96 WIMBLEDON COMMON. 
claiming an injunction against him from continuing 
such acts as were inconsistent with these rights. 
Negotiations having failed to bring about an amicable 
settlement, a suit was commenced on December lst, 
1866, and an application was made under the Metro- 
politan Commons Act for a scheme for regulating the 
Common, and for maintaining order upon it. Lord 
Spencer’s answer to the Bill in Chancery was not filed 
until August, 1868: a period of nearly two years. The 
delay was doubtless due to an exhaustive inquiry into 
the history of the Manor. The answer gave an 
elaborate and interesting account of this, and contended 
that Lord Spencer was practically owner of the Common, 
and could do as he liked with it, without regard to the 
few persons, whose rights he admitted. 
The Commoners then occupied some time in 
obtaining fresh evidence of the customs of the Manor and 
in identifying properties in Wimbledon and Putney, 
to which Commoners’ rights were undoubtedly attached. 
There was every indication that the suit would be 
very protracted and costly. In the first instance, the 
case of the Commoners did not seem to be very hopeful. 
Large numbers of rights of common had been bought 
up, and the remaining rights appeared at first to 
be few in number. But further investigation led to 
the discovery that in respect of a large extent of land, 
formerly part of the demesne lands of the Manor, the 
original conveyances had specially conceded rights of 
common over the waste. When this became known to 
the Defendant’s lawyers, negotiations for a compromise 
