Jump to content

the history of matham grove


ann bailey

Recommended Posts

i was born in 1964 and i was brought home from hospital to number 3 matham grove i was raised by my grandparents and we lived there till i was 14. when i was about 8 i started exploring the house and at the top of the stairs near the attic there was a closet we had filled it with junk but when i looked closer it had little stickers on each shelf saying 'boys white vests' and 'boys white pants' hmmm i was intrigued on further inspection i noticed that in the hallway by the front door and on the landing at the bottom of the last set of stairs there was like a hard board seperating number 1 from number 3. now i was told by the old lady who lived downstairs fom us that the two houses had been conjoined and it was a boys home run by nuns please if anyone could tell me if the story is true i've always wondered Ann Bailey was Rodriguez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked up the census returns for you - in 1891 it was a single family home. In 1901 it was a Camberwell Board of Guardians Home. There were 11 children, boys and girls, and one foster mother. In 1911 there were 24 children, boys and girls, and two foster mothers. The age range of the children were from 5 - 14.

In 1911 there was no number 1 - they were listed as 3 and 3.


Hope this helps!


Edited for clarity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matham Grove was part of the "Bailey Estate". The freehold of the land was owned by E.Bailey of Lordship Lane.


The estate comprised of:


The South side of East Dulwich Grove between Tell Grove and Lordship Lane

The East leg of Tell Grove

Matham Grove

Ashbourne Grove

Both sides of Melbourne Grove between Ashbourne Grove and Chesterfield Grove

Chestefield Grove

Bassano Street

Blackwater Street

The North side of Melbourne Grove between Blackwater Street and Lordship Lane

The West side of Lordship Lane between East Dulwich Grove and Melbourne Grove


Bailey's houses were built between 1873 and 1885 and were built to rent out to the respectable working class. By 1885 a seven room house was rented out at ?30 per year.


John K

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears to have been what was known as a 'Scattered Home', a Poor Law provision. The London Metropolitan Archives in Clerkenwell have some Camberwell Board of Guardians records, some specific to Matham Grove. If you go here, enter as a guest, and then search on Matham, you can see catalogue entries for the admission and discharge register. There appears to have been a home in Melbourne Grove too, which might have been the predecessor of the Matham Grove one. London County Council would have assumed responsibility when the Local Government Act 1929 abolished the poor law unions. The LMA also has many LCC records.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ann


I've been into both 1 and 3 Matham Grove and seen that door between the two houses. Like you, I immediately wanted to know why it was there :-) It was boarded over and plastered many years ago when the house was refurbished as two flats.

Look here for a little more information :- http://www.workhouses.org.uk/index.html?Camberwell/Camberwell.shtml

You'll need to scroll down to the 3rd picture from the bottom to see another pair of 'joined' houses in the street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh my god that pic in 1899 is my street not a lot has changed from the outside of the houses i was allowed in most of the houses as a child but i never went in 9 or 11 so i never knew there was another house like mine absolutly fascinating, thank you so much for guiding me to this website. Ann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Member  4.7k Posted Sunday at 22: Member  4.7k Posted Sunday at 22:35 Can someone please explain who "Clean Air Dulwich" are?  Can someone please explain who "one Dulwich" are?
    • FredMarsh, I sympathise with you. I suspect the coral fencing at the entrance is to prevent people legging it out of store with unpaid for goods in hand. It does feel a bit like herding cattle as you describe it. Perhaps the reduction in customers is a response to this and the lack of previously available services.  I find self check out is quicker if I do it myself and since the new self service points have been installed the screens work much better as they are as of today still newish. The old ones were "knackered" and continued to regularly fail.  I had to buy some whisky as a present for someone yesterday, the Sainsbury staff took it away, removed the security tags and returned it, so that all went simply.  Unfortunately the days of what was the original Sainsburys in Peckham and Forest Hill are long gone, as are many of the old shops I remember from the mid 70's, i.e. Kennedy's. The world continually changes and as we get older we have to keep up.  I saw something really sad in Peckham yesterday, a very, very old woman walking down Hanover Park by Primark on the corner with Rye Lane, bent almost half over, pushing her own four wheel trolley along, taking her time.  Made me  realise how lucky I am.   Yes, checking the receipt to make sure Nectar has been applied is always worth doing. Ditto Tesco Old Kent Road this week were what the label of the stack of fruit said one price and even with the Tesco card, the price at checkout was different, that resulted in photo's and it still being checked by Customer Service...... As for "Sainsburys always being horrible", I have to disagree with you on that. 
    • One Dulwich   Campaign Update | 3 May Parliament debates LTNs – please fill in the questionnaire by 6 May Parliament will debate two petitions – “Carry out an independent review into Low Traffic Neighbourhoods” and “Exempt Blue Badge drivers from Low Traffic Neighbourhoods” – at 4.30 pm on Monday 20 May in the Grand Committee Room above Westminster Hall. Please fill in this short questionnaire about your experience of the Dulwich LTNs, as your comments will help to inform the debate. The deadline for this is very soon – 10am on Monday 6 May. We have written to our MP Helen Hayes, pointing out that her constituents represent the second highest number of those who requested both petitions, and asking her to take part in the debate in order to represent the two-thirds majority of people living and working in Dulwich who asked for the Dulwich LTNs to be reconsidered. Because these petitions are directed at Parliament, not Southwark Council, we hope that Helen Hayes will speak up for her constituents on this occasion. You might want to encourage her to take part by emailing her at [email protected]. We have also reminded her that a group of Blue Badge holders have petitioned the Leader of Southwark Council to be allowed through the Dulwich Village junction because of the daily difficulties, distress and – in some cases – severe pain suffered by disabled and other vulnerable car-dependent constituents who are now forced to take long and circuitous detours in stop-start traffic along boundary roads. You can watch the debate – and, we hope, our MP representing our interests – on Parliament tv, or you can attend in person. Thank you for your support. The One Dulwich Team  SUPPORT ONE DULWICH 
    • Yeah, that’s not my point. I explained that the locale is in unpleasant and uncared for, not the businesses (which I called “valiant” so you could deduce I was not against them at all but maybe you didn’t see that.  I think they need support from the council in the shape of a sprucing up). 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...