How Ealing Dean Common Became Allotments
written by Paul McConnell
Today, we regard our allotments as a leisure amenity. Our fruit and veg may be organic, fresher, tastier and be more varied than in the supermarkets, but it is probably not much cheaper. But when allotments started to appear they were very much about helping the “labouring poor” to feed their families and stay out of the workhouse. Northfield Allotments - originally Ealing Dean Common Allotments - are the oldest in London. So what led to their establishment in 1832 and how do they fit into the history of the allotment movement?
The following is an attempt to throw some light on that question, but there is no definitive answer as the records from the time (at least as so far discovered) do not tell us what was in the minds of the Ealing gentry at the time. As there are whole books on allotment history, which do not always agree on the relative importance of the main factors in play, there is limited space for debate in this review and the weight given to topics is somewhat arbitrary. Some related matters have also been omitted here for the sake of brevity, such as the ‘guinea gardens’ of midland towns.
This review also stops at the point that Ealing Dean Common Allotments were created, whereas allotment history went through many more important milestones up to the present day. However, attached at the end is an Allotment History Timeline, which does list many of the significant events after 1832.
The Feudal Manor System
Although people had communal rights over land before the Normans arrived, William I formalised existing customs, set up a European manorial system, with courts to enforce the laws and basically wrote everything down. So 1066 is a convenient place to start. King William confiscated the lands of the defeated Saxon thanes and distributed it to his Norman barons, who in turn divided their estates further and rewarded their knights with land in return for their service and loyalty. King William also replaced all the most senior positions in the church - archbishops, bishops and abbots - with his own men, giving the church around one fifth of all the land in England. Ealing was part of the larger manor of Fulham at this time and the Lord of the Manor was the Bishop of London.
The manor was central to the feudal system. It comprised the lord’s personal demesne plus the lands rented to tenants. The vast majority of the population (estimated at 85%) were peasants who formed the lowest level of the social order. The peasantry itself was further subdivided into various groups, such as freemen and yeomen, who could rent land for their own smallholdings in return for certain duties, such as lending their draft animals and overseeing the work of bringing in the harvest. Below them, the serfs had no land of their own and little or no freedom. They were obliged to work for the lord and in return had the use of some land to provide for their own subsistence.
Precise arrangements varied but typically, land was worked on an open field system of usually three large fields, each measuring hundreds of acres. Northfield Avenue was originally North Field Lane, said to be named after the Great North Field which once stood here. These open fields were common land, although not ‘a common’ as we think of it today. The fields were divided into strips, with each villager being allotted a number of strips, spread around the three fields (to share out the good and the poorer quality land) as decided at meetings held in the manor court. The open field system made it easier to plough, a task undertaken communally with pooled oxen and horses. The villagers would agree the crops to be grown, usually just two, perhaps wheat and beans - the same for everyone, with the third field being left fallow. The peasants would have to work their lord’s fields, as well as their own, giving precedence to the lord’s harvest before their own. They gave a proportion of their harvest to the lord and also to the church (tithes). Serfs were excluded from having strips in the open fields, but they had a croft with a basic cottage and an acre or two of land to sustain their family. They would have to perform more work for the lord as they had no surplus to pay him from their harvest.
There were, in addition, meadows producing hay for winter feed. There was also the manor’s ‘waste’ land - often poorer soil which was never cultivated. This was generally open to all to use, although the times and specific uses may have been subject to restrictions. This would include woodland for firewood, heath land for animal bedding and open land which could be used for grazing. Stock could also graze on the fallow field, thus manuring it and also the meadow after hay making and the stubble after harvest - the latter two often known as Lammas land (as at Lammas Park) as the grazing right usually began on or after Lammas day, 1st August. These are the resources open to everyone which helped the peasantry to eke out an existence. It is the waste land which is more often the precursor of the surviving commons of today, rather than the large cultivated fields of the open field system.
So in feudal times, the poorest members of society had little or no freedom and only the most basic standard of living. But they had access to land by right - right of common - which at least allowed them to provide a subsistence level of provision for their families. The story of allotments is partly about how these rights of common were taken away and what attempts were made to compensate for their loss.
Enclosure
Surprisingly perhaps, the enclosure of common land began as early as the 13th century, as landowners and wealthier tenants began to realise that grazing animals was more profitable and required less labour than growing crops. So small private arrangements were made to enclose areas of the common fields with hedges. Where land was not under pressure, this was done without much objection. In some areas where pasture was more scarce, there was unrest. This led to the first enclosure legislation - the Statute of Merton, 1235 - which allowed enclosure of common land, provided sufficient land remained to satisfy tenants’ rights of common. But the law accepted that the use of land, previously farmed communally, could be restricted to the owner (or his tenants) alone, thus allowing the privatisation of common land to begin.
English wool became a much sought-after cloth and sheep became highly profitable. There was a scramble to enclose land for pasture, evicting tenants and even wiping out whole villages, ignoring the legal requirements. Through the Tudor and early Stuart periods, there were official inquiries and more legislation to control enclosure, but the measures were not strong enough to resist the tide. Poverty and vagrancy became rife. In 1601, Elizabeth 1 made parishes responsible for assisting the poor - known as poor relief - and required them to fund this through a poor rate[1]. It recognised two groups: firstly the ‘impotent poor’ - basically the elderly and infirm, who “would work but couldn’t”. Assistance mainly comprised donations of food or money at home (known as outdoor relief). This concept of the deserving poor would inform social policy through to the end of the nineteenth century. The second category were the ‘idle poor’ who “could work but wouldn’t”. They were put to hard labour in the parish poor house and later, at county level, houses of correction. The precise operation of the law varied from parish to parish. But this legislation, with periodic amendment, formed the basis of the poor law system for the next 230 years.
Parish Workhouse
In 1723, the Workhouse Test Act[2] encouraged parishes to set up new workhouses. Conditions were made as humiliating and unpleasant as possible, to discourage shirkers from applying for parish relief. Only the most desperate and destitute would apply to be taken in. By 1776, 2,000 workhouses had been established across England. Some parishes it should be said operated a more humane system reserving their workhouses for children, the elderly and infirm (possibly the case in Ealing, to some extent at least - see Figure 1). “Outdoor relief’ i.e. outside the workhouse was given to able bodied poor, in the form of money, food and clothing. In 1782 another poor law act[3], permitted guardians of the poor to enclose up to 10 acres of waste to be cultivated by parish paupers. As with much of this legislation, it was permissive, not mandatory and not much used.
Ealing had a ‘poor house’ accommodating up to eight people from 1701. Plans to extend it were aborted following the 1723 Act and a new workhouse was erected by 1727 opposite St Mary’s Church, on the west side of St Mary’s Lane (now Road). It had 30 beds in 1743/44 but by 1750 there were up to 60 inmates, 86 in 1779, 142 in 1785, 175 in 1801[4]. It was reported to the parish vestry of 16th February 1803 that there were 150 inmates occupying the 55 available beds, whereupon the vestry resolved to petition parliament for a Bill allowing the parish to obtain 14 acres at Ealing Dean Common, to erect a new larger workhouse[5]. This proposal was dropped two months later for unknown reasons, but serves to illustrate the pressure on the parish from growing numbers of the poor and infirm.
Fig 1. Report on Ealing Workhouse 1797
Figure reproduced from Peter Higginbotham’s The Workhouse (www.workhouses.org.uk)
Changes in the Agricultural Economy 1700 - 1850
The population of England grew by 56% between 1700 and 1850, from 5.2 million people to 12.98 million. This growth was enabled by large increases in agricultural output between the mid 17th century to the mid 18th and continuing improvements in productivity after that. Agriculture had become more than providing food for the family. It was a traded commodity with profits to be made, which drove innovation and change to working practices.
Enclosure was one the means of reforming agriculture through land ownership, as described above, but there were other changes taking place. Farmers learned that rather than just leaving fields fallow, they could rotate their crops, so that fields were left with the nutrients needed by the succeeding crop. New crops were introduced such as clover and turnips, which improved the soil or could be grown over winter. The potato was introduced as an alternative staple to bread, although farmers were slow to be converted. Potatoes were important to individual labourers though, as a more manageable crop for small scale cultivation in cottage gardens, allotments and obviously potato grounds[6]. There were technological changes as well from the seed drill, to a more efficient plough requiring fewer draft animals to pull it and, later, the threshing machine.
Agricultural trade was greatly assisted by the absence of internal tariffs and customs barriers, leaving Britain as a coherent national market, unlike much of Europe. Improvements in roads, the introduction of canals and finally the railways allowed cheaper distribution of produce. Farmers became literate and numerate ahead of their labourers. They took in ideas from other countries, such as drainage and land reclamation from the Dutch. They could read the advice of scientists and other agricultural writers and apply new principles, for example in selective breeding programmes to improve their livestock.
Of course, the path of progress is never smooth and there are losers as well as gainers. The trend towards grain over pasture, especially in southern England meant plentiful jobs in the summer but unemployment in the winter. Grain harvests were not always good and in 1794/95 and 1799/1800 they were particularly bad, with measurable increases in mortality. Magistrates in the small Berkshire village of Speenhamland, witnessing the inability of low-wage labourers to feed their families when the price of bread was high, were moved to set up a system of relief to supplement low wages, based on the price of a loaf of bread and the number of children in a family. An attempt to turn it into a Parliamentary Bill did not succeed, but the principal was adopted in many parishes, in some form or other, particularly across southern England. It is not known if Ealing adopted it specifically, but the Speenhamland system, as it was known, was controversial and debated at the highest levels at the time. It broke the long established principle not to pay relief to those able to work. One argument put against it was that it subsidised farmers, who could keep wages low knowing they would be supplemented by the parish.
During the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) agricultural labour was in demand, because many labourers had joined up to fight, however, when these soldiers returned home to unemployment and depressed wages, they felt badly teated. There was a general concern that disaffected men might follow the French example of revolution, although initially only local disturbances occurred. Until, that is, June 1830 when a haystack was set alight in Orpington. This led to months of rick torching in Kent and Sussex. In August, the first threshing machine was destroyed near Canterbury. By October about one hundred threshing machines had been destroyed. The Times reported “an organised system of stack burning and machine breaking”, with mobs of 2-300 men marching in broad daylight, smashing machines and demanding higher wages. Threatening notes would be left for farmers, signed by the mythical “Captain Swing” giving the disturbances the name of the Swing Riots. Centred in Kent, they spread through the southern counties and famers were in a dilemma, faced with the not unreasonable demands of their starving labourers on the one hand and their need to pay the rents and tithes charged by their landlords and the church respectively. In 1831, hundreds of arrests halted the rioting and although public pressure limited some of the punishments, 19 men were hung, 400 transported and 600 imprisoned.
Although the Swing Riots immediately preceded the decision to pursue allotments on Ealing Dean Common, no discussion of these events at Ealing Vestry meetings is recorded in the minutes. But the wretched position of many rural workers, during and immediately after the Napoleonic Wars, must have been very obvious to them through the numbers in the workhouse and the increasing poor rate they had to pay. The news of unrest close by, must surely have added to their concerns.
Philosophical and Political Debate
The relationship between rural poverty and the loss of access to land, had been understood since Elizabethan times and since then there had been many attempts to provide land to agricultural labourers. In 1589, an act seeking to control the proliferation of cottages, said that no new cottage should be built without a garden of four acres. This legislation was not enforced but it shows that even in the 16th century the link between loss of access to land and rural poverty was understood. Enclosure gathered pace in the 18th century, enabled by over 3,500 individual Acts of Parliament between 1700 and 1860. Some of these acts set aside a portion of the enclosure for use by the poor, but it is estimated that this accounted for less than 0.5% of the 5 million acres enclosed.
It should be said that our modern idea of an allotment[7] only clearly emerged around 1790. Prior to that provision of land for the poor covered a range of options, such as cottage gardens, access to cow pasture, parish farms and potato grounds. The word allotment was used in the more general sense of an apportionment of land, so the enclosure of common waste might have included an allotment of the waste for use by the poor.
The first allotments are generally said to be those established around 1795, as a response to an immediate subsistence crisis, at Long Newnton in Wiltshire and Shipton Moyne in Gloucestershire, both on the estates of Thomas Estcourt. Two more sites were added in the 1790s at Ashley (also Estcourt) and Little Cheverall. Possible earlier candidates were identified in Breaking New Ground[8], but the evidence is not conclusive. Charging an annual rent of 34s (£1-14 shillings) per acre (equivalent to 4s 3d for 20 poles[9]) at Long Newnton, Estcourt was able to demonstrate that parish expenditure on poor relief dropped from £212-16s to £12-6s by 1805. But there was no general blossoming of an allotment movement. In this later book[10], Burchardt and his volunteers increased the estimate of the number of allotment sites in 1830 from 54 to 87, half of these being in Wiltshire and bordering counties. These, and other allotments immediately following, were often on the estates of wealthy landowners, who did not support the idea of legislation to require such schemes, believing instead that they should remain individual acts of charity.
The Society for Bettering Conditions and Increasing Comfort of the Poor (SBCP) was formed in 1796 by William Wilberforce (the slavery abolitionist) and others and included many well known and influential men in its membership, including the king, George III. Membership crossed over with the new Board of Agriculture and the Royal Institute and jointly they pursued a common goal, to both improve agriculture and help the rural poor.
Arthur Young, the leading agricultural writer of the day[11] was a proponent of enclosure as being necessary for the improvement of agriculture but also campaigned for land to be made available to the poor. He wrote a pamphlet in favour of allotments in 1801[12], which drew heavy criticism from the landed gentry. The economist JS Mill said that giving land to the poor was like asking them to “grow their own poor rate.” Malthus[13], who postulated that food production grew arithmetically while population grew exponentially, thus always outstripping the world’s food resources, was against helping the poor because it would only result in more mouths to feed and be ultimately self-defeating.
In 1786 a parliamentary committee reported in favour of a national policy to promote allotments, but no legislation followed. The Board of Agriculture also attempted to institute allotment provision but was defeated in 1800 by the landowners’ lobby.
If so little had been done in the previous 250 years, why did giving land to the poor become such a debated issue around the 1790s? The wars with Napoleon threatened the security of the nation, led to general unease and raised concerns about the country’s ability to feed itself. In particular the failed harvest of 1795, following several poor harvests, provided a particular impetus for change. Wheat cost 108s and 6d (5 pounds 8 shillings and 6 pence) in August 1795, having doubled in price in less than 12 months and leading to unrest. The efforts of the Speenhamland magistrates and Thomas Estcourt were directly related to this event. After all, the high price of bread was partly to blame for the French Revolution.
Burchardt identifies four broad advantages of making land available to the poor, as advanced at the time: increasing the material wellbeing of rural labourers; improving their moral character; saving money for taxpayers; and benefiting the country at large. Without going into all the arguments, it is interesting to pull out some, especially where there are echoes in the form of the arrangements at Ealing Dean Common Allotments in 1832.
It seems obvious that labourers would be in a better position to feed their families with access to some land. It was argued that the ability to have a cow and a pig would greatly improve the standard of living of poorer families and provide health benefits for their children. Counter arguments were put that the demand for labour would increase and farmers would have to pay higher wages. Bearing in mind that allotments at this time were much larger than today, some argued that labourers could compete with farmers and that labourers should be allowed to cultivate their ploys by the spade only, a stipulation included in the Bishop’s deed of consent for Ealing Dean Allotments.
The desire to improve the moral character of labourers was a strong motivation to make land available to them. It was argued that having their own land to work would make the labourer thrifty and more industrious, as they would see the direct benefits of their own labours. In occupying their leisure time, it would also keep them from the ale house and even cure them of the habit of tea-drinking! Some protagonists were also convinced that the labourer would have more respect for the law and crime would be reduced.
Although the emphasis is on the rural poor, the later work by Burchardt and local historians[14] reports that a sample of early allotment tenants (mid 19th century) comprised 58% agricultural labourers, 25% craftsmen, and 6% industrial workers (mainly miners). This is reflected at Ealing Dean, where in 1858 about ⅔ of tenants were labourers (see footnote on page 8).
It was admitted that helping the poor was not the only motivation, as the the gentry would also benefit, chiefly through reductions in the poor rate. Estcourt had demonstrated this effect from his allotments at Long Newnton, as stated above. It also led to arguments that access to land should be conditional on the recipient being of the labouring classes and not in receipt of parish relief. This too is reflected in the EDC Allotments tenancy agreements (see Figure 2 bel
Enabling Legislation 1800 - 1832
The Inclosure Consolidation Act, 1801, set out a framework to streamline the process of land enclosure. Although enclosure could be achieved through other means, such as the manorial court, most were the subject of private petitions to Parliament. It is said that there were more than 5,000 such enclosure bills in total. This act intended to standardise the enclosure procedure in order to speed-up the outcome. Further such laws were passed in the mid 19th century to further simplify and facilitate the process. Only from 1845[15] did they require some portion to be made available to the poor.
A Parliamentary Committee looking into the poor law, recommended that parishes be permitted to make allotments available to the poor. The Select Vestries Act 1819[16], which was primarily about other matters, contained clauses which allowed a parish to purchase or lease up to 20 acres of land for the purpose of providing employment for the poor. There were few if any examples of parishes taking this up, due at least in part to better harvests, which had eased the food crisis of the late 18th century.
The Inclosure of Wastes Act 1831[17] contained clauses which increased the land which could be obtained by the parish to 50 acres. More specifically, it empowered the parish, with the consent of the lord of the manor and the majority of other persons interested, to enclose any portions of waste or common land lying in or near the parish.
In petitioning the Bishop of London to consent to the enclosure of Ealing Dean Common for allotments, Ealing parish vestry[18] relied on these last two pieces of legislation for their authority and the petition prepared uses much of the same wording, as will be seen below.
Ealing Parish Vestry and Ealing Dean Allotments
On 3rd May 1800, the vestry proposed that 10 acres of common waste be enclosed to plant potatoes to be distributed to the poor during the following winter. It is not clear which common was being referred to. The vicar (the Rev. Coulson Carr) consulted the Bishop of London (Bishop Beilby Porteus) who approved of the scheme. It was agreed to fund the project from the poor rate. There is no further report on the outcome of this scheme. The vestry’s proposal in 1803, to build a new workhouse on waste land, probably Ealing Dean Common, has already been mentioned on page 3 above. This proposal was dropped for reasons unknown.
On 27th November 1831, a notice[19] was read out in St Mary’s church, “that a Vestry will be holden at the Cross House, Ealing on Wednesday next the 7th day of December at Eleven O’clock in the Forenoon, to Audit the Poor Monthly Accounts; to appoint the Day of Elections of an Assistant Overseer, in the room[20] of Mr White deceased, to nominate a Trustee of the Highways of this Parish, in the room of Lewis Duval Esquire; and to consider of the propriety of taking 20 acres of Waste Lands of this Parish into Cultivation, whereby the Labouring Poor may find Employment”. It was signed by Thomas Jullion, the longstanding Vestry Clerk.
The Vestry met on the appointed day and the minutes[21] record the following:
“The Vestry took into consideration the propriety of taking 20 acres of Waste Lands of this Parish into Cultivation, for the Benefit of the Industrious Poor and thereupon
Resolved
That it is expedient to appoint a Committee fully to consider the said subject, and to Report their opinion thereon to a future Vestry.
The following were the persons appointed to that Committee
The Vicar and Parish Officers[22]
Mr Wood Mr Montgomery Mr Poole
Mr Tattersall Col Limont Mr Nicholas
Mr C Allen Mr J Strudwick Mr Meacock
Mr Dixon Mr Round
That Five of such Committee do form a Quorum, One of the Parish Officers to be included in that number. “
It may be noted that the notice of the vestry refers to the Labouring Poor and the minutes use the term Industrious Poor. This accords with the prevailing attitude of the old poor laws, which distinguished between the deserving poor and those who were poor through their own lack of effort and so not deserving of assistance from the parish. The deserving would include widows, children, the sick and the elderly. Able bodied men were expected to work but if they could not find work or their wages were insufficient to support them and their families, they could qualify for help. Early EDC tenancy agreements imply that the vast majority of allotment tenants were men in work as they are all described as labourers. In fact the occupation ‘labourer’ was preprinted on the first tenancy agreements - see Figure 2. But by 1858 a breakdown of occupations provided to the committee showed that about ⅓ were not labourers, but belonged to a variety of trades [23].
Fig. 2. Tenancy Agreement for Thomas Adams, 22 March 1833.
Source: London Metropolitan Archives, Cat. Ref. DRO/037/H3/1 1833-1836.
There are a number of interesting points to note on the above tenancy agreement, signed by Thomas Adams with his mark on 22 March 1833, the earliest date at which tenancies began at EDC. He was of the Parish of Ealing and a Labourer (preprinted on second line). His plot was 20 rods (or poles) which is twice the size of a full size plot today. It was on the East Side which is today’s Northfield Allotments site and plot No. 4 is thought to have been at the Occupation Road end, probably where plots 153/154 are today. The annual rent is 5 shillings to be paid in quarterly instalments. The second ‘rule’ refers to the ‘Quickset Hedges’ and is thought to indicate that the surrounding hedge was planted at that time. The fifth ‘rule’ refers to ‘sober, moral and honest conduct’ reflecting the perceived need to improve the working man’s moral character. And the sixth clause gives an undertaking not to claim Parochial Relief nor the work on a Sunday, a requirement of the Bishop’s consent. It does not, however, include any stipulation as to spade cultivation, despite this also being specified by the Bishop.
Any discussion which might have taken place or any further statement of the motives or reasoning for the proposal are not recorded in the minutes. Nevertheless, the committee did not take long to report back and the following italicised text is a full transcript of the minutes of the Vestry held on 11th January 1832.[24]
“ Cross House Ealing
11 January 1832
At a Vestry holden this Day
Present Sir Herbert Oakeley Bart Vicar in the Chair
Mr Robt Stark
Mr Wm Vaughan } Churchwardens
Mr James Hemmings
Mr T B Rowe } Overseers
Mr Poole Mr Parsons Revd M Peart
Mr Nicholas Mr G Sanders Mr Montgomery
Mr C Allen Mr J Strudwick Mr Meacock
Mr C Clark Mr J C Folkard Col Limont
Mr Hancock Mr Tidy L G Weatherby
Mr Taylor Mr Mustard
The Notice for the convening of the Vestry was read.
The Committee appointed on the 7th day of December last to consider and Report on the subject of enclosing Ealing Dean Common made the following Report [25]
Resolved
That this Committee are of the opinion that it is highly expedient to enclose the Common commonly called Ealing Dean Common, with a view partly to the employment of the Poor by the Overseers, and partly to the allotment of portions of the land when brought into a proper state to the Poor themselves.
That a Vestry be called for the purpose of submitting to the Inhabitants the above opinion of the Committee.
That it be recommended to the Vestry to add the name of Mr Bowden as Foreman of the Copyhold Tenants of the Manor to the list of Committee Men.
The Vestry thereupon
Resolved
That the Report of the Committee be received and adopted, And that Mr Jullion do take means to carry the same into effect by having a Meeting of the Copyhold Tenants of the Manor called to obtain their sanction and afterwards that he do apply to the Lord Bishop of London as Lord of the Manor for his consent to the measure.
Resolved
That the name of Mr Bowden be added to the Committee.
Resolved Unanimously
That the thanks of this Vestry be given to Sir Herbert Oakeley Bart for his zealous and able exertions in furthering the objects of the Vestry.
Adjourned. “
An illustration of part of the actual document, showing the Committee’s three resolutions, effectively its recommendations to the vestry, is shown as Figure 3 below.
Fig 3 Vestry Resolutions of 11 January 1932
(Courtesy of LB Ealing Local History Collection).
Although these minutes do not provide as full an account as we might like, a number of interesting points emerge. The minutes appear to suggest that the intention was to carry out some preparatory work to the common, as a form of poor-relief employment scheme, to bring it into a suitable state to let out as allotments[26]. Only then as a second stage, to let portions of the land to the poor for them to work for themselves. This closely echoes the provisions of the 1831 Vestries Act (see below) and suggests that Ealing vestry responded very quickly to the opportunity which this legislation opened up. There is a record of the commons being used for a work scheme before. At a vestry meeting on 5th November 1828, it was said that a great number of persons had applied for relief. They were set to work on levelling Ealing Common and Dean Common for 1s (one shilling) a day. The hours of work were 8 am to 5 pm. But there are no further details about the works themselves.
The minutes also refer to the need for a meeting with the copyholders, to gain their agreement to the scheme. Enclosing the common would have deprived those who had rights over the common by virtue of their tenure of property in the parish. Their rights would have been recorded in the manorial rolls, of which they would have held a copy (hence they were called copyholders). There appears to be no further information available on the outcome of this meeting in the vestry minutes, although we know that a deed of consent was signed by 150 copyholders and accompanied the Bishop’s deed, these two documents legitimising the closure of the common. The topic is referred to in a vestry meeting held on 14th March 1832 [27], called to consider a Privy Council report on cholera, to make a Rate for Poor Relief and to receive a report from the Ealing Dean Common Committee. The vestry minutes record only that the report was received and the meeting was adjourned (without apparently considering any other business) with no further explanation.
There is a record of a letter from the vestry clerk, dated 2nd October 1832, which seems to concern the enclosure of Ealing Dean Common, although this is not specifically named. The following is a transcript of a copy retained by the vestry.[28]
“ Brentford
2nd October 1832
Sir,
I beg leave to send the accompanying Document for your perusal on behalf of the Lord Bishop of London who had the matter mentioned to him by the Revd Sir Herbert Oakeley[29] as Vicar of Ealing. I suppose that the Instrument will require His Lordship’s Episcopal Seal and which I presume together with His Lordship’s Signature must precede that of any other person - requesting the favour of an early reply.
I am
T J
To Chrisr Hodgson Esq
The Acts of Parliament on the subject are
59 Geo 3 C12 [30] and 1 & 2 Wm 4 C42. [31] “
Christopher Hodgson seems to have been the Treasurer of Queen Anne’s Bounty based at 3 Deans Yard, Westminster. The ‘Bounty’ was a fund set up to supplement the incomes of poorer parish ministers, the fund being raised from the ‘taxes’ paid by parishes to the crown (paid to the Pope before Henry VII). It is not clear what Mr Hodgson’s role was, but it may be presumed that Bishop Blomfield, having been consulted by the Reverend Oakeley, passed over the details of the deed to be drawn up, to Mr Hodgson.
Nothing has been found to suggest that Bishop Blomfield played a leading role in this proposal, as it appears that it was Ealing vestry which took the initiative, asking the vicar, Sir Herbert Oakeley to approach the Bishop. However, the vicar may have had good reason to expect a favourable response, as Bishop Blomfield was a keen gardener, being responsible for remodelling the gardens at Fulham Palace. He also wanted to reduce the drinking of alcohol and was President of the London Temperance Society. His biographer describes the Ealing allotments as “an attempt to substitute his beloved gardening for drinking as a pastime” [32] although he gives no specific source for this claim. Also, early in Blomfield’s career, around 1820, he introduced allotments into his parish in Essex.[33]
The two pieces of legislation referred to at the foot of the letter are the best clue we have as to the inspiration for the vestry making its proposals for Ealing Dean Common. The Poor Relief Act, 1831, in particular seems to refer to precisely the circumstances found at Ealing Dean. The words used in the act are reflected in the expressions used in the vestry minutes and related documents, as set out above. The 1831 act empowered parishes, with the consent of the lord of manor and the majority of other interested persons, to enclose any portions of waste or common land “and to cultivate and improve the same for the benefit of such parish and the poor persons therein or to let any part … to any poor and industrious inhabitants to be occupied and cultivated on their own account.”
A follow-up letter appears to have been sent to a Mr Hodgson on 13th November 1832.[34] It asked that the document previously sent concerning the waste land called Ealing Dean Common, be returned “as the parish officers wish to complete the business”. There is no record in the same source material of any reply received but the Bishop’s consent to the enclosure is dated 27th November 1832[35], so the reminder seems to have drawn a speedy response (see Figure 4 on the following page).
The first committee of management for Ealing Dean Common (allotments) was selected at a vestry meeting held on 6th February 1833.[36] The membership was as follows.
The Rev Sir Herbert Oakeley Vicar
Mr Thomas Meacock
Mr John Round } Churchwardens
Mr James Hemmings
Mr W Bond } Overseers
Mr Charles Morris Asst Overseer
Mr R Poole Mr Robt Stark
Col Limond Mr Wm Vaughan
Mr F Nicholas Mr Mat Bowden
Mr CL Allen Mr JB Rowe
Mr Benj Dixon Mr Montgomery
Mr J Strudwick Mr R Clarke
Mr George Wood Dr Tattersall
The committee seems very large and from the attendance at the meetings for which we have minutes (from 1835) it seems likely that not all would have been regular attenders. The quorum was set at five.
The vestry meeting of 20th January 1838 was called to agree the Poor Rate, but there is a reference to Ealing Dean Common. The minutes set out their estimate of the budget they required to meet ‘immediate demands’ - £950. The amount they had in hand was £50, leaving a balance to be provided for of £900 and they set the Poor Rate at 1s in £. The minutes also say: “The said Balance of £900 is independant (sic) of whatever may be due for expenses incurred by former Overseers relative to the enclosing and alloting (sic) of Ealing Dean Common”. This is almost five years after lettings began, so it is difficult to understand why this is being raised at this point. It may be that they paid the initial costs associated with the enclosure from the Poor Rate and were indicating that they reserved the right to reclaim the amount from the allotment committee, from the rents being collected. But this is speculation as no further reference to the issue has been found.
Fig. 4 Copy of Bishops Consent
Source: LB Ealing Property Records.
This copy of the Bishop’s deed poll accompanies the deeds transferring ownership of about 3 acres of allotments to the council for Dean Gardens in 1909. The allotment charity received in return about 6 acres of land which became Haslemere Allotments. The copy was certified as a true copy of the original on 9th Feb 1883 by vicar EW Relton. The above copy was also accompanied by a copy of the 150 signatures of the copyholders, indicating their willingness to give up their rights of common over Ealing Dean Common.
It is understood that the original deeds were in the hands of the charity’s solicitors in 1972, at the time that allotment land west of Northfield Avenue was transferred to the council, for the development of the council estate (which itself is now being redeveloped). By 2005, when the charity (now Pathways) applied to register their ownership of the current site of Northfield Allotments, the deeds had apparently been lost in an office move. It is thought that this is the reason the Land Registry granted Pathways possessory title, rather than title absolute.
The final reference to Ealing Dean Common in the vestry minutes is at the meeting held on 8th October 1870.[37] The meeting considered a proposal from St John’s Church to use about an acre of Ealing Dean allotment land on the Uxbridge Road frontage. So an early attempt to develop part of the allotment and former common site. The memorial and plan (see Figure 4) are available at the LMA, and show the site was part of what is now Dean Gardens.[38] The minutes record that after a poll had been taken, a resolution in favour of the site (being used as a school) was lost by 647 votes to 485. There is no information as to how this poll was taken, but it seems quite a large poll for the time.
A problem with the legality of the enclosure was raised in 1839, when auditors for the new Brentford Union declined to sign off the accounts, because they did not account for the allotment rents. Letters were received from the Poor Law Commissioners seeking copies of the documentation under which the enclosure took place. The Vicar sought a legal opinion which agreed with the doubts already cast as to legality. The issue seems to be that the legislation put powers in the hands of the parish officers (church wardens and overseers). Although these officers were originally included in the committee of management (see above) EDC soon began to be managed without any parish officers being involved. Most of the early rental income was used to repair almshouses in Ealing and Old Brentford, decisions made by the allotment committee, after being requested by churchwardens. Nothing has yet been found which explains what course of action was taken, if any, to regularise the situation.
Paul McConnell
September 2022
Appendix 1 - Ealing Parish Vestry
Vestries began as purely church bodies but from the 16th century began to take on additional secular responsibilities, previously exercised by the manorial courts. This included maintenance of highways and poor relief. They take their name from their usual meeting place - the church vestry (robing room) and could be attended by any ratepayer of the parish. By the end of the 18th century, vestries had reached the height of their powers, which then declined through the 19th century as new local administrative bodies were set up.
The main officers of the vestry were two churchwardens (one for each ‘side’ - see below) who were responsible for the upkeep of the church and two overseers of the poor (also one for each ‘side’). The overseer’s work was onerous and included collection of the poor rate. These positions were elected annually and unpaid, although paid assistant overseers were appointed to help cope with the work from 1812. There was also the important paid position of vestry clerk, who acted as secretary and solicitor. Thomas Jullion famously occupied the post from 1796 to 1834, when he retired, but had to seek poor relief himself in 1835 because of his “distressed and unfortunate situation”. There were a number of other lesser positions including parish clerk, beadle and sexton.
The parish of Ealing was large - see map at Appendix 2. It extended from the river Brent to the Thames and included the town of Old Brentford. The northern section, was known as the Upper Side or Ealing Side and the south, the Lower Side or Brentford Side, an important distinction at the time. Initially, Ealing was more rural and gentile, with fewer residents than the busier and more industrial Brentford, which had a reputation as a dirty and somewhat disreputable town, with a more transient population. The vestry put down much of the overcrowding problem in its workhouse to the greater needs of the vagrants and impecunious travellers of Brentford. Ealing finally outgrew Brentford in the 1860s, as the suburbs of London grew westward. The distinction between the two areas was often recorded in the vestry minutes and the EDC allotments committee also marked the tenancy agreements of its Brentford tenants with ‘OB’.
The vestry lost its highways function in 1767, to a board of highways trustees, elected by the vestry but acting independently from it. The relief of the poor was the most significant of the vestry’s duties and occupied much of its time and attention. The detail was dealt with by two elected overseers of the poor - initially, one for Ealing and one for Brentford, although this distinction was done away with in 1814 on the appointment of a full-time officer. It was greatly concerned with the overcrowding in the workhouse and also the costs to the ratepayers. In 1836, the Brentford Union was formed and Ealing joined it, electing representatives onto the union’s Board of Guardians. The new union took over the workhouse until the new large workhouse was completed in 1839, when the Ealing buildings were sold. The main parts of these buildings are still there today. Ealing continued to collected a poor rate for its contribution the the union’s funds.
In 1863, they adopted the Local Government Act of 1858 and the Ealing Local Government Board was set up. This board was responsible for highways, drainage and lighting in the central part of the parish i.e. excluding Old Brentford and the less populated area of Ealing, north of the GWR railway. This caused some complications in the funding arrangements, so in 1873, the Highways Act 1767 was repealed, highways and lighting in Brentford was handed over to a new Brentford Sanitary district and the northern part of Ealing was brought within the Ealing Local Board. The Local Board remained in existence until 1894, when it was succeeded by an Urban District Council, known as Ealing UDC.
Source: Allison Holt, Abstract of Ealing Vestry Minutes, Ealing Local History Collection.
Allotments Timeline
1235 Statute of Merton allows ‘inclosure’ of common land in excess of commoners’ needs.
1348 Black Death - England’s population drops 4m to 2.5m.
1381 Peasants Revolt - led by Wat Tyler, John Ball & Jack Straw. Partly against unfair taxes.
1489 Law to deter enclosure. Profitability of wool encourages enclosure. Act means half of profit from land where houses demolished to be paid to Crown.
1517 Cardinal Wolsey sets up national inquiry into illegal enclosures
1548 Enquiry into the effect of enclosures for pasture on towns, villages and hamlets.
1549 Kett’s Rebellion destroyed enclosures, tore down hedges, filled ditches - in Norfolk.
1589 Planning Act required new cottages to have 4 acres attached to aid self-sufficiency.
1601 Elizabethan Poor Law made parishes responsible for own poor, admin by JPs and overseers.
1607 Midland Revolt “Captain Pouch” led revolt against illegal enclosures.
1642 Civil War begins
1649 Levellers Gerard Winstanley led landless labourers to take over & cultivate enclosed common in Surrey. Other ‘Digger’ groups had similar ideas, all ousted.
1649 Civil War ends - King Charles executed.
1662 Settlement Act required proof of ‘settlement’ before entitled to poor relief.
1897 Badging the Poor - paupers to wear a badge on shoulder with letter ‘P’
1723 Knatchbull’s Act introduces ‘workhouse test’ - poor have to enter workhouse and perform work in return for assistance. Gave parishes authority to build workhouses.
1750s Parliamentary enclosures accelerate where landowners petition parliament to consent enclosure of land for their sole use.
1782 Gilbert’s Act requires workhouses to house only old, sick and orphans. Able bodied made to work for a subsistence wage. Also allows 10a adjacent to workhouse to be enclosed for poor relief work.
1784 Threshing machine invented by Andrew Meikle.
1793 French Revolutionary Wars begin. Threat to GB and rise of Napoleon.
1795 Speenhamland System tops up wages according to price of bread.
1795 First ‘true’ allotments set up by Thomas Estcourt at Long Newton and Shipton Moyne
1796 Soc. for Bettering the Condition and Increasing the Comforts of the Poor is founded
1801 Inclosures Consolidation Act - common framework to streamline process of enclosures by act of parliament.
1809 Great Somerford Allotments, Wiltshire - a site of about 6 acres, some argue these are the first allotments and they are the oldest still remaining. Rev Demainbray persuaded King George III (to whom he was chaplain) to give land for allotments in perpetuity.
1811 Luddites protest against mechanisation which was taking their jobs in the textile mills of towns in the north and midlands. Threats, arson, machine breaking and mob violence put down brutally by 1816.
1815 Napoleonic Wars end.
1811 Sturges Bourne’s Select Vestries Act - inter alia allowed a parish to purchase or lease up to 20 acres of land for the purpose of providing employment for the poor.
1830 Swing Riots - rural equivalent of Luddite rebellion, mainly in southern England.
1831 Labourers’ Friend Society set up by Benjamin Wills, advised landowners on how to set up allotments.
1831 The Inclosure of Wastes Act 1831 increased to 50 acres, the waste or common land the parish could obtain for the poor.
1832 Ealing Dean Common Allotments created when Bishop of London and Lord of the Manor of Ealing, Charles James Blomfield, consents to the enclosure of the common for allotments for the poor. Referred to as Ealing Dean Allotments Charity.
1833 First EDCA Tenancy Agreements signed 22nd March 1833.
1834 Poor Law Amendment Act ends outdoor relief, so that those in need have to enter the workhouse. Poor law unions set up so that larger workhouses could be built covering a wider area. Ealing’s workhouse closed soon after as the parish merged with Brenford, with a large workhouse at Isleworth, now West Middx. Hospital.
1834 Tolpuddle martyrs - six agricultural labourers tried to form a secret trade union and are transported.
1845 General Enclosure Act includes a provision that ‘field gardens’ be provided for landless poor.
1845 Potato blight strikes Britain first seen in Isle of Wight. Great Irish Famine begins.
1846 Repeal of Corn Laws results in cheaper corn being imported.
1873 First census of allotments counted 344,000 allotments nationwide, thought to be an under-estimate.
1887 Allotments Act required local sanitary authorities to provide allotments, where there is no provision, if requested by six electors.
1890 Allotments Act required county councils to have a standing committee on allotments
1904 New Scheme for Charities in Ealing. The Charity Commission made an order to consolidate and better manage twelve charities in Ealing under a single management scheme. The charities included the Adair, Bowman, Gurnell, Vaughan and EDCA which thereafter became known under the title of the Charity of Bowman and Others.
1907 Small Holdings and Allotments Act obliged local authorities to provide sufficient allotments.
1908 Small Holdings and Allotments Act - the foundation of today’s allotment law. It strengthened previous act and gave local authorities c.p.o. powers to acquire land where necessary. (Remains on Statute Book).
1909 Disposal of Allotment Land for Dean Gardens. EDCA (as Bowman and Others) exchanged about 3.5 a of allotment land on Uxbridge Road for about 6 acres near Boston Manor Road. This allowed the council to develop Dean Gardens and provided a larger allotment site in what is now Haslemere Allotments.
1914 WW1 and DORA - the Defence of the Realm Act (DORA) comes into force at outbreak of war, giving powers to commandeer resources for the war effort. Later this includes requisitioning land for food production.
1917 National Union of Allotment Holders is established and links to Co-op Societies for trade price tools and outlet for surplus produce.
1918 Land Settlement (Facilities) Act makes land available for returning serviceman but also makes allotments open to all, not just the labouring population.
1922 Allotments Act requires councils to have an allotment committee, defines an allotment as “an area not exceeding 40 poles (¼ acre) … cultivated by the occupier for the production of vegetable crops for consumption by himself and his family”. (On Statute Book).
1925 Allotments Act makes land purchased by councils for allotments statutory, so that it cannot be converted to other uses without ministerial consent. (On Statute Book).
1930 National Allotments Society formed, incorporating National Union of Allotment Holders and other societies.
1939 WW2 Begins and legislation enables councils to seize land as in WW1, to requisition open land including parks and sports fields for allotments.
1940 Dig for Victory campaign begins. Rationing also introduced.
1948 National Assistance Act repeals Poor Law of 1834. Also at this time the Settlement Act of 1662 is repealed.
1950 Allotment Act extends period of notice to quit to 12 months and permits bee and chicken keeping on allotments. (On Statute Book).
1970 The LBE (Ealing Dean Allotments, W13) CPO No. 1, 1970. This was the device by which the council purchased allotment land on the west of Northfield Avenue, in order to build the Sherwood Close estate. The land was sold willingly by the charity but the cpo obviated the need for a less certain route, whereby the Charity Commission would have had to determine whether it was proper to dispose of land held for allotment purposes.
1972 Conveyance of land for housing purposes, 19 October, 1972. This is the actual transfer of the land for Sherwood Close. Note that the mental health facility at the southernmost tip of the site was a separate cop under health powers. The land between these two sites - housing at Bowmans Close was developed by the charity themselves, then still named in the conveyance as the Ealing Dean Allotments Charity.
[1] Act for the Relief of the Poor, 1601, generally known as the Elizabethan Poor Law.
[2] This act was also known as Knatchbull’s Act and was designed to reduce the cost of poor relief and keep down the poor rate.
[3] Known as Gilbert’s Act.
[4] Victoria County History - https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/middx/vol7/pp144-147#fnn26
[5] The Victoria County History specifies Ealing Dean Common but the Vestry minutes do not. There may be a separate copy of the petition or of a draft Bill, but this has not been seen.
[6]It is estimated that over 50% of the total potato crop in year? was grown in allotments.
[7] One definition of an allotment might be: A small parcel of land, alongside other similar plots within a larger demarcated site, rented for a nominal sum and used to grow fruit and vegetables for personal consumption.
[8] Burchardt, J., Cooper, J., Breaking New Ground, FACHRS Publications, Milton Keynes, 2010
[9] EDC rents were set at 5 shillings per 20 pole plot in 1833 and remained at that for most of 19th century.
[10] Burchardt J. Ibid
[11] Arthur Young, 1741-1820, well connected & influential writer on agriculture, social and economic affairs. Published Annals of Agriculture, 1784 -1808, appointed Secretary of the new Board of Agriculture in 1793.
[12] An Inquiry into the Propriety of Applying Wastes to the Better Maintenance and Support of the Poor, A Young 1801.
[13] Thomas Malthus , An Essay on the Principal of Population, 1798.
[14] Burchardt J. & Cooper J. eds. Breaking New Ground, FACHRS, 2010.
[15] The General Enclosure Act 1845 handed enclosure decisions over to Commissioners. The act required that enclosure of waste provided an allowance of allotments for the poor - unless there were convincing arguments against.
[16] Sturges Bourne’s Select Vestry Act, 1819 (59 Geo 3, c. 12)
[17] Inclosure of Wastes Act 1831 (1 & 2 Will 4, c. 42)
[18] In the absence of a formal system of local government, the parish was the local administrative area and a committee open to all local taxpayers, presided over both spiritual and temporal matters. They became responsible for roads maintenance, poor relief, law enforcement and taxes. Using the authority of the church to provide the chairman, they usually met in the parish vestry (originally the church vestment room) and so became known by that name. In Ealing they first met in the Cross House thought to have been to the north of the church. In 1840 a new Cross House or vestry room was built in the churchyard, before a the building now known as the vestry was built in 1879 in Ranelagh Road.
[19] Vestry Notice Book, London Metropolitan Archive (LMA) ACC/2208/E/5.
[20] The word ‘room’ is used in the sense of ‘in place of’.
[21] Vestry Minutes 1797-1831, LB Ealing Local History Collection.
[22] The vicar was Sir Herbert Oakeley and the parish officers comprised 2 churchwardens and 2 overseers the poor - see below minutes of 11 Jan 1832.
[23] In 1858 there were 91 labourers; 11 gardeners; 9 carpenters; 9 bricklayers; 5 shoemakers; 2 cow keepers; 2 widows; and 1 each of 10 miscellaneous occupations; total 139. Only the 2 widows received parish relief.
[24] Vestry Minutes 1832 - 1860 Ibid.
[25] Although this reads as if the content of a report is to be recorded, it is not. The ‘report’ is presumably the committee’s three resolutions, beginning ‘That the Committee are of the opinion.’
[26] It is possible to read this as meaning that a collective work scheme would run alongside plots let to individuals, but the phrase ‘when brought into a proper state’ suggests the latter would follow the former.
[27] Vestry Minutes 1832 - 1860, Ibid.
[28] Parish (or Overseers’) Letter Book 1832-1834, LMA, ACC/2208/E/114
[29] Herbert Oakeley was vicar of St Mary’s Ealing from 1822 to 1834. He succeeded to his Baronetcy in 1830 on the death of his older brother, Charles. He had been favoured by the previous Bishop of London, William Howley who by this time was Archbishop of Canterbury. So he was probably well placed to present the case for enclosing Ealing Dean Common to Howley’s successor as Bishop of London, Charles Blomfield.
[30] 59 Geo 3 c12: Select Vestries Act 1819. This allowed up to 20 acres to be bought or rented by a parish to employ the poor.
[31] 1 & 2 Wm 4 c42: Inclosure of Wastes Act 1831.
[32] Johnson,M. Bustling Intermeddler? The Life and Work of CJ Blomfield, 2001, page 39.
[33] Burchardt, J. The Allotment Movement in England 1793 - 1873, 2002, p169.
[34] Ibid.
30 The original deeds appear to have been lost by Pathways in an office move around 2005 and no facsimiles have been found but manuscript copies of both deeds, certified as true copies in 1883 by Rev. EW Relton (vicar from 1853 to 1886) are available.
[36] Vestry Minutes, Ibid.
[37] Vestry Minutes, Ibid.
[38] Memorial to EDC Committee from School Committee of St John's Church, 1870. LMA DRO/37/H/5/21
