WANDSWORTH
In April 1870, Samuel Sullings, a sawyer aged 21 years, was charged with wilfully damaging a wooden fence enclosing a kitchen garden belonging to Mr. John Costeker, of St. John's-hill, Wandsworth . . .
[The magistrate] fined the prisoner 40s, in addition to £15, the amount of damage, and in default ordered him to be imprisoned for six months.
But Samuel Sullings, his family and friends, did not have £15 to hand [perhaps £2,500 today], so he was sent to Wandsworth House of Correction to serve his time.
[Another comparison — in 1870, a London labourer might earn about 20 shillings per 10-hour day, working six days a week. So this was more than a fortnight's wages. But workers rarely had any surplus to put by. Had John Buckmaster been in London, it is possible the outcome might have been different. He would have devised a legal defence — see below. ]
But this was not "mindless vandalism". It was politically motivated, part of great popular local movement against the imminent destruction of the Common.
[Neither was it a sudden eruption of feeling — there was a back-story — it had built up over time. Write more — probably elsewhere — about the previous actions.]
Costeker had fenced off and planted his "kitchen garden" only 18 months earlier, and there had already been countless attempts to break down his fences (including several by Costeker's own butcher, Mr Clark).
[The suit between John Costeker and [?] Clark [or Clarke] went on for years. It only ended in [?]. Clark's name appears in the list of donors to the Peek Fund.]
The Daily News continued:
On Wednesday last about 300 men of the roughest kind came to the place and knocked down the gates and a considerable portion of the fence. Fruit trees were damaged, and an immense amount of injury was done to the property.
A police constable said he saw the prisoner call 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.'
John Buckmaster, in his riveting autobiography A Village Politician (1897), takes up the story:
A footpath which ran diagonally across a piece of the common was stopped at both ends, and the land added to the gardens of adjoining owners. This enclosure deprived the public of a convenient footpath, and stopping it created much ill-feeling and indignation. The enclosure was protected at both ends with a high closed fence of a most formidable character, lined inside and out with sheet-iron. The one boundary was the railway, and the other the gardens of the common-stealers.
Men would assemble in small detachments in the evening and look at the fence. The police were on the lookout. They expected a siege some evening, and they were not disappointed.
One evening about a dozen men came out of a near public-house [probably the nearby Plough Inn on St John's Hill] and with heavy hammers and stones attacked the fence at both ends, broke it down, trampled down the fruit-trees, and went out at the other end amid the deafening cheers of a large crowd which had by this time come together.
Enter the unfortunate Samuel Sullings.
Buckmaster continues:
One stupid young fellow, who had recently come up from the country to work in the gardens, took up a large stone and deliberately knocked down some palings. His companions saw the police and called him away, but he was deaf, and the police took him into custody, and he was locked up.
I happened, fortunately for myself, to be away, but, unfortunately for the young man, the whole affair was so sudden and unexpected that no arrangements were made to defend him. The next morning he was brought before the magistrate, confessed his guilt, and expressed his sorrow. He was sentenced to a fortnight's imprisonment.
The common-stealers pleaded damage and pressed for a heavy punishment as an example. If instead of pleading guilty he had pleaded a right, the magistrate must have dismissed the case.
Buckmaster, in typical fashion, swung into action, pulling all the levers available to him:
On my return I called on his employer, who expressed his willingness to give the man work when he came out of prison.
I at once prepared a memorial to the Home Secretary for his liberation.
I first went to the parson of our district and asked him to sign it.
[This was J.S. Jenkinson, vicar of St Mary's Battersea, appointed to the position by Earl Spencer himself.]
Now this man, who had often expressed to me his full sympathy with our efforts, began to make all sorts of excuses. The common-stealers formed part of his congregation. They were wealthy and subscribed liberally to his church, and unless they first signed it he could not without giving offence. This was the representative of the Church of the poor man, which ought to have protected him against the greed and avarice of the rich . . .
I placed a table in front of a shop where hundreds of persons passed daily to the railway, and in the course of two days obtained nearly a thousand signatures.
I took the memorial at once to the House of Commons and sent for Mr. Fawcett [Henry Fawcett, the blind Liberal member for Brighton], who was out. I then sent for Sir Charles Dilke [Liberal member for Chelsea, a noted radical], who suggested I should leave it at the Home Office.
I knew what would become of it if it found its way to the Home Office. It would probably be referred to every person, from the messenger to the Assistant Secretary, who would refer it from one to the other, whose business would be to initial it, write on, "Seen — refer to Brown — look up precedents," "Refer to Asst. Sec. for instructions," "Refer to committing magistrate"; and before all was finished the young man would have done his time.
I pressed Sir Charles Dilke to take it direct to the Home Secretary, who was in the House, and explain the circumstances of the case and its urgency. I called next day at the Office and found that the matter had been referred to the committing magistrate, who offered no objection to the prisoner's release, and I expected in a day or two the governor of the prison would receive an order accordingly.
But no order came.
I called again at the Home Office, and was informed that the papers had been forwarded to Balmoral. I waited two or three days, when I was informed there had been some mistake, and the papers would be returned to Balmoral at once.
After the young man had served his term of imprisonment all but two days, the governor received an order for his release.
Buckmaster's frustration with the creaking, crushing machinery of state is tangible.
A few days after his imprisonment his poor mother came up from Suffolk in great sorrow and went direct to the police-station, where she was informed by somebody, which everybody denied, that I was the cause of her son's imprisonment. I was deeply grieved when she came to my house, and her sorrow was the sorrow of a mother. I gave her some tea, made her comfortable, and lodged her for the night.
I sent for the treasurer of the Common Fund, and we sent her home with the assurance that her son would not suffer or lose his character.
She was much hurt when she applied at the prison to see her son. The door was slammed in her face, and she was rudely told to be off about her business. A person in distress is more sensible of kindness than those who have never tasted the waters of deep sorrow through the errors of their children.
But eventually Samuel Sullings was released, and given a delirious reception by the people of Battersea and Wandsworth:
When his companions heard of his release they procured a van and decorated it with ribbons, laurels, evergreens, and flowers. An armchair was placed in the centre for the prisoner. A band of music arrived at the prison gates, and the prisoner was received with hearty expressions of sympathy and goodwill.
The band, with van and procession, moved slowly to the scene of the late battle, for which the young man had suffered ten days' imprisonment. The procession stopped as long as the police permitted it in front of the houses of the common-stealers and played, almost to the bursting of their instruments, "See the conquering hero comes," with occasional yells of "Who stole the common?"
The procession moved through the parish to the schoolroom, where I presented the prisoner with a new suit of clothes and five pounds, provided by the committee. I persuaded the audience to go quietly home. I sent two men with the prisoner to his lodgings.
Some of the men had been drinking and were getting noisy and troublesome, and when they are in that state you may as well try to persuade a milestone to go home. I did all I could, and as the young man was safe I left the others, and the next morning two or three of them were fined five shillings each.
Samuel Sullings becomes a martyr to the cause of Wandsworth Common
April 15 1870?
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 [PB: the "victim's" brother], 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 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.
[Source: Link]
[Sources include: /years/1870/1870.html]
THREE CHEERS FOR MR BUCKMASTER
Woolwich Gazette — Saturday 16 July 1870
WANDSWORTH COMMON
Samuel Sullings, who was imprisoned with hard labour for breaking down fences Wandsworth Common, and subsequently released on a memorial presented to the Home Secretary Sir C. W. Dilke, MP, 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. 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 enjoyment were taken away by rich that if they felt aggrieved they could proceed by action at law or indictment, was simply adding insult to injustice.
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 School Room, concluded the proceedings.
[BNA: Link.]
As Buckmaster recalled in his memoir years later, "Our first battle began and ended in a police court. But there was a still more formidable battle preparing . . .
You will want to know what happened to Samuel Sullings, but I'm not sure I can help very much.
1841-1861, the family is in Rochford, Essex
In 1871
[John Street, no.17 ? - according ti https://www.maps.thehunthouse.com/Streets/New_to_Old_London_Street_Name_Changes.htmhe former name of Petergate, near Wandsworth Bridge.]
[Samuel] [Sullings] Head 41 1830 Male - Sawyer
4 [Charlotte - aka Charity?] [Sullings] Wife 44 1827 Female
4 [Samuel] [Sullings] Son 21 1850 Male - Sawyer
4 [William] [Sullings] Son 17 1854 Male - Sawyer
4 [James] [Sullings] Son 14 1857 Male - Scholar
4 [Ellen] [Sullings] Daughter 12 1859 Female - Scholar
4 [Sarah] [Sullings] Daughter 10 1861 Female - Scholar
4 [Alice] [Sullings] Daughter 7 1864 Female - Scholar
4 [Louise] [Sullings] Daughter 4 1867 Female - Scholar
All born Rochford, Essex, except Charlotte/Charity born in nearby Stambridge, Essex
>>https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/7619/images/LNDRG10_699_701-0547?pId=5684878<<
>>https://www.cound.co.uk/property/petergate-road-battersea-sw11/cound-006692/1<<
When had they moved to Battersea ? JCB says Samuel Sullings's mother came from Suffolk [Rochford is in Essex, a few miles north of Southend] to visit her son in prison, and he, JCB, put her up for the night. This wouldn't have been necessary if they were already living locally. Is it possible the whole family moved to Battersea in 1870/1871, but this seems unlikely.
3Q 1876, SS senior has died (death registered Wandsworth in ??).
1881: Charity is a widow living with two sons, William and James, both General Laburers. They are still living at 17 John Street.
1891, Charity, widow, 64, "Living on her Means" [!], is living with her daughter Alice, Dressmaker,at 52 York Road (i.e. near John Street/Petergate).
A Samuel Sullings, aged 41, death registered at West Ham in 1888. Burial at East Ham. This could be him.
ame Samuel Sullings Death Age 41 Birth Date abt 1847 Death Date abt 1888 Burial Date 10 Jul 1888 Burial Place East Ham, St Mary Magdalene, Essex, EnglandBack to the top of this page . . .