The Sun.
London, England, 1865-04-07 00:00:00

The Wandsworth-common Enclosures

The committee appointed to inquire into the best
means of preserving for the public use the forests,
commons, and open spaces in and around the me-
tropolis met again yesterday—Mr. Lock in the
chair. Nearly all the members of the committee were
present.

Previous to taking evidence respecting Wands-
worth-common,
The Hon. C. Gore, one of her Majesty's Commis-
sioners of Woods, was examined with respect to the
Crown rights over Wimbledon-common. He said his
attention had been called to the subject in conse-
quence of the introduction of Earl Spencer's Enclo-
sure Bill. The Crown claimed rights in respect of
property at Mortlake. It was a part of the private
property of Geo. 111. transferred to the Commission-
ers of Woods in 1828, and afterwards regrantedto the
Crown. It was situate inEast Sheen, and was called
Marsh-gate Farm. The rights of the Crown had
not been settled. He believed that Earl Spencer de-
nied the existence of rights of common. The Crown
claimed in respect of enclosed land at Mortlake.
The Parliamentary survey of 1649 contained various
findings with respect to the rights of the lord and
the tenants over the commons, and among the cus-
toms of the manor were the following—" Every cot-
tager that is a coppy houldr of the said manor may
keepe on the commons within the sayd manortwentie
five sheepe, two cows, one mare and a coult, and is to
have once in every yeare allowed him one carte load
of cropp wood from of the pollards of the said com-
mons, and he that hathe fifteene acres or the greate
pte of fifteene acres of copie hould land is to have the
like libertie of commoning and fireboote." He could
not tell off-hand what the Crown might claim by
virtue of that provision. If the Crown claimed com-
pensation for common rights it was in the case of en-
closure. The land of the Crown was generally let on
lease, and the lessee might or might not exercise
those common rights. He believed the Crown to
possess the rights which he had described.
Mr. Rose, solicitor, was called and examined by
Mr. Alderman Rose with respect to the state of
Wandsworth-common. He said—l am the owner
of property on the east side of Wandsworth-com-
mon, and have been so for the last 13 years. At that
time there were no enclosures except one piece of
land in front of Mr. Wilson's house. The first en-
closure made was by the parish of St. James,
Piccadilly, for a workhouse or for parochial schools.
The next was by a railroad running right through
the common. The next was for railroad purposes, for
excavations to make the embankments up to the
Crystal Palace. There were 13 acres excavated to
a considerable depth and left in that condition. The
next enclosure was for the Patriotic School. Then
pieces of land were enclosed by Mr. M'Kella.
Were these enclosures made under the Enclosure
Act ?—No. I am not aware by what authority they
have been made. The general opinion is that they
have been made by no lawful authority whatever.
At the time I went there there were public footpaths
over the whole of Wandsworth-common. The
whole of these have been stopped up, except
one which crosses in the centre, in a straight line.
The enclosures have been made up to the carriage
road, in some instances without leaving any foot-
paths.
With regard to the drainage, in what state was
the common when you went to live there ?—lt was
kept in good order thirteen years ago by the inha-
bitants who held a lease. They excavated gravel
at certain points in such a manner as to convert the
spaces into ornamental water.
In what state is the common now ?—lt is a
morass now. A great portion of it is under water
all the winter, and was so up to the 20th of March.
A portion of it is now under water. In summer
time the water soaks in, but it leaves the common
in a bad condition. I consider Wandsworth-com-
mon an unhealthy place on account of the want of
drainage. In olden tunes the excavations were made
so as to preserve the beauty of the common and its
use to the enjoyment of the public ; but during the
last five years the gravel has been excavated in ex-
traordinary quantities, so that the common is not
useable by the commoners. It is full of pits and
water, and some time ago the dead body of a man
was taken out of one of these pits.
In the whole area of Wandsworth-common is
there sufficient space for a cricket-ground ?—There
is only a small space near Wandsworth town. The
enclosures have been made contrary to the wishes of
persons living there or having property in the
neighbourhood, with the exception, perhaps, of Mr.
Wliella. The interests of the publiC have been
totally sacrificed by making these inclosures. The
inhabitants believe that they have been made ille-
gally and contrary to all right and justice. Wands-
worth-common was held on lease by a certain num-
ber of the inhabitants of the district, in the same
way that Clapham is now held, and it was kept in
order by a public subscription. They had an open
space for the public use and enjoyment. I believe
that a deputation waited on Earl Spencer to ask
him to grant a new lease on condition that they
would preserve the park for public use and enjoy
ment.

And what was the answer ? —He refused. There

was a common-keeper, but there is none at present.
There was an avenue of trees a mile long, planted by
the inhabitants of the district. The gravel has been
dug right up to the trees, one-half of which are
wholly destroyed, and the other half are in such a
bad condition that they might as well be taken
away. The last inclosure was made right up to these
trees. Earl Spencer is the lord of the manor of Clap=
ham. There has been no inclosure there. I believe a
new lease was granted 30 years ago of that portion
of Clapham-common of which Earl Spencer is lord
of the manor. Clapham-common is preserved to
the use of the public at a very small expense. It is
of the greatest service to the public. There is a
large open space for cricketing, and a large portion
covered with gorse.

What is thedifference between Clapham-conunon
and Wandsworth-common ?—Around Clapham-
common there are mansions inhabited by the rich,
the rental exceeding £50,000 a year, and any enclo-
sure would be resisted by them. Wandsworth-com-
mon is a poor district. The residents around are
few in number, and could not raise the money, or
have not the courage to contend with the lord of the
manor, he having unlimited resources and a definite
object, and they having no definite object and small
resources. lam not aware of any nuisances on
Wandsworth-common, except those committedwith
the sanction of the lord of the manor or his agents.
Ido not consider the gipsies a nuisance. I have
never lost anything by them. But there are people
who come on Wandsworth-common who are objec-
tionable. They come from the gaol at the expiration
of their sentence, and congregate in considerable
numbers. They are sometimes interfered with by
the police, but I am not aware that they are inter-
fered with by the lord of the manor. The gaol is
situate at the edge of the common.

By Mr. Lefevre—Before these inclosures took
place the common was much used in summer time.
The, population of Wandsworth is about 10,000.
The extent of open space is not more than one-half
what it was originally. I am not aware of
any common rights. The copyholders are few in
number, and are entirely under the influence of the
Ilord of the manor. The lease to which I allude ex-
pired five or six years ago.
By the Chairman---Tooting is at one cud of the
common. Many houses are in the course of erection
in the neighbourhood. Some time ago I applied on
behalf of myself and three other persons to be allowed
to inclose a space opposite our houses, solely to pre-
vent anyone else from doing so. The application was
made to Earl Spencer's agents. That was in 1860.
In November of that year an answer was received
from them, stating that Earl Spencer was not very

desirous of parting with any of the common at
Wandsworth, so much having been previously in-
closed, but stating that if we were in a position to
make an offer, it might facilitate matters. I did not
make an offer, and there the matter dropped.
By Mr. Cowper—l presume the railway enclosure
took place under the railway acts. The enclosure
made by the parish of St. James's took place under
no act of Parliament. He obtained the property at
a very low price, because there was no title. The
price was about 30s. per acre. I presume the amount
was paid to the lord of the manor. Mr. M'Kella
enclosed in conjunction with the lord of the manor.
The lord sold him the property for so much money,
and he put up the fences. I believe there is no title
to these enclosures. The fences were run up very
rapidly, and the only way to interfere is to knock
them down ; but it would be rather awkward to do
so in the case of a railway company. I have never
communicated with the lord of the manor. No ap-
plication is made, because our belief is that it would
be entirely useless. That is the general opinion.
By Mr. Tollemache—Why did you not try your
right by pulling down the fences in the case of the
lord of the manor ?—Because that would be a pre-
liminary to a long litigation. My neighbours would
not find money for that purpose, and it would have
been useless to commence pulling down the fences.
I hope the Legislature will deal with the matter, and
not lead us into conflict with Earl Spencer. If I
had sufficient money I would contest the matter with
him to the end, but there is no worse form of carry-
ing on litigation than by a committee of inhabitants.
Earl Spencer would have every advantage in such a
case, and might sacrifice all public rights.
By Mr. Peacocke—Has there been any act rela-
tive to these enclosures except the railway acts ?
None whatever.

By Mr. Baillie—When I went to Wandsworth
the common was unenclosed.

By the Chairman—Tne enclosure would never
have been made but for the expense of litigation
being so enormous.

The committee then adjourned until after the
holidays.

RAILWAY INTELLIGE NCE.

LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN.

A special general meeting of this company was
held, yesterday at the ,Waterloo-station ; Captain
Mangles in the chair.
Mr. Clarke, the secretary, read the notice con-
vening the meeting for the consideration of 11 bills
now before Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN stated that although they had 11
bills on their list only five of them had sufficiently
progressed to be submitted at that meeting to the
shareholders for approval. The first he had to sub-
mit was No. 2, which was a bill for authorising the
company to make new lines of railways, and for
authorising agreements between them and other
railway companies, and for the raising by them of
further moneys. The objects of this and the other
bills had been fully explained in the report of the
directors, which was adopted at the general meeting
on the 16th of February last.
Mr. Bircham (the solicitor) then read the heads
of the bill. It authorised the raising of £120,000 in
preference shares, and the borrowing of an addi-
tional sum of £40,000 for the construction of new
works.

The CHAIRMAN (seconded by Mr. DUTTON, M.P.)
moved a formal resolution approving the bill.
Mr. BLACKWELL moved an amendment, to the
effect that the bill be not approved. He thought it
the duty of the shareholders to oppose all exten-
sions on principle, particularly if they wished to see
the value of their stock rise in the market and their
dividends increase.

Mr. HODGKINS seconded the amendment.
After a long discussion the amendment was lost,
and the motion was carried.
The CHAIRMAN said the next was a bill for autho-
rising the company to abandon the making of lines
of railway at Kensington and Hammersmith, and to
make other lines of railway instead thereof, and to
make the Chiswick curve, and for authorising agree-
ments between them and other railway companies
and bodies. The total capital authorised was £330,000,
in shares, with the usual borrowing powers. This
bill would enable them to make arrangements and
to dispense with a line that would have cost £6G,000.
On the motion of the CHAIR3IAN, seconded by
Count EYRE, a formal resolution approving the bill
was carried.

The next was a bill for authorising the company
to make and maintain a railway from their main line
of railway at Pirbright, by Aldershott, to Farnham.
It was for making a line, eight miles in length, from
a point five miles west of Woking to Aldershot and
Farnham, the share capital being £160,000, and the
borrowing powers £53,300.

Mr. BLACKWELL thought they had lines enough
and he would oppose it.

On the motion of the CHAIRMAN, seconded by Mr.
DurroN, the bill was approved.

The next was a bill for authorising the acquisition
by the London and South-Western Railway Com-
pany and the Devon and Somerset Railway Com-
pany of the undertaking and property of the Ilfra-
combe Railway Company. The requisite capital was
£210,000, and the bill enabled each company, the
Devon Somerset to subscribe £105,000 and the
South-Western Company to subscribe £105,000 for
the construction of the Ilfracombe line.

Mr. HUTCHINS seconded the motion for the ap-
proval of the bill, and it was carried.
The CHAIR3IAN said the next bill he had to sub-
mit was promoted by another company. It was a
bill to authorise the Sunningdale and Cambridge-
town Railway Company to make new railways, and
to use parts of the railways of the South-Eastern
Railway Company and London and South-Western
Railway Company. It authorised running powers
and conferred running powers on the company, if
they chose to use them.

Mr. LACY seconded the motion approving the bill
and it was carried.

The meeting was then adjourned for the conside.
ration of the other bills to the 4th May next.

GRAND TRUNK OF CANADA.

The traffic receipts for the week ending the 4th of
March amounted for local passengers to £5,096, for
foreign passengers to £1,208, for mails, &c., to
£642, for local freight and live stock to £13,540,
and for foreign freight and live stock to £2,674—
total, £23,159, against £25,192, for the correspond-
ing week of last year, showing a decrease of £2,033.