Tag Archives: 1816

1879 : Beating the Bounds

From the Croydon Advertiser and East Surrey Reporter – Saturday 31 May 1879, via the British Newspaper Archive


On Ascension Day, May 22nd, and the day following, was witnessed in the parish of Mitcham the now almost obsolete practice of “Beating the bounds of the parish,” which had not taken place since 1835, although a dispute as to boundary occurred in 1847 which was settled by the now fashionable means of arbitration. The arrangements having been kept somewhat secretly, prevented the assembling of so large a concourse of people as might have been expected, the weather being on the first day all that could be desired. We understand that there bad not been a general invitation to the parishioners to attend, but it extended only to the clergy and parish officers. But before giving any further details of the day’s proceedings it may interest many of our readers to give a short account of perambulations in general, and that of Mitcham in particular.

It is stated in Shaw’s Guide to parish law, published upwards of century ago, that “The boundaries of parishes being now settled by custom care is and ought to be taken to preserve them by annual perambulations, which should be kept up at the usual time, and the boundaries of the parishes so carefully viewed and settled in them as to leave no room for any doubt or contest about them. In the times of Popery these perambulations were performed in the nature of processions, with banners, handbells, lights, staying at crosses, &c., and therefore, though such processions were forbidden by the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, yet by the same injunctions, the useful and innocent parts of perambulations were and are still retained.”

The earliest account that we can find of a perambulation of the parish of Mitcham is obtained from the oldest volume of Churchwardens’ accounts, which covers a period from 1653 to 1680, for in the accounts for the year 1662, the following item occurs: —“ Pd for our dinner and the boyes att our perambulatinge 7s. 2d.” Whether the boys underwent the bumping and whipping generally understood to take place upon those occasions, to indelibly impress the doubtful and difficult parts of the boundary in the juvenile mind, is not here stated, but in the year 1663 is this entry, “Expended on those who went perambulatinge in the Rogation weeke for victualls and drinke the sum of £1 0s. 4d.” and again under date 1670, “ Expended at the perambulacon on those that went ye bounds of ye Pish, £3 2s. 2d.” In the year 1673 the the description of the fare provided upon these occasions is more fully expressed thus for meat, drinke, and cheese, for those that went the perambulation.” No further mention is found of the matter until 1678, when “Expended at the perambulacon on Holy Thursday £3 0s. 0d. for horse hyre that day, 1s.” These items distinctly prove that perambulations of the parish were much more frequent in the 17th than 19th century. Passing over a few years we find that these gatherings did not always pass off quietly as could be wished, as is shown by the following extract from the minutes of a vestry held 20th June, 1731 :- “It is the opinion or the parishioners now in vestry assembled that the churchwardens, against whom actions are brought by William Farrer, Esq., Henry Downs, clerk, Thomas Green and Osmond King, For going in their perambulations on Ascension Day last thro’ a place called the new grounds formerly taken out of Mitcham Heath, ought to bee indemnified by the parish from all costs and charges that shall arise concerning the same.” The foregoing is followed by resolution passed at a vestry held on Sunday, 27th of same month, that “It is the oppinion of the parishioners that Mr. Peter’s be employed to make a case concerning the perambulatious, &c.” The bounds were also ordered to be walked in 1771 and 1772. With the following two entries from the churchwardens’ accounts we shall close our notice of the ancient perambulations of the parish:- “3 May, 1733, Paid for the dinner, wine, bread, beer, cheese, &c., when Mr. Hatsell and the churchwardens, with a great number of the other inhabitants of Mitcham, went the whole perambulation of the parish of Mitcham, £6 19s. 5d.” The Mr. Hatsell here mentioned was the Rev. William Hatsell, eldest son of Sir Henry Hatsell, Baron of the Exchequer. He was instituted vicar of Mitcham 13th July, 1724, and resigned 13th January, 1733-4. “23 May, 1724, To the Wid Boddison was due to her late husband for drink at the perambulation 3 May, 1733, and left unpaid, 10s. 6d. Paid for the dinner, wine, bread, beer, cheese, &c., when the churchwardens, and great number of the parishioners of Mitcham went again the perambulation on the south side of the parish, taking in all Mitcham Common as usual, together with the 80 acres called new grounds, antiently taken out of Mitcham Heath, £6 10s. 0d.”

The place of rendezvous selected on Thursday was the Goat Inn, situated about half-a-mile from Mitcham Junction, and punctually at eight a.m. the perambulation was commenced. Amongst the company present were the following:- Rev. D. F. Wilson, M. A., vicar, Rev. H. G. Dod, curate, Mr. Churchwarden Nobes, who bore his wand of office, the three overseers, viz., Messrs. W. R. Harwood (who carried a staff inscribed Mitcham Parish,” apparently a relict of long defunct bumbledom), S. Love, and J. Lewis. A few other parishioners and friends joined later on.

The arrangements for the day were principally under the direction of Messrs. E. and R. M. Chart, the latter of whom carried a ribbon map of the boundaries, upwards of 25 feet in length. The proverbial “boys,” six in number, especially told off for the duty, beat the various boundary posts and streams of water, &c., with willow wands. The “State” was represented by two policemen, who apparently enjoyed this somewhat novel form of duty.

Starting from the Goat Inn the party followed the river, leaving McRae’s tannery on the left, a man provided with waterman’s boots defining the boundary down the stream, but it was found advisable to take a punt where the water was particularly deep and muddy. Searl’s and Ashby’s mills were passed in due course, and the various boundary posts having been beaten by the boys after the Vicar had pronounced, whilst the perambulators stood bare-headed, “ Cursed be that removeth his neighbour’s land mark.” Entering the grounds of the late Mr. G. P. Bidder, the stream was followed to Rutter’s snuff mills, then through the grounds of Morden-hall, and past Phipp’s-bridge to Merton Abbey Station. Merton bridge was reached at 12.15 p.m., where a stick was floated under, the waterman being in mid stream ready to receive it as it came out on the other side.

The company then adjourned to the Six Bells for lunch, which was admirably served by Host Giles. The chair was taken by Rev. H. G. Dodd, the Rev. D. F. Wilson having left the party, but rejoined it later on in company with Rev. F. S. Legg, vicar of Christ Church, Singlegate, Mr. Churchwarden Nobes taking the vice chair. After all had done justice to the collation.

The Chairman rose and in a short but pointed speech proposed, “The Queen,” which the company heartily responded to by singing the National Anthem. The Vice-Chairman, in rising, said he had much pleasure in being present on that occasion. It was the first time he had walked the bounds of Mitcham, although he had done so in another parish. He spoke of perambulations being an ancient custom and alluded to Lord Nelson having resided at Merton, upon the verge of which parish the company were then assembled. After complimenting the overseers and Mr. Chart upon their excellent arrangements, he concluded by calling for three cheers for those gentlemen.

Mr. W. R. Harwood, in an appropriate speech, returned thanks for the overseers, and Mr. Chart, whom said they were all indebted.

The perambulations were again commenced, through the garden of the Six Bells, over part of what was once the Wandsworth and Croydon tramway, the boundary here being somewhat intricate, to the back of Child’s flour mill, and Byegrove-mead, where the new sewage works are in course of and up to the wall of Garrett Cemetery. The railway crossed in several places, the axe being used on the various boundary posts to show that none had been passed over. Some little time was spent in defining a small detached part of the parish, which being at last satisfactorily settled, the party made towards Tooting Junction, some of them going through a house that had been built over the parish boundary. Tooting Junction was reached at 4.30 p.m. and after crossing the garden of the house supposed to have been the residence of Daniel de Foe, the company separated, having had a somewhat tiring but agreeable day.

The weather on Friday morning looked very threatening, and heavy showers were experienced during the day, but nevertheless at a few minutes after 8 a.m. the Rev. H. G. Dodd, the overseers, and others arrived Tooting Junction, and immediately the perambulation was recommenced under the guidance, as before, of Messrs. E. and R. M. Chart. Following the course of the Graveney, a tributary of the Wandle, to Streatham-lane, where noted the bridge over the stream, called Roe Bridge,” which connects the parishes of Mitcham and Streatham, has a stone let the north side, bearing the Merchant Taylor’s arms, and inscribed, “This bridge was built at the cost of the Worshipful Company of Merchant Taylors, 1652.” Still following the river to the railway, which was crossed near Streatham Rifle Butts, the party proceeded to Lonesome, passing over the race course and leaving the stand the left. Here several posts put up by Croydon parish were duly marked with a cross. Passing through the wood to the extreme north east corner of Mitcham Common, which was reached at ll a.m., and at that point, the rain having cleared up for a short time, an enjoyable al fresco lunch supplied by Mr. Marchant, of the Horse and Groom, was partaken of. The common was then skirted to Beddington station, and after going down Beddington-lane for a short distance the fields were entered on the right, and a walk straight across country passing over the railway en route brought the company out of the plantation near Beddington Corner. Mr. Chart informed us that the enclosure of this piece of ground, about 80 acres in extent, was the cause of considerable litigation which was finally settled about 1816 by the Court of King’s Bench. The vicar here joined the party, and skirting the plantation, reached the post opposite the Goat Inn at 1 p.m., and against it “the boys” received the orthodox bumping, although of a mild description, which brought the perambulation to close.

We cannot conclude without commenting upon the orderly manner in which the proceedings were conducted throughout, and which reflected great credit upon all concerned.

The overseers expressed their determination place iron boundary posts at various points decided upon during the perambulation.

1836 Will of Samuel Philip Killick

Physic gardener Samuel Philip Killick, born 1776, died 22nd August, 1810.

His will was made out in 1809. He left three children: Samuel Philip aged 6, ? aged 4 and ? aged 1.

He made his wife’s father, Richard Arthur, executor, and her executrix, of his will. She received all contents of their house and his money. Her and her father jointly received the business and its profits, with the desire that these be used to maintain her and the children.

However there were debts to pay, and his wife borrowed from friends to pay these debts. She remarried in 1816 to William Newman.

When the youngest child reached 21, the children filed a lawsuit against their mother and her husband, for the profits of the business. The case of Killick v Newman is described below.

From Minutes of Cases Argued and Determined in the High Court of Chancery
By Ross Donnelly
Pages 44 to 46

Available from Google as a pdf

                March 19, 1836. 

       Killick v. Newman. 

Will, Construction of-—Profits of Trade. 

This was a bill filed in 1834 by the children of Samuel Philip Killick, late of Mitcham, Surrey, (after they had attained the age of twenty-one,) against his widow and her second husband. The object of the suit was to have the will established, and to have an account of the profits of trade. The will, which bore date the 6th of November, 1809, was to the following effect:

First, the testator willed and directed, that all his just debts, funeral and testamentary charges, should be paid; and he appointed his father in law, Richard Arthur, and his wife, Bridget Killick, to be executor and executrix of his will.

He gave and bequeathed unto the said Richard Arthur, the sum of £10. He gave and bequeathed unto his said wife all his household furniture, plate, linen, china, and every other article in the house, for her own separate use; and also all bonds, bills, monies, and securities, and all his stock, profits in trade, implements and utensils in trade, together with all leaseholds and personal effects whatsoever and wheresoever. He gave and bequeathed unto his executor and executrix, or the survivor of them, towards the bringing up his children, and placing out for their advantage any monies that might or could be spared out of trade, for the benefit of his children, and the survivors of them, till the youngest child arrived at the age of twenty-one years, and then it was his will, and he directed, that what property might, at that time, remain in the hands of his said executor and executrix, or the survivor of them, if any property be by them laid out in government securities, that the whole of such securities, and all other property arising from the profits of his trade or otherwise, be equally divided between his surviving children and his said wife.

The testator (who was a physic gardener,) died the 22nd August, 1810, and left three children, of the respective ages of six, four, and one.

Mrs. Killick, in October, 1816, married to the defendant Newman.

The children were maintained by Mrs. Newman till her second marriage, and afterwards by herself and husband.

It appeared that the testator, before his death, had incurred heavy expenses, on account of his long illness, and on account of a law suit; and, on his death, did not leave sufficient to pay the whole of his debts, or to carry on his business.

Mrs. Newman, after the testator’s death, paid off his debts so far as the assets went, and, with the assistance of her friends, paid off the remainder, and was enabled to carry on the business of her late husband, out of which she supported herself and children. She continued, part of the time, to cultivate the land occupied by her husband, as well as employed the same workmen: she also took other lands.

The question was, what interest the wife and children respectively took in the business.

It was contended, that Mr. and Mrs. Newman carried on the trade as trustees for herself and children.

On the other hand, it was contended, that every thing was given to the wife, except what might be spared out of the trade; and that even supposing that not to be the construction of the will, yet, as she had borrowed money for the purpose of paying the testator’s debts, and also for carrying on the business, which otherwise must have been discontinued, she had obtained a right, as a purchaser, to the trade, exclusively of the children, and that, at law, the widow might have pleaded plene administravit. Chaltner v. Bradley.

In answer to which, it was contended, that Mr. and Mrs. Newman could not have become purchasers of the trade, which was trust property.

The Master Of The Rolls said, the difficulty occurred in the wording of the will. It appeared that the testator had had great confidence in his wife, and he gave her the whole management of the business. It was contended, that that business would have been at an end, had not the wife borrowed money for the purpose of carrying on the trade.

His Lordship, however, said,-that the good-will must be considered as property; and in construing the will, the clauses must be read thus :—I give and bequeath unto my said wife, all my household furniture, &c. for her own separate use. This clause must be read distinct from the following clause in the will, which his Lordship said must be considered as one bequest, which would make the will consistent. The bonds, bills, monies, &c. given to his executor and executrix, were to be employed in carrying on the trade, and the wife and children were to be maintained out of it; and the testator relied on his wife to do this. The property which was maintaining the children during their minorities, could be considered as what the testator meant by the monies that might or could be spared out of trade; and though the testator did not leave sufficient to pay his debts, and not enough to enable a person to carry on the trade, still he left her the good-will, and with that she prevailed on the creditors to be indulgent, and obtained money from her friends. She employed the same land and the same workmen as the testator; and, in fact, carried on the same business, for the benefit of herself and children, till the youngest child attained the age of twenty-one years; and the income of the property was thus properly employed. At that period the testator had directed how the property should go. Here his Lordship read the words of the will, and said, under those words, what property remained at that period, would be the property of the wife and children. The question was, what could be the best mode of inquiry how that could be done?

His Lordship afterwards said, that it must be considered that all the profits were absorbed for the maintenance of the wife and children, till the youngest attained twenty-one; and that there must be an inquiry as to what was the state of the trade at the time of the testator’s death, and at the time the youngest child attained twenty-one; and in taking the account, the lands which the wife afterwards took were not to be considered as her capital. And to inquire what capital the widow had brought in, for which she was to have credit. And the children were to have credit for whatever surplus the widow had invested in the trade.

Counsel.—Mr. Boteler, Mr. Treslove, Mr. Roupell, and
Mr. Teed.

Cases cited.—Chalmer’v. Bradley, 1 Jac. & Walker, 51—64;
Wynn v. Hawkins, 1 Brown, 179.

18091106 Samuel Philip Killick Will