Forum Topic

I’ve never researched Chiswick House, but it’s impossible to research any part of Chiswick without understanding a bit of its history. The claim is not that it was once filled by a spring in Spring Grove, but that it is still fed from there today. I think if you went back far enough in time, before the Thames meandering created the peninsular of Chiswick the route of the Thames would of been close to where the spring also flowed. The first detailed map of Chiswick I have found from 1840’s shows the outflow above ground, there don’t appear to be any sluice gates, so presumably the lake would fill with every high tide. But there is no sign of any connection to Spring Grove above ground. Looking at the Tithe map there are two land boundaries in roughly that location, a good clue there was once something there, except one doesn’t reach Spring Grove and the other looks a bit too far north, so presumably the stream had already disappeared by then. I’ve never researched Stand on the Green, but I didn’t think it was ever part of Chiswick or Sutton Court, so Lord Burlington would never have owned the spring. I would of thought when the laundries opened around Spring Grove they would of diverted any spring on their land to their business rather than onto someone else's land. Google says Pier House Laundry opened in 1860’s, but there looks to be buildings there in the 1840’s. I knew the cascade never worked at intended but never realised they had hoped it would work with a pipe under the lake. Can you confirm if the pipe/culvert has only ever existed under the lake. A 500 meter pipe/culvert on his own land for an idea that didn’t really work seems excessive but makes sense. A 1500 meter pipe just to get to the edge of the lake, some of it across other peoples land doesn’t seem plausible to have been built in the first place or to have survived with all the houses now built above it. I think this is probably where the confusion comes from, that the pipe that does exist connects beyond the grounds to Spring Grove still today. Although I think we agree that the lake and the pipe has never been connected to the Bollo. Rivers south of the High Road, is a subject worse than religion or politics, I don’t think I’ve ever found two sources that agree.

Colin Potter ● 21h

The lake is a man made ornamental lake and not part of a river. If you look at old maps it extended further to Eastbourne Road. On those maps there are fish ponds shown at the north end of Bollo Lane next to where Acton Town station is today and also on Elmwood road, but neither connect to Chiswick House. When I was looking into the local rivers the conclusion most came to was that as many were also boundaries it’s difficult to tell if the boundary was chosen as the river was there, or were the boundaries chosen and the rivers diverted. The southern section, the outflow from the lake that’s now under Promenade Approach looks more likely to be the second. If you look at the course of the River Brent, it does look like the natural route for the Bollo should be through Chiswick House, but I think the Romans were the first to divert it. Not only would it have protected the roads they had built it would also have dried out the marshland of Chiswick to make it useable land. One of the first recorded mentions of Padenswick House was when it was sold and it was listed with a moat filled with the springs from Acton. Last time I checked they still hadn’t found the moat so it’s unknown which springs filled it, the Bollo could have been one of them. When Sir Bazalegette built his sewers he mentioned the Bollo as being a perfect natural flush for his system. He generally tried to use what was there already and chose to divert it along Bath Road, roughly where the Northern Roman road once was and roughly where the Hounslow / Ealing borough boundary is today. The best bit of evidence the natural course for the Bollo is via Chiswick House is also proof it hasn’t flowed that way for centuries. The Duke of Devonshire wrote a letter complaining that the Bollo wasn’t being maintained and need to be fixed to stop it from flowing over his land. I’ve heard before the lake is filled by a pipe from Spring Grove, but last time I checked no one has found the pipe. A few problems with that idea, would it of survived with all the construction since. One for the Chiswick House historians is there a record of it being extended when the lake was shortened? As John Hickman mentioned you can see the outflow pipe that runs under Promenade Approach starting under the wooden bridge by the A316. Kathleen Healy is probably the best person to explain when and why its used, my understanding was that it was reversed for exceptional high tides on the Thames to help prevent flooding further upstream and the lake would fill. Then at low tide it would then drain back to the Thames. My interest was the Mill Hill Brook, another river that was moved and diverted. The Northern part looks to have been moved so Turnham Green could expand, it’s the reason some of Chiswick is in Ealing Borough today. It’s shown on some old maps but disappears when it gets to the Bath road. My best guess where it went south of that is also the boundary between the Prebend of Chiswick and Chiswick. So was the boundary chosen and the brook diverted, or was the brook there creating the boundary, then straightened later to make it a better drain to the Thames?

Colin Potter ● 2d