday, and whilst none but ladies and children were in the house, without previous notice or communication of any sort or kind to me the attack having been secretly concerted, a quasi valiant mob had, in order to assert an alleged right of way, as it was stated, at the instigation of others even less valiant, but sufficiently discreet to stop away from the scene, broken down upwards of 40 yards of my fencing, and destroyed a fowl house and other property in their course in a wanton and reckless manner.
I allude to these unlawful acts, because I connect them with the dissemination of untrue statements, the untruthfulness of which the authors have not been sufficiently careful to ascertain; but, having first circulated false reports, inquire into their accuracy afterwards.
I am averse to making your columns the medium of controversy; but I consider that assertions publicly made, so far as they affect any one personally, should be answered, through the same medium.
I shall esteem it a favour if you will find space for this letter in your next issue; and I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,
W. COMPTON-SMITH, Ivy Lodge, St. John's-hill, Wandsworth,
[BNA: Link.]
Vardens Road, east side.
The old houses west of the Plough with their long gardens had become ripe for redevelopment by 1870, when William Compton Smith, owner of Ivy Lodge at the Vardens Road corner, granted a lease of the southernmost end of his garden to the builder William Harris. The upshot was the present 33–53 Vardens Road (of 1870–1), a terrace of eleven high houses with basements, identical to those Harris had been building in Cologne Road near by; he lived here for a time.81
Ivy Lodge itself and its immediate garden were developed by the builder David Kettle in 1881–2 as Braemar Terrace, 1–31 Vardens Road.82
These are lower, smaller houses than Harris's, reflecting the district's dwindling status.
Strathblaine and Sangora Roads.
Having commenced development in Vardens Road, David Kettle quickly pressed on with the properties next eastwards, which since 1854 had been in the ownership of the Gillotts, a West End tailoring family. Leases for this development were issued in 1882–6 under William Henry Gillott. Working here in partnership with Henry Bragg, Kettle procured from the surveyor C. J. Bentley a layout which packed plots into a triangle jammed up against the railway by kinking the main street, Strathblaine Road, so that it could have two sides in the upper parts yet debouch into Vardens Road below Harris's houses.
Sangora Road is a shorter cross-road into St John's Hill (Ill. 16.1).83 Kettle built 25 of the houses himself but subcontracted the rest, notably to W. J. Goldsworthy and W. H. Richmond. Apart from 18–24 Strathblaine Road, built as flats, these are entirely standard houses without basements; the main feature of note is some pretty, naturalistic carving over the porches along Sangora Road's east side (Ill. 16.20). Following bomb damage, 10–12 Strathblaine Road were rebuilt for Battersea Council in 1958.84
[50.16_st_john_s_hill.pdf]
Why do not the inhabitants of Wandsworth take the common, and divide it among themselves? If the statement Mr. Buckmaster has made in the daily papers this week is correct, they have as much right to it as Earl Spencer, Mr. Costeker, jun., and Mr. Compton Smith, who coolly take what they want, aided by the magisterial complaisance of their friend, Mr. Dayman.
Says Mr. Buckmaster: " I believe there is no path in the parish to which the public have a stronger claim than the one fenced off by Mr. Costeker and a Mr. Smith, with doors or gates lined with iron.
Plough Green is, or was, a portion of Wandsworth Common. It was cut off the main piece by the London and Southampton Railway in 1837, the year after Mr. Costeker's predecessor purchased it of the lord of the manor — (by the way, has his lordship more right to sell than the man in the moon?) — and till last September it has been kept open to the public, after many fruitless attempts at enclosure.
If it is not a rude question, I should like to ask Mr. Costeker what price was paid to the lord of the manor for this piece of common? we could then imagine whether it was such a price as land in that position ought to fetch, and what sort of a title he received with it. There is an impression that the lord of the manor never received a single farthing for this land.
Mr. }lnching and Mr. Gillott, predecessors of Mr. Costeker, tried to do what Mr. Costeker has done, but they failed. Mr. Compton Smith is now making a forty-feet road on his portion, and, so far as I can learn, he has never pretended to the same claims of purchase as his neighbour. Does he intend joining to his kitchen garden all the remainder of the common not occupied by this road, and, if so, by what right?" What, indeed? Simply, the public apathy is their opportunity.
[BNA: Link]
[BNA: Link.]
THE prevalence of bird-trappers on Wandsworth and Clapham Commons is a subject of frequent remark among inhabitants in those districts. Pursuing their favourite occupation of catching nightingales, in Clapham Park, the other day, several of them were pounced upon by a number of gardeners, and roughly used, after which the caged birds were set free.
[BNA: Link]
John Buckmaster: "a poor man is now suffering six month's imprisonment . . .
WANDSWORTH-COMMON
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ECHO
Sir — A poor man is now suffering six month's imprisonment with hard labour for breaking down fences on Wandsworth Common, which obstructed the use of an old-established footpath.
I beg to ask your valuable aid in the struggle we are now making against further encroachments, appropriations, and sale of Wandsworth-comimon. Altogether 356 acres [sic?] have been taken away from the copyholders, freeholders, and the public, without any civility or consideration, and the lord of the Manor contends for his absolute right to do this; these are his exact words: "I claim to be the absolute owner of so much of the said Common as remain unenclosed, and of all the other waste land of the said Manor, free from all rights of Common or other customary rights, and to be entitled to enclose the same, and to authorise the same: to be enclosed, and to sell the same for my own benefit as when I shall think fit to do so."
[Source of Spencer's claim?]
After the Irish Land Bill, I hope the Government will introduce an English Land Bill, which will restrain the greed for land in this country within reasonable limits. We think this claim of Lord Spencer's an unreasonable and an unust one, and we are now engaged in raising £4,000 to resist it. Mr, W.H. Peek, M.P,, has given £1,000, but we need assistance beyond our neighbourhood.
Wimbledon-common has been threatened |; wiore than half Wandsworth-common has disappeared; but Clapham-common has not yet been touched because of its surrounding wealth.
This is in one sense a metropolitan question, affecting the whole of the South of London. If Lord Spencer can establish his claim, then Wimbledon and Clapham commons will share the fate of Wandsworth-common. in twenty years the land will be covered with villas and wretchedly-built houses, at ground rents which pay better than furze bushes and turf.
We think other persons have rights as sacred as those of Lord Spencer, and we are resolved to determine these rights and protect them for the use and enjoyment of those who follow us.
I am, Sir, &c.,
J.C. BUCKMASTER
[BNA: Link
["Exact words" - I haven't found this specific sentence, but Spencer's agent, [W.S.?] Forster, had written a letter to The Times, 20 February 1865, that includes very similar wording, and there may be other statements even more absolutist.]
Lord Spencer is as absolutely owner of the common as he is of any other part of his property, subject only to the existing rights of the commoners. These rights are confined to pasturage; they are practically of little value, and those who possess them are few in number.
By common law the lord might enclose for his own benefit all the common, except so much as would suffice to satisfy these rights, and by a special custom of the manor even this residue could be enclosed.
Neither the residents in the neighbourhood nor the public at large have any legal interest in the property, nor is there any statutory provision to hinder an enclosure under either the common law right or the special custom.
The restriction against the enclosure of open spaces near large towns contained in the General Enclosure Acts applies only to enclosures proposed to be carried out under those Acts.
[BNA: Add link.]
A poor man is now suffering six month's imprisonment with hard labour for breaking down fences on Wandsworth Common, which obstructod the use of an old-established footpath.
[BNA: Link]
SOUTH LONDON ESTATES, CLAPHAM JUNCTION, WEST HILL, PUTNEY COMMON, PUTNEY No. 6, OPPOSITE THE CEDARS. NOW ON SALE, VALUABLE FREEHOLD PLOTS, LAND-TAX redeemed and tithe free, with cost of roads and drainage all included in the purchase money, in the following capital localities: CLAPHAM JUNCTION.
The Bolingbroke Park Estate a large property, having two frontages, one of considerable extent to Wandsworth Common, and the other to Battersea Rise. It is within four and a half miles from the General Post Office, close to the Clapham Junction and New Wandsworth Stations, within the district of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The estate is thus within easy distance from the Crystal Palace Railway, Clapham Common, and Battersea Park, the South Western, the West London, Richmond, and Windsor lines, &c.
The Clapham Junction Estate is one of the most valuable building properties in the suburbs of London. Bolingbroke House, with a certain quantity of the grounds attached thereto, will be reserved for the present. Subscription is being raised for the erection of New Church near the Clapham Junction Estate.
[BNA: Link.]
1870-05-15-wc-riot-WeeklyDispatch-min.jpg
[Prince Albert rides across Wandsworth Common!]
WANDSWORTH.
THE WANDSWORTH•COMMON RIOT.
Mr. Thomas Clark, a butcher of St. John's Hill, Wandsworth, appeared to answer an adjourned summons which had been taken out against him by Mr. John Costcker, for aiding and abetting a mob of persons to knock down the gates and fence which enclosed a piece of land called "Plough-green," adjoining Wandsworth-common. A claim of right to the land was set up on behalf of the public, it having originally formed part of Wandsworth-common, and had been, used as a footpath, the defendant asserting that he had seen the late Prince Consort riding across it. The summons had been adjourned several times, and after much discussion it was again adjourned, this time until November next, to abide the result of an action which Mr. Costello undertook to bring at the next Surrey Assizes.
PRESERVATION OF COMMONS.
The sum of £1,347 12s. 3d. has been subscribed to the fund now being raised for the preservation of Wandsworth and Clapham Commons, in addition to £l,000 given for the same object by Mr. H.W. Peek, M.P.
A memorial, numerously signed, has been presented to the Home Secretary, by Sir C.W. Dilke, M.P., praying for the release of Samuel Sullings, who was sentenced to six mouths' imprisonment, with hard labour, for breaking down fences which obstructed the use of an old footpath on Wandsworth-common.
[BNA: Link.]
Earl Spencer has taken part possession of Wimbledon common, and is contemplating taking possession of Wandsworth and parts of Clapham-common. The commoners are endeavouring to defend themselves, and Mr. Henry Peek, M.P., has made an offer o . . .
Preservation of Wandsworth Common.
A public meeting was held in the Boys' School, Putney, on Tuesday evening, for the purpose of co-operating with the Battersea and Wandsworth Committee in raising the £5,000 towards proceedings for preventing further appropriations of Wandsworth Common. A. E. Dryden, Esq., occupied the chair.
The chairman said there was a fair prospect of some satisfactory arrangement with reference to Wimbledon Common, and it had been suggested that some friendly representation to Lord Spencer would be sufficient with reference to other commons. Now, such representations, in the most considerate and kindly spirit, had been personally urged by men of equal rank with Lord Spencer; but from some cause or other his lordship had refused to entertain any suggestions, and there was nothing left but the Court of Chancery, unpas they were prepared to give up the commons to builders and railway companies. (Hear, hear.) What Lord Spencer mild do with Wandsworth Common he could do with all the other commons of the manor. He (the chairman) regarded this question as a great national question. Public opinion was growing in favour of preserving these commons and open spaces round London, and, indeed, all over the country. (Hear, hear.)
Had it not been for the liberal offer of £1,000 from Mr. Peek, it is not difficult to see what would have been the end of Wandsworth Common. (Hear, hear.) To fight the lord of the manor was no ordinary battle, and unless the wealthy came forward it was hopeless to expect residents such as those round Wandsworth Common to give any effectual resistance. (Applause.) Up to within a few months, he understood, fresh enclosures had been made, and these enclosures would never be stopped while a piece of the common remained, unless by action such as that proposed by Mr. Peek. (Cheers.) Mr. Buckmaster, who had given a great deal of attention to the subject of Wandsworth Common, would explain what had been done, and how ineffectual had been all efforts to stop enclosures of the common. There was no desire on the part of any one to interfere with the rights of the rich or the poor. They wanted the commons kept open and urenclosed; and in securing that they preserved a privilege the public had always enjoyed. (Cheers.)
Mr. Buckmaster then addressed the meeting, showing the gradual progress of the enclosures, which were commenced in 1837 by the railway company, to the enclosure of Plough Green by Mr. Costeker last September. He showed the various pretexts assigned for these enclosures: the enclosure for St James's Industrial School, the enclosure by the late Mr. Wilson, the enclosure by the late Mr. M'Kellar (a former lessee of the common), the enclosure for a telescope, the enclosure for the prison, the enclosure for the Patriotic School, the enclosures by the railway companies; and, worst of all enclosures, that made by the late Mr. Laurie, and others, of common since sold for building purposes. More than half the common was gone, and the remainder was threatened. He asked, was there any common or open space round London which had been so treated? (Cries of "No.") Their poverty was their weakness. (Cheers.) But one man had taken compassion on their poverty.
["and, worst of all enclosures, that made by the late Mr. Laurie,"?]
Mr. Buckmaster then went on to say that men's rights or assumed rights to common land were no doubt of feudal origin. Grants of land were made by the monarch in return for military service. The condition upon which the land was held was no doubt service of some kind to a superior, but these conditions have long since passed away, and the possession of the land still remains. It would be a difficult thing for any lord of the manor to show the title deeds which give him the absolute right to a common. A rusty old sword, or helmet, hanging from the ceiling of some village church or baronial hall, is the only title deed they can show: the strong and the powerful in all ages have taken from the weak and the defenceless. (Applause.)
A common has been defined by eminent lawyers as an incorporeal hereditament; that is, a thing which cannot be sold or delivered over to others. It is not a visible bodily possession. The right of common is an incorporeal hereditament, being the right a man has to feed his cattle, cut turf and firewood, dig gravel, and catch leeches, tittlebats, and water snails; for these are the only animals now found in our ponds. (Laughter.) None of these rights can be sold by one man to another. How, then, can Lord Spencer sell the common? He has sold it because he is powerful; he has defied the law, and set an example of lawlessness which, if followed out by the mass of men, would end in universal confiscation and robbery. (Loud cheers.) Great changes and revolutions i tt this country have come more frequently the mighty and powerful than the poor and miserable. The example of Lord Spencer and others with reference to commons is full of danger and significance. (Applause.) We have been told that confiscation is contagious. It would perhaps be difficult to show how the re came to be rds of manors: it would be more difficult .43 show their necessity. manors of the present day have prob e hi, existed from the time of Edward 1., bec alm; the first provision of Magna Charta is that no man shall either sell or give land with, reserving sufficient for the demands of his l oe i
Under the Saxon Government there were a sort of people in downright slavery they wer e bought and sod like cattle. Under the Normans many of these took the of allegiance, which gave them some protection, and gradually raised the serf to a superior condition. This was called villenage, beanuce they lived chi* in villages, and er the protection of the Norman Baron, whose castle usually overlooked and commanded the village. In time, by grants of land from the lord, who first obtained it from the Crown for the performance of certain services, but more frequently by the strong taking from weak, there arose a class of men who small estates in land, in spite of the lord's will. and from these arose the men who in later times were led by Pym and Hampden against their king. (Cheers.) Such termitic had nothing to show for their land but their names on the Court Rolls, witnessed by the lord or his steward, and their tenure was copy hold, and the services due to the lord were commuted into the payment of small fines or quit-rents.
The tenants of the manor were periodically summoned to attend the Court Leet at which the lord or his agent presided. Since the accession of the present lord no court has been summoned. This court had, and still has, the power of punishing misdemeanours, such as eavesdropping, stopping rights of way, stealing the common, or attempted enclosures of the common. (Hear, hear.)
All these offences were punished by the Court Leet with the pillory. (Laughter.) the best reform is sometimes to go back.
What a delightful thing to walk some fine morning on Wandsworth Common, and see a motley group of speculating builders, thieves, lawyers, agents, railway jobbers, and fine gentlemen grinning in the pillory for stealing pieces of Wandsworth Common! (Laughter and cheers.)
I should be the last man to interfere with these men having their rights in the pillory. (Applause.)
Such an exhibition would raise all the money we require to try what right these men have to do what they have done.
Whatever may be the result, no one shall reproach my memory with indifference to the issue of this great question. (Loud cheers.)
[This good knockabout stuff was appreciteds and repeated by e.g. Fun magazine, a rival to Punch. See below.]
Mr. Ransome read a letter offering £50 from Mr. W. H. Smith, M.P.
Mr. Hunter, Mr. Turner, Mr. Cleave, and others addressed the meeting. Contributions of £10 from Mr. Gilby, and other amounts, were announced. A good deal of interest was attached to the meeting from the exhibition of large diagrams of the rubbish heaps and beer-shops in course of erection on the portion of the common, said to be sold by the rave; company for building, or, as the boards say, for any purpose.
[BNA: Link.]
Indecent Assault. Thomas James Blake, a painter, 45 years of age, was brought on a warrant charged with indecently assaulting Ellen Janes, a young woman in the service of Mr. John Ayers, a clerk in the Foreign-office, residing at Heathfield, Wandsworth-common. Mr. Ody appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Haynes for the prisoner. The prisoner, who pleaded "Not Guilty," was committed for trial, and liberated bail.
[BNA: Link.]
Alleged Right of Way Across Plough Green
The Clerk read a report of sub-committee of the Battersea Local Committee, upon the alleged right of way across Plough-green. They had inquired into the complaint of Mr. Buckmaster, of the stopping up of the path across Plough-green, and the path leading from the New Wandsworth station to Bolingbroke-grove.
The ordnance map of 20 years ago, showed both these paths, and from evidence taken, it appeared to the committee that the public had used these paths beyond the memory of any person now living. Of the persons examined, one had known the path across Plough-green from 1817; another, aged 58, had known ever since he was a boy; and others had known it for many years.
[OS map of 20 years ago — presumably the skeleton map of c.1850?]
One old man, Oswald Parsons, testified that he had several times broken down the fences, gates, and posts, put up by Mr. Hemmings [Herring], who occupied the premises now occupied by Mr. Compton Smith. At one time Mr. Parsons was summoned by Mr. Hemmings, and after hearing the parties the magistrate had dismissed the case.
[The Herring/Compton Smith house was, I vaguely recall, Ivy House, on the corner of?Spencer Road and St John's Hill — check.]
The committee recommended that the report and the documents therein referred to be submitted to Sir Roundell Palmer and Mr. Raymond, and that they be requested to advise the Board of Works for the Wandsworth district, whether or not the public have any right of way across Plough-green, and, if so, what steps they should take to assert such right.
Mr. Webster hoped that the board would appoint a sub-committee to re-investigate and help the subcommittee of Battersea.
Mr. Keighley moved the adoption of the report.
Mr. Todd thought no further opinion was necessary, as also did Mr. Turner.
Upon being put to the vote, the motion was carried.
[BNA: Link.]
Our facetious contemporary Fun is hugely pleased with Mr. Buckmaster in the course he has taken, and course he suggests, in regard to the encroachments on Wandsworth Common.
He hopes that the lord of the manor will find that he has no slight opposition to overcome, and quotes the following admirable hint from the report recently given in this paper of one of Mr. Buckmaster's speeches: "The best reform is sometimes to go back. What a delightful thing to walk some fine morning on Wandsworth Common, and see a motley group of speculating builders, thieves, lawyers, agents, railway jobbers, and fine gentlemen grinning in the pillory for stealing pieces of Wandsworth Common! Such an exhibition would raise all the money we require to try what right these men have to do what they have done."
We should like to see such an exhibition vastly, and if Mr. Buckmaster will organize it, we will promise to immortalise it in our pages as a warning to all common-thieves."
[BNA: Link.]
[Fun — a rival to Punch. See Wikipedia:. Link. Online at Link.]
"Buckmaster" — https://ufdc.ufl.edu/results?datehi=1890-12-31&datelo=1850-01-01&fulltext=buckmaster
Cookery references:
BUCKMASTER has given his culinary operations a fresh turn; he has been roasting the Wandsworth District
https://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00078627/00038/images/131
Buckmaster is himself in a great stew because the Board declines to promote the growth of creepers "
https://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00078627/00038/images/127
Buckmaster is to lecture on simple and economic cookery at the so-called International Exhibition.
https://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00078627/00024/images/144
Buckmaster & Wandsworth Common:
BUCKMASTER will organize it, we will promise to immortalize it in an outline in our pages, as a warning
https://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00078627/00018/images/98
"The tenants of the anor were periodically summoned to attend the Court Leet at which the lord or his agent provided . . . "
THE opinions of Sir Roundell Palmer and Mr. Raymond, Q.C., on a case sent to them by the Wandsworth Board of Works, respecting the public right of way across Plough Green, Wandsworth Common, have been received.
The learned gentlemen, judging from the evidence furnished to them, are of opinion that the public have not the right of way.
The evidence of Mr. Parsons, "one of the oldest inhabitants," was to the effect that he had a private right, which did not affect the public; and that of Mr. Buckmaster proved a general privilege to use the common for recreation, but not defining any special right of going from one given point to another. This was the principal evidence on which the opinions were given, and it is most essential to bear this in mind, as it determines, if it does not limit, their value.
[BNA: Link]
PAROCHIAL REPORTS. WANDSWORTH.
The Board of Works met on Wednesday afternoon, Mr. G. P. Meaden presiding there were also present, Messrs. Gorden, Gaitskell, Brown, Wallace, Luat, Cleave, Webber, Loudon, Cooke, Batter, Beirish, Dalle?, Fletcher, Stokes, Turner, Kempster, Langst'n, Kesterton, Barringer, Selwood, Webster, Dagnall, Gurney, and Hodgson.
Public Right of Way over Plough Green.
The Clerk read the opinion of Mr. Roundcll Palmer and Mr. Raymond to whether or not the public have any right of way across Plough-green, and if ao what steps they should take to assert such right. The opinion is: "The statement laid before us does not our opinion disclose sufficient evidence of the existence public foot-path across Plough-green, between the points A and C in the Ordnance map, to justify the Board of Works in takiug proceedings against its obstruction. The statement in the report and appendix, although they mention " the path," obviously refer different subjects at different times, and not invariably refer to the path from A to 0. The evidence of Parsons refers to the path between A and B, atid his evidence and the fact of removing the obstruction point rather to the assertion bv him of a private right of way over portions of the green than to the assertion of public right. all events he oonld have justified all he did in removing the obstruction under his right, if be had it, of a private right of way from his house.
The statements of Mr. Buckmaster, to the user of the green beyend point B towards C, are more consistent with the user of the green a place of recreation by the public, or their wandering over it at will, than with the user of a public right of way between fixed and definite termini. It may be the public have gained a right of way over Plough-green between A and n, or between A and C; but we do not think the evidence laid before proves that they have, even assuming it be and unexplained.
The board by declining take proceedings will not prevent any of the paiishioners of Battersea or Wandsworth, or indeed any one on behalt of the public from asserting the right claimed."
Mr. Turner said the opinion was very unsatisfactory, and believed that there were people in Battersea who could prove that there was a public right of way, and the matter would yet be taken into other courts. He could not conceive how counsel had fallen into the mistake of 'saying that Parsons seemed only to have private right of way, the fact being that he lived on the other side of the way and had disclaimed any private right. The Chairman said a very clear opinion had been given, and it was evident that the board would not be justified pursuing the matter any further, as such action would entail a large expense. On the motion of Mr. Cleave, the report was received, and a copy of counsel's opinion was directed to be forwarded to the vestry of Battersea.
The Overseers' Accounts.
The Clerk read the following opinion of counsel, Mr. C. G. Prideaux, as to whether the Board could compel the overseers of Battersea to pay to them the sum of £109 lis. 2d, which had been spent in purposes not connected with the Board: " I think the overseers had no right to charge the rates in q-iestion with the salaries of the vestry clerk and beadle, or either of them, and that the auditors ought not to have allowed these payments, and after the explanation given to me in conference, am of the same opinion with reference to the counsel's fees. The other items, may perhaps, have been rightly allowed. In allowing the payments for salaries, and perhaps also the counsel's fees, the auditors appear to me have acted altogether ultra vires, and I am by means clear that the payment of these sums might not be enforced by the board, notwithstanding the existence of duly-audited account. At the same time my opinion upon the whole is that that the audited account would be held conclusive on the board, supposing it would have been duly audited. But I think there are considerable grounds for contending that to constitute a valid audit, reasonable notice of it should have been given, so to enable such ratepayers, &c., as desired it to attend the audit, and make their complaints touching the accounts, and that for default of such notice (I understand none such given in this case), the audit was invalid and void. The point is, indeed, in my opinion, open to considerable doubt, but I think it one which the board would be quite justified in raising, if under all circumstances they deem it expedient to do so; and if they determine to raise the question, I think their best plan would be to serve the overseers with a written notioe, referring to the want of notice for the previous proceedings, and requiring them forthwith to pay the exoess still unpaid, and to render a duly-audited account, and stating that if they fail to do so within the time allowed by law, the necessary step will be taken for enforcing their compliance with the notice. And think these proceedings should be taken against the late overseers; but as precaution I would recommend the service of double set of notices,jone set on the late, and the other on the present overseers. I think it would he prudent also to serve the auditors with a notice, requiring them to take all necessary steps for duly auditing the accounts. The change of officers, and time which has been allowed to e'apse, may complicate the matter. But do not think that either the 11th seotion of 11 and 12 Vio., cap. 43 (see Swetman v. Guest resp., 3 Law Beport, 2 B, 262), or the 107 th section of 25 and Vio., oap. 102, would be fatal to any proceedings which may be taken." Dr. Brown moved that notices be served upon the overseers, for proceedings to be taken to recover the money. He did this on principle, for the purpose of stopping any improper payments out the board's rates. The rates of this board should be applied to the purposes the board, and in devoting it to other purposes the overseers had done a very improper thine. The Chairman, for the information of the new members', explained the facts of the case. His idea of ob aining the opinion was not so much for the purpose of proceedings against the overseers, for the future guidance of the auditors. He exonerated the overseers of any other blame but that of.ignorance. Dr. Brown withdrew his notion, after hearing the chairman's expression of opinion. The Chairman laid that this would serve as warning to future overseers; but if the same kind of thing occurred again, the board Bhonld take proceedings. Copies of the opinion are to be sent the vestries in district.
The Price of Gas.
Mr. Loat drew attention to the high price charged by the Phoenix Gas Company for lighting the public lamps in the district, and moved that the companies be asked to make a reduction. He showed the difference btween the South Metropolitan and the Phoenix. The former's charges ranged from 41. 3s. 3d. to 51. Is. 9d., average il. 4s. 3id. the latter from 51. to 61. 55., average 51. 2s. lOd. After a few remarks from members to the inefficiency and waste in the lighting of some portions of the district, the matter was referred to committee of the whole board.
Steam Roller for Roads.
Mr. Turner stat ed that there were under the control of the board, 1,828,846 square yards of macadam roads, and asked the board, on the ecore of economy and effioienoy in the making of roads, to oonsider the advisability of using a steam roller, which, in Hyde-park and other places, had proved of great value. Mr. Wallace supported Mr. Turner in his wish to use the steam roller, and added, as of BOme weight, the plea of humanity to horses. Several members touched upon matters of detail, and at the sulfation of the chairman, it was referred to a committee of the whole board to consider the whole question of road making.
[BNA: Link]
Preservation of Battersea and Wandsworth Commons.
deputation of members of Parliament and others connected with the Commons Preservation Society will wait upon the Lord Mayor, at half-past ten this (Friday) morning, respecting arrangements to made for meeting in the City to the fund for the preservation and Wandsworth Commons, to which Mr. Peek, M.P., has conditionally promised £1,000.
[BNA: Link.]
PLOUGH GREEN, BATTERSEA. <.p>
Sir, — Before the public is asked to treat the opinion of counsel lately taken by the Wandsworth Board of Works upon this subject as final, it would be desirable to see the case submitted to them by Mr. Comilla, clerk to that useful and conscientious board, as everybody of course knows that plaintiffs and defendants, when they want it, can get an opinion in their favour.
Have counsel been asked, and distinctly given their opinion, that Mr. Costeker and Mr. Smith are entitled to enclose Plough Green, part of Wandsworth Common? Have the public, through the freeholders and copyholders, no right to pass over, in all directions, Plough Green, as part of Wandsworth Common? On what grounds do the Wandsworth Board of Works always encourage obstructions, interferences, and stoppages of our rights of way?
Yours, &c., BATTERSEA.
[BNA: Link.]
ENCLOSURE OF SUBURBAN COMMONS
Sin,—The recent attempts at enclosing commons have given rise to a deal of expensive litigation. The enormous cost of a Chance 1 suit feeds the desire of the greedy for 03.nnion land, and in poor neighbourhoods makes them safe against all resistant*. Few will plunge into an expensive law suit for the public good. Fortunately for all of us. men occasionally turn up, who are content to hear the opprobrium and sccrn of disapp .:_ited men in the defence of public rights and privileges. Two decisions have now been given with reference to the pretentious rights of manorial lords, which are all-powerful so long as they are unresisted. The temptation t build and make ground-rents on common land must be checked. Mr. Smith, who was once on the committee for the preservation of Wandsworth Common, purposes to build two houses on what I contend is common land. Mr. Costeker in time will follow suit. It is replied that they have a perfect right to build. Now, we join issue on this point, and it is for the Interest of the public, and those who follow us, to have this question decided. I should like to know what sort of a title Mr. Smith and Mr. Costeer have to Plough Green. It has been held that no enclosure of a common or waste can take place without e the consent of the homage. I should like to know when this consent was given to Mr. Costeker and Mr. Smith. Since their occupancy, no court has ever been held at which such consent could have been given. Seeing that the public have from time immemorial gone over the common, and used portions of it as places of public recreation and enjoyment, we think whatever is proposed or done with reference to these enclosures should be done evenly and above board. Almost every enclosure for the past 20 years has been made under false pretences and false promises. Why all this manoeuvring, if the transaction is honest and above suspicion? The course of development is very simple. First a nuisance, then an enclosure; then a beershop, or some other elegant building; then a bankruptcy, than a sale. HOT many commons or village greens would have been 1-.? ft if their preservation had depended on the resistance offered by poor men? And yet I regard this as essentially a poor man's question. The wealthy can command large houses, with extensive gardens and paddocks, and the preservation of commons is of secondary importance to them. I regard the commons round London and the village greens the inheritance of poor nun as much as the light and air given to them freely by God for their health and enjoyment. What can I think of the Christianity of men who are striving day and night, by all sorts of schemes, to filch away the commons? or what can I think of those who pretend to rent or lease pieces of common, which they join to their own property, and then offer it for sale as freehold building land to make ground-rents? In the resistance we are now making, we are not the aggressors. The blame and responsibility rest with those who have made, and encouraged, and defended the enclosures of which we complain. World the gentlemen of Clapham, or Wimbledon. or Streattuuu have remained quiet under such provocation? Why, then, should we incur the displeasure of those who ought to sympathize with and support our efforts? We feel the aggression they do not; but, surely, there is a philanthropy of feeling, and a patriotism of purpose which is not bounded by narrow and selfish interests. It is to me a source of unspeakable pleasure to find such men as Mr. W. H. Peek and Mr. Julian Goldamid fighting side by side the battle of what we believe to be right against the encroachments and injustice of the wealthy and the powerfuL.
I am, sir, yours truly, J.C. BUCKMATER
[BNA: Link.]
Spencer claims of absolute ownership contested
Wandsworth-Common. The Lord Mayor has convened meeting for Thursday, the inst., at the Mansion House, for the purpose of forwarding the efforts now being made to secure Waudsworth-common for public use and enjoyment,
[BNA: Link.]
WANDSWORTH COMMON — A MEETING, at which the Right Hon. the LORD MAYOR will preside, will be held at the MANSION HOUSE, on THURSDAY, the 14th instant, at Two o'clock precisely, to assist the local committees in their efforts to secure Wandsworth Common for public use and enjoyment.
The following have expressed their sympathy with the objects of the meeting, and several of them intend being present to take part in the proceedings.:
The Right. Rev. Samuel Wilberforce, D.D., Lord Bishop of Winchester.
The Right Rev. the Dean of Westminster.
Sir C. W. Dilke, Esq., M.P,
The Hon. Auberon Herbert, M.P.
Richard Eyken, Esq., M.P.
Jacob Bright, Esq., M P.
Tom Hughes, Esq., Q.C., M.P.
Edgar Bowring, Esq., C.B., M.P.
Colonel Beresford, M.P.
John Locke, Esq., Q.C., M.P.
Charles Buxton, Esq., M.P.
W.H. Smith, Esq., M.P.
Andrew Johnson, Esq., M.P.
John Holms, Esq., M.P.
Professor Fawcett, M.P.*
James J. Grieve, Esq., M.P.
Alderman Lusk, M.P.
Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton, Bart.
J. Gurney Barclay, Esq.
Sir Sydney Waterlow, Alderman
William Dodds, Esq. M.P.
A.J. Mundella, Esq. M.P.
Sir Thomas Gabriel, Bart., Alderman
Sir William Anderson Rose, Alderman.
BNA: Link.]
[* Henry Fawcett attended the meeting with his wife Millicent Garrett Fawcett. Their daughter, Philippa Fawcett (born 1868), the most brilliant mathematician of her year at Cambridge, went to Clapham High School — then sited (in Battersea) "between the Commons" on the edge of Clapham Common.
Thom Hughes's sister, the wonderful Jane Nassau Senior, lived in a house on the site of today's Battersea Arts Centre (formerly Battersea Town Hall). Her husband, John? Nassau Senior campaigned for the Common (probably at Jane's insistence — he was notoriously idle).
henry-fawcett-millicent-garrett-fawcett-ford-madox-ford-1872-npg-2400px.jpg >>https://www.streathamsociety.org.uk/blogs--posts/philippa-fawcett<< >>https://www.pascal-theatre.com/biographies/philippa-fawcett/<<
Lungs are not more necessary to the human body than are open spaces to a metropolis, and it is, we think, a pity that when the so-called Lord of the Manor usurps land which the people imagine to be their own, there should be no cheap and ready mode of trying the rights of the dispute.
Mr. Samuel Sullings, working man, tried a short cut to justice of his own invention, and demolished certain fences upon Wandsworth-common. For thus asserting his rights he was cast into durance vile, from which Parliamentary interference ob. tained his release. Sullings has now received an ovation at Battersea, and, as the Gracchus of Wandsworth, has been presented with an appropriate testimonial.
We sympathise with Sullings because we sympathise with the cause into which he so boldly plunged, and we hope that a meeting to be held on Thursday next, under the presidency of the Lord Mayor, will result in a subscription sufficiently large to try the case fairly upon its legal merits.
Wandsworth-common must not be lost if any fair means can save it. The dense population of South London is but poorly provided for, if one of its great playing grounds is to be taken away. Wandsworth-common is, to our minds, fully as worth preserving as is Battersea-park.
Mansion House meeting announced
WANDSWORTH COMMON.
Yesterday the Lord Mayor presided at a meeting held in the long parlour of the Mansion-house, to assist the local committees in their efforts to secure what remains of the Common for public use and enjoyment. There was a very full attendance, including Mr. Cowper-Temple, M.P., Mr. J. Holns, M.P., Mr. Johnston, M.P., I Professor Fawcett, M. P., Mr. Mundella, M.P., Mr. Roger Eykyn, M.P., Mr. M'Arthur, M.P., Mr. E. N. Buxton. &c.
It appears that Earl Spencer, as lord of the manor, claims absolute ownership over the common, more than half of which has been already taken from the public; and to resist the attempt to close and build upon the rest the owners and occupiers of property in the neighbourhood have formed themselves into local committees to collect subscriptions for maintaining, by legal process, their and the public rights; and Mr. Peek, the member for Mid Surrey, as a copyholder of Battersea, has promised, provided a fund of £4,000 is raised, to add £1,000 to it, and himself commence legal proceedings.
The LORD MAJOR, in opening the business of the day, stated that he was a member of the Committee for the Defence of Wimbledon-common, and had been in communication with the agents and with Earl Spencer, and he believed he was justified in saying that the negociations had gone so far that he thought he saw the way clear to popular management of Wimbledon, (Cheers.) Wandsworth-common rested pretty nearly on the same ground as Wimbledon, and he thought the negociations going on as to that would extend also to Wandsworth. (Hear, hear.)
That, however, ought not to interfere with the proceedings of the meeting, except to induce those who I took Eartin it to avoid language or resolutions which might add bitterness to the case and impede the satisfactory conclusion of the negociations. They desired nothing but that the lords of manors should understand what their rights were, reduce them to a money value, and that they should be paid that money value for the surrender of those rights. There was no wish to take advantage of a popular cry and wrench anything from the lord of the manor, but when the lord of the manor claimed absolute freehold rights over the commons it was for the copyholders and others who possessed common rights to resist.
The result of the resistance which had been offered in the case of Wimbledon, and of drawing public attention to the subject, had I been to show what had been the uses of the common from the year 1370. The case of Berkhampstead-common was decided on the principle of established usage, and it would, no doubt, be the same with those of Wimbledon and Wandsworth. (Hear, hear.)
Letters were read from the Bishop of Winchester, the Dean of Westminster, Mr. Spurgeon, Sir C. IV. Dilke, M.P., and others, expressing sympathy in the object of the meeting, and regret at not being able to attend.
Mr. BUCKMASTER gave a history of the encroachments on Wandsworth-common that had occurred since lSd, — when the London and South-Western Railway took eight I acres, paying the inhabitants for their common rights, until the present time, when the common was reduced by 163 acres for railway purposes, building speculations, and public institutions.
Mr. COWPER-TEMPLE, M.P., submitted a resolution: "That the preservation of Wandsworth-common as an open space is desirable in the interests of the people of London." He referred to the difference between enclosing lands far away in the country for agricultural purposes and enclosing commons in the neighbourhood of large towns, letting the land at ground-rents or selling it for the benefit of the lord of the manor, building houses upon it, and shutting out the public from the opportunities of healthy recreation which the commons offered. He concluded by appealing for subscriptions from the public, who were directly interested in the question, to the fund for defending the public rights.
The resolution was seconded by Mr. JOHNSTONE, M.P., X who put down his name for £26., and carried.
On the motion of Professor FAWCETT, M.P., seconded X by Mr. HOLnS, M.P., who pointed to the necessity of taking steps to preserve the rights of the public in Epping: Forest, the following was also adopted: "That the gradual enclosure of Wandsworth-common during the last thirty years, the result of which has been to diminish it by one-half in size, is deeply to be regretted; and that this meeting warmly sympathises with the efforts now being made to secure the common for purposes of recreation."
Mr. R. EYKYN, M.P., moved:-" That subscriptions to the fund of 6,000l., proposed by Mr. H. W. Peek, M.P., for the preservation of Wandsworth-common (to which fund he has promised to give £1,000.), be collected at this) meeting and elsewhere within the City of London." 6
This was seconded, and a vote of thanks to the Lord Mayor concluded the proceedings. I The following subscriptions were announced in the room:-A. P. Boyson, 1001.; Messrs. Dubuisson, £100; Ransome and Co., Essex-street, £50; J. B. Bevington, J.P., £50; W. Cowper-Temple, M.P., £25?. W.Evils, £10; Mr. Holms, M.P., £10 lOs; Mr. McArthur, M.P., £10 1Os; Sir C. W. Dilke, M.P., 10?.; Mr. E. N. Buxton, £10; Mr. B. Eykvn, M.P., £5; and a number of small amounts from working men and others.
[BNA: Link]
[NEEDS EDIT]
Not another square foot of the open spaces this metropolis should be given up to the builders, if pul die right cun be established and public protests can avail. We lia%e loaded the earth with city so vast, that the like of it was never seen before, and posterity, which will principally engaged in pulling it down and rebuilding it, will bless us in proportion as we keep clear the few reservoirs fresh air remaining within its monstrous enclosure. But for the sake of posterity the present generation must take care of itself, and should tight for every inch of open ground almost the death. hail, therefore, the influential and earnest meeting which was held at the Mansion House, yesterday, for the purpose of protecting what is left Wandsworth-common. The locusts brick-andmortar have eaten a great deal of that green and pleasant oasis, and are nibbling at the rest. Not a moment too soon to stay their devouring march was the present movement instituted, and the spirit displayed, both in the notices summoning the meeting and in the speeches delivered, was not all too strong. With the aid those eloquent and with such names as are attached to this crusade behalf of the poor man's park and playground at Wandsworth, we have the hope that what is left of the common world ill maintained intact—nay, there is hope that the selfish encroachers upon the ground may, in more than one instance, be driven back. The common is natural lung of the City and South London, and is worth any amount of exertion and association to defend.
[BNA: Link]
Smith also donated £23 at the meeting (perhaps £3500 in today's money).
The lengthy article in the South London Press includes a reference to line "one man has suffered imprisonment with hard labour for assisting to break down the gates lined with iron which these gentlemen think necessary to protect the enclosure."
1870-07-16-1-mansion-house-SouthLondonPress-16jul1870-600px.png
Wikipedia: William Henry Smith (1825–1891).
I'll discuss the Mansion House meeting in detail soon, possibly next month. In the meanwhile, here's a link to one of many newspaper articles South London Press — Saturday 16 July 1870<.p> In the meanwhile, you might like to have a look at this — notice names such as . . . Samuel Wilberforce . . . Tom Hughes . . . .A.J. Mundella . . .
The last-named is the brother of the indefatigable Common campaigner James Anderson Rose who lived on the edge of the Common next to Fernside. WAR, who lived near Tooting Bec, is buried in Battersea Cemetery.
START AGAIN HERE
[BNA: Link.]
As important and influential meeting was held in the Mansion-house, on Thursday, under the presidency of the Lord Mayor, when resolutions protesting against the further enclosure Wandsworth-common, and stating the advisability of preserving it for recreative purposes, were unanimously carried. A subscription was started towards the £5000, of which Mr. Peek has promised £1,000. The gist of the whole matter was admirably put by the Lord Mayor, when he said there was no wish to take advantage of a popular cry, and wrench anything from the lord of the manor, but when the lord of the manor claimed absolute freehold rights, it was for the copyholders and others who possessed common eights to resist.
[BNA:Link]
Mansion House meeting
[NEEDS EDIT]
THE PRESERVATION OF COMMONS
On Thursday afternoon [14 July] a meeting was held at the Mansion-house, under the presidency of the Lord Mayor, to invoke the sympathy and assistance of Londoners in preserving the rights of the public over Wandsworth-common. Among those present were Mr. Cowper-Temple, MP, Professor Fawcett, MP, Mr. Mundella, MP, Mr. Andrew Johnstone, MP, Mr W. H. Smith, MP, Mr. Holms, MP., &c.
Mr Cowper-Temple, M.P., moved the first resolution — "That the preservation of Wandsworth-common as an open space is highly desirable in the interests of the people of London."
He said there had been a desire on the part of statesmen many years ago that much of the waste lands should he brought into the cultivation of corn, so as to save this country from being dependent upon our neighbours for food, and for another reason, that it was thought land as private property was made better use of than when held in common. But, whatever might be the benefit from enclosures of waste lands in remote ports of the country, enclosures near towns were a national misfortune, for there they only added to the weary wastes of brick and mortar.
He attributed the fact that Wandsworth-common had gone into the hands of builders and others to there being no persons of influence or spirit living in the neighbourhood to resist encroachments, which might have been done under the Metropolitan Commons Act, Mr. Andrew Johnston, MP., seconded the motion, which was put and carried unanimously.
Professor Fawcett, who was warmly cheered, proposed a resolution to the effect that the gradual enclosure of Wandsworth common during the last 5O years, the result of which had been to diminish it by one-half, was deeply to be regretted, and that the meeting warmly sympathized with the efforts being made to secure the common for purposes of recreation.
He said that upon this question of enclosures there had been peculiar apathy. It was melancholy to see to what extent the poor had been wronged and the public generally injured by these enclosures. Facts were coming to light which proved that no small portion of that unhappy poverty which had settled down upon our poor was due to the extent to which they had been deprived of that property which they once possessed, and which enabled them to enjoy many advantages and many comforts quite beyond the reach of the scanty wages which they were able to earn.
As an illustration, he mentioned that last year a Bill was before Parliament to enclose 6,900 acres of land, over which the poor possessed the to them invaluable rights of grazing a cow or feeding poultry. This Bill, he regretted to say, was smuggled through Parliament, a Liberal Parliament and of these 6,900 acres but three were reserved for recreation ground, and six for gardens. He trusted the day was gone by when any such wrong as this could be tolerated.
What was going on in Wandsworth-common was going on in other places, and before many months were over the Government should be pressed so as to prevent another inch of Epping Forest being appropriated. It might be that Lord Spencer's name had been used without warrant by his agent, and in that case, when the report of this meeting met his view, his Lordship might, perhaps, feel obliged to give back some of that which had already been taken, and otherwise repair the wrong done. Mr. Holms, MLP, seconded the motion, which was carried.
A third motion was proposed by Ms. Roger Eykyn, MP,and seconded by Mr. James Ford, in support of the subscription to the fund, and the proceeding concluded with a vote of thanks to the chairman. We are are requested to state that subscriptions to the Wandsworth-common Preservation Fund of £5000 can be paid in to the London and Westminster Bank, Lothbury, or to the local treasurers.
[Source: The Times, 16 July 1870, p. 10.]
Preservation of Wandsworth Common.
Meeting at the Mansion House.
On Thursday a meeting was held in the Mansion House for the purpose of making an appeal on behalf of a fund of £3,000, to which Mr. H. W. Peek, M.P., has promised £1,000, on condition that the other £4,000 be raised before the end of July.
The fund is for the purpose of taking proceedings against Lord Spencer, the lord of the manor, to prevent him exercising freeholder's rights by enclosing, selling, and building upon Wandsworth Common. Up to Thursday the amount subscribed was £1645 12s. 4d. , and at the meeting about £200 was collected, making a total of over £1,800 already promised.
Amongst those who promised money on Thursday were: A working man, 2s. 6d.; a working man near the common, 1s.; a poor working man, who plays at quoits on the common instead of going to the Lord of the Manor public-house, 2s. 6d.; W. H. Smith, M.P., £23; W. Longman (Longman, Green, and Co), £3; Ransom and Co, £50; J. Du Buisson, £100; Sir C. W. Dilke, M.P., £10; J. B. Bevington (second subscription), £50; A. P. Boyson, £100; W. McArthur, M.P., £25; Mr. Andrew Johnston, M.P., £25; the Right Hon. Cowper Temple, M.P., £23; Roger Eykyn,; and amongst the gentlemen present were the Right Hon. Cowper-Temple, M.P., Professor Fawcett, M. P. and Mrs. Fawcett, Messrs. A. Johnston, M.P., John Holms, M.P., Roger Eykyn, M.P., E. F. Buxton, M.P., Jas. Hole, Jas. Lord, F. Bertolacci, Mr. Bickerdike, and Mr. Fithian, of the Commons Preservation Society.
Several letters of apology for nonattendance were read, one from the Bishop of Winchester and another from the Rev. C. H. Spurgeon, who said: "I have just returned from Scotland; hence delay in answering your letter. I greatly sympathise with your object, but am almost driven out of my with demands of all sorts, interviews, &e. Pray attend to this good work, and excuse me. I have not the time. "
The Lord Mayor was in the chair, and in opening the proceedings said that what was taking place with regard to saving Wimbledon Common might extend to Wandsworth Common, but he did not think that thut ought to have influence enough in their minds to prevent their proceeding. (Hear, hear.) But it might influence them in this way: don't let them at that meeting do anything or say anything which might be construed into throwing any sand into the machinery of adjustment if _possible. There ought to be no mistake about it. They did not want anything from the lord of the manor, nothing from the land-owners except what they had a right to. What they wanted more than that they could pay the proper amount for.
They did not want to take from the lord of the manor what he really and truly possessed.
But when the lord of the manor wanted to change his manorial rights with a freeholder's rights, then his lordship thought it was for them to resist that claim. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. J.C. Buckmaster, in giving a history of the movement said:
I find Wandsworth Common occupying pretty nearly the same space in 1833 as it did a century before, and Clapham Common, with Putney Heath, are nearly the same as when Turner painted pictures of them in 1816. And it is worthy of remark that almost all the commons and open spaces round London which have descended to us are naturally so sterlie as to be unfit (except at an enormous cost) for cultivation.
I wish they were equally unfit for land societies and speculating builders. (hear, hear). It is highly objectionable to enclose these commons even for purposes of agriculture; it is utterly indefensible to enclose them for purposes of building.
About the year 1836, the London and Southampton Railway took eight acres of the common for the construction of their line; they paid to the parishes of Wandsworth and Battersea sums of money for the extinguishment of light over that portion of the common required by the company. The station, absurdly known for many years as the Clapham Common Station, was built in a cutting on Wandsworth Common.
Since that time the railway, from some complaint or other, has swelled laterally from eight acres to 14 acres; on a portion of this extension a small house has recently been erected, to be followed by others. About two acres of the common, which abutted on the gardens of two gentlemen, so long as the common formed one undivided piece, tt was too large to be enclosed, but this small piece known as Plough Green, after many unsuccessful attempts, was enclosed last year, and one man has suffered imprisonment with hard labour for assisting to break down the gates lined with iron which these gentlemen think necessary to protect the enclosure.
About the year 1845 Mr. Wilson enclosed about one acre and a half of the common on the east side a piece of water known as the Black Sea. The reason assigned for this enclosure was that it had become a nuisance to his property; but as there was a footpath round the Black &a two gates were placed on each side of the enclosure, and persons desirous of using the footpath could have the key on inquiring at the front door; but in two or three years the footpath was lost among the rhododendrons, and, as was expected, only one or two nasty, disagreeable people ever applied for the key.
Mr. Wilson erected a windmill on the common to keep the Black Sea supplied with water. This was really a good thing.
The Black Sea has been dried up by the Lord Spencer, for the purpose of converting it into building ground, and the stench this hot weather is most unpleasant. A board informs you that the Black Sea is leased by the lord of the manor to two of his agents or builders, and that anyone washing dogs or fishing will be prosecuted with the utmost severity.
About the year 1847 the lord of the manor granted 20 acres of common land for the building of a pauper school for the parish of St. James's, Westminster.
In the following year, Mr. McKellar enclosed five acres of common near Burntwood-lane.
In 1852, about two acres of the common was enclosed for the purpose of erecting a telescope, through which you could see nothing. The man became a bankrupt, the bricks and telescope were sold, but the enclosure remains to this day and, in the language of agents, several are after it.
In 1853, Mr. McKellar, who was the leaseholder of the common, and ought to have protected it, enclosed altogether about 21 acres. He said he was annoyed with gipsies; his property was not safe, but he rather encouraged these encampments by giving the gipsies beer, and then made it an excuse for his enclosure.
I wrote to him, and on one occasion I met him on the common, and pointing to a field of rye which was then growing in the enclosure, he said, "Is not that a better sight than males?"
I said, "Yes; but how long is it to remain Oh, "said he, "for ever. I can assure you it will never be built upon, for that is a condition imposed upon me by the court. "
Whether this was said to deceive me or quiet me (for I am very restless over these matters) I don't know; but this I do know, that the ground which was never to be built upon is now covered with nearly 400 houses, at ground-rents, and the little which remains is now in competition among builders from all parts of the metropolis.
In 1851 the West London and Crystal Palace Railway Company obtained their Act, and the common was now cut into two parts. About 11 acres was taken by the railway, and 15 acres for ballast. Between two and three hundred pounds was paid to the parish of Battersea for the extinguishment of common rights.
In 1857 the Patriotic School enclosed 55 acres, and early in 1858, long after the Crystal Palace Railway had been opened, Messrs. Laurie, Slight, and Schuster enclosed nine acres of the most eligible and much frequented portion of the common. Now, this enclosure is to my mind the most iniquitous. (Hear, hear.) It was not mentioned in their Act; it was not required for any purposes of a railway; it was not included in their line of deviation; it was an afterthought, which it would not be too much to designate an impudent robbery. (Cheers.)
In 1867 they offer the land for sale, and describe it as freehold building land, when a portion is said to be sold to a builder for £1, 260, who at once proceeds to the erection of a beershop close to the entrance of the parish cemetery, and, in honour of Lord Spencer, calls it the Lord of the Manor.
In 1861 10 acres of the common was enclosed by the county n. There are other enclosures recently made prison. There lord of the manor for roads, and by private individual*. Not a single copyholder or freeholder, or anyone except the agents and lawyers and the lord of the manor, have derived the smallest benefit or consideration for these enclosures. Most of them have been made by the will of the lord, without any consent of the homage. The lord of the manor alone Is responsible for these enclosures, because this could not have been made without his knowledge or consent.
We have exhausted all the arts of conciliation.
We have appealed to the District Board, but their cultivation and refinement dwells with rapture on the extension of dusty roads, 40 feet wide, with parallel rows of stuccoed beer-shops and houses, built after the architectural model of salt-box, without gardens or backyards.
Some of the members of this board were interested in making the enclosures.
They encouraged the making of roads as a preliminary to building houses; others had tried their hands at stopping footpaths. We have deemed no encouragement or help from the District Board. They refused the use of the room for the meetings of the committee. We have memorialised the Metropolitan Board.
We have been encouraged by them to hope that at some remote period of time when the members go salmon pink; in the fountains at Trafalgar-square, or the New Zealander sketches the London Bridge, the claims of Wandsworth Common will receive due consideration.
We have appealed to the Home Office. We have petitioned the House of Commons. We have memorialised and sent respectful deputations to the lord of the manor, when he was in a temper to receive them. We have held meetings and written letters, hut all to no purpose. than half the commons have been closed in 25 years. The work of devastation still goes on, and half the business of destruction done.
We have done all that men could do. The time for argument and persuasion and memorials has gone; the time for vigorous action has come, and we are driven to the courts of law to decide the justice of our cause. The issue is very simple. The lord of the manor claims to be the absolute owner of all the common and spaces enclosed. He claims the right to enclose the portions which remain unenclosed, and to sell the same for his own absolute benefit, how and when ho shall think ill. We, on the other hand, believe other people have rights, stud for these we are compelled to fight.
Why, I ask, have Clapham, Wimbledon, and Streatham Commons escaped the degradation of Wandsworth Common? Why are these commons not adorned with beer-shops and skittle-alleys?
It is because these commons are surrounded by wealthy people, the poverty and weakness have been trampled upon by the powerful and the mighty — (the Lord Mayor: "No, no ") and but for one man we might have been buried in his lordship's gravel pits.
The gentleman to whom I refer I have never seen, but he says "You may write letters and grumble and memorialize as long as you like, but that will never stop the enclosure of your common. As a Battersea copyholder, I will pay. £1,000 into the bank, become plaintiff in a suit, and take up everything irregular on the common during the past 20 years, If you will pay £4,000. " (Cheers.)
And why do we come to the City? It is because we know that large numbers of clerks, and warehousemen, and others engaged in the City live round these commons for the benefit of their children, that on every holiday and available opportunity, the common is largely used for walking and recreation.
Between Peckham Rye Common and Wandsworth Common there is no open space for the dense population of South London. We believe, apart from the question of right, that the preservation of these suburban commons is absolutely necessary to the physical and moral condition of the people; numbers of poor families are driven out of the metropolis by railways and large public works.
In the parish of Battersea, in which more than two-thirds of the common is situated, the population is estimated at 70,000. Of this number, nearly a fourth leave the parish every morning for the shops and warehouses of London.
I ask you in all sincerity of heart and earnestness of conviction to protect from further destruction a piece of God's earth within four miles of Temple Bar. I ask you to save it from the greedy selfishness of man, and the intense ugliness of bricks and mortar. Do not say it is no concern of ours. You can help without feeling the help. In political matters we shall leave our successors a larger legacy of liberty than we inherited; but in all matters relating to the enjoyment of the land and public rights we shall leave them much lase than we inherited.
When Munbold [?] in his old age planted a row of fruit trees, a bystander said, "Poor fool, he will never live to eat the fruit!" He replied, "Those who come after me will, and perhaps thank me for planting them. " Let us act in that spirit, and let us remember.
The generous heart that's truly blest
Is never all its own;
No ray of hope shall warm the breast
That beats for self alone.(Cheers.)
[BNA: Link.]
[I haven't found the source of this (curious?) poem. A search suggested the lines were from Lord Byron, "Childe Harold's Pilgrimage", 3rd canto., but I couldn't find them there.]
Mr. Cowper-Temple, M.P., then moved: "That the preservation of Wandsworth Common as an open space is desirable in the interests of the people of London. " He said he believed there was hardly any individual who was not aware that in the case of commons in the neighbourhood of towns, the preservation of them must be the result of combined action with those who were not immediately concerned in them. The question of the enclosure of commons was not well understood. About 20 years ago there was a great desire to bring into cultivation enclosed waste land, and facilities were given under the Enclosure Acts. All that was very well in the country, but unfortunately the same idea awl the same results had been d to the commons near large towns which staud under totally different circumstances. (Hear, hear.) It was not a national benelit but a national misfortune when commons near towns were reduced from their free and open state and made into private property. It should be remembered that it was not to supply food to the people that this land was taken, but for the purpose of extending that dreary waste of brick housee, and of enclosing that one precious spot where the people might breathe fresh air and obtain some enjoyment.
Poor Wandsworth seemed to have had no friends, and every class of enterprise to have exhausted itself to encroach upon the common. They had had it encroached upon in the name of charity. They had the prison, the schools, and the enterprising builders of London; and stilt further, owing to the accidental circumstance of there being no persons living there who could resist it, they had encroachments by railways and other cornpantos. But the Metropolis Commons Act, if put in force, would remove all these nuisances. He sincerely hoped that one of the results of that meeting would be that the remainder of the common would not be enclosed — (cheers) — but might still be used as a source of enjoyment to large populations of all classes. (Hear, hear.)
It had been thought that the rights of the lord of the manor were the same as the rights of the freeholder, but that was a great mistake. (Loud cheers.) And it was most important that the legal rights of the lord of the manor should be satisfactorily ascertained, and that larger rights should not be claimed by the lord of the manor than the decision of the courts of law Fare him. (Hear, hear.)
However, to do anything in a law court requires money, and it was in that way they could help their poorer neighbours who reside near Wandsworth Common. Let them for the sake of the health, elevation to happiness and contentment of all classes in London — more particularly the working classes — let them give their tribute and sympathy, and, in the solid form of pecuniary contributions, help the local committees in their good work of defending their own rights, whatever those rights might be, remembering that after all they are but defender, and not in any way aggressors. (Cheers.)
Mr. Andrew Johnston, M.P., briefly seconded the resolution, and said that he did not think that Lord Spencer personally had much to do with the matter. When they spoke of his lordship they should remember that he was only tenant in entail, and was himself entirely engaged in the service of the State.
These large estates of noblemen get into the hands of lawyers and like, who take what they call a practical view of the matter, and that means they get all they can; and it would be the duty of those before him just to meet these people and prevent them from doing so. Nothing had given him so much pleasure us the succeed the anti-enclosure question was meeting on all hands. True, there were some places where enclosing was still going on, but the tide had turned, and set the other way.
He was in the lobby of the House of Commons when the Land Bill was before the House, and a member of the Opposition asked him how he was going to vote on a certain clause. "Oh, " he answered, "for the rights of property. " "Well, then, " said his friend, "you'll vote with us. ' "No, he (Mr. Johnston) replied, "I vote for the tenants' rights of property, not the landlords: " (Cheers and laughter.)
Professor Fawcett, M.P., who was very enthusiastically received, moved:
"That the gradual inclosure of Wandsworth Common daring the last 30 years, the result of which has been to diminish it by one-half in size, is deeply to be regretted; and that this meeting warmly sympathizes with the efforts now being made to secure the common for purposes of recreation. " He said: My Lord Mayor, Ladies, and Gentlemen, — Anyone who has watched the history of the enclosure of commons movement, will have seen very important direct and indirect effects. In the prezent case for instance, it will evidently do very much to impure the health of those who live near Wandsworth Common, to keep it open that is its direct effect.
But to its indirect effects I contribute not less importance. Because it will be a gratifying proof that the public feeling has been roused, and that henceforth the enclosure of commons will be watched by a narrow and scrutinizing gaze, and we shall be able to say to any Government in power that if they show the same recklessness in the future as they have done in the past, they will not be doing their duty to the public, but inflicting an injury upon them which they cannot repair. (Hear, hear.)
Those of us who are accustomed to political life are sometimes gratified by victory and sometimes discomfited by defeat, but we get accustomed to it, and we find that if a bad bill has been passed, or a bad tax levied, that the Act or the tax can be rescinded next year. But that is not the case with commons land. (Hear, hear.) The mischief is absolutely irreparable. No money, no exertions, can restore the valuable land when once it is lost. (Cheers.) Hitherto there has been peculiar apathy on the part of Parliament. I suppose the reason of this is that Parliament simply reflects the feeling out of doors.
I do not know that there is a more melancholy object in the history of our people than to trace how much the poor have been wronged and injured by the enclosure of land. (Loud cheers) Facts now coming to light which show that no small portion of that unhappy poverty which has settled down upon our rural poor is due to the extent to which they have been robbed — no, I recall the word robbed deprived of that property which they once possessed — (applause) — in the land, and which enabled them to enjoy many luxuries, many comforts, many advantages which are now altogether beyond the reach of the scanty wages they are able to earn. (Hear, hear.) I will give but one illustration of this. Last year a bill was before Parliament to enclose 6, 90 acres of land. Over this land the poor possessed, what was to them, invaluable rights, such as graze a cow, Sm. That bill was nearly smuggled through Parliament, and I regret to say, that even a Liberal Government did not prevent its passing, and out of the whole of that land, all that was reserved for the people was three acres for a recreation ground and six forester gardens. (Cries of "Shame. ") I hope the day is quite gone by when such wrongs as there will be tolerated. (Hear, hear.)
Then again, keeping such commons open near to large towns, is of far greater than those even in the rural district. I bold that the healthy recreation of the people is of far greater importance than the growth of a few more sacks of wheat, or a few more sacks of potatoes, and I hope that we are determined that not one tingle inch of the common land round this metropolis shall be appropriated. (Cheers.) Then I venture to think that Wandsworth Common has been, and there is no doubt is, still in danger, and what is going en there is going on in other place.: and I think it just possible that before many months have passed by we shall have to ask your lordship to preside over another meeting of the eiti, ens of London to tell the English Government that not one single inch of what remains of Epping Forest shall be appropriated. (Hear, hear.) Nothing would be further I rein my mind than to say a single harsh word against Lord Spencer. He is at the present moment at the head of the Irish Government, and to root the Irish people more deeply into the soil, exceptional means have been taken, and to say the least of it, it will be somewhat inconsistent If Lord Spencer takes exceptional means to root the London people out of the London soil. (Cheers.) His lordship may, as Mr. Johnston has said, know nothing of this matter. Admit that that is the case, what is the conclusion that we draw from it? Why, that Lord Spencer ought to be deeply grateful at us that we have pointed out to him the wrongs which have been inflicted in his name on the people of London, and I shall not be surprised if, after seeing the reports of this meeting in the metropolis, Lord Spencer writes to tell you he had not the slightest conception of what was taking place on his property, and that he will join us heart and soul and preserve to us what remains of Wandsworth Common — (laughter and cheers) — and if possible give back to us that which has been taken from as. (Loud cheers.) It has I been said that political economy demands that all ' the soil it is possible to cultivate should be cultivated. Those who make such a charge against political economy do it a great injustice and must be in ignorance of its teaching when they tell us so. For it does lay down this, that you cannot have satisfactory material prosperity and wealth simply by cultivating land; but that you require above and beyond it, a healthy and vigorous population. (Enthusiastic cheers). And if these open spaces are destroyed, how can London continue to improve the health and morals of its people? (Hear, hear). Let me, in conclusion, only say that I am certain that this encroachment on Wandsworth Common requires imperatively your immediate and earnest attention. (Hear, hear).
The damage once done can never be repaired. We have already lost a half of what was once a beautiful common yet that which remains may still comfort and benefit millions of generations to come. (Cheers). Because we have been listless in the past, that only shows we should be more earnest in the future. (Loud cheers).
Mr. John Holmes then proposed: "That subscriptions to the fund of. £5, 03U, proposed by Mr. Henry W. Peek, M.P., for the preservation of Wandsworth Common (to which fund he has promised to give £1,000) be collected at this meeting elsewhere within the City of London. " He that last century there were 860,000 persons in London, whHe the number was now approaching 4,000,000, and at the end of the century would probably be nearly 6,000,000; and when they remember that London was more a place of business than a place of residence, and that a great many who came into it for the day returned to the vicinity of the commons to live, they would see that it was necessary to pay great regard to those open spaces (hear, hear) — which still remained. He ridiculed the idea of the Merton statute being quoted in support of enclosing the commons. That statute might have been very important in the 13th century, when England was precisely the same as Australia is to-day, where the measure of progress was the amount of land which was being enclosed. But that was not wanted here now, and the Merton statute had been swept away by the Enclosure Acts, which were brought about by Sir John Sinclair.
Mr. Roger Eykyn, M.P., in seconding the resolution, hoped that in approaching the question it would be done in a spirit of strict and honest conciliation. Nothing so much upheaved society as a prospect of litigation. Lord Spencer was a liberal-minded nobleman, and he (Mr. Eykyn) hoped the subscriptions raised for the purpose of entering upon a long litigation might be spent in beautifying the common.
All the resolutions wore unanimously carried.
Mr. E. R. Ransome, in proposing a vote of thanks to the Lord Mayor for presiding, spoke of the interest working men took in the movement. (Hear, hear.) The employees from one firm alone had sent £30, and altogether above £100 have been subscribed by penny subscriptions.
The resolution having been seconded and carried unanimously,
The Lord Mayor said: I have been one of the earliest agitators for the preservation of open spaces round the metropolis — (hear, hear) — and I think that we have to accuse Parliament — the House of Commons especially — of great negligence in protecting the interests of persons who enjoy their open spaces. There has been no end of petitions, and I have entreated hon. members not to allow bills to be read a first or a second time, and at last I resolved never again to expect anything from the House of Commons on the question of open spaces or upon any other question. The only time I broke through that resolve was on the Mansion House street question. When I heard they were going to bring a railway right up to the top of the new street, then I tried them again. Thank God, we have a House of Lords. (Laughter, "Oh, oh," and cheers.)
[BNA: Link]
PRESERVATION OF WANDSWORTH-COMMON
A meeting, at which the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor presided, was held at the Long Parlour, Mansion House, on Tuesday afternoon, to assist the local committees in their efforts to secure this common for public use and enjoyment.
In the circular convening the meeting it was stated that "this common, within easy access of the City and the densely populated districts of South London, has for years been gradually encroached upon. The most energetic efforts are now required to protect the remainder and recover some of the parts already enclosed.
Vigorous steps have been taken, and great sacrifices have been made, especially among the operative classes of the locality, to raise the necessary funds; but it is found absolutely needful to make an earnest appeal to the City fur assistance, ere this open space becomes useless as a place of public recreation for the rapidly increasing population engaged in the City of London and its suburbs."
There was numerous attendance of gentlemen interested in the question, including Mr. Cowper-Tempie, M.P., Mr. J. Holmes M.P., Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke, M.P., Mr. Johnston, M.P., Professor Fawcett, M.P., Mr. Roger Eykyn, MLP., and Mr. McArthur, M.P.
His LORDSHIP, in opening the business, said it was right he should communicate to the meeting the contents of a letter which he had received from a gentleman who had beeu acting with him on the committee for the defence of Wimbledon-commo. He (the Lord Mayor) had been one of the committee for the defence of Wimbledon-common from the very commencement.
They had been engaged for several months past with the agents of Lord Spencer in negotiations which had gone very far, and his opinion was that he saw his way clearly to the mnnaye- went—the popular management of Wimbledon-common. (Hear, hear.)
Wandsworth-commen was held by nearly the same tenure as Wimbledon-common, and he thought that the negotiations which were pow going forward would extend the same mght to Wandsworth-common, but he did not think that that ought to influence their proceedings. He suggested that they should not myordo anything which could be construed into throwing any sand into the machine which was at present at work for the adjustment of Lord Spencer's claimea for the manorial rights of Wimbledon and Wandsworth-commons, They wanted nothing from the lunia of the manors. They only desired to ascertain what their claims (were, 0 that they wight reduce them to a muncy value and pay a woney value for them. They did mot want to wrench anything from the lords of the manors, If they really possessed freehold rights, let them be clearly sustained.
The time had nuw come fur those persons why denied such rights so resist the claims. They had been resisted by the committee for the Wimbledon-common thas far succesafully. His lordship concluded by reading several lettera, many written by working men, expressing their sympathy with the object of the meeting.
One letter, which contained an vaclonuze of 2s 6d, was signed "A Workiug Man who plays quoits on the common instead of going to the Lord of the Manor public-house." The Bishop of Winchester, the Dean of Westminster, the Rev. C. H, Spurgeon and Mr. Longman, of Paternoater-row, wrote that their engagements prevented them from being present.
Mr. BUCKMASTER having explained that the object for which the meeting was convened was really to solicit City help for the defence of the common against those who sought to appropriate it.
A COWPER-TEMPLE, M.P., moved the first resolution: "That the preservation of Wandsworth-common as an open apace is desirable in the interests of the people of London." The Lon. member warmly advocated the cause for which they had assembled, cad urged that it was one which deserved the support of the general public and the metropolis, ast was a matter of great importance to tae whal bole population that the open spaces in and around Loadon strictly preserve, It was not a mere question of enjoyment, but one of health. [¢ was, therefore, most desirable that they should not only give their sympathy but show it in the solid form of pecuniary contributions,
Nr. ANDREW JOHNSTON, M.P., in seconding the motion, observed that it was just possible Lord Spencer was not fully aware of the facts of the case, as the matter must be dealt with by bis agents, Lord Spencer belonged to a family which had distinguished itself in the maintenance of the rights of the people. He cordially supported the object they were met to promote.
Professor FAWCETT, M.P., moved: "That the gradual enclosure of Wandsworth-common during the last thirty years, the result of which has been to diminish it by one-half in size, is deeply to be regretted; and that this meeting warmly sympathises with the efforts now being made to secure the common for purposes of recreation. He believed this meeting would first exercise a beneficial influence, directly and indirectly, in the preservation of what remained of Wandsworth-common; and, secondly, henceforth the question of enclosures of large open spaces belonging to the public would be watched with a narrow and scrutinising gaze.
The public, too, would be able to tell any government, whether it was Liberal or Conservative, that it would not do for them to show the same recklessness and carelessness of public rights as they had done in the past, and that, in taking away these enclosures, they were in inflicting an injury which time could not repair. He was afraid it would be necessary to hold another public meeting, before many months had elapsed, for the preservation of Epping Forrest.
If it were true, as Mr. Johnston supposed, that Lord Spencer really did not know the real state of the case, his lordship ought to he exceedingly obliged to the Lord Mayor for permitting this meeting to be held. He trusted the result would be that when Lord Spencer read the report of these proceedings he would not only restore the common, but endeavour to give up some of that which had now been lost. (A laugh and cheers.)
The resolution was seconded by Mr. J. HOLMS, M.P., who said he was very glad to be present and take part in a meeting which sought to preserve such an important s[ace of ground for the use and benefit uf the people of this metropolis. The case of Epping Forest was one which the public must guard with great care, especially as they had hitherto supposed it was protected by the guardians of the public, but they had now found it was quite the reverse.
Mr. ROGER EYKEN, M.P., moved: "That subscriptions to the fund of & proposed r. H. Ww. roel M.P., for the proservation of Wandsworth-common (to which fund he has promised to give £1,000), is collected at this aeoting and elsewhere within the City of London." He was the representative of a town (Windsor), where there was one one of the finest open spaces io England. He frequently saw poor people there who had come down from London to enjoy themselves, but who would probably not go to the expense and trouble of coming such a distance if they had such places as Wandsworth-common ought to be. (Hear, hear.)
Lord Spencer's public character as a liberal-minded nobleman was such that he believed if they approached him in a spirit of conciliation they would find that the subscriptions, raised apparentiy for the purpose of a prolonged litigation, would not be required for the purpose, and that, instead of being spent in a court of law, they could be laid out in the ornamentation of the common which it was intended to preserve.
The resolutions were carried unanimously, with a concluding one which thanked the Lord Mayor for his courtesy in presiding. Several subscriptions were viven, and i¢ was announced that £50 had been given im very small amounts by working men and poor people.
[BNA: Link]
WANDSWORTH COMMON
Samuel Sullings, who was imprisoned with hard labour for breaking down fences on Wandsworth-common, and subsequently released on a memorial presented to the Home Secretary by Sir C. W. Dilke M.P., was entertained by a number of his fellow-workmen at the Infant School, Battersea, on the 9th inst. Sullings appeared in a new suit of clothes, hat, and boots, which were paid for by a few friends. The workmen have made a subscription, which will be placed in the Post-office Savings Bank.
Mr. Churchwarden Buckmaster occupied the chair, and made a speech, in which he endeavoured to show that those who had erected the fences were more guilty than Sullings; and the idea of saying to poor men, when their rights and enjoyments were taken away by rich people, that if they felt aggrieved they could proceed by action at law or indictment, was simply adding insult to injustice. (Cheers.)
The chairman then referred to various matters connected with the common, and expressed a hope that it would not again be necessary for poor working men to suffer imprisonment in defence of what they believed to be their rights he looked with hope and confidence to the result of the forthcoming City meeting.
Three cheers for Mr. Buckmaster, three groans for those who had enclosed the common,and a vote of thanks for the vicar for allowing the use of the schoolroom, concluded the proceedings.
[BNA: Link]
See also:
[BNA: Link]
Meeting about the "spoliation of Southwark Park" . . . JCB's name mentioned . . . weather bad . . . hence
. . . especially, he regretted, the absence of Mr. J.C. Buckmaster, who was so successfully carrying on an agitation against Earl Spencer's encroachments on Wandsworth Common.
[BNA: Link]
"Sullings appeared in a new suit . . . Three cheers for Mr Buckmaster"
WANDSWORTH COMMON.
Samuel Sullings, who was imprisoned with hard labour for breaking down fences at Wandsworth Common, and subsequently released on a memorial presented to the House Secretary by Sir C.W. Dilke, M.P., was entertained by a number of his fellow-workmen at the Infant School, Battersea, on Saturday.
Sullings appeared in a new suit of clothes, hat, and boots, which were paid for by a few friends. The workmen have made a subscription, which will be placed in the Post-office Savings Book.
Mr. Churchwarden Buckmaster occupied the chair, and made a speech, in which he endeavoured to show that those who had erected the fences were more guilty than Sullings; and the idea of saying to poor men, when their rights and enjoyments were taken away by rich people, that if they felt aggrieved they could proceed by action at law or indictment, was simply adding insult to injustice. (Cheers).
The chairman then referred to various matters connected with the common, and expressed a hope that it would not be necessary for working men to suffer imprisonment in defence of what they believed to be their rights; he looked with hope and confidence to the result of the forthcoming City meeting.
Three cheers for Mr. Buckmaster, three groans for those who had enclosed the common, and a vote of thanks to the vicar for allowing the use of the schoolroom, concluded the proceedings.
"Sullings appeared in a new suit . . . Three cheers for Mr Buckmaster"
[BNA: Link]
WANDSWORTH COMMON.
Samuel Sailings, [Sullings] who was imprisoned with hard labour for breaking down fences on Wandsworth-common, and subsequently released on a memorial presented to the Home Secretary by Sir C. W. Dilke M.P., was entertained a number of his fellow workmen at the Infant School, Battersea, on the 9th inst. Sullings appeared in a new suit of clothes, hat, and boots, which were paid for by a few friends. The workmen have made a subscription, which will placed in the Post-offce Savings Bank.
Mr. Churchwarden Buckmaster occupied the chair, and made a speech, in which he endeavoured to show that those who had erected the fences were more guilty than Sailings; and the idea saying to poor men, when their rights and enjoyments were taken away rich people, that if they feit aggrieved they could proceed by action at law or indictment, was simply adding insult to injustice. (Cheers.)
The chairman then referred to various matters eonnected with the common, and expressed a hope that would not again he necessary lor poor working men to suiter imprisonment in defence of what they believed to be their rights; looked with hope and conlidence to the result the forthcoming City meeting.
Three cheers for Mr. Buckmaster, three groans fur those who had enclosed the common, and vote of thanks for the vicar for allowing the the schoolroom, concluded the proceedings.
[BNA: Link]
HALBRAKE SCHOOL, NEW WANDSWORTH.
Yesterday afternoon the annual athletic sports in connection with the Halbrake School, of which Mr. Conder is the principal, was held in a field near St. Anne's Church, Wandsworth, kindly let for the use of the pupils by James du Buisson Esq.
A large and fashionable company, parents and friends of the scholars, assembled to watch the sports, and appeared highly delighted with their afternoon's amusement. The prizes awarded were not only handsome and valuable, but at the same time useful to the winners.
The programme consisted of running, jumping, throwing the cricket-ball, walking, hurdle rums, three-legged races, sack race, &c. The late time at which the games finished, and want of space, oblige us, on this occasion, to omit the particulars. The fine band of the 1st Surrey Rifles were in attendance, under their bandmaster, Mr. Callcott, and played a selection of music during the afternoon.
[BNA: Link]
Clapham Common Right of Way. For JCB's reply, see The Scotsman, 3 August 1870 (below).
"ALL's well that ends well." The Wandsworth Common difficulty is in a fair way of being settled satisfactorily, and in the interest of the public. If the prospective settlement confirms present anticipations, the efforts recently put forth will not have been "Love's Labour Lost."
[BNA: Link]
[Note the number of local great and good — Du Buisson, Todds, Le Neve Fosters — and several Wilsons (of The Beeches?). Was the 1st Surrey Rifles Samuel Bevington's regiment?]
Athletic Sports, Halbrake School.
We last week gave a short account of the athletic sports In connection with the above school, but owing to the late time at which the sports finished, we were obliged to omit the particulars. The meeting took place on Friday, the 22nd inst., in a field near St. Ann's Church, Wandsworth, lent this occasion for the use of the pupils by James Du Buisson, Esq.
As we have before mentioned, this is an annual gathering, held the day after the breaking up of the school for the holidays, and is looked forward to with great interest by the pupils and their friends. Mr. Conder, the principal, has formed a play-club, to which the boys pay a moderate annual subscription, and from this source provided all the requisites for play, and a pertlon of the very handsome and valuable prizes. The prizes given on Friday consisted of silver cups. Baas, writing-cases, knives, purses, watch-stands, opera-glasses, telescopes, bats and balls, silver sardine basket, box of tools, in. were for running, jumping, walking, sack race, &c.
The programme commenced with a pole jump, and this was won by F. Mei edith, E. Roberts being second.
The next on the list was throwing the cricket ball, for boys under 12 years of age. The prize was won by G. Todd, who threw the ball 32i yards, J. Sanders being second.
A prim, open to all scholars, for throwing the cricket ball, followed, and was won by D. — Handel.
In the long jump for boys under 12, H. Meredith won, clearing 19 feet 5 inches; A. Warren being second, with 9 feet 8 inches.
The fifth prize was also a long lump (open, which was won by E. Meredith, 13 feet 7 inches; F. Perks second, 12 feet 9 inches.
Then followed a flat race of 10) yards for boys under 12, two prizes. the first pries was won by 11. Meredith. and the second by A. Warren.
The goventh on the programme was also a flat race, with two prizes, the drat being won by E. Meredith, and the second by E. Wilson.
A high jump, for boys under 12, was won by A. Warren, with 3 feet 5 inches; George Todd gaining the second place with one inch lower.
Next came a high jump (open), which was won by E. Meredith, clearing 4 feet 1 Inch; E. Wilson second, 3 feet 11 inches.
This was followed by a flat race of halt a mile (open, but handicapped, 5 yards for a year), two prizes — D. Bendel first, H. Todd second, C. Davis third.
No. 11 was a flat race of 80 yards, for boys under 10, and was one of the best contested races throughout the day. This was won by R. Todd, beating the second boy, A. Macomb, by about half a _yard.
In the close-footed jump which followed, H. Meredith won with 6 feet 9 inches; A Mitchison second, with 6 feet 6} inches.
The next was a hurdle race, which was won by H. Perks, E. Meredith second, A. Mitchison third.
The next was a walking race, quarter of a mile. H. Bandirs came in first, bot was disqualified, and the prize was awarded to D. Bendel.
The next race of 100 yards, for which there were four prizes, afforded mach amusement, being a three-legged race. There were three heats, and the boys were arranged in pales, the right and left leg of each pair being fastened together.
In the final heats D. Handel and A. Mitchison took the two first prizes, C. Meredith and H. Meredith the other two prizes.
No. 16 was a back race, the prize for which was a very handsome silver medal in the form of a Maltese cross, presented by Geo. Todd, Esq., of Battersea. After a very close race, this was won by Geo. Todd, jun., G. Smith being second.
The 17th and 18th races were the old pupils' race and the visitors' race, each a quarter of a mile, the former being won by Mr. Allen, and the latter by Mr. Kemp.
Then followed a sack race (60 yards), for which there were three prizes, one being presented by Monsieur La Chews, and one by Monsieur Gervais. Twenty-seven boys started, and a most laughable scene immediately ensued, most of the little fellows corning to grief before they had gone half a dozen yards, and when they were once down it was not so may to regain their feet.
Amidst the laughter and excitement of this race, we omitted to record the names of the winners. After a consolation race of 150 yards for those boys who had not won a prize, Mrs. Conder, the wife of the principal, proceeded to present the prizes to the boys, which she did in a most graceful manner, saying a few kind and appropriate words to each of the winners.
Besides the prizes for racing, &c., there were five for gymnastics, drilling, and swimming, the examination for which had been previously held at the school. In gymnastics the prizes were given by the principal. For the 1st division (boys over 13) was a champion gold medal, which has to be won three years in succession before it becomes the property of the competitor. It was awarded this year to A. Mitchison, who was also the winner last year. 2nd division (boys between 11 and 13), silver medal, E. Dallas. 3rd division (boys under 11), E. Brown.
Drilling prize (presented by Mr. Winterbottom) was won by F. Perks.
Swimming (champion silver medal, presented by the principal), H. Sanders winner.
The judges were Messrs. T. D. Landon, Allen, Mildmay, and J. W. Wilson, jun [PB: JWW of the Beeches?]. The starters, Messrs. Griffiths and E. Boyle; and the clerk of the course, Mr. E. Hamber.
The following ladies, a great number of whom were present at the sports, subscribed for a prire Miss Anwyl, Mrs. Attack Mrs. Ayers, Mrs. Bell, Mrs. Chave, Mrs. Condor, Mrs. (Heave, Mrs. Crisp, Mrs. Denby, Mrs. Le Neve Foster, Mrs. Holcomb, Mrs. Hall, Mrs. Hammersley, Mrs. Jackson, Lady OW Fitzgerald, Mrs. King, Mies Long, Mrs. Iters&th, Mrs. Mitchison, Mrs. Nickinson, Mrs. Perks, Mrs. Price, Miss Randall, Mts. Salter, Mrs. Sanders, Miss Sanders, Miss Soule, Mrs. 0. Smith, Miss Sutherland, Mrs, Thompson, Mrs. G. Todd, Mrs. Trewby, Mrs. Walling, Mrs. Warren, Mrs. Webster, and MM. Wilson.
[BNA: Link]
[PB: Where did they swim? In the Thames? Wandle? [Theree's a nice paiting of swimmers in the Wandle.]]
Lightning
Buckmaster replies to Scotsman article, 28 July 1870.
Costeker v Clarke case ridiculed by the judge, as: "merely involving a right of way over a little piece of land".
COSTEKER V. CLARK — RIGHT OF WAY.
Nearly four days were occupied with the hearing of this cause, which was an action for trespass, in order to try a question as to right of way on a portion of Wandsworth-common. The counsel for the plaintiff were the Hon. G. Denman and Mr. Bush Cooper; for the defendant Mr. Montagu Chambers, Q.C, Mr. Codd, and Mr. Kenelm Digby.
[PB: Who was paying for Mr Clark's defence?]
The point at issue was whether a small portion of the common was inclusively the property of the plaintiff, a resident at Wandsworth, or whether a right of way existed and the inhabitants generally had the right to use it.
The Chief Justice, having summed up the case at great length, the jury thereafter returned a verdict for the plaintiff on all the issues, with nominal damages of 40s.
[BNA: Link]
[Damages of just 40s!]
Bickerdike calls for donations to cover Buckmaster's legal costs.
Bickerdike calls for donations to cover Buckmaster's legal costs.
PRESERVATION OF WANDSWORTH COMMON.
To the Editor.
Sir, Some time ago Mr. J.C. Buckmaster broke down a few palings on Wandsworth-common, and afterwards accidentally broke the window of the "Lord of the Manor" beershop, in removing a notice for a licence. Two actions for heavy damages, one by the beershop keeper, and the other a speculating builder, were commenced; but as the right to enclose the common and sell it for and rubbish heaps could not be decided these actions, and as the chief object appearad to annoyance and expense to Mr. Buckmaster, his solicitor thought it better to pay the costs, which amounted to upwards of £50.
I felt that Mr. Buckmaster's long and faithful services in defence of common rights ought not to subject him to any pecuniary loss, and without his knowledge or consent I commenced subscription to defray his expenses, and now beg to thank most sincerely the gentlemen who have kindly and readily subscribed, and to assure them that the preservation of commons and open spaces is a question of serious growing importance to the metropolis, and all large towns, and I trust at the next general election the middle and working classes wiil ike legislation on the subject a condition of their support.
I am, &c., George Bickerdike. New Wandsworth, Oct. 3
[BNA: Link.]
Metropolitan Board of Works makes plans for taking over commons, incl Tooting Common, Wandsworth Common etc.
The Board appears to be alive to the value of the commons and open spaces for pnblio health and recreation. It is stated that a draft Boheme for the management Tooting Bec has been submitted to the Inclosure Commissioners, who have taken action thereon; that the Board have memorialized the Commissioners to prepare draft schemes for the open spaces of Plnmstead common, Blackheath, and London-fields and Hackney-downs. Wandsworth, Battersea, and Wimbledon-oommons nave been under legal investigation, and Wormwood-scrubs and Shepherd's bush have not escaped attention. Negotiations have also taken plaoe for enclosing and laying out Stoke Newington green.
The grandest achievement was the completion of the northern embankment of the Thames, from Westminster to Blaokfriars. The total cost of the work when completed is estimated at 1,300,0002., and of the purchase of property and compensations at 450,0002. etc etc
[BNA: Link]
St John's-hill, Wandsworth-road.- Beneficial Investment, being a fourth portion of the estates of the late Mr. George Ferris. Land sale redeemed.
JOHN WALKER, and SON are favoured with instructions front the executors to SELL by AUCTION Garraway's, Change-alley, Cornhill, on Oct. 26. at 1 o'clock, precisely, in 3 lots, THREE very substantially built RESIDENCES, Nos. 18, 20, and 22, Spencer-road. within ten minutes of Clapham Junction railway station, held for about?? years on low ground rents, let to respectable old tenants; producing about £200 per annum.
Particulars may be had at the Surrey Tavern, Wandsworth, common; of Messrs. Nash, Field and Layton, solicitors, Suffolk.lane. Cannon-street; at Garraway's; and of the Auctioneers', 15, Southampton-street, Bloomsbury-square.
[BNA: Link.]
The Halbrake School Magazine (No. 1.)
This unpretending little magazine, which emanates from the Halbrake School, New Wandsworth, is well printed on toned and contains short, well-written articles, contributed by the pupils of the school and their friends. It is edited by the principal, Mr. Corder, and it is purposed that it should be published on the first of each alternate mouth.
The present number, amongst other papers. contains the following, which, being of local interest, we are induced to quote:
" 115 "On Wednesday, June 29, George Paris Sandeman, son of the late J. J. Sandman, Esq., formerly of Lake. terrace Wandsworth, was lost at sea when nearing Australia. He spent four years a pupil at Halbrake School, and was a general favourite among his schoolfellows.
On leaving school in 1898 [1868?], he entered as a midshipman on board the Murray, of London, and he made three voyages to Australia. On each occasion of his return to England he paid a visit to the school, and ent an afternoon there in March last. On joining the Murray for his last voyage, he promoted to third mate.
The deceased was reefing the maintop-sail, when he lost his footing and fell, striking the mainsail in his descent, and bounding thence into the ma. The helm was at once put down and the ship brought to the wind; but the impossibility of lowering a boat in the heavy sea, prevented a rescue. Many who read these lines will recall to mind their old school-fellow, full of life and vigour, and will grieve over his early death."
"George Mitchison, a contemporary of George Paris Bandsman, was washed overboard in a gale in the Atlantic, in his first voyage as a midshipman on board the DO/ash, July 17, 1898 [1868?]." . It is proposed, in a letter to the editor, signed "Two Old Boys -," that a memorial stained-glass window should be placed in St. Paul's Church, New Wandsworth, in memory of their old school-fellow, George Handeman, and of their old captain at cricket, George Mitchison.
[BNA: Link]
[Notice the colonial connections. Did they inspire Conder to travel? We know he loved to recite exciting books by Venn (and by Henty?).
Also, the only ref. I have found to the magazine was in a South Africa newspaper of 1871 — Fort Beaufort is in the Eastern Cape. I quickly found a "Miss Sutherland" at a gathering at Halbrake in 1870[?] but it might need more looking to ding Master Sutherland et al.]
:"A VERY GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION OF THE TOWN OF FORT BEAUFORT, appears in No. 1. of the "Halbrake School Magazine". It is by Master P. SUTHERLAND, formerly of this town, who forwarded a copy of the Magazine containing his description, to Mr. BIRKETT, whose pupil he formerly was. The account is very creditable to Master SUTHERLAND, and we have no doubt Mr. BIRKETT will allow a perusal to those who may feel interested.
[I tried finding this article on Google, but with no luck. If anybody happens upon it, please could you kindly share it with me?]
[I wonder if that window was ever installed? And if so, what has became of it? Geograph: St Paul's Church — now flats. I corresponded with the owner of a nursery [?] in the building, who knew a lot about the transformation of the building. Find my notes.]
[Clapham Junction Action Group: St Paul's Church ]
[BNA: Link]
Costeker v Clarke case comes to court again — is this for leave to appeal against the earlier finding?
COSTEKER V. CLARKE — WANDSWORTH COMMON
This was action of trespass, and involved a question whether a piece of land to have formerly been portion of Wandsworth common was public or of the plaintiff. The action was tried at Guildford, before Lord Chief Justice Bovill, and resulted in verdict for the plaintiff.
[i.e. Costeker — but which of the Costeker brothers? Below, it says he is an attorney. Later note: not, I suspect, brothers, but father (John) and son (Charles), a lawyer.].
It appeared that the strip of land was formerly a waste, and being sandy soil — as, indeed, all Wandsworth-common is — some parties, for speculative purposes, digged pits in it, raised and sold sand, and thus became dealers in an article which cost them nothing but the labour in excavating, and by which they amassed fortunes.
A railway was in course of time run across the common, and bordered close on the skirts of the piece of land in question. The construction of the railway narrowed the pathway accommodation for foot passengers, causing them to verge somewhat closely on the open sandpits, and exposing "her Majesty's lieges" to danger of life and limb. The Accidental Assurance Company was not in existence at the time.
The plaintiff, who is an attorney, and who has a house and garden on the confines of the plot of ground, set up a wooden fence between the gravel-pit and footpath, and while he saved the public from the danger of falling into them, managed to enclose them and the strip of land.
The defendant, who is a butcher, questioned and disputed the plaintiff's right to enclose the piece of land, and acting in co-operation with neighbours determined to try the right, "and to preserve the common to the goose." A phalanx of them, in that determination, made a raid upon the fence, and asserted, by coup de main, a "right of common."
The plaintiff instituted proceedings against the defendant, and adduced evidence that he had years possession of the land, which gave him a title in law.
For the defence it was submitted that the plaintiff, under a pretext for the public safety, first enclosed the gravel pits, and subsequently added the piece of land to his garden ground.
The learned Judge summed up the evidence, and the jury returned verdict for the plaintiff the point of law that the 20 years' possession gave him a legal title.
Mr. Montagu Chamber, Q.C., now moved to set the verdict aside on the ground of misdirection by the learned judge, and also that the verdict was against the weight of evidence.
The Court refused the rule on the first point, and intimated that they would speak to Lord Chief Justice Bovill respecting the question of weight of evidence.
[BNA: Link. ]
Costeker v. Clark: court decides that even where a path has customarily been used, people do not have a legal right of access. Only specific "dedication" by the land-owner is proof.
A CASE interesting to the advocate of open commons has just been decided by the full Court of Queen's Bench. In the case of Costeker v. Clark, as reported in the Times, the plaintiff claimed a right of way over piece of land which formerly had been piece of Wimbledon Common [sic!], on the ground that people had been accustomed to go in every direction over the common, including the piece of ground in question. The claim was held bad on the ground that mere general use by the public is not sufficient proof of dedication by the owner of the soil.
The legal view of these claims may now be considered to be settled.
A common may be the property of the public by dedication by the owner of the soil. The question every case is one of fact: has there been such dedication? The usual evidence adduced in the cases is that the public have wandered at pleasure over any part of the common or forest claimed. But this, neither according to law nor common sense, is proof that the owner has given the use of the land absolutely to the public. It only means that he had no opportunity or desire to turn them off — that in fact their wandering over it had been injury, and that if he had sued them for trespass would have had damages one farthing, and all costs to pay.
The Common Law did not set aside large play-grounds for the use of the public; each piece of land had an owner or owners; and the public can only acquire possession intentional abandonment of ownership in their favour by the legal proprietors.
[BNA: Link.]