SHALL WE DESTROY WIMBLEDON PARK? 187 
gin-palace at the corner of the road, the tawdry row of three- 
storied shop-buildings, and the formal rows of red-brick villas, 
all mingled with the jarring noise and discord of the “ foolish 
town.” Gloomy as this forecast may seem, its reality is only 
proved by what now exists in those neighbouring suburbs on 
behalf of the inhabitants of which no effort should be spared to 
save the park from such a mournful fate. 
Though there ought to be no need for so doing, it would be 
well to make the argument for the preservation of the park 
more complete, by anticipating an objection that may possibly 
arise, namely, that Wimbledon Common and Putney Heath are 
quite near enough to supply all present and future needs of 
recreation on the part of the inhabitants of Earlsfield, Summers- 
town, and Southfields. If such a view had always been taken, 
the whole of Primrose Hill, adjacent to Regent’s Park, would 
have long ago been covered with houses, and that perfect type 
of pastoral scenery, Parliament Hill and fields, which, as every- 
one in London knows, borders on Hampstead Heath, would 
have been lost for ever at the present moment. And, again, on 
the plea that Richmond Park was more than enough for the 
pleasure of the town that bears its name, the Lower Thames 
V r alley Branch of the Selborne Society would have never been 
at the pains they have for some time past, to protest against the 
intention of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to develop 
the adjoining Sudbrook Park into a building estate. 
The fact, too, that the neighbourhood dealt with in this 
paper has not been free from encroachment on common land 
serves to strengthen the case for saving Wimbledon Park more 
than ever. The main lines of two great railways, those of the 
South-Western and Brighton Companies, have played sad 
havoc with Wandsworth Common ; they have literally mangled 
it.* The mischief was done in days when it was all open 
country round Wandsworth and Clapham. Now it is other- 
wise, and the evil is but too apparent, yet a splendid oppor- 
tunity now opens for redressing the loss. The manner in which 
the neighbouring Barnes Common has been utterly destroyed 
by the South-Western Railway is well known to all. r 
It is possible that some readers of this article, while granting 
the force of the arguments adduced, may deprecate the proposal 
as unpractical. They may playfully remind the writer of Airs. 
Partington’s experience, and assure him that his humble broom 
is powerless to withstand the gradually rising tide of bricks and 
mortar (if such a metaphor is not too mixed ) which threatens to 
overwhelm all rural beauty around London. But, at any rate, 
it is infinitely better that a protest should be raised against the 
destroyer than that his inroads should be regarded with indiffer- 
* See Nature Notes, Nov., 1S90, p. 173. 
t This subject is fully dealt with by Mr. Robert Hunter, in an able article 
which appeared in Nature Notes, vol. i., p. 173. — [Ed. N. N.] 
