Version at 2 November 2014 London parish boundary markers and other administrative boundary markers in London by Mike Horne FRGS FRSA Parish boundary markers are not yet extinct in the London area, but probably where they were not clear. Nevertheless the vast majority of boundaries were fewer than five per cent of their historic number survive; some of these are natural features in the landscape though trees and hedges specifically for threatened by redevelopment work or are deteriorating badly through lack of boundary identification purposes might be added. The custom of marking cer- maintenance. It seems a good time to record the survivors, and their condition, tain boundary points with trees, allegedly called Gospel Trees, is remembered by and at the same time put down a few words to describe them. the district name Gospel Oak (in Hampstead) after such a tree in Southampton Before going into detail about the markers it is first necessary to make a few Road, forming the boundary printedbetween St Pancras and Hampstead. It was appar- observations about what a ‘parish’ was, and why one would want to provide ently the practice to read from the gospels during perambulations. markers at boundaries. The divisionbe of the country into parishes was a lengthy and unsystematic Historically, England was not densely populated and nor was their any con- process beginning with the arrival of the Christian missionaries in the seventh ception of central government (at least, not beyond allegiance to the monarch centuryto and being more or less complete by the thirteenth century by which and its occasional demands for men or money to facilitate war). Government, to time most communities had access to their own church and priest. The parish the extent that such a concept was even comprehended, was carried out by was an entirely ecclesiastical area embracing the community attached to a par- communities on behalf of the communities. In the immediate post-Norman ticular church. The parish was not connected at all with matters of local period many communities were subject to a manorial lord, tying them notinto administration, and, accordingly, where the creation of new parishes was in the boundaries that were essentially land ownership boundaries dating -back well hands of the church authorities then there was no requirement to recognize into the Saxon period. In other cases, custom dictated where divisions were be- existing community boundaries at all. Parishes could arise from other causes, tween adjacent communities. Many manorial boundaries originally followed though, and a common source of creation was where a manorial lord wanted customary boundaries of long standing, which often followed rivers, roman his own church, in which case the parish would usually be coincident with his roads or major geographical features, including ancient field boundaries often manor. Furthermore as sparse communities already had well understood defined by hedges. Ridges along hills were also used. Sometimes new man-made boundaries it was often logical for parishes to adopt the same boundary, be- features such as ditches were provided to show boundary positions. Changes to cause that was the obvious course. manorial ownership (for example where manors were split) required man-made The outcome was a system of parochial areas, each attached to a single boundaries to be providedCopyright that cut across natural features and these might be church, where in many cases existing, sometimes very ancient, boundaries were wooden stakes or stones. For longevity later markers were usually of stone. adopted whilst in other cases they had boundaries that bore no relation to any- Sometimes natural boundaries were enhanced by additional man-made markers thing that had gone before. These often ignored boundaries between W:\WRITINGS\Other publications in hand\London Parishes\Spent Material\London parish boundary markers.docx Created on 29-Sep-12 Last printed 2-Nov-14 (1) Version at 2 November 2014 communities, or between hundreds or between counties in quite a few cases. At and which had responsibility for the control of these civic activities. In all but this stage it simply didn’t matter. It was necessary to understand the extents of the smallest parishes paid officials would be required and in the largest parishes parochial areas, one reason being the definition of land susceptible to tithes and there would be a large permanent staff installed in their own town halls (by the to which churches payable. late nineteenth century St Pancras vestry was ministering to the secular needs of In due course, this confusion of boundaries came to matter a lot. First, the over 100,000 people). existing systems of self-government broke down as feudalism was slowly super- Turning now to the case of London, it will be realized that beyond the seded by a money society, and secondly life got more complicated and required original city walls the metropolis expanded rapidly and by the beginning of the coordination of action, sometimes directed from an emerging national govern- nineteenth century it was heavily built up within roughly the area of what is ment. Very often, the only bodies that existed at a local level were the churches, now London’s Circle Line. By the end of the same century the built up area which had the wherewithal to canvass local opinion and identify volunteers or extended over two and a half times as far out, representing an area over six leaders, and, most importantly, to collect local taxes (the origin of the rating times the size. To deal withprinted the population influx the number of churches system). (many built to serve purely rural communities) had to be much increased, usu- The first public duties heaped upon the church authorities came with admin- ally by carving new parishes out of the traditional ones. Until the 1840s the istering a new poor law in the sixteenth century, but this was in due course introduction ofbe a new parish meant a parish for all purposes, and new vestries supplemented by responsibility for repairing highways, local watching (policing) therefore accompanied them. To tell people to go to a new church to pray was and lighting, and various other activities. In later years came paving, providing one thing,to but changing the entire local administrative paraphernalia was quite sewers and drains and in some cases a water supply. Finally the parishes were another. We therefore see a new development where parishes created after the authorized to provide gas and electricity, including running their own gas and 1850s (of which there were many) were created on a purely ecclesiastical basis electricity plants; these were discretionary powers but were often adopted. Dunotr- and the old parish boundaries were retained for civil purposes. We thus see — ing this 300-400 year period life in England somewhat changed,- and a and none too soon — the beginning of a parting of the ways between ecclesias- predominantly rural society saw a shift towards the development of large towns tical parishes (meeting purely spiritual needs) and civil parishes (dealing purely and cities (both a comparatively recent phenomenon), but the parish had to with administrative requirements). This was not a clean break. Most ‘ancient’ adapt considerably to keep up, particularly in these urbanizing areas. parishes retained both civil and ecclesiastical functions, though in many cases It will be fairly obvious that the local rector, or vicar, and the parish church- the latter was only for part of its traditional area. The arrangements were not wardens had their work cut out ministering to the spiritual needs of the without the capacity to confuse. For example St Sepulchre (near Farringdon) community and the fabric of the church, and were quite unfitted to managing was an ancient parish straddling the London and Middlesex county borders. road repairs or the generation of gas, to name but two specialist demands. Ac- Ecclesiastically, it was a single parish but for civil purposes the London part was cordingly, a parallel organization slowly emerged. The church fathers remained managed quite separately from the Middlesex part; all three manifestations of nominal heads but actualCopyright control became the purview of the vestry, a body the parish had the same name. (originally meeting in the vestry hall) varyingly representative of the community W:\WRITINGS\Other publications in hand\London Parishes\Spent Material\London parish boundary markers.docx Created on 29-Sep-12 Last printed 2-Nov-14 (2) Version at 2 November 2014 In the 1850s other tidying up exercises began. For example, owing to his- The parish system therefore carried on in its muddling and varied forms un- toric (often manorial) land holdings, several parishes had detached parts, often a til 1900 when the Metropolitan Boroughs were formed. These boroughs each long way from the parent. Chelsea, for example, had a large detached part near consisted of between one and five former civil parishes and although a few Kilburn. These detachments were inconvenient for both ecclesiastical purposes boundaries were tidied up most of the borough boundaries followed their an- (some had their own chapels) and civil purposes. During the latter part of the cient parochial predecessors. The boroughs inherited the town halls and nineteenth century some effort was made to eliminate these, usually by transfer- organizations of the vestries or district boards and in some cases carried on ring them to the neighbouring parish which had the longest common border. their activities with virtually no change. In 1855 there was an attempt to improve the management of London as a In pre-mapping days, one might suppose it was very important that on the whole when an indirectly elected Metropolitan Board of Works was established ground people knew where parish boundaries were. We have already noted that to address some London-wide issues (such as drainage) and a few other strate- in rural areas natural, or at least pre-existing, features were used to define gic matters like new roads.