REGULATION OF COMMONS. 325 



and Wallington, and the Lords of no less than seven 

 Manors viz., Mitcham, Ravensbury, Biggin and Tam- 

 vvorth, Vauxhall, Beddington, and Wallington claimed 

 that parts of it were wastes of their Manors. 



There have never been any boundaries between the 

 various Manors, so far as the Common was concerned, 

 and it had been left, therefore, for a long period of 

 time in a most neglected and uncared-for state. Lords 

 of Manors had wrought havoc on its surface by gravel- 

 digging, and railway companies had done their best to 

 destroy it by running lines in several directions over it. 

 The Manors, in which the Common is supposed to lie, 

 are all recorded in Domesday Book. The Prior of 

 Merton, the Prior of St. Mary, Southwark, and the 

 Prior of Canterbury acquired some of these Manors in 

 very early times, and at the dissolution they were 

 granted by Henry VIII. to Sir Nicholas Carewe and 

 other persons . 



This Common has been the subject of dispute,* as 

 regards the rights of the Commoners, from the earliest 

 times to the present day. As long ago as the 24th year of 

 Henry III., a.d. 1239, an action of trespass, then known 

 as an assize of novel disseisin, was brought by the Prior 

 of Merton, Lord of the Manor of Biggin and Tarn worth, 

 against the owners of land in Beddington, because the 

 latter had driven off and impounded the Prior's cattle. 

 The jury found that the owners of lands in all the 

 parishes, or " vills," named above, had intercommoned on 

 Mitcham Common as one waste. Later, disputes con- 

 stantly arose between the Lords of the different Manors 



