Newspaper Stories 1880-1889 - Hartley-Kent: The Website for Hartley

Go to content

Newspaper Stories 1880-1889

27 March 1880 - Bad debts at Longfield Tip
South London Press
This report is interesting chiefly for details of the sheer volume of manure and ashes sent from Newington to Longfield.

Newington Vestry - The Depot and Bad Debts
A discussion ensued with reference to a tatement which had gone abroad that the depot committee had incurred bad debts.

Mr Whitford said he was pleased to state that the loss sustained was only 1¼% of the total sales.

Mr Hart, as chairman of the Depot Committee, was much gratified at the bad debts being so small.  He had received a letter from the clerk containing all the details, and he should be happy to let Mr Side see if if he wished.  He contended that the establishment of the depot was one of the best things which had happened for the parish, inasmuch as it had been the means of saving Newington an immense amount of money in the course of hte year.

The following letter from the clerk (Mr L J Dunham) was then read.

Dear Sir - Some doubts having arisen upon the question of bad debts made upon the sal eof refuse from the depot.  I have gone into the matter, and find that since the opening of the depot on the 28th July 1873, the committee have sent away 201,340 tons of ashes and mixture, and this quanitity has been sold at £29,585 5s 1d.  Of this sum only £2,806 3s 1d was due at Christmas, since which date i have received £1,403 18s 7d, leaving only a balance therefore of £1,402 4s 6d due on all consignments made to 31st December 1879.  Since the opening of the sidings, the sum of £214 2s 11d has been allowed as rebate off accounts, and from the balance of £1,402 4s 6d now owing the vestry only £120 14s 6d can be put down as bad or doubtful, aso that by taking the two items of £214 2s 11d and £120 14s 6d, only £334 17s 5d can be deducted from the sum of £29,585 5s 1d as the amount lost which is less than 1½% of the total sales.

7 August 1880 - Sale of wood at Hartley Manor
Dartford Chronicle

Mr Wm Hodsoll is instructed by Col Evelyn to sell by auction at the Railway Tavern, Fawkham Station, on Friday August 18th 1880 at 2 for 3pm.  In convenient lots, 90 capital oak timber trees and 8 oak tellers, all recently felled and lying in Hartley Wood, close to a good road, also 18¾ stacks of oak cordwood, 1,500 oak top fagots and 1,124 coppice bavins.  Mr Wilson, the bailiff of Hartley Court, will show the lots, of whom catalogues may be had; also at the place of sale, and of the auctioneer, Farningham, Kent.

23 October 1880 - Support for the Farmers' Dinner
South London Press
The paper appears to usually support the ruling group on Newington Vestry, and this light hearted article supports the dinners attended by councillors and the customers of the Longfield Depot.  It does not paint a pretty picture of the Walworth depot though!

The Newington Dinner
The Depot Committee of Newington has had its annual junketing.  The diners, from all that has transpired, appear to have been perfectly satisfied, and the non-diners perfectly miserable.  The little bill has been presented, disputed and no doubt paid; and so, for at least 12 months, we have probably heard the last of this new phase of parochial activity.  It may not be uninteresting, however, now the opportunity is afforded us, if we call the reader's attention to this new departure in matters parochial.  Not that a dinner is a new parochial departure - far from it!  It is notorious htt parochial accounts can no more be audited without wine than a pauper buried without beer.  A Survey ommittee would be altogether unable to decide how many lamps shoudl be put up in a given street without the proverbial stimulant of a 'parochial drop'; and the registration of voters would be but imperfectly carried out without the customary winding up.  All this is known to the world, and written, perhaps in letters of gold, in every parochal record.  But to Newington belongs the honour of having discovered a new and irresistible claim to distinction; for if it has not actually invented a new joint, it has furnished vestrydom with another opportunity for dining.  This achievement, however laudable, is not likely to remain particularly Newingtonian, and so before long we shall see Dust Depots established in every parish.  They may possibly not be required, and may perhaps be worked at a loss; but these are small matters.  In future every parish which hungers after feasting - and what metropolitan parish does not? - will look to the Depot for a dinner as much as Charles Lamb's Chinaman did to his house for the delectation of roast pig!  And if one dust heap has been found so successful, we shall doubtless soon hear convincing arguments in favour of two, if not more, each managed by a separate committee, as in Camberwell, where Plant Committees abound in a most extraordinary manner.

But confining ourselves to Newington for the moment, it appears that about 5 years ago it occurred to certain members of the Vestry that it would not be unadvisable, on sanitary and economic, and perhaps on other grounds, to establish a dust mart in the parish, and in due course the Depot sprang into life.  To the traveller on the London, Chatham and Dover, this monster muck-heap has anything but a pleasant appearance, and the casual observer is forced to the conclusion that the whole rag and bottle trade of the metropolis has made Newington its abiding home.  But whilst the wretched side of the picture is thus thrust upon us, its pleasant pecularity is entirely lost to view.  We marvel at the zeal with which the local Governors of Newington run after dirt and unsavouriness without so much as suspecting the reward which is in store once a year for such devotion.  The recent dinner at the Bridge House explains it all.  There is in Newington a parochial heaven this side the grave, where services freely and generously given are as generously rewarded; and we are rather inclined to rejoice that such is the case.  It is confessed on all hands that the establishment of the Walworth Depot has been beneficial in many ways; and no-one can dispute the fact that the members who manage it on behalf of the ratepayers have many unpleasant duties to perform.  It seems, therefore, a little ungracious that such exceptionally disagreeable parochial work should not have one streak of light - one moment of pleasure.  It is perhaps possible to conceive the existence of a being who would find his highest reward in the work itself, though such ideal devotion is confessedly scarse in parochial matters.

But the dinner about which so much has been said was given, we take it, not to vestrymen for services rendered, but to farmers and others for favours received and to come. Douglas Jerrold once remarked that if London were dstroyed by an earthquake tomorrow, a place would be cleared among the ruins in which the citizens would dine together to celebrate the event.  Now, the vestrymen and farmers have something of a tangible character to rejoice over - the only appearance of ruins being those of a well-served dinner.  It may be that the farmers who purchase the 'Newington mixture' make it a condition in the bond not to settle their little accounts except over the dinner table; but let the case be as it may, it cannot be doubted that a little rational festivity makes the wheels of business travel smoothly over the ground.  The farmers might perhaps be equally induced to purchase if the article were sold at a reduced cost, but there is a great staying power in a dinner, and Newington, whien it has got some good and substantial customers, has an evident desire to retain them.  The means devised for carrying out such a laudable desire may not be free from objection, but so far hey have been as succesful in effect as they are parochial in character.  At all events, compared with other festive gatherings in neighbouring parishes, it cannot be said that the Newington revellers have been extravagant, since the dinner cost £20 less than the estimate sanctioned by the Vestry some months previously!

6 November 1880 - Satisfied Customer of Longfield Depot
South London Chronicle
Kent House station on the line from Bromley to London commemorates the former farm.

Newingon Vestry - The Newington 'Mixture'
A number of mangolds, weighing from 18 lbs to 25 lbs each; swedes 16 lbs and cabbages 8 lbs, grown on land manure, by what is known as the 'Newington Mixture' of ashes and refuse, were displayed on the table in the middle of the Vestry Hall.  The Depot Committee reported receipt of the following letter from Mr J Langland of Kent House Farm, Penge SE - "I wish to send you 2 or 3 yellow mangolds, grown on land that has had no other manure than your mixture for some years.  Should you require mixture (fodder) soon, I would put them in a truck.  They are beauties, and will, I believe, weigh over 20lbs each.  I have a splendid crop, both of them and swedes."....

5 February 1881 - Acquitted of criminal damage
Gravesend Journal

An unfounded charge
Albert Day, a boy, was summoned on a charge of doing damage to a sack, the property of Colonel Evelyn, to the extent of 2 shillings at Hartley, on the 10th instant.  Mr Gibson prosecuted.  On the day named a carter in the employ of Colonel Evelyn was engaged in taking a number of sacks of oats to a customer, and on the way he met defendant, whose father had recently been dismissed from the same employ.  The boy walked behind the cart for some little distance, and then retraced his steps.  On arriving at his destination Bennett found a large hole in one of the sacks and that a quanitity of oats had been lost on the road.  He gave information to the police, and defendant was summoned on suspicion.  The Bench dismissed the case without asking for the defence, and blamed the police for their conduct in the matter.

9 April 1881 - Stealing at Ash and Hartley
Gravesend Journal

Ash - Stealing Clothing
Charles William Chown, 19, labourer, and George Lawrence, 18, labourer, were indicted for having, on the 22nd November, stolen two coats, value 15 shilllings, the property of Thomas Perrin.  They were also further indicted for having stolen 5 tame rabbits, value 5s 6d, the property of George Palmer Evelyn, at Hartley on the 22nd November.  Mr Waring prosecuted.  Prisoners pleaded guilty, and, having been previoulsy convicted, they were each sentenced to 6 months' hard labour.

22 August 1881 - Missing Person
Police Gazette
There is no-one called Thomas Antrie living at Hartley in 1881, so I think this may be a misspelling of Thomas Outred who was aged 44.

Missing from his home in Hartley, Kent since 5th instant - THOMAS ANTRIE, 40 years of age, 5 feet 6 or 7 inches high, fair complexion, light brown hair and whiskers, tip of one ear burnt off, and tip of one thumb has been cut off; dressed in new slop, cord ves, cord or fustian trousers, and lace up boots.  It is feared some ill has befallen him, last seen at Borough Green, and took a ticket for Swanley Junction.  Information to Mr Supt Webster, Kent Constabulary, Dartford - Bow Street, August 19

3 September 1881 - Harvester at Longfield
Gravesend Reporter

Accident at the West Street Station - On Wednesday a man named Charles Lowe, of Aveley, Essex, who had been havesting at Longfield, was about to return home across the ferry, but as he was entering West Street Station, his foot slipped and he fell down, fracturing his left leg.  He was removed to the infirmary, where he is now progressing favourably.

31 October 1881 - Sale at Hartley Manor
South Eastern Gazette
It appears only woodland at Hartley Manor was being sold, not the land itself.

Fawkham Manor, near Fawkham station on the London, Chatham and Dover Railway
Mr Wm Hodsoll is instructed by H B Hohler esq to sell by auction at the Rising Sun Inn, Fawkham on Wednesday, November 2nd, 1881 at 2 for 3pm.

About 22½ acres of valuable Underwood, in various woods and shaws on the above estate.

Also 16½ acres at Hartley Manor, near Fawkham Station, the property of Colonel Evelyn.

Mr Sullivan the bailiff at Fawkham Manor, will show the lots there, and Packman, the woodreve, those at Hartley Manor, of both of whom catalogues may be had, also at the point of sale, and of the auctioneer, Farningham, Kent.

28 January 1882 - Building Works at Longfield Tip
South London Press

Newington Vestry - The Depot
A report was received from the Depot Committee, stating that a length of 383 feet of concrete wall had been erected at Longfield Depot under the resolution of 29 June 1881, and that the siding had been laid in to the length of wall completed, and they recommended - "That a concrete stop block be built at end of the siding by the entrance to the depot, with a return wall of 195 feet in length, to the points fro the back shunt siding, at an estimated cost of £51 5s; that hte main wall to keep up the embankment be extended ot the boundary of the depot, a length of 300 feet, at an estimated cost of £710 12s 6d; and that the estimates for the year ending Lady Day 1883, for works under the control of the committee, amounting to £11,307 5s be adopted".

Mr Hart, in moving the adoption fo the report, expressed regreat that the financial results were different to what they had been previously.  As compared with last year, they had sustained a loss of £1,369 on the depot.  That was very serious, as it meant a penny rate.  They wwere anxious to make the Longfield Depot as complete as possible, so that in case of any accident they might have a place to deposit the refuse etc. He did not anticipate anything of the kind, because he believed the depot would continue to be a success.  It had been a success throught the piece, and would be a success in the future.  Even if this balance remained against them, it would be considered cheap for he cleansing of the parish.

Mr Scowcroft seconded.

Mr Whitford said they ahd sustained a loss of £1,270 by the withdrawal of St George's Vestry; but he expected to find a corresponding reduction in the working expenses of the depot.  It was a matter of great concern to the parish that they shoudl not be called upon to pay a larger amount towards the maintenance of the depot, and considering the large amount they would have to pay towards the permanent works of the country depot, it was most important that the committee should try and reduce the present expenditure.  He knew the great difficulties against which they had had to contend, but the loss sustained this year was a very serious matter.

Mr Snell said the committee had foreseen this difficulty.  They knew that when St George's withdrew, they would have a corresponding reduction in the receipts.  As St George's had gone, they must pay for it.  But he hoped the time was not far distant when other parishes would come in.

Mr Side said that as there had not been so great a demand upon the exertions of the working staff at the depot, there ought to have been a corresponding reduction in the wages and expenditure.

Mr Ivison considered that this loss was only a temporary one.  If the depot was worked with the same energy it had been worked hitherto - and he gave the principal credit for this energy to Mr Dunham, the clerk - better prices would be obtained in the future.  He considered the loss of St George's a very good one, as they had got rid of a very great nuisance.

Mr Chester said the loss they had sustained was quite comprehensible  If they withdrew from their business that which enabled them to pay a profit, they lost to the extent of that profit.

The resolution was carried, and the vestry adjourned.

22 June 1882 - Elvy Cooper sued
Commercial Gazette
The plaintiff, Philip Hyman, might be a watchmaker who lived at Chatham.

Benjamin Berry, 12 Scott Street, Maidstone, papermaker, judgement in favour of Philip Hyman for £9.15.0 etc filed 17 June.
Elvy Cooper, Hartley, blacksmith, judgement in favour of Philip Hyman for £20 etc filed 17 June.

16 September 1882 - Theft at Longfield Railway Siding
Thanet Advertiser

Robbery by a Railway Guard
At the Rochester County Magistrate's Office on Friday, J Hulkes esq presiding on the bench, an under goods guard on the LC and D Railway, named Stephen Holden, was charged on remand with stealing 1lb 5oz of tea, value 1s 9d, the property of the company, on the 14th instant. Prisoner was under guard of a goods train which left London at 2am and by which 3 chests of tea were consigned to a Mr Lynds, a grocer at Longfield, near Fawkham.  At Longfield Siding prisoner put the chests out of his brake apparently intact.  When the train reached Kearnsey Abbey station, however, prisoner's brake was casually inspected by the company's police inspector, Mr Eldridge, who found in it a calico bag contaiig about a pound and a half of tea.  Prisoner said he had bought it, but he declined to say where and was given into custody.  Inquireis were then made, which resulted in the discovery that one of Mr Lynd's chests had been forced open and about a pound and a half of tea taken from it.  The tea in the calico bag corresponded both in quality and quantity with that which had been extracted.  Prisoner pleaded guilty, but said the chest fell and burst, and the tea fell out in the brake. The magistrates inflicted the full term of 3 calendar months' hard labour, Mr Hulkes remarking that it was such men as prisoner who brought discredit upon railway companies.

2 October 1882 - Sale of North Ash Farm
Daily News

Kent - An eligbile Freehold landed investment in one of hte most beautiful parts of the country, in the parishes of Ash and Hartley, 2½ miles from Fawkham Station on the London, Chatham and Dover Railway (one hour from London), 3 miles from Farningham, 4 from Wrotham, 6 miles from Gravesend, 5 miles from Cobham Hall, 8 from Sevenoaks and 24 miles from London.

Messrs Tootell and Sons are directed to offer for sale by auction at the Mart, Tokenhouse Yard, London, EC on Tuesday Oct 17th at 2 precisely in one lot, the NORTH ASH ESTATE, comprising 430a 1r 7p of good, sound, high level and productive land, with ????? , undulating banks, interspersed with belts of thriving woodland, affording sufficient cover for a good load of game.  A comfortable farm residence stands in the centre of the property, and excellent farm buildings in a great part recently erected, are placed at suitable positions.  Good roads communicate with the homesteads, the cottages and gardens.  About 48 acres are meadow, 54 wood, 316 arable, 6 hops, 4 acres homsteads, gardens and cottages.  The whole is in hand and possession will be given on completion of he purchase....

7 October 1882 - Potatoes Grown at Longfield Tip
South London Press
Not all councillors on Newington Vestry supported the Longfield scheme and were quick to notice any irregularities.  Sending free sacks of potatoes to councillors certainly did not look good.  Only one councillor (Robert Henry Side) refused to accept the gift.

Newington Vestry - Potatoes Gratis!
Mr Medland wished to know if sacks of potatoes had been delivered gratis to members of the Depot Committee; and if that was the case, by whose authority.

Mr Dunham (the clerk) said it was quite true that potatoes had been grown on the surplus land at Longfield not required for immediate use, and that by his direction a sack had been sent to nearly every member of the Depot Committee.  After sending a sack to those members who had not yet received any, he should have sufficient left, the sale of which would realise a sum in excess of the amount required to pay for the seed, planting, digging, and distribution, so that no part of the cost would be charged to the ratepayers.  It was only right, however, the Vestry should know that before planting the ground, he offered the land to persons in the neighboourhood for cultivation, but they declined to take it except under an agreement for 3 years, with a 12 months' notice to determine the tenancy, the highest rent offered being 30 shillings.  Under these circumstances ____

Mr Medland (interrupting): I simply wanted to know whether __ (cries of 'Chair, chair') __ whether it was true or not (renewed cries of 'chair, chair')  I did not want a long statement from the clerk.

Mr Robinson: I rise to a point of order (Cries of 'chair, chair').

Mr Tilling: I contend that Mr Robinson has the right to rise to a point of order (cries of 'chair, chair').

The Chairman: As soon as Mr Dunham has completed his answer I will hear you.

The clerk (continuing) said that under the circumstances to which he had referred, it was not considered desirable to part with possession of any of hte land until the requirements o the vestry were ascertained, and the only possible loss, therefore, to the vestry, was the rental of 30 shillings, which he should be only too happy to pay if the vestry should so wish.


Mr Robinson complained that very little was ever heard of the work of this committee.  They seemed to be always working in the dark.

Mr Side asserted that they went about the country looking after depots. He also hinted that they were spending money without the sanction of the Vestry (interruption).

Mr Ivison rose to order.  Mr Side was not discussing the committee's report (hear, hear).

Mr Side said he was discussing the actions of the committee.  Probably Mr Ivison had had a sack of potatoes (laughter).  It was a great disgrace to accept such a present when he knew they belonged to the parish (Laughter).

Mr Scowcroft said Mr Side was a member of the Depot Committee, and also of the sub-committee and therefore ought to be aware of what was going on.  (hear, hear).

Mr Robinson: He refused the sack of potatoes, and was the only one that did.


Mr Hart said he utterly denied the statement that the committee went into the country looking after depots.  If Mr Side had not a sack of potatoes to enjoy, he enjoyed himself very well at the depot tea the other day (laughter).  Those who lived in glass houses should not throw stones.

The report was adopted.

16 December 1882 - Works at Longfield Tip
South London Press

The Depot at Longfield
Mr Hart brought forward a report of the Depot Committee, explaining the works carried out at the above depot.  The amounts sanctioned by the vestry to be expended in these works were as follows: By resolution of 5 May 1880, £750; by resolution of 26 January 1881, £210; by resolution of 25 January 1882, £986 17s 6d.  Total £1,946 17s 6d.  The estimate for alterations had been exceeded by £369 2s 11d.  The report, which was a very lengthy one, also sttd that the object to be gained by the extensive works carried out at the depot was primarily to keep the yard in town clear of accumulation, and also to form a storage for mixture, ashes and breeze, to secure a fit and proper market for the same.  For instance, in the years 1880 and 1881, the committee were obliged to sell 4,208 tons of ashes at a shoot rate - i.e. at the cost of carriage, and in addition 5,000 tons at 3s 1d per ton, or 1s 5d per ton less than the ordinary rate.  If the vestry ahd been in a position to have stored the ashes ad breeze at that time, as they now could at Longfield, instead of forcing it on the market when the brick trade was dull, a saving to the rates would have been effected in that year alone of about £650. Having regard to the benefits that ha already arisen from te opening up of a depot at Longfield, and to the future working of such a place, the committee felt satisfied that the amount expended would proved to be a very good investment of the ratepayers' money, and with a view therefore of enabling the workds being proceeded with in the spring, they recommended that a sufficient quantity of clay (about 400 yards) be burnt at Longfield, for mixing with broken hardcore, with the view of enabling the commitee to proceed in the spring with the concrete work still remaining to be done at this depot, and that the committee be empowered to make up the embankment behind the wall.

Mr Hart, in moving the adoption, said the money had been well spent, although they had exceeded the original estimate by £369.  They wanted the depot at Longfield to be in such a condition that they could carry on a large business there.

Mr High seconded.

Mr Side said this £369 had been spent without the consent of the vestry. In the course of his remarks he was several times called to order by the chairman, who told the speaker that if he came to a meeting where public business was transacted he must conform to the rules of debate.

Mr Chandler said there was no doubt that a magnificent work had been carried out by their clerk, but he should like to know by whose advice the committee expended this money.

Mr Marsland said the whole question had been previously thrashed out.  The work had always been done by the committee, with the assistance of the clerk.

Mr Hart, in reply, said the work spoke for itself.  Mr Side had been the cause of thousands of pounds being spent for the action taken by him in regard to the depot.

The recommendations were carried.

19 January 1883 - Servant wants place
The Times
Bit of mystery.  No house of this name is known, and no suitable "EG" in the 1881 census for Hartley.  EG advertised again in the edition of 7.10.1886, saying this time she had to leave after 3 years 8 months due to death.  Also that she was aged 33.

Housemaid (Upper) where men-servants are kept.  Could wait on lady.  3 years' character.  Country preferred.  E.G. Hill House, Hartley, Near Dartford, Kent.

10 March 1883 - Summary of Accounts of Longfield Depot
South London Press
The report says 291,943 tons of mixture and house dust (ashes) had been sold since the railway siding (? at Walworth) was opened in 1873.  It is not entirely clear from this report how the depot at Longfield was doing, as a lot of the "benefits" are just that they hadn't spent quite as much as they thought they would in 1871.  

Newington Vestry - The Depot
The Depot Committee's report stated that, from a return submitted to the committee by the vestry clerk, it appeared that the sales of reoad sweepings and house dust from the depot since the railway sidings were opened in July 1873, down to Lady Day 1882, amounted to £46,282 18s 7½d, and that during the whole 9 years only 8 bad debts had been made, amounting altogether to £243 16s 5d, or an actual loss to the ratepayers of £208 8s 6d; also that since the closing of the accounts at Michaelmas last he had received the sum of £1,660 9s 8d of the outstanding balance of £3,021 4s 10½d leaving only a balance of £1,360 15s 2½d, as arrears.  £400 of this amount would, in all probability, be paid before Lady Day, and hte balance by Michaelmas next, no portion of this balance being regarded as doubtful.

Mr Hart said the return which their clerk had prepared had taken everyone by surprise.  The sale of 291,943 tons of mixture and house dust during the 9 years ending Lady Day 1882 had realised £46,282 18s 7½d and the loss upon this large return had been only to the extent of £208 8s 6d. Having regard to the bad searsons the farmers had had to contend with, this return was of a most remarkable character.  It was not the wish of the committee to take any credit with regard to this return.  The whole refuse had been disposed of by their clerk, the whole money had been collected by their clerk, and they thought that to him was eminently due this return (hear, hear).  Mr Hart then reminded the vestry that when the depot was purchased in 1871 it was calculated that it woudl be to the interest of the parish to pay the railway carriage of 1s 8d per ton on the refuse into the country or an annual charge of £2,000.  During the 9 years ending Lady Day 1882, the vestry would have paid £1,800 for the carriage of refuse into the country, and £10,610 for interest and instalments on the depot loans of £14,000, or an average £3,179 per annum; but after the first 9 months' working, the vestry found that by mixing the house dust with the road sweepings as collected, the house dust impoverished the sweepings as manure, and the sweepings on the other hand spoilt the dust for brickmaking - the result being that at Lady Day 1874, the vestry were without a single offer to take away any of the refuse even by paying the carriage into the country.  It was then determined first to deposit the refuse in the depot, and screen the house dust and sell this refuse to brickmakers and the road sweepings to farmers, which enabled the vestry to dispose of the whole of the refuse arising from the parish during the year ending Lady Day, 1875, for £1,609, or at the rate of 1s 6½d per ton.  It was not possible to arrive at the actual cost it would have been to the vestry to dispose of the refuse only of this parish in the manner explained for the 9 years ending Lady Day 1882, in consequence of the increased business, and thereby beneficial results arising from the receoption into the depot of the refuse arising from St George's Parish; but if it cost this vestry £1,609 in the year ending 1875, before the contract with St George's Vestry was entered into, and £1,200 during hte present year, after the termintion of this contract, having regard to the increased facilities arising out of the establishment of the country depots, it was only reasonable to suppose that the average annual cost to this parish, had St George's contract never been entertained, would have reached £1,300, or for the 9 years £11,700 which showed a saving of £6,300, as against the original estimate made in 1871.  But by the vestry receiving the refuse from St George's parish, and thereby enabling the committee to enter into large contracts, the annual balances appeared on the credit instead of the debit side of the account, which for the 5 years this contract was in existence amounted to £3,635.  To this amount must be aadded the former debit balance of £1,300 per annum, making together £10,135 which this parish had gained by the two parishes working together, or within £475 of the total amount paid by the vestry for interest and instalments on the loans for the establishment of the depot.  The result of 9 years working showed an expenditure to the parish, therefore, of £12,175, as against £28,610 which the vestry in 1871 was prepared to expend, or an acutal saving of £16,435.  This great financial benefit was entirely irrespective of the improved sanitary condition of the parish, arising from the more rapid removal of the refuse from the streets and dust-bins.  Although the business, as carried on at the depot during the 9 years ended Lady Day 1882, had only resulted in a saving to the parish of £16,435 as against the expenditure sanctioned in 1871, it was very evident that but for the depot the general rates during the same period would have had to bear an increased expenditure of £34,725 - which sum, as a matter of fact, the parish had benefited by the establishment of the depot.

Mr Tilling pointed out that notwithstanding the favourable picture drawn by the report, the rates in Newington were still very high.

Mr Marsland said the depot had undoubtedly resulted in a saving.  It should be remembered that in times past they had no School Board rate. The assessments had increased, but so had the expenditure.

Mr Ivison agreed that the depot was one of the finest institutions they could have; but when they came to the question of St George's parish, he totally disagreed with Mr Hart.  He contended, as he had before contended, that the balance-sheet showed they were far better off with their own refuse than with that of St George's (oh, oh and hear, hear).

7 July 1883 - Beginning of the Gravesend West line
Gravesend Reporter
A lengthy report of the celebrations of the beginning of construction works for the line between Longfield and Gravesend.  Lady Waterlow, the wife of the Liberal MP for Gravesend Sir Sydney Waterlow, dug the first sod.  Sydney Waterlow (1822-1906) was from the famous stationer company of the same name and led a varied political career, he built Trosley Towers in 1887, the house is no longer there but the land is now Trosley Country Park.  He was also noted for his philanthropy, he gave Waterlow Park in Highgate, London as a 'garden for the gardenless'.  He apologised to his wife for the fact that under the custom of the day, she was not allowed to speak at the occasion.

The New Gravesend Railway - Cutting of the first sod by Lady Waterlow

The ceremony of cutting the first sod of the new railway from Fawkham to Gravesend was performed on Saturday afternoon by Lady Waterlow.  The preparations for the ceremony had been going on in a field, near Stuart's Road, for some days, and two large marquees, connected with each other by a covered passage, had been erected.  Both were decorated by an enormous quantity of choice flowers and shrubs, arranged in excellent style, and supplied by Mr Guy, of hte Subscription Grounds. From the road to the first marquee a crimson cloth was ladi down through an avenue of the Gravesend detachment of the 1st Kent Artillery Volunteers, whose band discoursed sweet music during the day.  Sir Sydney and Lady Waterlow, accompanied by the Earl of Darnley, arrived shortly before 3 o'clock, and were received by Mr Barclay Bruce, and others connected with the line, while there were also present the Mayor of Gravesend (G H Edmonds esq), Mrs Edmonds, C Lewis esq (MP for Londonderry), Sir William Hart Dyke MP, Sir Willilam and Lady Ogg, the Mayor of Rochester, Charles Douglas Fox (the engineer to the company), Messrs Higginson and Vigers (the solicitors), Mr G B Bruce, vice president of the institution of civil engineers (the father of the contractor), Mr Morgan and Mr Miller (secretary and engineer respectively to the London, Chatham and Dover Company), Aldermen J Russell, T Troughton, and C Startup, Messrs H Huggins, H Berkowitz, J T Cooper, M Martin, I C Johnson, T Smith, W J King, W G Penman, Badman, J Gould, W Russell, J A Silk, W Boorman, C Palmer, W Limbert, A Tolhurst, W Newman, E Knibbs, T H Rose, J Rose, J Willoughby, J Blin, J Stirton, J M Newman, F B Nettleingham, W Box, G B Archer, Mr and Mrs Fletcher, Mr and Mrs Rosher, Mr and Mrs Bryant, Capt and Mrs Sankey, Capt Simpson, Lieut Walker, Dr and Mrs Nisbett, Dr and Miss Pinching, Dr and Mrs Richmond, Dr Armstrong, Rev F Southgate (Northfleet), Rev Gilling (Rosherville), Rev Jackson (Perry Street), Rev Balgarnie adn Mrs Balgarnie etc etc.  An avenue was formed in the first tent, along the centre of the which a number of planks, covered with a red cloth, had been placed, and upon which was a very handsome, silver mounted wheelbarrow, containing a spade with a silver blade, with which Lady Waterlow proceeded to cut the sod.  Her ladyship, amid the loud applause of the assembly, thrice inserted her spade into the earth, which she took up and turned into her wheelbarrow, wheeled it ot hte end of the tent, and tippled the earth out, and then returned drawing the conveyance behind her, stopping twice to allow Mr R Hider of Parrock Street, to take a photograph of the scene.  At the conclusion of the ceremony her ladyship was warmly congratulated upon the manner in which she had taken her part in it, after which the party adjourned to the inner tent, where an excellent cold collation was served.  Ample justice was done to the good things so hospitably provided by Mr Barclay Bruce, when the cloth was cleared, and the usual loyal toasts having been honoured.

Mr G Barclay Bruce proposed the health of Lady Waterlow.  The health of the Queen had been drunk, and they would go from monarchy in general to the queen of the occasion (hear, hear).  It was exceedingly kind of Lady Waterlow to have honoured them by turning the first sod, and the best way he could thank her for doing so was by publcly expressing the gratitude the railway owed to her and her husband.  To speak broadly, but for Sir Sydney Waterlow the railway would never have been an accomplished fact.  He had fought for it against its enemies, and what was a far harder task he had protected it for its friends (hear, hear).

Sir Sydney Waterlow, in reply, said Lady Waterlow was proud of the privilege that had been accorded to her, of being hte first navvy in the employ of hte company.  The sight of so many people to witness the cutting of the first sod had, he was quite sure, gladdened Lady Waterlow's heart.  They could only hope that that day would be a good beginning, and that success might attend the Gravesend railway. He was sorry that it was the practice of the present age and the custome of society not to permit ladies to reply for themselves, as he was sure Lady Waterlow could have done so much better than he could do for her.  She had not told him what to say, and he hoped they would allow him a little latitude (hear, hear).  Lady Waterlow came from a country where making railways was a very different matter to what it was in England, where the ofrmation of a railway was, as a rule, afairly remunerative undertaking, if only Parliament once consented to the scheme.  In her country, however railways were developed under very different circumstances, in fact a relation of heres had one had to carry a line through a tract of country where for 300 iles there was not a drop of water to assist him in his work  The new Gravesend Railway would be formed under very different circumstances, and he hoped htat the work of the contractor would bring success to all concerned in it.

The Mayor of Gravesend gave 'Success to the Gravesend Railway'.  Gravesend was daily increasing in size and growing into a large and important town.  They could already boast of two railways connecting the town with the Great City, and they had that day seen the first sod of a new railway turned. Gravesend was, in fact, progressing very rapidly (hear, hear).  They had tram cars running between the town and Northfleet, and if anyone doubted that statement, they could experience the effects of riding in one for the sum of twopence (applause and laughter).  The docks on the other side would and did conduce to the trade, and, therefore, prosperity of the borough.  They had a Thames tunnel looming in the distance, and he hoped they would all live to see it.  They had a new Town Hall, and he hoped they would all live to see that finished as well as the Thames Tunnel (hear, hear and laughter).  The fact that Gravesend was progressing so rapidly assured him that the toast he had given would be well received (applause).

Sir Sydney Waterlow said he felt the Mayor of Gravesend had placed a great responsibility upon him in calling upon him to respond to the toast.  He was not, however, surprised that he had done so, remembering that he had been chairman ofthe company for some years.  When he was firstelected the Parliamentary representative of Gravesend, he found that htis project had been almost destroyed in its conception, and he came to the conclusion that it would be to the benefit of the borough if it could be revived.  By a deviation from the original plan and by adding a pier in the Thames for colleting the river traffic, they were enabled to induce Parliament to sanction the scheme, but evn then they had not conquered all their difficulties.  They had to find those who would be resonsible for the cost of constructing the line, and he thought the alliance with the London, Chatham and Dover Company constituted one of the best means of securing the success they were all anxious for (cheers).  The Chatham company had taken the smaller one in hand, and had promised to see them through their difficulties - an arrangement which was possibly facilitated by his dual position of vice-chairman of one and chairman of the other company.  He thought the inhabitants of Gravesend might rest satisfied that the railway would be completed.  They could not, he was sure, have placed it in the hands ofa stronger, more earnest, more satisfactory, and more energetic contractor, than Mr Bruce, and in a very short time he hoped that, through the kindness of the landowners, Mr Bruce would be in possession of the land necessary for the work, so that those residing near would witness the immediate and rapid progress of the undertaking.  'Success to the Gravesend Railway' meant two things - remuneration to those who had found the capital, and increased prosperity to Gravesend; therefore they would reaslise that he heartily concurred in the toast.  It meant increased prosperity because it would give additional facilities of communication between the town and the great metropolis.  The new line would afford directe communication with Bromley, Beckenham, Penge, Sydenham, Dulwich, Herne Hill, Camberwell, the Elephant and Castle, and Blackfriars, and to all the southern parts of London.  It would open up the district around Gravesend to all the new stations in London - to Victoria, Holborn Viaduct and Ludgate Hill, and to Moorgate Street for those who wished to go to the other end of the city, while communication with the norther and eastern couties would be made more easy.  Again the deep water peir to be constructed in connection with the Gravesend terminus would give facilities to passengers by the large steamers - especially those of the P and O line - to land from the steamer's teder by the side of their train, and be carried to any part of the south-west of London without a change of carriage.  To enter the train at Victoria for Gravesend would form an easier and more rapid method of transit than proceeding from either the Fenchurch Street or Liverpool Street Stations (applause).  He was very pleased indeed to hear the kind expressions which fell from the lips of the Mayor of Gravesend, because he believed that the words to which his worship gave utterance were spoken not merely in his individual, but also in his corporate capacity, and represented the feelings of their inhabitants of the town (hear). If they were kindly disposed towards the undertaking, and if they favoured it as a route to London in consequence of the increased facilities it afforded them, then the success of the line was assured (hear).  There wre now a large number of pleasure-seekers who visited the borough, and he ventured to think that as the new railway would give additional facilities to the daily incresing number of holiday-keepers, the business of the town would be augmented.  He had known the town ever since he could walk; he remembered it wen it was much more used by visitors than now, for the town was ieft in the cold because people migrated further for their holidays.  But brighter days were now were now coming, and he believed that the increased traffic which they had reason to expect would prove even more beneficial than that they formerly enjoyed, as it would be more of a commercial character.  The Mayor had reminded them that in all probability they would have a new Thames Tunnel in the course of a few years, and that it would connect Tilbury and Gravesend.  He himself blieved that the project would be carried out, for about 10 days ago he had a long discussion with one of the promoters, and was assured that funds would be forthcoming to make the tunnel.  Well, its construction would give more rapid communication to the eastern parts of England.  It would enable butchers from Gravesend to go to Romford market for their cattle, and bring them home direct, instead of taking them first to London, and he hoped the inhabitants would give as much encouragement to that scheme as they had been kind enough to offer to the Gravesend Railway (applause).

Mr C Douglas Fox also replied.  He felt that they had got over all their worst difficulties, for, though they had had a very stong opposition from the railway companywho were already in possession of the field, they had proved successful.  The scheme originated, he believed, among a number of gentlemen in Northfleet and Gravesend, among them being Mr Nettleingham, who was then Mayor of the borough.  In November 1879, plans were deposited and in 1880 they had their first fight before a Parliamentary Committee.  The London, Chatham and Dover Company gave them a friendly pat on the back, but did not render them any material assistance, and as they were strongly opposed by the South Eastern Railway Company, and several landowners, among whom was Mr Bevan, their bill was rejected.  But in 1890 they recommenced ther work under new auspices, and he was thnkful to remember how much they were indebted to Sir Sydney Waterlow for the great assistance he gave them in Parliament, and for what he did in securing them practical support from the London, Chatham and Dover Company.  The result was than in 1881 they obtained the first Act for the line.  A deviation being, however, rendered necessary, an amended Act was obtained int he follwoing year, and now they were assembled under very happy auspices to witness the comencement of the work.  The line would commence with a junction with the main line of the London, Chatham and Dover Company at Fawkham, and would proceed almost in a straight line to the field (near Stuart Road) in which they were assembled.  When finished there would be a station close to Southfleet, another near Rosherville, and another closed to where they were then sitting.  He felt sure that Mr Bruce, although his work was cut out for him would, with the advantage of fine weather and the cooperation of the landowners, be able to complete the line within the year and half stated by the contract.  When the railway was completed it would be connected at Gravesend with a deep water pier on the Thames. The pier would be so situated that the largest steamers would be able to go alongside at any state of the tide.  He did not think that when those plans had been carried out, the railway would fail to be a great benefit to Gravesend and neighbourhood (hear, hear).

In submitting 'The health of the directors of the company', the Earl of Darnley said they believed the railway would give increased prosperity to the borough and additional facilities to the locality.  Railways, his lordship continued, had no politics, and he thought that as son the directorate were to be found Sir Sydney Waterlow and Sir W Hart Dyke, they might trust to two such distinguished gentlemen to make the management of the undertaking both Liberal and Conservative in the best sense of the word.  He would ask them to give a hearty welcome to the gentlemen who had undertaken and conducted the enterprise, the inauguration of which they were celebrating that day.

Sir William Hart Dyke, in responding, remarked that, though the existence of the directorate of his colleagues and hiself might be but ephemeral, yet he should be proud of having been connected with an undertaking, which could not but conduce to the prosperity of Gravesend, for he was sure that his colleagues all joined with him in the sincere desire to conduct the scheme to a successful issue.

Mr Nettleingham gave 'The health of the contractor' of whom he spoke in eulogistic terms.

Mr Bruce suitably responded, and introduced the toast of 'The Visitors', which was answered by Mr Lewis MP.

During the day the bells of St George's Church were ringing merrily.

21 July 1883 - Mistaken Identity
Gravesend Journal

Dartford Petty Sessions
Esther O'Neil was charged with damaging 5lb of butter, the property of Mr Willilam Frederick Allen, agent to Colonel Evelyn, at Dartford, on the 10th of July  Prosecutor said he was driving along the road to Longfield, when he heard some stones falling on the road as though thrown at him.  He pulled up and saw prisoner, who asserted that he (prosecutor) was Mr Bartholemew, who had locked her son up.  He replied that he was not Mr Bartholemew and drove on, bu the prisoner clung to the back of the carriage.  On his stopping again she repeated that she was sure he was Mr Bartholemew, and she then picked up a basket of butter and threw it at him, hitting him on the back of the head.  She next picked up the butter and threw it into the river.  Prisoner said that she was drunk, and did not know what she was doing.  She was fined 10 shillings and costs, or in default 21 days' hard labour.

21 July 1883 - Assault at Longfield
Gravesend Journal

Dartford Petty Sessions - Alleged Cowardly Assault
Sarah Ann Hatfield was summoned for assaulting John Baker at Longfield, on the 10th of July.  The defendant, hearing screams of murder had gone in the direction from which the sound proceeded, and found complainant threatening a woman  The defendant told complainant to cease striking the woman, and on his taking no notice she struck him over the face with a whip she had in her hand.  The summons was dismissed.

4 August 1883 - Suicide at Longfield Station
East Kent Gazette
This is the sad case of a porter called Hasleden.  The 1881 Census has a Thomas Hasleden, railway porter, living with his wife and 3 year old daughter (born at Faversham) at one of the cottages around Hartley Green.

Shocking Suicide
On Sunday morning, a porter on the railway, named Hazelden (sic), committed suicide at Fawkham station by placing his head on the metals in front of the down train just as it was pulling up.  He was decapitated.  The poor fellow had been of intemperate habits, and had been drifting downwards for several years.  He was formerly clerk in charge of Messrs W H Smith and Son's bookstall at Faversham Station.

27 August 1883 - North Ash Farm to be let
South Eastern Gazette

Ash and Hartley, Kent - To be let
North Ash, Turner's and West Yoke Farms, 426a 1r 7p, of good sound high level and productive land, a comfortable farm residence, excellent farm buildings, 9 cottages and gardens.

For particulars and to view apply to Messrs Tootell and Sons, Land Surveyors and Valuers, 13 King Street, Maidstone.

1 September 1883 - Longfield Flower Show and Home Encouragement Society
Gravesend Journal

This society's exhibition was held on Thursday, August 23rd, in the schoolroom, which was admirably decorated and arranged.  From early in the morning till the time the judges arrived, there was a continual flow of exhibitors, of whom the foremost were ladies who came to arrange their table decorations.  The prizes were kindly distributed by Countess Darnley (patroness).  Tea and Coffee were provided at the rectory for the visitors, who came in large numbers directly the doors were opened at 3.30 till they were closed at 7 pm.  Amongst them my be mentioned - Countess Darnley and Lady Alice Bligh, the Rev T P and Mrs Phelps and the Rev L Phelps, Ridley Rectory, the Rev I and Mrs Hills, Ash Rectory, Mrs and Miss Hartley of Hartley, Mrs Barnett and Miss Kinder, Meopham Court, Mrs and Misses Hohler, Fawkham, Miss Lukis and Colonel Fletcher, Mrs Scratton and Mrs Miller, Cobham, Miss Davies and Miss Cawston and G P Brown esq, Rochester.  The prizes were awarded as follows:

Plants - Richard Porter, Mrs Longhurst, Mrs Gilham, Mrs Smith, Mrs Scott, Mr Levi Bean
Bouquets - Mr Brown, V Bennett, Alice Parker, J Chadburn, and Mr Vincent
Vegetables & Fruit - Mr Longhurst, Mr Brown, Mr Geere, Mr H West and Mr Lynds
Needlework etc - Mrs Elkin, Mrs Hopgood, Mrs Ingram, Alice Stevens, E & F Lynds, Mary Driscoll and George Lee
Cookery - Mrs Elkin (cake), Mrs Bean (cake), Mrs Porter (bread)
Gardeners - Table decoration, Mr L Bean; collection of vegetables, Mr L Bean and Mr Rye
Honey - Mr J Lynds

Cards of merit, most tastefully decorated by Miss Lukis were given to - Mrs Evenden for a specimen of point lace, the work of many years; Miss K Hassell for a beautifully arranged centrepiece of cultivated flowers, and also one of wild flowers; Mr J Evenden for centrepiece of cultivated flowers; Mrs Jennings for illuminated Christmas Cards; the Rev P H Jennings for dried flowers and ferns; Mrs Dunn for painting; Miss Trowel for work; and Miss H Haines for work.  A few words of thanks to her ladyship and the exhibitors were next offered by the Rector (the Rev P H Jennings); and the proceedings closed wiht a vote of thanks to the Rector and Mrs Jennings for the immense labour and pains they had bestowed.  Two bouquets of wild flowers were given to Countess Darnley and Lady Alice Bligh.  Mr Sims, gardener to Mrs Bennett, Meopham, and Mr Phillips, gardener to Dr Baber, kindly acted as judges.

6 October 1883 - Expansion of Longfield Tip
South London Press

Newington Vestry - The Longfield Depot
The Depot Committee recommended that on economical and sanitary grounds, and with the view of completing the Longfield Depot as a place for the storage and sale of mixture, and, in case of need, house dust, the roadway and docks and lower portion of the depot be paved with such old stone lying in the yard at Manor Place as was not suitable for outside work, and that the comittee be empowered to expend £200 in labour, during the financial year ending Lady Day next, in paving this depot. That the sidings at Longfield be completed, and the engineer of the London, Chatham and Dover Railway Company requested to prepare and submit a plan and estimate of the cost of this work.

Mr Hart, in moving hte adoptio of the report, said the completion of these works was recommended on teh score of economy, as well as efficiency.

Mr Side was of opinion that if they were going to make as large a depot at Longfield as they had at Newington, they were making a great mistake.

Mr Poulton said no better work had ever been done by the Vestry than this.  As the parish increased, so it would be advisable to increase the depot at Longfield.

Mr Hart said if Mr Side, who objected to this proposal, had begun to build a house and got towards the roof, e would not be wise man if he went no further, and left the roof off  That was his suggestion in the present case.

The resolution was carried.

26 April 1884 - Support for the Longfield Tip
South London Press
As mentioned elsewhere, the Longfield depot was a highly controversial issue in Newington Vestry.  The clerk Levi Dunham published a leaflet to justify his (and the majority party's) policy, which this anonymous letter writer supported, although he thought Mr Dunham was unwise to break the neutrality expected of officers.  

Having perused the pamphlet of Mr L J Dunham from beginning to end, and although the wisdom of its issue may be somewhat questionable, as a native of the parish of St Mary, Newington, I must say, when opposition to the policy of a majority of the members of our Vestry, lapses into individual persecution, it would be unjust and un-English to deprive that individual of every means of defence, or to condemn him unheard.  Therefore it is to be hoped the ratepayers will give the document in question their thoughtful and impartial consideration, and though they may be opposed to Mr Dunham's course of action in the Vestry, and the line of defence he has adopted, they would do well to remember that hs is an old and efficient srant of the parishioners, and in addition to the many good services he has rendered, it is mainly due to his exertions that the Longfield depot has become, not only a great success, but also a model worthy of imitation by other metropolitan parishes.

I am, Sir, yours faithfully.
"An Englishman"

11 August 1884 - Gravesend West Railway progress
The Times

New Route to Gravesend
On Saturday afternoone Mr J S Forbes, the chairman and Sir S Waterlow, the deputy chairman, of the London, Chatham and Dover Railway Company, made an inspection of a new line which will bring Gravesend into communication with the metropolis by the London, Chatham and Dover Railway.  They were accompanied by Captain Godbold, the continental manager; Mr Morgan, the secretary of the company; Mr Harris; Mr G B Bruce jun, the contractor; Mr C Fox, the engineer; and Mr Vigers, the surveyor of the new line; Mr Edmonds, Mayor of Gravesend, and other gentlemen connected with the district and with the London, Chatham and Dover Railway.  Proceeding by special train from Victoria, the company were taken over the new extension, of which only one line of rails is at present laid down, in a train consisting of trucks fitted up for the occasion.  Teh works, which are in a satisfactory state of progress, were commenced in June last year and are expected to be completed early in 1885.  This new extension, which is to be a double line of about 5 miles in length, branches off from teh main line of the London, Chatham and Dover Railway about 20 miles from Victoria between Farningham Road and Fawkham Stations.  In addition to affording a new means of communication between London and Gravesend, the line passes through an important hop growing and market gardening district.  It will also bring Gravesend into connexion with the Midland Railway, the trains of which company run over the London, Chatham and Dover main line.  There will be stations at Southfleet and Rosherville.  The Gravesend Station will be at the corner of West Street and Stuart Road, after which the line will continue about 200 yards, to the end of a pier which is now in the course of construction, and which will extend about 220 feet from the foreshore into the river, almost extactly opposite to the entrance of the new East and West India Docks at Tilbury, and just above the spot off which the ships of the Peninsular and Oriental, the Oriental and other large steamship companies lie.  As there will be 20 feet of water at low tide off this pier, teh tenders of the large steamers will be able to take off aor land passengers and goods there at all states of the tide.  It is also expected that there will be a considerable fish traffic to the Central Market in Farringdon Street.  After a completion inspection had been made of the railway and pier works the company were entertained at dinner at the new Falcon Hotel, Gravesend, returning over the new line and by special train to Victoria, which was reached shortly after 11 o'clock.

25 October 1884 - Hartley Manor for Sale
Bristol Mercury

Kent - Hartley, one mile of station and 6 miles of Gravesend and Dartford; only 24 miles of town.  An important freehold residential and sporting estate, known as HARTLEY MANOR, charmingly situate on high ground commanding extensive views, comprising an excellent residence, with good stabling and attractive grounds, and 652 acres of very fertile arable, pasture and woodland in a high state of cultivation; 15 cottages and capital farm buildings, with farmhouse, also the manorial rights of the parish.  The woods and covers are especially adapted for shooting and afford perfect sport.  Railway siding on estate.  Possession on completion of purchase.

Messrs Cronk will sell the above by auction, at the Mart, on November 11th 1884 at 2pm in 6 lots.  Particulars of Messrs Farrer & Co, 66 Lincoln's Inn Fields WC; and of Messrs Cronk, 12 Pall Mall SW, and Sevenoaks, Kent.

15 November 1884 - Additions to Longfield Tip
South London Press

Newington Vestry - The Longfield Depot
The Depot Committee recommended that they be empowered to expend a further sum of £350 in labour and material in completing the lowering works, the erection of concrete walls, and other works, such as paving etc, necessry to prepare the lower portion of Longfield Depot as a place for the storage, screening, and sale of ashes and breeze.

Mr Nobes, in moving the adoption of the report, said the Longfield Depot was rapidly approaching to a condition of perfection.  All the 7 docks were thoroughly paved, and all the arrangements made for the purpose of receiving the mixture from Newington.  There were other works, however, to be completed before they could obtain complete efficiency, and the committee made these recommendations in accordance with that object. The oney spend over the Longfield Depot had been wisely and judiciously spent, and he was sure that ther successors on that vestry would be grateful to those who had done so much to meet the requirements of the day.

Mr Harvey seconded.

Mr Robinson was opposed to this expenditure altogether.  He thought the ratepayers of the future would regret that there had been gentlemen on that vestry to promote such a scheme.

Mr Smith moved, as an amendment, that the report lie on the table.

The chairman said he could not accept that amendment, as the report had been received.

Mr Smith said that being so, he would move 'that it be referred back' and in the course of his remarks, the chairman had to remind him that he was wandering from the subject, and that time was an object to the vestry.

Mr Clark said to build a cart and only to put one wheel on was ridiculous.  It would be equally so not to complete the necessary works commenced at this depot.  In the future they might have to get rid of the depot at Manor Place.  Then they would find the utility of the depot at Longfield.

Mr Side jun said he would never allow an opportunity to pass without protesting against the expenditure of money at Longfield.  He charged the committee with deliberately misleading the vestry by leaving their present proposals out of the estimates.

The chairman said that was accusing the committee of fraud.  He must ask Mr Side to withdraw (cries of 'withdraw').

Mr Side ultimately withdrew, but said the committee acknowledged this in their report by stating 'that when the £530  was inserted in the estiates, it was understood that this amount would only last till Michaelmas'.  

On Mr Side sen rising, Mr Josland wished to know on a point of order whether Mr Side was qualified to sit there as a vestryman.  At Plumstead they had instituted actions against vestrymen who had compounded for their rates.

Mr Side said counsel's opinion had been given in his favour.

The chairman said that was not the time to raise such a question as this.

Mr Side then spoke in condemnation of the committee's proposal.

After some further discussion, and a division on an amendment moved by Mr Snell 'That the report be referred back', the committee's recommendation was approved, and the vestry adjourned.

24 November 1884 - Rescue at Fawkham
Aberdeen Weekly Journal

A plucky action has been performed by Robert Pilbeam, one of the Sittingbourne Rifle Volunteers.  He happened to be at Fawkham, where some men were engaged in sinking a well; they had got to a depth of 80 feet when the rope broke, and let down one of them, injuring his spine and disabling him entirely.  Although none of the poor fellow's comrades woudl go down to his rescue, Pilbeam descended the well and found the injured man in two or three feet of water.  Pilbeam lashed him to the rope, and sent him up to the top, and then waited for the men to haul him up.

6 January 1885 - Parliamentary Boundary Commission Proposals
Morning Post
This was not the final scheme as they quickly realised they had made a mistake in the Dartford Constituency as they'd counted Bexley twice.

Redistribution of Seats Bill - Kent - Amended Scheme
The Boundary Commissioners hereby give notice, that the Divisions of the County of Kent, described in the subjoined schedule have been substituted in their provisional scheme for the division bearing the same names which have been previously advertised.

The Sevenoaks Division (population 58,862)
The parish of Mottingham
The Petty Sessional Divisions of Sevenoaks, Bormley (except the parishes of Chislehurst, St Paul's Cray, Foot's Cray, St Mary Cray), such parts of the proposed Parliamentary boroughs of Lewisham and Deptford as are in the county of Kent.

The Dartford Division (population 61,798)
The Parishes of Chislehurst, St Paul's Cray, Foot's Cray, St Mary Cray, North Cray
The Petty Sessional Division of Dartford (except the parishes of Southfleet, Longfield, Hartley, Ash, Ridley)
The proposed Parliamentary Boroughs of Greenwich and Woolwich.

The Malling Division (population 63,624)
The parishes of Southfleet, Longfield, Hartley, Ash, Ridley, Grange
The City of Rochester
The Petty Sessional Divisions of Rochester, Bearsted, Malling (except the Parishes of Nettlested, Hunton, East Peckham, Yalding)
The Municipal Boroughs of Gravesend, Maidstone.

9 January 1885 - Boundary Commission: Kent Public Enquiry
Kentish Mercury

Sitting of the Commission
The Hon T H W Pelham attended at the Sessions House, Maidstone, on Wednesday, to hear objections and suggestions as to the constitution of the several divisions of the county of Kent, as proposed by the Boundary Commissioners.  There was a large attendance.

The Commissioner, in opening hte proceedings, said there 3 matters to be taken into consideration in defining the boundaries of the divisions of the county.  First of all, they had as far as possible to equalise the population of the several divisions; in the second place, they had to make the divisions as compact as they could; and thirdly, they must have some regard to the pursuits and occupations of the people.  The question of county voters in the boroughs in the case of Kent was an important one.  There were not only county voters in the boroughs of Maidstone, Chatham, Rochester, Gravesend, Canterbury, Dover and Hythe to be considered, but there were also the county voters in those parts of the metropolitan boroughs which were in Kent.  It was proposed to include some of the latter in the Dartford Division and some in the Sevenoaks Division.  Therefore it might be advisable to have the population in those two divisions somewhat less than that of others.  To a certain extent consideration would be given to the fact that those divisions which adjoined the metropolis would have a large number of county voters having qualifications within the boroughs.  Those voters, however, could not be accounted for as population.  In some divisions there were more county voters in the boroughs than in others, but it was not known what the number was in each division.  The original scheme which was issued by the Commissioners was, unfortunately, incorrect, and an amended scheme had been published.  When the first scheme was being drawn it was not known that the parish of Bexley was in the petty sessional division of Dartford, and that being so, the population of Bexley was added to the division, although the parish was already included in it.  In order to equalise the Dartford Division, therefore, some parishes had to be added to it, making a change in three of the divisions.  The population of the county, exclusive of the parliamentary boroughs, was 501,010 and it was proposed by the redistribution bill to divide the area into 8 divisions.  The average population for each division would be a little over 60,000.

The first division, which had been named Sevenoaks, would include the parish of Mottingham (779) and the petty sessional divisions of Sevenoaks (19,675) and Bromley, except the parishes of Chislehurst and the 4 Crays (38,408).  The population of that division would be 58,832.  In the next division - Dartford - it was proposed to include the parishes of Chislehurst and the 4 Crays (10,564) and the petty sessional division of Dartford, except certain parishes.  The total population for this division would be 61,798.

A long discussion took place on the question as to whether Chislehurst should be included in the Dartford Division, in which it had been placed by the commissioners, or in the Sevenoaks division.

The Commissioner read a telegram which he had eceived from Mr P Tidman and 50 electors of Chislehurst, protesting against that place being torn away from Bromley, with which it had always been associated, and included in the Dartford Division.

Mr Latter of Bromley, submitted a plan for the alteration of the Dartford Division. He proposed that the division should consist of Mottingham, Foots Cray, North Cray and the Petty Sessional Division of Dartford, with the exception of certain parishes.  The total population would be 54,556. Chislehurst, he said, was really a part of Bromley and the Crays were also associated with Bromley.  It seemed to be the entire feeling of the district that these parishes should not be separated and taken into the Dartford Division.

The Commissioner said he quite agreed that it would be desirable to keep Chislehurst and the Crays in Sevenoaks Division, but Mr Latter had not equalised the population.

Sir John Lennard, as representing the district of Sevenoaks, said he very much preferred the Commissioners' scheme.

Several speakers strongly protested against Chislehurst being placed in Dartford, and asked for an adjournment of the enquiry in order that time might be given to prepare a plan by which Chislehurst would be included in Sevenoaks with Bromley and the population of the two divisions equalised.  It was stated that by taking Chislehurst from Dartford and by transferring the 4 Crays and another neighbouring parish from Sevenoaks into the Dartford District the population would be made more equal.  This suggestion was supported by several Liberals from Dartford and by Sir Charles Mills MP, but it was opposed by Mr Solomons, who spoke on behalf of the Radicals of the Dartford District.

The Commissioner was inclined to think that the instructions given by the Government would be carried out if the 4 Crays were associated with Dartford.  With regard to the wish that there should be an adjournment he did not think that another sitting was necessary if those gentlemen who had come from Chislehurst would forward any scheme upon which they might fix to the office of the Commissioners within the next 10 days.......

28 Febuary 1885 - Final Constituency Boundaries Announced
Thanet Advertiser
The final proposals for constituencies in Kent saw some changes from the initial proposals.  Hartley and the neighbouring parishes and Orpington had been added to Dartford, while Chislehurst had been moved from Dartford to Sevenoaks after representations at the public enquiry.

While the county seats were similar in size of population, there were also borough seats in Kent all of which had smaller populations.

The average population per seat was 52,067 (most wouldn't have had the vote).  Dartford had 64,321, Sevenoaks 60,633 and Medway 65,377 - all well over the quota.  But Gravesend had just 31,283, so a vote in Gravesend carried twice the weight over one in neighbouring Dartford. (Nottinghamshire Guardian 27.2.1885).

County of Kent Representation
The only alteration made by the Boundary Commissioners in their report, as affecting kent, is the substitution of the 'Medway Division' for that of 'Malling Division'.  It will be remembered that on the occasion of the Boundary Commissioner visiting Maidstone some time ago, Mr Charles Whitehead suggested this alteration.

The various divisions in the county are thus arranged:

No 1 - The Sevenoaks Division
The Sessional Divisions of Bormley (except so much as is comprised in division no 2 as herein described) and Sevenoaks, the parish of Mottingham and so much of the area of the Parliamentary boroughs of Lewisham and Deptford as is included in the county of Kent.

No 2 - The Dartford Division
The Sessional Division of Dartford The Parishes in the sessional division of Bromley of Foot's Cray, North Cray, Orpington, St Mary Cray, and St Paul's Cray, and teh area of the Parliamentary Boroughs of Greenwich and Woolwich.

No 4 - The Medway Division
The Sessional Division of Bearsted, Malling (except so much as is comprised in division no 3 as herein described) and Rochester, including the parish of Grange (non-corporate member of Hastings), and the Municipal Boroughs of Gravesend, Maidstone and Rochester.

27 April 1885 - Bankruptcy of Thomas Gambrill of New House Farm
South Eastern Gazette
Thomas Gambrill, who leased New House Farm, and his brother Austin Gambrill, who leased a farm at Crundale, near Canterbury, ran a farming partnership.  This crashed in 1885 with staggering debts of £21,000 - about £1.6 million today.  The Official Receiver (Mr L Creery) said "I do not think I am exceeding my duty when I say that this is a case of the most heartlesss and cruel description, and I think you will be satisfied that the bankrupts have been carrying on their business in a most reckless way for the last 16 years." (Whitstable Times 2.5.1885). The Whitstable Times also reported the case, and went into more detail about Austin's cross examination as Crundale was in their area.  In particular they suspected that he had removed assets when he knew this was coming.  This included the 170 sheep referred to by his brother.  

The case continued for many weeks, but most of the fire of the officials was directed at the elder brother Austin.  In the end they were declared bankrupt with creditors getting only 1 shilling in the pound (5%) of their debts.

Heavy Failure of Kentish Agriculturalists - Liabilities £21,000
On Friday, at the Canterbury Bankruptcy Court, the learned Registrar (Walter Furley esq) was engaged for several hours in enquiring into the case of Austin Gambrill and Thomas Gambrill, farmers and hop growers, carrying on business at Tranworth, Crundale and at Hartley, Sevenoaks.

Mr Worsfold Mowll, Dover, appeared on behalf of the trustee, and Mr R M Mercer, Canterbury, represented creditors.

The Official Receiver presented the following accounts: Family claimes amounting to £15,209 5s 1d, trade creditors £891 1s 11d, money borrowed besides the family creditors, £5,252 7s 8d, making the total debts £21,352 14s 7d.  The assets consist of the farming stock, implements, and effects upon the farms at Tranworth and Hartley.  Deducting preferential claims, such as rent, rates and so on, a balance is left of £181 1s 6d to pay the debts.  The bankrupts commenced business as farmers on the 4th October 1869, and on the 11th October 1875 they took a lease from Sir Edmund Filmer of 321 acres at Tranworth (Crundale, near Canterbury) for 21 years, at a rental of £425.  On the 23rd February 1878, they took New House Farm, Hartley, Sevenoaks, for 15 years, the acreage of which was about 201, and the rental being £420. In October 1881, they also hired 33 acres from Miss Styan, at Crundale, at a rental of £30.  Therefore they had in their occupation 770 acres at a rental of £989 a year.  Austin Gambrill lived at and carried on the business at Tranworth, and Thomas Gambrill, the brother, at Hartley.  The Official Receiver added - they were in partnership, and I understand that they had another farm which they gave up about 2 years ago.  They held that under the Rev Mr Vaughan, at a rental of £34.  They had however, continued to carry on business at Tranworth and Hartley up to the time when these proceedings were commenced.

Austin Gambrill was first examined, and said he went into partnership with his brother in 1869.  They had about £3,000 captial.  That was all borrowed capital.  They started without anything.  The money was borrowed from a gentleman of the name of Arthur Gurney in London.  He lent about £1,200.  He was a wine merchant in Chancery Lane  £600 was found by witness' brother's wife.  The remainder came from his father in the following year.  In November 1867, he obtained £259 from a widow lady named Pepper, a relative.  That money was put into the Crundale business.  The £3,000 went into the business at Hartley and also at Crundale, where he now was.  the valuation at Hartley amounted to £800.  That only left £400 of the loan from Mr Gurney, and witness had kept the money from his father as he wanted it.  He never kept any books, notwithstanding that he had a partner.  His brother was quite satisfied with what he did. The money went in the management of the business.  Very little money went through the bank.  In 1870 he probably borrowed about £300.  In June 1871 he borrowed nearly £200 from his father on notes of hand. They had nearly all been altered, being out of date.  There was another sum of £410, and a third of £255 in that year.  He could give no particulars about them, but might possibly be able to obtain further information.

The Registrar - Do you mean to say that you have notes of hand to the amount of £21,000 odd?

The Debtor - About that.

The Debtor said in 1869 he had about £600 from Mrs Monylaws, Willesborough, Ashford, which was not included in the £3,000.  Her debts amounted to £1,100.  He had borrowed £1,500 from Mrs Bourne, a lady residing at Ramsgate, £900 of that was in 1872, when he took the Tranworth farm.

The Registrar suggested that it was useless at present to go on with the examination regarding the accounts.  He could hardly understand anyone going into a business and incurring such indebtedness as this without keeping books  He hoped no memoranda the bankrupt might have had had been destroyed.

the Debtor accounted for his insolvency by the depression in agriculture of the last 7 or 8 years, and the general lowness of prices.  The income varied very considerably.  £3,500 a year would be a fair average.  The average expenditure had been £4,000 a year, and he had consequently lost about £500 a year all the time.  Things had not been going on satisfactorily all the time.

The Registrar - Why did you not pull yourself up before?

The debtor said they hoped to get on better.  He estiated the stock and effects at £6,500 although through the bankruptcy proceedings they were only worth £1,368.

Mr Hobbs (trustee) said that looking at the acreage it would require a capital of £13 per acre to properly farm the land.  That would, therefore, require £10,000.

The Registrar - The interest on that would be about £500 a year, I suppose.

The Official Receiver said that taking the debtor's own figures there was about £10,000 unaccounted for in any way.

The debtor said that would be money lost in 9 or 10 years.  He was a married man, with one child.  His household expenses averaged about £150 a year.  He kept only one servant.  Certain articles of furniture had been removed from his house.  They belonged to his wife, and were about sufficient to furnish one room  He was arried 2 years ago, and his wife brought the furniture from her home then.  It was moved about the 18th March, two days before the petition was filed.  He (debtor) had it moved at his wife's request to the rectory at Crundale.  Nothing else was moved away.

After further examination,

The Debtor said he also borrowed £300 from Mr Troutbeck (land agent and surveyor of Maidstone), the landlord's agent.  That was 2 or 3 years ago, and probably was obtained on the proise that the money should be repaid when he sold his hops.  He did not do so.  He remembered the meeting of creidtors at Faversham.  He sent a horse away that day.  That was not the one belonging to his wife.  He had not previously mentioned that, because he did not think of it  The animal was sent to his brothers at Folkestone.  The meeting was held on the 19th, and on the following morning the horse was sent away.  He knew that the petition was to be filed.  He sold his 1884 hops at about Christmas time.  He realised between £500 and £600, which was all gone for labour and other expenses.  Mr Harrison, solicitor at Folkestone, was a creditor for £1,027.  He lent that money without any security.  A loan of £2,200 was made through Mr Harrison from a Mr Arnell, a gentleman who lived somewhere in MIddlesex.  Mr Arnell held the debtor's uncle's note of hand, and interest was paid at the rate of 7%.  Three years after the loan was obtained, Mr Arnell died, the money was called in, and Mr Harrison found a part of the money required for payment.  He (the debtor) borrowed the £2,200 of Mr Arnell in 1880.

By the Official Receiver - My brother knew about the money transactions, but I arranged them.  I did no keep any books, and he did not remonstrate with me.  He did not tell me whether he was winning or losing at Hartley.  I could tell whether crops were paying or not.  I could not tell what he was doing with regard to borrowing money or getting into debt.

By the Registrar - I have never kept any books.  I have used small memorandum books, but I do not keep them.  I may have one in my pocket at home.

By the Official Receiver  I sold my corn crops through agents, Messra Hart and Tatnell, and Mr Young.  Some little time before I filed the petition Messra Hart and Tatnell sold some corn for me.  During the first 3 years I made a profit of £100 or £200.  I only had a few acres. The first 2 years we lost money on Hartley Farm, and I do not suppose we have made any since.  I have not made any money at Tranworth Farm.

Did not you know very soon afte ryou began that you ould not pay your creditors?  I was in hopes times would get better.  If my hops had sold for £1,600 instead of £600 it would have put a different face on things.  it would not have made me solvent, but would have enabled me to carry on the business.

Did you know in 1884, when you traded with trade creditor, that you had debts to the amount of over £20,000.  I knew I might be called upon for the money.

The same thing would apply to 1883? Well, so far as I know.  Of course I could not tell what the business would come to if realised.

Is it not a fact that you have proposed to the landlord's agent to let you carry the farm still?  Of course I hve.

What prospect is there of your carrying on that farm if you are in debt to the amount we have been enquiring into.  Have you any capital at all of your own?  No.
How do you expect to carry it on?  I could not tell you whether I might have a friend to give me the opportunity.

Thomas Gambrill deposed.  I am younger than my brother.  I am married and live at Hartley.  I only kept a book rcording goods sold.  I did not borrow any money in my neighbourhood.  My brother has had the management of the money.  I made myself responsible by signing my name without any enquiry.  I know the business was a losing one.  We have had bad seasons and bad prices, but were obliged to go on, as we were under a lease. We did not go into the bankruptcy court long ago because we hoped to recover ourselves.  I hve moved some things which belonged to my wife's mother (Mrs Monylaws), who is a creditor for £1,000 money lent to me. Mrs Monylaws was living at Lord Harris' house when she lent the money. The furniture was taken to a warehouse at Rochester.  I had a cheque book, but had nothing to do with the banking account at Messrs Hammond and Co's Canterbury Bank.  I did not know we had money from family creditors to the amount of £15,000.  I always believed the 170 sheep were Mr Clements'.  When Mr Young first came to my farm I told him of the removal of Mrs Monylaws' furniture.

By Mr Mowll - My sister in law did not tell me what had been removed from Tranworth.

Mr Mowll - I have told the other debtor (Mr A Gambrill) that if, on reflection, he can recollect other things, he shoudl get into the box and say so.  If Mr Sampson is examined here, as I am instructed he will be, and he says things have been removed, the debtor puts himself in great peril.  This Mr Gambrill ought to remember the serious position he is in.

In answer to Mr Mercer, Thomas Gambrill said - I know nothing about my indebtedness to Mr Burdok  He is a man very well off, and lives at Gravesend.  I do not know that Mr Clements gave Mr Burdock the money to lend.

The Registrar (to the debtors) - I must warn you that you are both in a serious position.  You do not know the law as well as the gentlemen conducting the case.  They are not threatening you without reason.  You must make a clean breast of your dealings, both as to money any other matters.  Unless you do you will find yourselves seriously involved.  It is the most serious case we have yet had in this Court by far.

The court was adjourned until May 15th.

2 May 1885 - Cattle Sale at Hartley Court
Gravesend Reporter

Hartley Court - about a mile and a half from Fawkham Station on the London, Chatham and Dover Railway

Mr Hodsoll is instructed by Colonel Evelyn to sell by auction, on the premises as above, on Friday, May 8th 1885, at 2 for 3pm, 39 head of horned stock, including 16 shorthorn heiffers, 3 capital milch cows, 10 young cows with their calves, 10 yearlings, a grand pedigree shorthorn bull, Fourth Duke of Wrotham, 2 two year old cart colts, 3 yearling colts, 3 two year old nag colts, brood mare in foal, 12 sows in pig, a few implements and 4,000 bavins.....

16 May 1885 - Further Examination of the Gambrill brothers
Whitstable Times
This is a lengthy report of the 2nd day of bankruptcy proceedings against Austin and Thomas Gambrill.  Most relates to Austin's farm at Crundale near Canterbury, so is not included here.  He is criticised for not keeping accounts and destroying his notebooks, especially when Thomas kept a ledger at Hartley.  Thomas was briefly questioned about some furniture he sent away from Hartley just before the proceedings commenced (this would look like hiding assets).  He said it belonged to his mother in law.

Thomas Gambrill of Hartley, Sevenoaks, was briefly examined by Mr Mowll, and said tht the day before the meeting at Faversham, furniture belonging to his mother in law (Mrs Monylaws, Willesborough, Ashford), was removed to a warehouse at Ashford.  The furniture was not a gift.  He had it in 1869, and it was then lying in a warehouse.  It was not use there, and she allowed him the use of it.  He should not think the value of the property was more than about £20.  He saw Mrs Moylaws at Willesborough, and she instructed him to remove the furniture.  She had heard that he was in difficulties.  The furniture at Rochester would, he supposed, be in his name.

Mr Mowll - It is only right to say that according to the report of Mr Young, people around express the greatest sympathy for this debtor.

8 August 1885 - Sale of stock at New House Farm
Gravesend Reporter
This is the next stage in the bankruptcy of the tenant, Thomas Gambrill.  Click here for a transcript of the auctioneer's copy of the catalogue with the names of the buyers and the winning bid.

New House Farm, near Farningham and Dartford
Mr William Hodsoll is instructed by Messrs Forrest (the farm being let) to sell by auction on the premises, as above, on Wednesday August 12th 1885 at 11 for 12 o'clock, the whole of the valuable live and dead farming stock, comprising 8 powerful and active draught horses, grey nag horse, capital Alderney cow, quantity of valuable poultry, and all the agricultural implements.

Catalogues may be had of Mr Crowhurst on the premises, and of the auctioneer, Farningham, Kent.

14 September 1885 - No man with red flag
St James's Gazette
The case was also reported in the Gravesend Reporter of 19 September 1885. The defendant is named as Thomas Wood, farmer of Crockenhill.

The Dangers of Traction Engines
At Dartford on Saturday, Mr Wood, a farmer, was summonsed for neglecting to have a man before a traction engine while proceeding through the village of Hartley.  Colonel Hartley said he saw two traction engines drawing trucks of agricultural machines along the road, but could see no one in front of the engines to warn people of their approach.  The defendant called a boy, who swore that he walked along the road 20 yards or more in front of the traction engine on the day mentioned.  The chairman said it was shameful to employ a boy for such work, and fined the defendant £5 and costs.  The decision will be appealed against.

5 November 1885 - Election Rally at Ash
Daily News
It is probably no coincidence that the Liberals went to the one local parish with a non-conformist chapel, as Anglicans were much more likely to vote Conservative.

Kent (Dartford Division)
Mr J E Saunders, the Liberal candidate, in opposition to Sir W Hart-Dyke MP for the North Western (Dartford) Division of Kent, addressed the electors at Ash last night.  Mr Albert Bath, of Sevenoaks, presided, and a resolution in favour of Mr Saunders's candidature was carried.

7 December 1885 - The General Election at Ash
Daily News

The Ballot Act
At the Dartford Petty Sessions on Saturday, Mr Edward Pink, a manufacturer, was charged with an offence under the Ballot Act.  On the 3rd instant the accused voted at the Ash polling station in the Dartford Division, and refused to show to the presiding officer the official mark of his ballot paper when application was made to him to do so.  The accused was therefore given into custody, and left the polling station with a police constable, having his ballot paper still with him - Mr Ridley solicitor, Dartford, who appeared to prosecute, said he did not think he should be able to prove the charge that had been made against the accused, and after some arguments the magistrates dismissed the case.  Mr Ridley the proceeded to make another charge against the accused - that of taking a ballot paper out of the polling station.  A long argument took place between Mr Ridley and the magsistrates, and ultimately the chairman (Mr Umbreville) said the magistrates thought as the offence was a misdemeanour, Mr Ridley could prosecute by indictment, and then the intricate question involved could be properly discussed.

23 February 1886 - Philip Binckes of Hartley House
London Gazette

In the High Court of Justice - Chancery Division
In the matter of the Companies Acts 1862 and 1867, and in the matter of the Finsbury Loan Company

By an order made by the Honourable Mr Justice Chitty, in the above matter, dated the 13th day of February 1886, on the petition of Philip Binckes of Hartley, near Dartford, in the county of Kent, gilder, a creditor of the above-named company, it was ordered that the said company be wound up by this court under the provisions of the Companies Acts 1862 and 1867, and that the costs of the petition and the said company, to be taxed by the Taxing Master, to be paid out of the assets of the said company.  Dated this 19th day of February 1886.

John Cotton, 62 St Martins-le-Grand, London EC, solicitor for the petitioner

8 May 1886 - A scrap at Longfield over a footpath
Gravesend Reporter
It appears the footpath between Hartley Road and Station Road round the back of the shops is meant as Edward Longhurst definitely owned land in the area.  At this time Station Road ended at the station and there was no eastern junction to Ash Road.

Mr Edward Longhurst, overseer for the parish of Longfield, was summoned for assualting James Hyde at Longfield, on the 26th ult.  There was also a cross summons - Mr Ridley, solicitor, prosecuted, and Mr Bailey defended.  In opening the case, Mr Ridley said that a dispute had arisen between Mr Longhurst and the parishioners of Longfield with reference to the right of way of the latter over some land in the occupation of Mr Longhurst.  The latter stopped the footpath (which Longfield with the Fawkham Railway Station) with a fence, but after a public meeting of the inhabitants of the parish had been held, a number of the latter proceeded to the field through which the footpath ran and pulled up the fence.  A good deal of bad feeling had been occasioned by this summary proceeding, but the fact that Mr Longhurst had not attempted to re-erect the fence showed that he had no private rights over the path, in fact it had existed in its present state from time immemorial.  On Easter Monday his client was walking along the footpath when Mr Longhurst met him and commenced to abuse him.  High words ensued and Mr Longhurst struck complainant over the eye with a 4 pronged fork which he had in his hand.  Mr Bailey for the defence urged, that on Easter Monday, whilst his client was digging up his garden, Hyde came on his land and challenged him to fight, and used most abusive language.  When his client declined to fight he commenced annoyig him by throwing stones. The latter then rushed at Mr Longhurst and he held up his fork in self-defence only, and one prong unfortunately, did touch Hyde's cheek. The chairman said the cases would be dismissed, as there was evidently 'six of one and half a dozen of the other'.  A third summons against James Hyde jun, for threatening Longhurst, was withdrawn upon the recommendation of the magistrates.

14 May 1886 - Gambrill Bankruptcy
Kent & Sussex Courier
Thomas Gambrill rented New House Farm in Church Road.  Given there were 240 old pence to the pound, this meant creditors got only about 3½% of the debts owned them.

The dividend in the bankruptcy of Messrs A & J Gambrill of Sevenoaks and Canterbury, and Ash (sic) near Wrotham, amounts to 8¾d in the £1.

9 October 1886 - Council visit to Longfield Depot
South London Press

Mr R Roberts Willson of 116 Walworth Road, a member of the Newington Vestry, has produced an excellent photographic group of the company representing the vestry that visited Longfield Depot a few weeks back. The photograph, while personally interesting to the members of the vestry, acquires additional interest from the fact that the visit was made upon what was practically the completion of important works at Longfield.

6 November 1886 - Accused of Poaching at Hartley Manor
Gravesend Reporter

Robert Monk the elder, Robert Monk the younger, and Jeremiah Cotter were indictd for being on land at night time, at Hartley Manor, the property of Colonel George Palmer Evelyn JP, for the purpose of unlawfully taking game.  Mr Dickens prosecuted.  Mr Edward Steer Evelyn said that on the night of the 12th September, shortly after 11 o'clock, he was going to his father's house, when he heard a whistle coming from near Bexley (sic) Wood on his father's estate.  On looking over a gate into a stubble field he saw a dog working the field.  Witness went into the field, and on looking over the hedge he saw a man stooping down, and not far off another man.  Witness spoke to them, and they became very abusive, and Monk the elder, struck him with a stick.  Monk the younger also struck him.  The younger Monk took his (witness's) stick from him. IC Randall proved arresting the prisoners, adn said that when told the charge they said "We were on the land that night to get mushrooms".  His lordship, in summing up, pointed out that neither snares nor game were found upon them.  The jury, without turning in the box, returned a verdict of not guilty.

22 November 1886 - Plans for large Cemetery at Hartley
South Eastern Gazette

In Parliament Session 1887 - Fawkham Cemetery
Notice is hereby given, that application is intended to be made to Parliament in the ensuing session for leave to bring in a bill for effecting the purposes, or some of the purposes following, that is to say:-

To incorporate a company, and to enable the company to be incorporated (hereinafter called the Company) to make and maitain a General Cemetery or Burial Ground for he interment of the dead in the parishes of Hartley and Longfield, in the county of Kent, upon all or some portion of the lands, and within the limits following, that is to say -

Lands bounded on the north by the London, Chatham and Dover Railway, on the south by the lands of Colonel George Palmer Evelyn, from a point about 10 chains north of All Saints' Church to Red Cow Farm; on the west by the lands of John T Smith esq and the public highway leading from All Saints' Church, in the parish of Hartley to Fawkham Station; on on the east by lands belonging to John Doherty esq, Captain Thomas Andrus, Trustees of the late H Cox, and the public highway leading from Red Cow Farm to Longfield Hill Siding, on the London Chatham and Dover Railway; which lands so proposed to be taken belong to and are now in the possession of Colonel George Palmer Evelyn.

To empower the company to stop up and discontinue as public highways:

(1) So much of the footpath as lies between the hop kiln and the further highway leading from Red Cow Farm to Longfield Hill Siding, in the parishes of Hartley and Longfield and county of Kent;
(2) So much of the footpath as lies between the hop kiln and the London, Chatham and Dover Railway;
(3) So much of the footpath as lies between a point about 10 chains north of Middle Farm and the London, Chatham and Dover Railway;
(4) So much of the footpath as lies between the hop kiln and the public highway leading from All Saints' Church to Fawkham Station;
(5) So much of the footpath as lies between the hop kiln and a point about 6 chains west of Red Cow Farm;
(6) So mcuh of the footpath as lies between Stocks Farm and the said hop kiln;
which said portions of footpaths (2,3,4,5, and 6) are wholly situate in the parish of Hartley and county of Kent.

All the said portions of footpaths are situate on the lands hereinbefore described as belonging to and now in the possession of Colonel George Palmer Evelyn.

To extinguish all public and private rights of way over and to vest in the company the sites and soil of the said portions of highways or footpaths so proposed to be stopped up under the powers of the bill.

To empower the company to purchase and acquire by compulsion or agreement, for the purposes of the intended Act, lands and buildings in the parishes or places of Hartley and Longfield in the county of Kent, and to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of lands and buildings acquired by them or on their behalf, and not required for the purposes of their cemetery or burial ground, and to vary and extinguish all existing rights and privileges connected with any lands and buildings so to be purchased or acquired which would or might impede or interfere with any of the objects or purposes of the intended act.

to enable the company to divert, alter, widen or stop up, either temporarily or permanently, all such roads, lanes, ways, footpaths, streams, lets, mains, pipes, drains and watercourses, within or adjacent to the lands intended to be acquired, as aforesaid, as it may be necessary or expedient to diver, alter, widen or stop up, for the purpose of the intended cemetery or burial ground, and to extinguish all rights of way, in or over, and all rights connected with such roads, lanes, ways, footpaths, streams, leats, mains, pipes, drains and watercourses, and to appropriate the soil and site thereof to the purpose of the intended cemetery or burial ground, and to make all necessary approaches and communications to and from the same, and futher to make and carry out any arrangements or agreements with public bodies or with private persons which ay be necessary or desirable in relation to the works hereinbefore mentioned, and the other peruposes of the intended Act.

To enable the company to demand and receive fees, charges, and other payments for or in respect of the intended cemetry or burial ground, and of interments therein, and to confer on the company all othe rpowers, rights and privileges necessary for carrying into effect the objects and purposes hereinbefore set forth, including he powers contained in the Cemeteries Clauses Act 1847, which Act will, or may be incorporated in the Bill.

And notice is hereby further given, that plans of the lands intended to be acquired as aforesaid, with a book of reference to such plans, and and a copy of this notice as published in the London Gazette, will be deposited for public inspection with the Clerk of the Peace for the County of Kent, at his office at Maidstone, in that county; and on or befroee the said 30th day of November, a copy of so much of the said plans and book of reference respectively as relates to each parish within which any of the lands intended to be taken are situate, will be deposited for public inspection with the parish clerk of each such parish, at his residence.......

Dated the 19th day of November 1886
C J Hanly & Co ..... Parliamentary Agents.

27 November 1886 - More statistics about the Longfield Depot
South London Press
This is a lengthy report about the the clerk of Newington Vestry's demand for a pay increase.  This caused considerable anger with the public gallery being full and the vestry hall besieged by angry ratepayers. Faced with such opposition, Mr Dunham withdrew his letter.  However as he supported the ruling group on the council they made sure he got a pay rise and kept the public out of the meeting when they decided this by the expedient of resolving the whole council into committee, which meant at the time the public were not permitted to attend (South London Press 25.12.1886).  What follows is only extracts, including his letter setting out the work of the Longfield Depot.  

There is also a concerned letter from the council's auditors about a 3d per ton commission paid to the clerk on every ton of manure sent from Walworth to Longfield, to be spent as he saw fit.  One of the uses the money was put to was to pay for the dinner for the depot committee and their customers without it going through the council books, as this caused annual criticism about its propriety.  The auditor saw this as "a scandal" and called for it to be stopped.  The council refused, dubiously claiming the auditor had no right to mention this (South London Press 11.12.1886).

Mr Dunham would ultimately be imprisoned for embezzlement of council money.  The allegations against him go back to this year.  Was the auditor's letter an early warning the council should have heeded?

The Newington Vestry Clerk and his Salary

On Wednesday night, in consequence of it being made known that the question of the proposed increase in the clerk's salary would come before the vestry, a large crowd of ratepayers gathered outside the Vestry Hall and sought admission to the gallery, which was crowded half an hour before the time for commencing the proceedings  During the whole time the vestry sat, the door of the Vestry Hall was literally besieged by ratepayers, who ore than once seemed as if they woudl force the door and take up a position in the body of the hall......

The Rev Chairman said Mr T J Hester, one of the auditors had written a letter to him, in which the writer said:

"On examination of the vestry accounts for the parish of Newington, I came across a voucher for a large amount which did not appear to be required as an item of expenditure connected with the accounts, and on inquiry of the clerk, for whose business acquirements and honourable career I entertain feelings of the very highest respect, I found that the bill related to a dinner paid for by the clerk, given to certain farmers and dealers who purchase the far-famed Newington Mixture, out of the commission of 3d per ton allowed by the vestryfor every ton of mixture sent from the Newington Depot by rail to the mixture depot in Kent.  The clerk informed me that such expenditure was absolutely necessary, and I further understand from him that the commission was fully absorbed in such charges.  I venture to say that the system of subsidising purchasers in an underhand way is a vicious one, and especially as the money is used as 'secret service' money; and although the clerk repudiates, and doubtless justly so, the making of any profit on the transactions, I consider that, as Caesar's wife, the clerk should be above suspicion.  The sooner some means can be adopted to place the matter on a thoroughly business footing, the better t would be for all concerned."

The letter was received with cheers from the gallery.

The Chairman said he had written to Mr Hester, asking if this letter should be placed before the vestry.  Mr Hester replied as follows:

"57 Lorrimore Road
Nov 24th 1886
Rev Sir - Please read my letter to the vestry.  I think that the sooner the commission business is abolished the better for the parish (Cheers from the gallery).  It is little else than a scandal that £360 per annum should be scattered about no-one really knows where.  I shall without doubt bring the whole subject before the ratepayers on the first opportunity."

On the motion of Mr Kent, the letter was referred to the Depot Committee.

A member asked that the letters from the vestry clerk, applying for an increase in salary, might be read.

The chairman said they had them in print before them.  They were very lengthy, and there was no need to read them.

The letters, which were loudly called for from the gallery were as follows:


Letter no 2.

Vestry Hall, Walworth
Nov 19th, 1886
Gentlemen - I have expressed to your Depot Committee a very strong desire to be relieved of the management of the town and country depots, on the following grounds: (1) That by the establishment of Longfield Depot, the vestry are now placed in a position to overcome all future difficulties attending the disposal of rough house dust.  (2) That the opening of the lower portion of this depot for screening the house dust, and afterwards sale of ashes and breeze, would entail much study, anxiety, and detail work, which, judging from past labours, will never be understood, and therefore not appreciated by the ratepayers.  (3) That having regard to the services rendered to the parish in the development of the large business arising from the disposal of refuse by rail from the town depot during the 10 years ending Lady Day 1883, to a very large extent owing to the formation of country depots at Meopham and Longfield, the salary of £100 per annum awarded on November 21, 1883 is totally inadequate for these labours, and entirely out of proportion as a payment, for the very large benefits which have accrued to the parish from the establishent of these depots.  In conequence of the strong objection always raised to the payment of large salaries to officials, however competent, I urged the committee to make the necessary appointments to relieve me of the depot management in preference to applying to you for an increase of salary.  Your Depot Committee, however, on the 2nd inst unanimously passed a resolution to the effect that nothing short of an absolute refusal on my part to continue the work would induce them to advise the vestry to place the depot business under different management.  Before agreeing in any manner to continue the work, I inquired the views of your committee as to past and future remuneration for these services, upon which the committee at a subsequent meeting, resolved to submit to your consideration the recommendation appearing on the agenda paper for the meeting on the 24th inst.  As the committee's report concerns myself, the recommendation will be submitted without any explanatory remarks.  Allow me, therefor, to remind the vestry that previous to the establishment of the town depot, the collection and disposal of house dust cost the parishioners 3s 5d per load, and the carriage of road sweepings to a shoot 3 shillings per load.  During the 10 years ending Lady Day, 1883, the quantity of road sweepings and house dust sent away by rail form teh town depot reached 325,432 tons, which realised by sale ot farmers and brickmakers the sum of £51,433 6s 10d, te vestry during the same period receiving £6,147 10s from the vestry of St George the Martyr for the privilege of using hte depot as a shoot for the refuse from that parish, making a total receipt of £57,580 16s 10d.  The cost attending the disposal of this 325,432 tons of refuse, including £31,162 paid to the railway company for carriage, wages of sifters, cost of loading , and other labour, rent of depot and all other establishment and incidental charges, amounted to £59,560 10s 8d, whih leaves only a small balance of £1,979 13s 10d, or an average cost of £197 19s 4d per annum as the cost attending the disposal of the refuse when collected.  There has been of course in addition to this charge the interest and instalments of the loan of £14,000 to bear, the average payents for the 10 years being £894 10s 4d, which, added to the before mentioned sum of £197 19s 4d makes together £1,092 9s 8d per annum, as the average annual cost for the 10 years.  During the same period 224,023 loads of road sweepings, and 158,110 loads of house dust have been collected and deposited in the town depot.  After taking into account, therefore, the cost of purchase and keep of the vestry's stud of horses, stables, wages of workmen employed in collection, new plant and repairs, and the before mentioned sum of £1,092 9s 8d per annum, the cost of collection and disposal of house dust has been reduced from 3s 5d to 2s 10d per load, and the cartage of road sweepings to the depot as against cartage to a shoot has been reduced from 3s to 2s per load.  Without taking into account the increased cost that would have been incurred in cartage to a shoot, canal or river of the total quantity of refuse collected at the present time, as against the cost of cartage and disposal of one half the quantity 10 years' since, the actual and undisputed saving of 1 shilling per load on the 224,023 loads of sweepings collected and taken to the depot amounted to £11,201 3s and the saving of 7d per load on the 158,110 loads of dust collected and likewise taken to the depot amounts to £4,611 10s 10d - making together a saving, or reduced taxation, to the ratepayers of £15,812 13s 10d during the 10 years.  My own salary as clerk to the vestry, together with those paid to my staff, only amounted during the same period to £7,345 2s 6d.  I think, therefore, there can be no question that the £100 per annum voted in November 1883, was altogether inadequate to the value of the services rendered.  Since that date I have completed the structural portion of Longfield Depot, and from May 1885, the vestry have saved the salary of £150 per annum paid to the depot superintendent.  The work in the yard is also being carried on more smoothly and economically than during any period since the depot was established.  Your Depot Committee propose, therefore, to increase my salary of £100 for depot supervision to £300, which, after taking into account the saving effected by the appointment of another superintendent, would appear to represent an increased expenditure, as an establishment charge of £50 per annum, but which in reality is no increased expenditure, as the present economical supervision of hte town depot shows a saving of more than £100 per annum over the charges of previous years.  It will be seen, therefore, from the recommendation which your Depot Committee submits to you, that although to me personally it means an increased income of £200 per annum, to the parish it means retaining the services of an experienced and competent officer without any extra charge to the parishioners, or reward for past services.  The terms proposed are very hard.  I feel quite certain that if I give up the depot work the loss to the parish would exceed £1,000 per annum, and under these circumstance, therefore, I respectfully but firmly assure the vestry that I will not accept anything less than the amount recommended by your committee, and then only on condition that the resolution is passed by such number as will prevent it being rescinded at any subsequent meeting by a less number than two-thirds of the numbers constituting the vestry.  I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant, L J Dunham, Vestry Clerk.  To the Vestry of St Mary, Newington.

28 December 1886 - The Great Snowstorm
Pall Mall Gazette

Reports show that the snowstorm of Sunday night was widespread and disastrous.....  Railway and vehicular traffic was greatly interrupted....  The Secretary of the General Post Office yesterday issued the following circular: 'Telegraphic communication is totally interrupted from London to the east, south east, and south west of England......'

Early int he evening of Sunday most of the London buses had to cease running, but by the energy of Major Hill, the cars fo the London Street Tramways Company were enabled to run until 11.30 at night......

The Dover express from London, when between Fawkham and Meopham, ran into a snowdrift and had to be dug out, an operation that occupied nearly half an hour....

16 February 1887 - Position Wanted
The Times

Footboy under a butler.  Age 18.  Town or country.  4 years' good character.  FD The Old Downs, Hartley, Near Dartford, Kent.

26 November 1887 - Sale of Hay at Old Downs
Gravesend Reporter

The Old Downs, Hartley, Kent
Mr William Hodsoll is instructed to sell by auction, at the Railway Tavern, Fawkham Station, on Thursday Dec 1st at 2 for 3p, 30 loads of prime upland grass hay, in 3 stacks.

26 May 1888 - Fatal Accident at Longfield Tip, Inquest
Gravesend Reporter
The newpaper reported the accident the previous week.  They mentioned a man named Letchford was injured too but recovered (might be Philip Letchford of Hartley).

An inquest was held at the Town Hall, on Friday afternoon last, before Mr W G Penman, borough coroner, on the body of James Cook, a labourer, aged 63 years, who died in the hospital on the previous day from the effects of injuries sustained on the 2nd inst, while employed in moving a heap of ashes, belonging to the Newington Vestry authorities, which had become fired at a siding at Longfield, on the London, Chatham and Dover Railway.  From the evidence of a number of witnesses, it appeared that deceased, who resided at Meopham, had been in the employ of the vestry for several years, and well understood the work  On the morning in question, about a ton and a half of the heap, which was some 20 feet high, fell suddenly close upon where he was at work.  Besides being badly scorched and burnt about the body and limbs, he appeared to have inhaled the fire dust, which, burning his mouth and throat, penetrated the lungs.  Verdict - accidental death.

8 January 1889 - Christmas at Fawkham
Maidstone Journal

Fawkham: Christmas Festivities - the holy season of Christmastide has been honoured in this Parish in the ordinary ways and by festivities of a special character.  First there was the distribution on Christmas Day of the "Walter Gift", viz coats to 6 men and gowns to 6 women in the three adjoining parishes of Fawkham, Hartley and Ash, the recipients attending Church to hear a special sermon in accordance with the will of the donor; afterwards they partook of a substantial dinner prepared under the direction of Mr and Mrs Wooden at Skudder's Farmhouse.  

On Thursday an entertainment consisting of music, singing, readings, and recitations was given in Skudder's Barn, which had been lent for the purpose by Mr Hohler and prepared by his workmen under Mr Wooden's direction, and suitably adorned by Mrs Wooden.  The following persons took part in it: Miss Hohler, Miss Blackall, Mrs Beech, the Misses Smith, Miss McKee, Miss Helee, the Rev T Blackall, Lt-Col Hartley, Mr W Blackall, Mr Allen, Mr Bernard and Mr Glover.  The audience which was a large one, gave expression to their feelings by frequent cheering and by several demands for encores.  Mr Bernard's recitations were excellent, and his lifelike representation of Mrs Brown kept the audience in continuous laughter.  The proceeds amounted to about £2 5s and are to be eld in reserve for the expense of consecrating the addition to the churchyard which is now being made by Mr Hohler.  

On the following evening a substantial supper, with beer, was provided in the same place by Mr Hohler for all adult persons in the parish and on his estate in honour of the marriage of his daughter to the Hon Eric Rollo, which took place during the year.  Over 100 persons sat down to the meal, and were waited upon by Mr Rollo, the Rector, Miss Blackall, Mr G Hohler and other members of the family.  At the conclusion of the supper Mr and Mrs Hohler, Miss Hohler and the Hon Mrs Rollo entered the barn and their healths were severally proposed by the Rector, who spoke of the kindness and friendliness which had always been shown by them towards their poorer neighbours and of the willing help which he had always received from Mr and Mrs Hohler in the work of the parish.  Mr Rollo made a very appropriate reply, and Mr Hohler said he was always glad to meet his tenants and workpeople on such friendly terms, and that he was always willing to give employment to industrious and deserving men.  He concluded by proposing the health of the Rector, of whom he spoke in very kindly terms.  The health of the Queen was also drunk. The Manor party left the barn amidst most enthusiastic cheers and he singing of "He's a jolly good fellow", and the guests remained and amused themselves with songs.

On Monday evening, the 31st, all the schoolchildren were treated to a tea and a Christmas tree at the Manor, and went home very happy with numerous presents.  Thus ended a very festive week, which has been very much appreciated and enjoyed by the parishioners and by the other residents on the estate.

29 May 1889 - The Thunderstorm
Kent and Sussex Courier

The violent thunderstorm which occurred on Thursday was felt severely in Kent,and a considerable amount of damage appears to have been done.

......(reports from Marden, Headcorn, Rochester and Plaxtol)....

At Hartley Green, Fawkham, on Thursday, a house in the occupation of a labourer, named Bennett, was struck by lightning, and hte chimney was damaged.  At Fawkham, 80 yards of stones, placed at the side of the road for repairing purposes were washed away with the exception of about a yard and a half, and a gang of men had to be sent to clear the roads before traffic could be resumed.  The yard attached to the Rising Sun, Fawkham, kept by Mr Haselden, was deeply flooded, and a litter of 11 pigs, with 2 sows, had a narrow escape, whilst the houses of Mr Bates and M Whiting were also flooded.  Part of a wall, the property of Mr H B Holden (probably Hohler is meant), was likewise washed down by the flood; and Fawkham Churchyard was laid under water for some time.

6 July 1889 - Shop for sale at Fawkham Green
Gravesend Reporter
This advert is interesting for the details it gives of the business of a village shop at the time (like the Black Lion).  Also of interest is the fact the shop sold paraffin, a fairly new innovation for lighting lamps.

Fawkham Green (2½ miles from Fawkham Station)
Re Webster

Mr Edward Allen of Rochester will, under instructions received from the Official Receiver, sell by auction at the Bull Hotel, Dartford, on Tuesday the 16th day of July 1889, at 6 or 7 o'clock precisely, the very valuable freehold house and shop with stable, small warehouse, earthenware house, coal lodge, well lodge, wood lodge, paraffin shed, small shed, and useful garden.

The property contains on the east side, bounded by the property of Mr Young, about 224 feet; on the south side, about 75 feet by the property of Mr Whiting; on the west the high road, leading from Fawkham Green to Fawkham Church and, having a frontage of 223 feet; and on the north side about 4 feet situate at or near Fawkham Green in the parish of Fawkham, near Dartford, in the occupation of Mrs Webster, postmistress; together with the goodwill of the business of a grocer, draper, provision dealer and general shop keeper, carried on the said premises, with the fixtures of the house, shop and premises.  The average turnover has been over £6,000 per annum.  The house contains parlour, kitchen, scullery, large and small cellar, 4 bedrooms, shop 16 feet by 20 feet,and 2 store rooms 20 feet by 12 feet.  There is a good well on the premises Purchasers will have the option of taking stock and trade utensils at a price or by valuation.  Estimated rental value, £50.....

13 July 1889 - Cricket at Hartley Wood
Bexleyheath Observer

Dartford Licensing Sessions
A third application was for an extra hour at Mr Wansbury's the "Black Lion", Hartley, on the occasion of the Oddfellow's annual dinner, on the 13th inst.

Mr Baily said these licences had been granted for the last 4 or 5 years - granted.

An application was next made by Mr Baily for occasional licence at a cricket match to be held at Hartley Wood, between the officers of Woolwich Garrison, and an eleven chosen by Mr Evelyn - granted.

23 November 1889 - Wandsworth Rubbish for Longfield Tip
South London Press

Newington Vestry - Wandsworth House Dust
It was resolved, upon the recommendation of the Depot Committee - "That the contrat with the Board of Works for the Wandsworth District, for the reception of rough house dust at Longfield Depot, be renewed for 12 months from Lady Day next, on the present terms and conditions."

© Content P Mayer 2000-2018.  Created with WebSite X5
Back to content