Home › Building histories › Bridge Field, Part One, 1600–1841
– Introduction
Part I: 1600–1841
– Bridge Field in 1633
– Bridge Field in 1706
– Bridge Field in 1755
– Bridge Field 1787–1791
– Bridge Field in 1800
– Bridge Field 1836–1841
– Bridge Field in 1841
Part II: 1841–1914
This paper examines the transformation of Bridge Field from part of Wandsworth’s medieval open-field system into a tract of suburbia during the second half of the nineteenth century. Bridge Field was bounded by the Thames, North Street, East Hill and the Battersea boundary. In 1800 almost all of the medieval furlongs and strips survived, the only significant losses being in the area between the Thames and York Road east of Jews Row. Part I discusses the history of Bridge Field from the early 18th century to 1850 when the area remained largely rural, albeit with signs of impending change. By 1900, Bridge Field was utterly changed, first by the arrival of the railway in 1846 and then by decades of housebuilding, leaving few reminders of the past. Part II examines the protracted and complex process of creating and completing fifteen building estates containing 1,800 houses.
The manorial history of Wandsworth was complex. The largest component was the manor of Battersea & Wandsworth, previously a royal estate but held from 1067 until the Reformation by Westminster Abbey. Far smaller were the manors of Dunsford, Down and Allfarthing. All eventually came into the possession of the Spencer family. The manors shared a single open-field system comprising hundreds of strips grouped into three great fields: North, South and Bridge Fields.
It is not known how the field system was managed in the medieval period. The beginning of the process of enclosing groups of strips is similarly obscure. The persistence of the medieval landscape in large parts of Wandsworth until the 19th century probably owed much to the spread of market gardening from the early 17th century, for which the medieval strips were well suited. Like neighbouring Battersea and Putney, Wandsworth was never the subject of an Enclosure Act. In 1828, an unsuccessful attempt had been made by the 3rd Earl Spencer, lord of the local manors, to obtain an Act for the enclosure of the surviving open fields of Battersea and Wandsworth. Large areas of open-field strips survived to be depicted on local Tithe Maps (Battersea 1838; Wandsworth 1841).
With the exception of the north-east corner bounded by the Thames and Battersea parish, most of Bridge Field retained its medieval appearance until the 1850s. This influenced the subsequent complex process of development which began in a small way after 1750 along existing roads, notably East Hill. (Wandsworth’s “fishing village” had developed along the riverside from the 17th century.1) Unfortunately, surviving sources give little detail of the process by which land was exchanged, bought or sold prior to the commencement of building on a large scale after 1840. There was substantial industrial development along the Thames and Wandle after 1800, including the gasworks and distillery.
The name “Bridge Field” superficially requires little explanation. Its location in north-east Wandsworth is some distance from North and South Fields, whose names are derived from their relative positions west of the Wandle. “Logically”, the third field would have been named East Field, albeit separate from the others. One possibility is that Bridge Field had once been part of the sub-manor of Bridges, whose centre was in Battersea near the junction of York Road and Plough Lane. This became the property of the archbishops of York in the 15th century.2 The name appears as Bruges in 1225, villa de Bregges in 1303 and Bryggecourt in 1445. The bridge in question was where York Road crossed the Falcon Brook, earlier the Hydebourne. Bridges extended south to the area between Clapham and Wandsworth Commons. It had its own open-field system, distinct from Battersea Common Field east of Falcon Lane. The area adjacent to the Wandsworth boundary had already been enclosed by the late 18th century, though many fields bore the hallmarks of having once been open-field strips.
A Wandsworth connection with Bridges/York Place persisted into the later 18th century. Corris’s 1787 map has the letter ‘B’ in seventeen strips in Bridge Field, an abbreviation of the northern term denoting so-called “Bishophold” land. Only three or four such annotations occur in North and South Fields. The majority of the land in this study passed to the Crown at the Reformation and thence to the St John family in the 1620s. The final change of ownership came in 1763 when the manor passed to the Spencers.
Geologically, Bridge Field comprises a mixture of London Clay and riverine sands and gravels in four zones broadly parallel with the Thames. In the north-west corner is a narrow belt of alluvium, much of it below 15ft O.D. South of this comes the Flood Plain Terrace, which reaches the Thames at Jews Row and generally lies between 16 and 20ft O.D. The southern boundary of this zone is paralleled by the railway as far as Wandsworth station, then by York Road and Fairfield Street. Most of Windmill Shot was underlain by the Flood Plain Terrace. South of York Road and Podmore Road and east of Fairfield Street, the land rises from 20–25ft O.D. to almost 70ft. This area lies on London Clay, an Eocene formation whose soils were often poorly drained and difficult to work. Despite this, it formed the basis of much of Wandsworth’s open fields, including Swandon and Hill Shots. South of the London Clay is a strip of Taplow Terrace gravels. Most of the land on the lower slopes of East Hill south of York Road was already enclosed by the mid-18th century.
Part I examines in more detail the information on Bridge Field in surveys of 1706, 1755, 1791 (an updated version of 1755), and 1841. Summaries of the basic information for each shot and its subdivisions will be found in Tables 1, 2 and 3. It should be noted that the subdivisions within each of Wandsworth’s open fields were sometimes referred to as shots, which varied over time in their extent and numbering. Where appropriate, reference is made to plot numbers on the Tithe Map (TA).
The earliest depiction of Bridge Field is Peter Gardner’s 1640 map of Allfarthing Manor, based on a survey of 1633.3 By then, a strip abutting the Battersea boundary had already been enclosed. A 2¼-acre close at the northern end probably represents three or four former strips at the east end of Swandon Shot (TA217). A larger enclosure north of East Hill next to the parish boundary covered 6¾ acres (TA57). This was adjoined by a smaller enclosure (TA56), followed by the strips of Hill Shot. Further enclosures occupied the lower slope of East Hill and along Slough Lane (Fairfield Street) as far as York Road. In the north-east corner was another enclosure (TA211 part), bounded by the Thames and York Road, later the site of a large house associated with the distillery. The rest of Windmill and Swandon Shots were described as Bridg Field in Common.
[Fig.1: Bridge Field in 1636]
A sequence of detailed surveys and maps from 1706 to 1841 provides detailed information on the fields, their owners and occupiers. There were no significant changes to the size and internal layout of Bridge Field between 1706 and 1755: the number of strips was 138 and 139 respectively. Strips ranged in size from one-quarter to three acres but the vast majority (83%) were half-acre or one-acre strips in both years. The number of lesser ‘shots’ within each furlong remained constant at twenty-one, though their numbering varied. (Note that the dimensions and acreages quoted below are local, not statute measures, and vary slightly between surveys.)
| No. | Ac. | Dimensions [ft.] | Oriented | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | 4.50 | N214.5 x S209 | W>E | 1 | 4 | 5 | |||||
| 14 | 7.50 | N667 x S416 | W>E | 4 | 4 | 1 | 9 | ||||
| 15 | 11.25 | N569.5 x S416 | W>E | 5 | 1 | 8 | 14 | ||||
| 16 | 1.00 | E58.6 x W58.6 | N>S | 2 | 2 | ||||||
| 17 | 7.50 | N445.5 x S518 | W>E | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | |||
| 18 | 2.50 | E90 x W90 | N>S | 3 | 1 | 4 | |||||
| 19 | 2.00 | N140 x S148 | W>E | 2 | 2 | ||||||
| 20 | 6.50 | N405 x S421.5 | W>E | 2 | 4 | 4 | 10 | ||||
| 21 | 2.50 | E185.5 x W189 | S>N | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | |||
| Total | 45.25 | 3 | 24 | 2 | 25 | 2 | 1 | 57 |
| No. | Ac. | Dimensions [ft.] | Oriented | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | 3.00 | N165 x S175.5 | E>W | 2 | 2 | 4 | |||||
| 9 | 12.00 | N717 x S712 | E>W | 4 | 7 | 1 | 12 | ||||
| 10 | 13.00 | S761 x N741.5 | E>W | 5 | 8 | 1 | 14 | ||||
| 11 | 7.00 | S419.5 x N421 | E>W | 6 | 4 | 10 | |||||
| 12 | 2.75 | S193 x ? | E>W | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | ||||
| Total | 37.75 | 0 | 18 | 1 | 21 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 43 |
| No. | Ac. | Dimensions [ft.] | Oriented | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 9.50 | N602 x S549 | E>W | 5 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 9 | |||
| 2 | 5.00 | N306 x S272 | E>W | 2 | 2 | 4 | |||||
| 3 | 6.50 | S434 x N292 | E>W | 1 | 4 | 1 | 6 | ||||
| 4 | 8.00 | S647 x N670 | W>E | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 10 | ||
| 5 | 1.75 | W165 x E151.5 | W>E | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | ||||
| 6 | 2.50 | W165 x E162 | S>N | 1 | 2 | 3 | |||||
| 7 | 1.50 | E177 x ? | E>W | 3 | 3 | ||||||
| Total | 34.75 | 2 | 14 | 3 | 12 | 3 | 4 | 38 | |||
| Grand Total | 117.75 | 5 | 56 | 6 | 58 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 138 |
| Name | Ac. | Name | Ac. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ackworth, John | 2.00 | Jaggard, Abraham | 1.50 |
| Adams, John | 5.75 | Lesow, Nicholas | 1.00 |
| Brodrick, Sir St. John | 27.00 | Marshall | 1.50 |
| Brend, Thomas | 0.50 | Phettiplace, Widow | 1.00 |
| Brown, William | 5.50 | St. John, Sir Walter | 17.50 |
| Constable | 1.00 | Stables, Richard | 9.50 |
| Cork, Widow | 4.00 | Stables, Benjamin | 1.00 |
| Gregory, Ambrose | 3.50 | Trimmer, Edmund | 11.25 |
| Hobson, Clement | 23.75 | West, Richard | 0.50 |
Sir St. John Brodrick (Dunsford and Down), and Sir Walter St. John (Battersea-cum-Wandsworth) were manorial lords who “occupied” about one-third of Bridge Field. Lawyer Clement Hobson (d.1724) and corn factor Edmund Trimmer held a similar proportion between them. Hobson held land from both Dunsford and Allfarthing manors. Prominent among the remaining occupiers were market gardeners Richard (b.1679) and Benjamin Stables (d.1719). Widow Cork’s holding came from her husband Thomas (d.1703), whose will mentions four acres of freehold land in two parcels in Bridge Field. Mrs Phettiplace, also widowed, belonged to a long-established Battersea family.
[Fig. 2: Bridge Field 1755]
This is the first detailed depiction of Bridge Field. Unfortunately, the quality of the original is poor and overloaded with information. The 138 strips, numbered sequentially, are divided into twenty-one lesser shots. The size-distribution of strips is virtually identical to that of 1706. The St. John/Bolingbroke manor of Battersea & Wandsworth owned 45½ acres (c.40%). Strips belonging to other manors are not separately identified. The confused pattern of strips and enclosures in the north-east corner of Hill Shot in 1755 and 1841 suggests that the east-west strips of TA220 had once continued to the parish boundary, with long north-south strips representing a continuation of TA223.
| No. | Acres | Dimensions | Oriented | Nos. | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6.50 | N369 x S423 | N>S | 1–10 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 10 | ||||
| 2 | 2.50 | E139 x S136.5 | E>W | 20–23 | 3 | 1 | 4 | |||||
| 3 | 1.50 | E58.6 x W58.6 | E>W | 50–52 | 3 | 3 | ||||||
| 4 | 2.00 | N141 x S141.5 | N>S | 11–12 | 2 | 2 | ||||||
| 5 | 7.50 | N444 x S526.5 | N>S | 13–19 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | |||
| 6 | 11.25 | N609 x S671.7 | N>S | 24–37 | 5 | 1 | 8 | 14 | ||||
| 7 | 8.00 | N404 x S411.5 | N>S | 37–45 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 9 | ||||
| 8 | 4.00 | N214.5 x S209 | N>S | 46–49 | 4 | 4 | ||||||
| Total | 43.25 | 53 | 2 | 20 | 1 | 27 | 2 | 1 | 53 |
| No. | Acres | Dimensions | Oriented | Nos. | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | 2.50 | E195 x W192 | E>W | 53–56 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | |||
| na | 3.00 | N>S | 57–60 | 2 | 2 | 4 | ||||||
| 10 | 12.00 | N708 x S703 | N>S | 61–72 | 4 | 7 | 1 | 12 | ||||
| 11 | 13.00 | N730 x S758 | N>S | 73–86 | 5 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 14 | |||
| 12 | 7.00 | N421 x S419.5 | N>S | 87–96 | 6 | 4 | 10 | |||||
| 13 | 2.75 | N129 x S171 | N>S | 97–99 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | ||||
| Total | 40.25 | 47 | 1 | 19 | 2 | 21 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 47 |
| No. | Acres | Dimensions | Oriented | Nos. | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.50 | ?? x ?? | E>W | 100–2 | 3 | 3 | |||||||
| 19 | 6.00 | E166 x W152 | E>W | 103–5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | ||||
| 20 | 4.00 | E166 x W166 | E>W | 106–8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |||||
| 18 | 7.00 | N612 x S540 | N>S | 109–18 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 10 | ||||
| 16 | 8.00 | N666 x S640 | N>S | 119–28 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 10 | ||
| 15 | 5.00 | N299 x S271 | N>S | 129–32 | 2 | 2 | 4 | |||||
| 14 | 6.00 | N455 x S431 | N>S | 133–38 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 6 | ||||
| Total | 37.50 | 39 | 2 | 16 | 4 | 11 | 2 | 4 | 39 | |||
| Grand Total | 121.00 | 5 | 55 | 7 | 59 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 139 |
| Acworth, John | 2.00 | Gossling | 1.75 | Prouton | 1.00 |
| Adams | 1.50 | Gregory, Ambrose | 3.50 | Road (North St.) | 0.50 |
| Anon | 0.50 | Headon, Isaac | 0.50 | Robinson, Henry | 10.25 |
| Blakiston, Matthew | 19.50 | Hobson, Clement | 19.25 | Savage, Thomas | 1.00 |
| Boucher, William | 6.00 | Horton & Lee | 0.50 | Stables, Benjamin | 0.50 |
| Brown, William | 2.25 | Hunter, Francis | 0.50 | Stables, Mr | 0.50 |
| Christmas, John | 8.25 | Iles, William | 1.00 | Stables, Richard | 5.50 |
| Christmas, Michael | 0.50 | Jagger, Abraham | 5.00 | Tonson | 5.75 |
| Christmas, Robert | 1.50 | Johnson | 0.50 | Trimmer, Richard | 1.50 |
| Coachmaker | 0.25 | Leesow, Nicholas | 1.00 | Webb, William | 2.25 |
| Cox, Widow | 4.00 | Newton, Francis | 1.00 | Winch | 2.50 |
| Delaporte | 1.00 | Pettiplace, Widow | 1.00 | Total | 119.25 |
| Eadon, Thomas | 4.00 | Phillips, John | 1.00 |
Between 1706 and 1755, the number of occupiers had increased from eighteen to thirty-seven. The principal survivor was Clement Hobson, though his holding had declined from 24 to 19 acres, as had those of St. John/Boucher (17½ to 6 ac.), the Stables family (10½ to 6½ ac.) and the Trimmers (11¼ to 1½ ac.). The most dramatic change had been the arrival of City merchant Sir Matthew Blakiston (1702–1774; Lord Mayor 1761), who occupied the misnamed Manor House from 1759. Apart from Hobson and Blakiston, only Henry Robinson held more than ten acres. The Christmas and Stables families and Mr Tonson were prominent market gardeners and nurserymen.
Among the tenants in 1755 was ‘Mr Gossling’ (George Gostling [1715–1782], a Proctor in Doctors’ Commons). His two strips in Swandon Shot totalling 1¾ acres was the first step in the creation of a substantial estate in Bridge Field. Gostling was succeeded by his son George (1744–1820) and grandson Benjamin (1777–1843). George junior had a copy of the 1755 Terrier made in 1791, accompanied by a coloured map of Bridge Field ‘taken from a Survey made in the year 1706 (sic)’. Apart from the usual scattered strips, plots lettered A to K appear at the west end of Waterside south of York Road, several containing buildings. In 1841, Benjamin Gostling, yet another lawyer, owned 48 acres of Bridge Field, 42% of the total. The family’s connection with Bridge Field persisted into the 1870s.
The combination of the 1797 Terrier and the 1791 Map provide another detailed overview of Bridge Field.
| No. | Strips | Oriented | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1–14 | N>S | 5 | 7 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 1 | 15 | E>W | 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 1–10 | N>S | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | ||
| 3 | 1–7 | E>W | 1 | 3 | 3 | ||||
| Total | 2 | 12 | 3 | 12 | 3 | 1 |
| No. | Strips | Oriented | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 1–37 | N>S | 15 | 1 | 16 | 1 | 3 | 1 | |
| 6 | 1–4 | E>W | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Total | 1 | 16 | 2 | 17 | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| No. | Strips | Oriented | 0.25 | 0.50 | 1 | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 1–4 | N>S | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 7 | 1–4 | N>S | 4 | ||||||
| 7 | 5–7 | E>W | 3 | ||||||
| 8 | 1–13 | N>S | 6 | 6 | 1 | ||||
| 9 | 1–5 | N>S | 2 | 2 | 1 | ||||
| Total (41) | 12 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
On Corris’s map, nos.212 & 215 (0.39 ac.) continue the line of the headland in Hill Shot as far as Slough Lane, possibly indicating that the enclosures to the south had once been part of Hill Shot. The line of plots along East Hill (Corris 219–224), most containing houses by 1787, may also have been part of Hill Shot.
[Fig. 3: Bridge Field 1787]
Note: Ac A is the “local” measure, Ac. B is Corris’s more accurate survey.
| Owner | Ac. A | Ac. B | Occupier | Ac. A | Ac. B |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adams, James | 0.25 | 0.15 | Adams, James | 0.25 | 0.15 |
| Brooks, Mrs | 2.00 | 1.17 | Bagley, Mary | 1.00 | 0.81 |
| Bush, Richard | 3.50 | 2.60 | Bartlett, Thomas | 2.00 | 1.42 |
| Coussmaker, Lannoy | 4.50 | 1.73 | Brooks, Mrs | 2.00 | 1.17 |
| Dacosta | 3.25 | 1.84 | Bush, Richard | 17.00 | 10.96 |
| Deacon, William | 1.50 | 0.95 | Butcher, John | 1.00 | 0.45 |
| Dupper, Mrs | 1.00 | 0.71 | Christmas, Robert | 2.75 | 1.69 |
| Gostling, George | 25.25 | 14.45 | Clarke, Mungo | 2.00 | 1.54 |
| Gregory, Charles | 0.50 | 0.39 | Coussmaker, Lannoy | 3.50 | 0.92 |
| Hilbert, John | 3.25 | 2.14 | Dacosta | 3.25 | 1.84 |
| Jaggard | 1.00 | 0.58 | Deacon, William | 3.50 | 2.45 |
| Middleton, Lord | 1.50 | 0.94 | Eagle Inn | 1.00 | 1.04 |
| Prowting, William | 1.00 | 0.49 | Fear, William | 2.00 | 1.65 |
| Spencer, Earl | 37.50 | 23.75 | Gostling, George | 25.50 | 14.17 |
| Tidswell, Richd/John | 4.00 | 2.86 | Gregory, Charles | 0.50 | 0.39 |
| Tonson, Thomas | 2.00 | 1.45 | Grint, John | 0.50 | 0.49 |
| Webster, John | 5.00 | 3.57 | Hilbert, John | 2.75 | 2.01 |
| Unknown | 0.50 | 0.14 | Jaggard | 1.00 | 0.58 |
| Total [18] | 97.50 | 59.91 | Lawrence | 0.50 | 0.11 |
| Prowting, William | 3.50 | 1.50 | |||
| Tidswell, Richd/John | 1.00 | 0.71 | |||
| Tonson, Thomas | 2.00 | 1.45 | |||
| Webb, Humphrey | 1.00 | 0.68 | |||
| Webster, John | 11.25 | 8.87 | |||
| Webster/Brooks | 2.00 | 0.99 | |||
| Weston, Charles | 3.00 | 2.15 | |||
| Total [26] | 95.75 | 60.19 |
By 1787, Earl Spencer owned 40% of the strips, followed by George Gostling (26%). None of the remaining owners had more than five acres. Thirteen owner-occupiers accounted for 71% of the total. The principal occupiers were Gostling (26%), local distiller and miller Richard Bush (18%) and John Webster (14%). Bush also occupied a 7½-acre enclosure at the top of East Hill containing a substantial house (Corris 209). The map has an echo of the once-significant local role of the Archbishops of York: fourteen strips marked with a letter B, denoting ‘Bishophold’ land, leased by Spencer. The term occurs on Yorkshire manors of the archbishop, for example Helmsley.
Little information is available as to what crops were grown in Bridge Field and what rotations were followed. Thomas Milne’s 1800 map of London and its environs does, however, indicate the land use at that time.
[Fig. 4: Bridge Field & Environs Land Use c.1800]
Land coloured green and coded m is meadow, concentrated between the Thames and Jews Row, with another block on East Hill opposite the Huguenot burial ground. Land in blue coded g is market garden ground, concentrated in enclosures along the Battersea Boundary between York Road and East Hill. Pink (p) denotes pastures and “pleasure grounds” (i.e. parks, gardens etc.), concentrated in the area bounded by Slough Lane (North Street) and East Hill. Land denoted caf (‘common arable field’) is restricted to Swandon Shot. Milne marks various roads and tracks, notably the diagonal path of York Road across the strips of Swandon Shot. Most of the lesser tracks also appear on the Tithe Map and the Richmond Railway plan (1845).
With the exception of Windmill Shot, the pattern of strips and closes in Bridge Field remained largely unchanged in 1836. The debate on Spencer’s Bill to enclose the remaining open-field suggests that tenants saw no reason to abandon a system that was well-suited to intensive horticulture. Others feared that enclosure would lead to the building of working-class houses, with a consequent increase in Poor Rates.
Having failed to obtain the Enclosure Act, Spencer and his agents adopted the strategy of selling the freeholds, thereby transferring the problem to new owners. The size of the areas involved necessitated three auctions. The sales of 23rd June and 30th October 1835 covered land in Battersea parish in 126 lots. The third sale, on 8th July 1836, comprised fifty-two lots, mostly in Wandsworth parish. The sales were conducted by Alexander Rainy (1788–1870) at 14 Regent Street.
The Wandsworth portion of the 1836 sale comprised Lots 28 to 51 (Table 7). The rather randomly numbered lots included both enclosed and open-field land. The map accompanying the Sale Particulars employs different names for subdivisions within furlongs. Windmill Shot has West, East and South blocks, the first two separated by Jews Row, the third south of York Road. The name Hill Side Shot, used for the northernmost strips in Hill Shot, corresponds to Corris’s “small shots” 1 & 2.
[Fig. 5: Plan Showing Land For Sale, July 1836]
| Lot | Tithe No. | Acres | Tenant/Occupier |
|---|---|---|---|
| 28 | 207–210 | na | John Dormay |
| 29 | 224/3 | 0.68 | Attlee & Co |
| 30 | 144 | 0.98 | Wm Furmage annual |
| 31 | 139 | 0.78 | Wm Furmage annual |
| 32 | 93pt. | 0.38 | John Carter annual |
| 33/34 | 51/52 | na | Wandsworth Poor occ. |
| 35 | 53 | na | Wandsworth Poor occ. |
| 36–38 | 77pt. | 4.00 | Edward Phillips annual |
| 39 | 50 | na | Wandsworth Poor |
| 40 | 223/1;1a;2;5; 54pt./55 | 4.26 | Webster/occ. Morris |
| 41 | 54pt.; 222/4;12pt. | 1.39 | Webster/occ. J H Greave |
| 42 | 223/6a;7 221/7 | 2.17 | C. Magnay rep./A. Christmas rep. |
| 43 | 223/7a;8 221/10 | 1.80 | C. Magnay rep. |
| 44 | 223/12 | 0.50 | C. Magnay rep. |
| 45 | 218/11–13 | J. Carter 11/12; T. Bush 13 | |
| 45 | 218/13 sth/89pt. | 1.88 | B. Gostling |
| 46 | 218/18–20; 221/13 | 1.36 | Webster; lease 1770–1869 |
| 47 | 218/25–26 | 0.79 | John Carter |
| 48 | 218/31 | 0.34 | Webster |
| 49 | 218/33–35 | 1.40 | Webster |
| 50 | 218/37 | 0.71 | John Carter |
| 51 | 215/1,3,4 | 1.34 | Webster |
| Total | 26.93 |
| Lot | Tithe No. | Area | Owner | Occupier |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 28 | 207–210 | 4.39 | Daniel Watney | Daniel Watney |
| 29 | 224/3 | 0.66 | John Marter | John Marter |
| 30 | 144 | 0.85 | James Furmage | Gilbert |
| 31 | 139 | 0.77 | Thomas Phillips | Raynor |
| 32 | 93pt. | [3.32] | B. Gostling/E. Blackmore | M. Blackmore/T. Phillips |
| 33/34 | 51/52 | 0.64 | David Nicholson | David Nicholson |
| 35 | 53 | [0.56] | James Grieve | James Grieve |
| 36–38 | 77pt. | 3.75 | David Nicholson | David Nicholson |
| 39 | 50 | 0.64 | Jane Warner | Jane Warner |
| 40 | 223/1;1a;2;5; 54pt./55 | 4.05 | James Morris execs. | George Marter |
| 41 | 54pt.; 222/4;12pt. | 1.12 | James Grieve | James Grieve |
| 42 | 223/6a | 0.87 | Danl. Watney/John Carter | Danl. Watney/John Carter |
| 42 | 223/7; 221/7 | 1.09 | Moses Getting execs. | Lord Duncannon |
| 43 | 223/7a;8 221/10 | 2.36 | Moses Getting execs. | Lord Duncannon |
| 44 | 223/12 | 0.44 | C. Morris | Lord Duncannon |
| 45 | 218/11–13 | 2.68 | Benjamin Gostling | Plumridge/Carter/Phillips |
| 45 | 218/13 south/89pt. | 0.76+ | Benjamin Gostling | T. Phillips/Richard Hicks |
| 46 | 218/18–20; 221/13 | 1.29 | Moses Getting execs. | John Marter |
| 47 | 218/25–26 | 0.97 | Danl. Watney/Jas. Arnold | Wm. Carter/John Carter |
| 48 | 218/31 | 0.36 | Edward Pain | George Carter |
| 49 | 218/33–35 | 1.37 | John Marter | John Marter |
| 50 | 218/37 | 0.74 | John Marter | John Marter |
| 51 | 215/1,3,4 | 1.31 | William Pearse | John Carter |
| Total | 34.99 |
The map produced as the result of the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836 represented the first accurate large-scale survey (1:2376 or 26.7 inches to the mile). Dated 12th October 1841, it was undertaken by surveyor and architect Charles Lee.
[Fig. 6: Bridge Field 1841]
Notes: See Appendix 1 for full details. The ‘not known’ category relates to small plots, usually with houses or other buildings on them, no longer liable for tithe.
| Owner | Acres | Occupier | Acres |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arnold, James | 0.68 | Allen, Thomas | 0.19 |
| Atkinson, Anthony | 3.38 | Atkinson, Anthony | 2.77 |
| Barchard, R W | 0.44 | Ballard, John | 0.09 |
| Blackmore, C. P. execs | 0.32 | Blackmore, M/Phillips, Thomas | 3.32 |
| Carter, John | 2.82 | Boyle, Robert | 2.00 |
| Dormay, John | 0.24 | Carter, Geo & Wm/Pavitt | 2.58 |
| Falconer, Alice | 0.34 | Carter, George | 1.04 |
| Fauntleroy Robt./Bennett, Joshua | 6.73 | Carter, John | 9.35 |
| Furmage, James | 1.46 | Carter, William | 2.13 |
| Getting, Moses, execs. | 7.94 | Carter, Wm/Forsyth, Wm | 0.36 |
| Gostling, B/Blackmore, E | 3.32 | Chambers, Dr/Bennett, Joshua | 6.73 |
| Gostling, Benjamin | 16.08 | Darby, Charles | 0.24 |
| Grieve, James Henry | 2.42 | Duncannon, Lord | 15.80 |
| MacWilliam, Andrew | 2.00 | Forsyth, W | 2.01 |
| Marter, John | 2.77 | Gilbert, Edward | 0.85 |
| Marter, Sarah | 0.09 | Grieve, James Henry | 1.68 |
| Middleton, Lord | 0.40 | Hamblin, Charles | 3.68 |
| Morris, Charles | 10.15 | Hicks, Richard | 4.00 |
| Morris, James, execs. | 6.00 | Marter, George | 6.31 |
| Nicholson, David | 4.39 | Marter, John | 10.67 |
| Pain, Edward | 0.36 | Morris, Mrs | 1.11 |
| Parsons, Edward | 0.68 | Nicholson, David | 4.39 |
| Pettley, John | 4.38 | Pavitt, Joseph Wood | 0.92 |
| Phillips, Thomas | 0.62 | Phillips, Thomas | 0.76 |
| Smith, William | 0.26 | Plumridge, Susan | 1.41 |
| Spencer, Earl | 1.86 | Raynor | 0.77 |
| Walker, Mrs | 0.47 | Smealey, Mrs | 0.40 |
| Wandsworth Parish | 1.37 | Smith, William | 0.75 |
| Warner, Jane | 2.52 | Vacant | 0.61 |
| Watney, Dan’l/Carter, John | 0.64 | Watney, Daniel | 6.22 |
| Watney, Daniel | 13.93 | Watney, Daniel/Carter, John | 0.87 |
| Wilkinson Trustees | 0.39 | Warner, Jane | 0.64 |
| NK | 4.91 | nk | 9.71 |
| Total | 104.36 | Total | 104.36 |
Apart from the north-east and north-west corners, there had been little change at Bridge Field since the early 18th century. In those areas, change had been driven by the spread of riverside industry, and some house-building. There were clusters of houses on the west side of Slough Lane (now Fairfield Street) and along Warple Road. Most of these changes affected Windmill Shot, leaving Swandon and Hill Shots largely untouched. The houses on East Hill gave way to medieval strips opposite the Huguenot burial ground.
Ownership and occupancy were still concentrated in relatively few hands in 1841. Wholly or jointly, Benjamin Gostling, the Morris family and Daniel Watney owned almost half. Watney’s land was concentrated in the north-east around the distillery. A similar proportion was occupied by the Carter and Marter market-gardening families and Lord Duncannon. Duncannon’s land in the south-east included an early-18th century house and blocks of strips and former strips in Hill Shot.
Despite considerable changes in owners and occupiers between 1706 and 1841, there had been little consolidation of holdings and enclosure in Bridge Field. Only along the Thames and East Hill had there been noticeable change, the former associated with expanding industry, the latter with the building of substantial houses. Generally, there seems to have been little appetite for change by landowners or tenants. All that soon changed dramatically, as Wandsworth entered the Railway Age.
1 D. Gerhold, Wandsworth’s Lost Fishing Village, Wandsworth Paper 25 (2012).
2 J.G. Taylor, Our Lady of Batersey, (London, 1925) Appendix A, 310–311.
3 Surrey History Centre 3991/1.
4 8 & 9 Vict., cap. cxxi.
5 Surrey Heritage Centre.
6 Bizarrely, Tonsley has given its name to a suburb of Adelaide in South Australia; see https://tonsley.com.au.
7 WA Deeds/3265.
8 Wandsworth Bridge Act, 33 & 35 Vict. c.cxxv (1870).
9 The complete sheets were published by the London Topographical Society as Charles Booth’s Map of London Poverty in 1889, Publication No.130 (1984). Wandsworth is in the Third Series: Religious Influences, Vol.5, pp.197–207.
Draft version, May 2023. © Keith Bailey. All rights reserved.