Friends of the Forest (the Forest Recreation Ground Nottingham)
The Nottingham Green Spaces Project, supported by Nottingham and Derby Universities and the Arts and Humanities Research Council, has now ended but has left us legacies in the form of the display panels of the parks’ histories, now to be seen at relevant sites around the city. Several are on the walls of the function room in the Pavilion. We also have memories of the play performed in several of the parks, including the Forest, created by Andy Barrett to exploit the special aspects of each venue, moving from space to space within each park as the action suggested.
​
Music provided by Andy Barrett and others escorted the audience along with the actors from place to place.
We were lucky with the weather over the several days of performing. More on this subject can be seen by asking your computer for “Nottingham Green Spaces”. It is hoped that this project has raised interest and knowledge of the parks that will last for some time. It is up to us to continue to build on that interest.
How are parks going to be paid for?
This question was raised in our last issue. The problem is that parks (and libraries, and swimming pools, and museums) are expensive to run, as are many other provisions, but are not a statutory requirement and therefore are the ones to be sacrificed at times of financial stress. We are certainly in financial stress at the moment with millions cut off the city funding from central government and millions more still to go.
​
We have seen the efforts by the Parks department to raise money by organising events here and elsewhere, with great success, but the cost to the population is the loss of the parks just when they want them most.
Eddie Curry, our Head of Parks, was at Parliament for the third session of the Communities and Local Government Committee as a witness. The second session, a month before, had dealt with the importance of parks to a community, and this was dealing with possible other ways of funding and running parks.
​
It seemed that various schemes were being tried, running so far for a few years, but none, as the chairman pointed out, raised enough to do the entire work. Eddie made a good case for how Nottingham was doing, and added, when asked for comments by the chair, what we have been saying, that there is a downside in the state of the ground after the event, the enclosure of part of the park thus removing it from the other park users, and the possibility of extra intrusive noise.
​
There is pressure to make parks a statutory requirement, and this is one of the things being debated at the committee. We must wait to see their recommendations.
On the Forest, the musicians lead the action on to the next scene.
It is decided to make an entrance charge for the Arboretum for
several days each week, to preserve the better-off from the riff-raff.
But it is ruled that everybody has already paid to create these parks, and such charges are illegal.
Evangelical religious movements took the opportunity to reach
people in the parks, shown here on our historic steps. At least they
did not have amplifiers then to blast their message across the park.
More from the Inclosure Commissioners’ Minute Books.
The value of the green fields that surrounded the crowded town was in the grass. Any encroachment removed some of this grass, even by a tiny bit, and the Freemen (who had these rights) went round twice a year to check up on the state of the fields. A group of freemen made the “perambulation” checking up. Usually a payment was made by the trespasser to compensate for the loss, and this money went into the Freemen’s funds, used mainly to pay out “Burgess Parts” in cash to the elderly Freeman (or his widow) instead of the more usual piece of land.
Our last issue had an account of what happened when someone disputed the perambulation, and here are some other accounts from 1847:
John Woodhouse. (one of the Freemen’s Committee and a frequent witness on their behalf);
re. Mr. Crackle’s House on the Forest.
He knows the house. It is called “The Cottage” and is occupied by Mr. Hulse. The Freemen perambulate every year, through houses and gardens. In 1843 they threw down the fences, destroyed the hedge, cut down the trees in the garden. Mr. Crackle asked if he could close the garden again. The Freemen said yes, if he paid acknowledgement. He has paid ever since, for House, 63 yards (square yards) and Garden, 420 yards. The charge is three ha’pence a yard for a building and a farthing a yard for a garden.
Re.Michael Wheatley’s Houses, Stabling, Cow Houses, Shop, Pigsties, Line posts etc.
These are in Shaws lane and North Street in the Sand Field.
He first had money for it for them 1844 £6..8s0d. 1114 yards or thereabouts.
Thomas Kirby. (Another member of the Freemen’s committee)
was first paid in 1838, £4. There have been additions since1839, paid 1840 and up to the present time.
John Woodhouse.
re John Wadsworth’s House, Stable, lean-to, Fodder-shed, Garden, Mill.
Mr. Spencer is Mr. Wadsworth’s Tenant. Money has been paid to the Freemen, the first time 1845. They might have said things would be pulled down if not paid for. He thought he had been to Wadsworth’s office. They went to the Tenant because he was building a Bakehouse. Wadsworth didn’t want to pay but Spencer paid it himself.
The Disturbance (but it was not a riot, although there were a couple of dozen onlookers there) at Hulse’s place (about 100 yards from Wadsworth’s Mill) was in 1843.
Benjamin Spencer. Examined by John Wadsworth, a solicitor.
He says he lives in the Mill owned by John Wadsworth. He says he lived there before that, but not as his Tenant. He never paid any money on behalf of John Wadsworth. He never received any directions from Mr. Wadsworth to do so. He did pay money to Mr. Woodhouse as described. They threatened to pull down the Mill and Buildings if not paid. He had asked Mr. Wadsworth what to do and he had replied he would not pay it, but Spencer could do as he liked.
He has only been the tenant for 6 months. He has lived there for 5 or 6 years. He would rather pay than have his family disturbed. The first payment was in 1844.
​
He had seen what had happened to Hulse’s garden. He paid up before his own garden was destroyed. He was not one of that joined the riot (at Hulse’s) He stood by. There were maybe 200 people there, 100 standing looking on.
“There were about a dozen people with Pickaxes and Crowbars at Hulse’s premises”. There was violence. Axes and Saws as well, come to destroy the fences. He couldn’t swear as to who had what. He saw Freemen looking on.
John Wadsworth.
Says he had sent a letter to the Corporation in 1841. He acknowledged holding land on sufferance, he enumerated the premises and says he will pay £2..15s8d per annum.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .
The fact that the freeholders were no longer also the town corporation added complications. It was no longer obvious who ought to be in control. After a few years of the new order of an elected Town Council, it was decided to divide the acknowledgement payments between the Freemen and the Council, but even this was not very clear, even to those most involved.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
John Deverill Walker.
re. his Mill
Mr. Bissell was there in 1835 and 1836. He (Walker) took the Mill in 1839. Bissell left Michaelmas 1837. Mr. Wood took over 1837-9. He (Walker) had paid the Freemen only 2 or 3 times – maybe 1843 or 4 the first time. He paid a ground rent to the Council, which he thought was more than it was worth, and he objected to the Freemen’s demands as he thought he was not legally liable and only paid it through fear. He didn’t want his fences destroyed as had happened to others. He didn’t object to the Ground Rent. He was threatened by the Freemen. He only paid up after they had destroyed Hulse’s.
The Freeholders were not always so punitive, as evidenced here in the case of Elizabeth Knowles.
William Middleton. Freeman.
He knows the lean-to, or Dwelling-house and Sleeping Room in the Rock of Elizabeth Knowles. He has walked through several times, but not the last four or five years. They did not make any demand. He was present when a demand was made, he thought it a pity. She said she was very poor and could not pay anything and we came out again. The room is quite under the rock, and there is herbage over the whole of the Building except on the Tiles. Cattle can graze over all where she lives, except on the Tiles.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17th May 1847
A letter is received from Radford Union requesting that their Paupers be employed in levelling some part of the Forest adjoining to Radford. The Commissioners reply that all the work must be done by contract.
20th May 1847
It was stated that it was the desire of the Town Council and the Guardians (of the Poor) to procure employment for the Paupers (of Nottingham). The Commissioners said that this could only be by contract. The reply was that if times remained bad they would have to take the Contract at a lower sum than other persons. "The Commissioners consented for Paupers to be set to work in partially forming the Forest Roads”.
(It is sometimes stated that work was provided by the Town Council for unemployed men. It doesn’t quite read like that here: Other firms and labourers looking for work must have found themselves deprived of work and become paupers in their turn.
2nd June 1847
Discussed: Land for Sale near Toad Hole Hill – Mr. Jackson is to make a Correct Survey of Lands bounded on the East by Toad Hole Hill, on the West by Mansfield Road on the North by Church Cemetery (not the present one, but where the Church is) and Mr. Robinson’s Field no 80 and 192 on the Sanday plan and on the South by the proposed Public Walk to Toad Hole Hill.
29th June 1847
The Commissioners went to the Sand Field, partly staked out a Road from Parliament Street nearly opposite Sheep Lane down Shaws Lane and across the Sand Field to the Forest Road also another Road from Sherwood Street across the Sand Field to the Alfreton Road. They conferred with regard to the proposed site for an Arboretum and Recreation Grounds near the Bowling Alley; they partly staked it out, and the roads going there.
13th July 1847
Rights of Common on the Forest have been extinguished. The Right of Cattle watering at the pool between Red Lane and the Toll Bar should be reserved.
(How is it that the Arboretum is referred to as “The oldest Park in Nottingham”, when here the Forest has been marked out and rights extinguished at the time when the Arboretum site is only just being decided?)
Something that the Commissioners had to sort out was who was entitled to the Rights of Common. There were the Sand Field and the Clay Field, together known as ”Lammas Fields” because they opened on old Lammas day. Then there were the Meadows, open only to Burgesses (Freemen) when they were “broken” i.e. opened and East Croft, which opened some time after the Meadows and required a payment. The Forest and Mapperley Hill were open all year round. There was a “stint” i.e. a limit to the numbers of cattle or sheep each was allowed on the Fields and Meadows, but there was doubt about whether there was a stint for the Forest and Mapperley Hill. Whether Householders had these rights or not was contested, and if the older houses, known as “Toftsteads” had a superior claim is also uncertain.
In 1809 the Burgesses and a householder went to court to try and settle who had rights, and the result was that householders could no longer “turn in” (their cattle) on the Fields. It was still not at all clear who had rights on the rest.
Sarah Sumner. 75 years old. 31st May 1847
Her husband Thomas Sumner, now dead, put cattle on before he became a Freeman. Sarah used to go on Lammas Fields to milk the Cows. The Burgesses drove them out, about 1809. It was shortly before the Trial. We helped to find the money for the Trial. He had turned in for about 8 years before then. He lived in Plumtree Street and also in Barker Gate. He turned into the Fields as a Householder and many others did the same. There were many and no dispute until just before the trial. “New householders such as we were turned out and the Old Householders turned in. They were called Toftsteads and only Burgesses and Toftsteads continued to turn in”.