Newspaper Stories 1885-1889 - Hartley-Kent: The Website for Hartley

1885-Jan-06 Boundary Commission Daily News
"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."

[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.]

1885-Jan-09 Boundary Commission Kentish Gazette
"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......."

1885-Feb-07 Robbery from the New Railway Gravesend Reporter
Dartford Magistrates: "At the Dartford Petty Sessions, on Saturday last, before T Bevan esq (in the chair), Lieut-Col Beamish and W Anderson esq, George Frederick Swatteridge was charged with stealing a quantity of timber, two iron rails and 4 lime bags, value 15 shilling, the property of Mr J Barclay Bruce, at Longfield.  Mr CR Gramshaw was for the prosecution, and said Mr Bruce was a contractor for constructing the Gravesend and Hartley [sic] railway.  During the construction of the line, a very large quantity of wood amounting to several hundred pounds in value had been stolen at different times.  One of Mr Bruce's foremen, in consequence of information he received, went to the prisoner's house and there found a quantity of timber, iron and sacks, which he identified as belonging to Mr Bruce.  On being questioned as to how he came in possession of the wood, the prisoner, who worked on the line unitl the 8th January last, said he bought it of a man named Hatfield, who had bought it at a sale and had since gone away.  No one of that name could be discovered.  Prisoner had no right to the wood and no authority had been given to sell it.  Some portion of the wood had been used in constructing a pigsty, aound which the sacks were nailed.  There had been no sale of wood used in constructing the railway.  The magistrates considered the case too serious a one to be dealt with by them, and committed the prisoner for trial at the Quarter Sessions, but admitted him to bail."

"

1885-Feb-28 Boundary Commission Thanet Advertiser
""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 the 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.

[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)"

1885-Apr-27 Heavy Failure of Kentish Agriculturalists - Liabilities £21,000 South Eastern Gazette
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 estimated 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 married 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 have.  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.

[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.]

1885-May-02 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....."

1885-May-16 Gambrill Bankruptcy Whitstable Times
".....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....."

[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.]

1885-May-23 Hartley Court for Sale Times
Sale of Court & Manor, income said to be capable of £6,000 pa

1885-Jul-18 Property for Sale at Station Road Gravesend Reporter
"Fawkham, Kent.  In a very pleasant and healthy situation, close to railway station, about 1 hour from town, and within easy reach of Dartford, Gravesend etc.  Freeholds and desirable villas for occupation.

Messrs Masterman, Evans & Co will sell by auction at the Mart, Tokenhouse Yard EC on Wednesday July 22, 1885, at 2 o'clock in lots: 2 freehold shops in Station Road, in a commanding corner position, with stabling in rear, let at a yearly rental of £80.  A pair of semi-detached freehold dwelliing houses, let to good weekly tenants at rentals amounting to £62 8s per annum.  And 8 very attractive semi-detached freehold villas, pleasantly situate close to the railway station, with large gardens in front and rear, each containing 3 bedrooms, a dressing room, drawing and dining rooms, kitchen, scullery etc.  5 are let and produce £111 per annum.  The remainder will be sold with possession."

1885-Jul-25 Gambrill Bankruptcy Canterbury Journal
"Re Austen Gambrill - The Trustee's Report - A Further Enquiry resolved upon

Austen Gambrill late of Trimworth Farm, Crundale, again came up for his public examination, Mr Worsfold Mowll represented the trustee (Mr Bedo Hobbs).  - Mr Mowll read the report presented by the trustee to the Official Receiver and the committee for inspection.  The reporter was a very long one and the preparation of it had evidently involved an immense amount of work.  It contained the following - The bankrupts commenced business at Michaelmas 1867, without capital.  They obtained from Mrs Pepper an advance of £250, and with this sum they took Crundale Street Farm, Crundale, near Canterbury, comprising about 33 acres, the rent of which was £66 10s.  In 1869 the bankrupts took Hartley Farm [=New House Farm] near Sevenoaks from Messrs Forrest, which comprised 200 acres at a rental of £240, and they were in possession of this farm at the time of the bankrutcy.  At Michaelmas 1873 they took Marriage Farm, Wye, comprising 165 acres, at a rental of £120, and surrendered the farm at Michaelmas 1882.  At Michaelmas 1875, the bankrupts took Trimworth Farm, comprising 320 acres at a rental of £430, which has since been increased, and they were in possession of this farm at the time of bankruptcy.  At Michaelmas 1884, the took some land at Westyoke near Rochester, comprising 15 acres at a rental of £25 per annum, and they were in possession of this land at the time of the bankrputcy.  The bankrupts seem to have borrowed in case during the time they have been in business from 1867 to the spring of this year £14,276 as follows:-

1867 - £310 (Charlotte Maria Gambrill £60, Mrs Pepper £250)
1869 - £2,100 (Gurney Loan £1,200, Mrs Moneylaws £900)
1870 - £200 (Valentine Gambrill)
1871 - £665 (Austen Gambrill sen)
1873 - £831 (Valentine Gambrill £452, A Gambrill sen £377.8.9)
1874 - £200 (Mrs Bourne £100, V Gambrill £100)
1875 - £1,430 (Mr Bourne £900, V Cambrill £30, Bank £500)
1876 - £1,450 (Dr Bellamy £500, Clements £700, V Gambrill £250)
1877 - £1,700 (Bank £800, Bank £900)
1879 - £1,400 (Dr Bellamy £300, V Gambrill £300, Bank £800)
1880 - £990 (V Gambrill £340.10.0, Clements £300, Bank £350)
1881 - £650 (Clements £150, Bank £500)
1882  £1,100 (Clements £600, V Gambrill £500, Gregory £500)
1883 - £550 (Clements £250, R Troutbeck £300)
1884 - £200 (Mrs Bourne)
Total - £14,276

Besides this they have had advanced to them in live and dead stock £1,607.0.8.  The following are particulars:-

1871 - £200 (T Gambrill sen)
1873 - £811.14.0 (A Gambrill sen)
1876 - £595.6.8 (Clements)
Total £1,607.0.8

A large portion of the advances have been traced into the bank book and were dealt with by the bankrupts in the course of their business.  It appears, however, to have been the practice of the bankrupts not to pay in the whole amount of a cheque they received.  Sometimes they only paid part of the amount into the bank and took the remainder away in cash, and at other times they appear to have cashed the cheque, and to have used the cash.  As the bankrupts kept no books whatsoever, or rather whatever books were kept were destroyed, it has been an extremely difficult task to analyse the accounts, but, from the investigation which has been made, and from the examination of the majority of the creditors for money lent before the Registrar, the trustee is satisfied that, with certain exceptions mentioned in the detailed reports as to the proofs, the money has been advanced and honestly used in the business.  The bank book has been carefully gone through and the whole of the cheques made out in the name of Gambrill have been extracted.  There were some large amounts payable in 1872-73-74 in the name of Gambrill.  Upon investigation it appears that a brother of the bankrupts was in business as a draper at Chelmsford; that he got into difficulties; that the bankrupts endorsed bills for him which they had to meet; that they took over his business from him, and were eventually the losers of about £400 or £500.  To summarise the investigation it appears as follows:

Cash Advanced to Bankrupts - £14,276
Stock - £1,607
Trade Debts - £800
Total £16,683

Amount repaid by bankrupts - £1,310
Interests and discounts from 1877 to 1884 - £2,256.0.7
Interests and discounts from 1867 to 1878 - £1,183.2.6
Total - £5,019.3.1.

The deficiency, less loss on the bankrupt brother's failure (say £450), was £11,213 16s 11d, and against this amount must be placed £4,500 the valuation and assets at Hartley and Trimworth Farms, showing a deficiency of £6,713 16s 11d.

The proofs annexed to the report showed that among the creditors were:

Maria Bourse - £1,500
Dr Bellamy - £800
Mr F Burdock - £950
Mr T G Clements - £664.10.7
Mr V Gambrill - £3,177.7.0
Mr A Gambrill sen - £2,027.18.0
Mr J Gregory - £1,064.15.11
Mr T Gambrill sen - £865
Charlotte Maria Gambrill - £91.10.0
Messrs Hammond & Co -  £1,100
Mr WGS Harrison - £1,037.7.8
Mrs Moneylaws - £1,237
Mrs Pepper - £275
Mr R Troutbeck - £322
Mr Walker - [blank]
London and County Bank, Dover - £400

Messrs Hammond & Co's loan is secured.  The proof of Mr A Gambrill sen is barred by statute, and is, therefore, rejected - The Official Receiver: I do not consider it any part of my duty to criticise or express any opinion on the report of the trustee's solicitor, but I must at the same time be permitted to say that in my opinion very great assistance has been afforded by the exhaustive way in which these complicated accounts have been investigated, and te result as stated in the report, I consider may be relied upon.  After all, teh report only goes to show that the proofs are correct without throwing any light upon the important question as to how the bankrupts spent the money.  There is in the report one remark which I am obliged to take exceptionto as I find nothing to justify it, and that is where it is stated that the trustee is satisfied that the money has been used honestly in the business.  I do not see how the trustee can come to such a conclusion when he stateshimself that as the bankrupt has kept no books, or rather has destroyed them, it has been an extremely difficult task to analyse the accounts.  My own impression from the investigation which I have made is - I say it candidly and openly - that the money has not been used honestly in any sense of the word, and I believe the books have been destroyed for the purposes of preventing enquiry.  It is quite clear from the statement which Mr Mowll has filed thate there is not sufficient light thrown upon the question as to how these bankrupts got rid of the enormous sums which they did; and I still ask for an adjournment for the purpose of further enquiry.  The labour account at Crundale has been put down at £6,979; but I understand from Mr Mowll's assistant (Mr Bracher, of Ashford), who has used every care he could in investigating the matter, that the only way they have been able to arrive at that has been picking the cheques out of the bank book and the debtor's saying they are for labour.  These are large sums and require more searching investgation that they have received.  I have no doubt, however, that Mr Mowll has done the best he could, - Mr Hobbs in answer to the Registrar, said: The bankrupts held 700 acres.  I should think the loss has been more than £500 a year for the last 7 years - The Registrar went carefully into the figures and said that it appeared the debtors had for the last 7 years received annually at least £3,600.  They had in fact got through £36,000, adn they only accounted for £22,848 16s 7d - Mr Mowll said the debtors commenced business in 1867 - The Registrar: That makes it worse.  I have taken the debts back to 1867, but I have only taken the receipts for the last 7 years - The Official Receiver: I had all these facts in my mind when I asked for an adjournment - Mr Hobbs stated that a person taking a farm of 700 acres would require a capital of £9,100 or £13 an acre - Mr Mowll: When you deal with figures they can be put either for or against very strongly.  I have had myself to investigate a case referring to a farm of 500 acres which a friend of mine had in Norfolk.  He carried it on for 8 years, and during that time he sunk in solid sovereigns £10,000 - The Registrar: It may be sunk, bu the sinking should be shown.  You cannot get over the fact that these gentlemen have been playing the fool with no end of money, and tehy have not given proper accounts.  There is expenditure of £18,000 not explained.  I do not mean to say that some of that £18,000 was not spent in labour, but even if it were it should be shown.  A man has no business to go into heavy farming matters without keeping book.  It is most improper - Mr Mowll: There has been no cash book, and therefore the labour account was of the roughtest possible description.  There were meetings of the family at Trimworth, and the debtor said he could not pay the money he owed - The Registrar: he denied that there had been such meetings.  I am inclined to think there were books, and that form some good reason they have been destroyed. - Mr Mowll said that Miss Gambrill (daughter of Mr Gambrill of Alkham) stated there were no books - The Official Receiver stated that he should ask the Board of Trade to appoint an expert in farming and grazing to investigate the case.  The Registrar granted an adjournment till August 7th, but said he had no doubt whatever that Mr Hobbs and Mr Mowll had done their very best with the materials at their disposal.

[Some of the people mentioned were Thomas G sen (b 1802) - Austen and Thomas's father; Valentine (b 1854) and Emma (b 1858) G - their brother and sister; Mrs Moneylaws - Thomas's mother in law, he gave one of his children the middle name Moneylaws; J Gregory - presumably Austen's father in law]

1885-Jul-25 Traction Engine Traffic Gravesend Reporter
"The Queen v Chittenden and another - this was an action brought against Messrs Chittenden, Knight & Co, traction engine proprietors of Sittingbourne, for an alleged obstruction and nuisance caused by the traffice of an engine and 3 trucks on the road leading from Fawkham Railway Station to South Ash.  The road in question is in the district of the Dartford Highway Board, and prossecuting counsel, who were Mr Murphy QC and Mr HF Dickens, were instructed by Mr JC Hayward, clerk to that Board.  the defendant was represented by Mr Willis QC, Mr Winch and Mr M Smith.  Mr Murphy, in opening the case, denied that it was a test case.  The point rested upon the dimensions of the road, which in some places being only 10ft wide a traction engine was a very improper conveyance to use there.  Several witnesses were called to give evidence as tot eh inconvenience they had experiences from the traffic of the traction engine and 3 trucks on this road.  Mr Willis, in addressing the jury for the defence, said it seemed to him rather remarkable that the highway board should have raised this question, especially after, in the year 1881, Mr Moore, farmer (from whose farm flints were being carried), had the very same service rendered to him by the traction engine and trucks being employed in the same way, and no question was then raised as to the impropriety of using this road for the traffic of traction engines and trucks.  A considerable number of witnesses were called to speak for the defence.  Their general testimony was to the effect that no more delay was caused by the engine and trucks than by the ordinary traffic.  The jury retired to consider their verdict.  After an absence of about 10 minutes the returned and announced that they had found for the defendants."

[A shorter report in the East Kent Gazette of 18.7.1885 said "it seems that there was some little prejudice in the locality against road locomotives, and a round robin was sent about by one or two persons for signature, and it was afterwards submitted to the Dartford Highway Board."]

1885-Aug-01 Gambrill Bankruptcy Folkestone Express
"It is understood tthat there will be no further investigation in the matter of the bankruptcy of the Messrs Gambrill, formerly farmers and hop-growers at Crundale near Canterbury, and Hartley, near Sevenoaks.  The Board of Trade, it is stated, do not consider it necessary to further prolong the proceedings.  The amount in hand, after the payment of legal and other expenses, will provide for a dividend of about one shilling in the £."

1885-Aug-08 Gambrill Bankruptcy Gravesend Reporter
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."

[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.]

1885-Aug-15 Accident at Fawkham Gravesend Reporter
"William Potter, 43, of 12 Edwin Street, Gravesend, while driving at Fawkham his horse bolted, and the wheel passing over his chest, he was seriously injured, and now lies in a very critical state at the Gravesend Hospital."

1885-Aug-29 Property for Sale at Station Road Gravesend Reporter
"To be sold, a pair of freehold houses, known as Myrtle Villas, Station Road, Fawkham [Longfield], close to the railway station; gross rentals £41 12; each house contains 8 rooms with good garden in the rear and forecourt in the front.  Apply to Mr Edward Hilder, solicitor, 20 Harmer Street, Gravesend."

1885-Sep-19 No Red Flag Gravesend Reporter
Dartford Magistrates: "Mr Thomas Wood, farmer of Crockenhill, 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"

1885-Nov-05 General Election at Ash Daily News
"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."

[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.]

1885-Dec-07 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."

1886-Feb-23 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"

1886-Apr-24 The Gravesend Railway Gravesend Reporter
"The formal opening of the new branch of the London, Chatham and Dover Railway from Fawkham to Gravesend, took place on Saturday last.  A special train left Victoria at 11.10, and amongst the company were Mr G Cavendish Taylor, Mr Mills (Chief Engineer), Mr and Mrs Brookhouse, Mr and Mrs R White, Messrs F Rudall, J White, J Moore, WH Cross, J Hancock, Wharton, Barrow, J Morgan, Woodham and others.  Upon arriving at Fawkham Junction, the party were met by Sir Sydney and Lady Waterlow, Mrs W Fletcher, Mr F B Nettleingham, Dr and Mrs Firth, Mr and Mrs Chas Waterlow, Mrs Rosher, Mr and Mrs G Wood (Southfleet), and Mr and Mrs GB Bruce.  From this point Lady Waterlow piloted the train over the new line to Gravesend, where the party embarked from the new pier on board the steamtug Victoria and took a trip to the new docks.  After spending about an hour at this place they returned to the West Street Station, and, upon the invitation of Mr G B Bruce (contractor for the new railway), the company sat down to a dejeuner, provided in excellent style by Mr S Hubbard of the New Falcon Hotel.  After the toast of 'the Queen' had been given, Mr G Barclay Bruce, on rising, said he had great pleasure in callin gupon them to drink the health of Lady Waterlow, who nearly three years ago turned the first sod of that railway, and now that day she had driven the first passenger train over the new line.  He knew they were all delighted to see Lady Waterlow present with them on this occasion.  Sir Sydney H Waterlow said if his wife was capable of driving a locomotive she should also be capable of responding to that toast, for on one occasion, a few months since, she addressed a much larger assembly in support of his (the speaker's) candidature.  However, he believed Lady Waterlow desired to express her thanks for the kind manner in which her name had been received, and also at the gratification she felt at driving the first passenger train over the new line.  There were no unusual bumps on tehline, and no one could tell that a novice had had the locomotive in hand.  Sir Sydney Waterlow then proposed 'Prosperity to the new Gravesend Railway', coupled with the name of Mr G Barclay Bruce.  He believed the line was well constructed and well consolidated.  Now the work was finished they would in all probability lose their friend Mr Bruce, who, by his kind and generous disposition, had won his way into the hearts of the Gravesend people, and it would be the regret of many tha Mr Bruce would have to leave for other engagements, but wherever he might go, he would carry with him the good wishes of not a few of the residents of this town. If any company was desirous of having a good and at the same time an economical railway they could not do better than place the construction of it in the hands of Mr Bruce.  They had a capital railway now to their main line, and he trusted it would, by the king cooperation of the people, be conducive of prosperity to the town.  He (the speaker) looked upon railways as the greated help to civilization, and upon railway contractors as the civilizers of the world.  Mr Bruce who thanked them for their kind expressions towards him, said the directors of the company were to be congratulated upon opening  line while the land was cheap.  He (the speaker) would be glad to take the line at 4 per cent.  They had had their eyes open, and knew what they were doing,  Mr Bruce remarked that a good deal of praise had been bestowed upon him, but before he resumed his seat he would propose the health of the engineer (Mr Mills) who had pointed out the defects in the course of construction of the line, and who had shown him every kindness.  Mr Mills thought the line was in very good order, and hoped it would be very advantageious to the people of Gravesend, as well as prove a success to the London, Chatham and Dover Railway Company.  The company afterwards left for London at 4.15."

1886-May-08 A Scrap over a Footpath Gravesend Reporter
"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."

[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.]

1886-May-14 Gambrill Bankruptcy Kent & Sussex Courier
"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."

[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 per cent of the debts owned them.]

1886-Sep-04 Longfield Tip South London Press
Longfield Tip - 2 acres adjoining recently acquired [from Colonel Evelyn of Hartley Manor]

1886-Sep-25 Drunkenness at Gravesend Gravesend Reporter
Gravesend magistrates: "John and Nora Collins, husband and wife, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Milton Road on Saturday night.  PC Edwards saw prisoners surrounded by a crowd of people.  They were using most disgusting language.  The male prisoner several times put a basket he was carrying on the pavement and struck out at the bystanders indiscriminately.  On being cautioned, the prisoners moved away to Parrock Street, where they resumed their disorderly conduct.  Witness took the male prisoner into custody, giving the female in charge of several civilians.  On his return from the police station, he found the female had broken away from custody, and it was found necessary to carry her to the police station.  Prisoners said they had been hopping at Longfield, and had come into Gravesend to make a few purchases.  Fined, the male prisoner 5s and the female 2s 6d."

1886-Oct-09 Longfield Tip 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."

1886-Oct-23 Caught in the Act Gravesend Reporter
Dartford Magistrates: "Robert Monk sen, Robert Monk jun, labourers, Southfleet and Jeremiah Cotter of 10 John Street. Gravesnd, were charged on remand with being found on certain closed land by night, belonging to Col George Palmer Evelyn JP of Hartley Manor, for the purpose of taking and destroying game.  Edward Shea Evelyn esq, stated that he resided at Hartley Manor, and acted as his father's agent.  On Sunday evening he was going home from the direction of Fawkham.  Upon approaching his residence he heard a whistle.  he heard the whistle repeated on going up the drive; he overlooked the meadow just outside Foxborough Wood.  Having seen a dog he thought that probably he might see some men there too.  He crawled under the shadow of the hedge.  As he went along by the hedge, he saw a man, but, taking no notice, he kept going along under the hedge, until he cam suddenly upon Cotter.   The man seemed to be taken aback, for he fancied he rather startled him.  Whilst speaking to him another man came up from the side of the wood.  Monk jun came through a field with a handful of mushrooms, and said: 'Do you want the mushrooms, you ____?'  He replied, 'Yes, and I want you too.'  Monk senior, had a kind of bludgeon in his hands; the bludgeon was thicker at one end than the other.  He told the man he would have to come to his keep.  Monk senior, struck at him with the bludgeon, at least he had the stick up and held back as if to aim a blow at his head.  He then hit him with his fist and knocked him down; after a scuffle they went away whilst he went for his bailiff.  After a long consultation the Magistrates committed the three prisoners for trial at the Assizes, bail being accepted in £20."

[The Gravesend Reporter of 6.11.1886 reported their acquittal at the Kent Assizes.  The judge pointed out to the jury that no snares or game were found on the accused, they said they were picking mushrooms.]

1886-Nov-06 Poaching Charge 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, and 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."

1886-Nov-11 Position Wanted Times
Upper Housemaid job wanted, 3 years character, age 33, left due to death.   EG

1886-Nov-22 Proposed 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."

1886-Nov-27 Longfield Tip - Clerk's Pay Rise South London Press
"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." he 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 the 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............"

1886-Dec-28 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...."

1886-Dec-29 Railway Accident Western Mail
"A batch of railway disasters…. 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…"

1887-Jan-01 The Great Snowstorm Canterbury Journal
"The snowstorm and gale which raged on Sunday night and Monday morning did enormous destruction…The Dover express from London, which ought to have reached Chatham at 9.23am did not arrive until nearly noon.  When between Fawkham and Meopham the engine ran into a snowdrift and had to be dug out - an operation that occupied nearly an hour and a half.  The express was further delayed 40 minutes near Sole Street..."

1887-Jan-28 Position Wanted Times
Lady's maid job wanted, age 24.   LP

1887-Feb-16 Position Wanted Times
"Footboy under a butler.  Age 18.  Town or country.  4 years' good character.  FD The Old Downs, Hartley, Near Dartford, Kent."

1887-Nov-26 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."

1887-Jun-04 Fight at Gravesend Gravesend Reporter
"Mary Ann Robinson (who had a baby in her arms) of Longfield Hill, was charged with assaulting Margaret Stafford (12) by kicking her in the stomach, and she was further charged with assaulting the mother of the girl, Margaret Stafford, the mother whose right eye was blackened, said she lived at Longfield Hill.  She did not wish to press the charge against prisoner on account of her two children.  She was quite willing to put up with what she had got, and her little girl was not seriously injured, as was at first supposed - Prisoner: I beg your worship's pardon; if you will allow me to speak - The Mayor (to complainant): Did prisoner give you that black eye? - Complainant: Yes sir - Prisoner: It is hardly likely that a woman with a baby on one arm could have given her that black eye.  She gave me the first blow. - Complainant: I don't think I am very hard on her after receiving an eye like this (removing the bandage).  I have been under Dr Richmond for 7 months suffering from heart disease. - The Clerk (Mr Bewley): Who began the quarrel? - Prisoner: She did sir - Complainant: No she did sir.  My little girl who was assaulted has been for some time undergoing an operation at the Hospital.  I dare say the child took her mother's part - Prisoner: You knew that you struck the first blow in the pubilc house - Complainant: Don't speak falsely - Margaret Stafford, the younger, who commenced to cry, said she tried to part her mother and prisoner, when the latter kicked her in the stomach.  She suffered much pain at first but not afterwards - The Mayor: Who began it? - Witness: Mary Ann, sir - The Mayor (to prisoner): Have you anything to say? - Prisoner: They have taken wicked oaths before a lot of gentlemen, adn I have nothing to say. - J Knowles said on Monday evening, shortly before 8 o'clock, he was in the vicinity of the South Eastern Railway Bridge, when he saw 2 women fighting.  He saw a woman, with a child in her arms, kick the last witness in the stomach very violently.  It was a brutal kick and he should not have been surprised if the child had died - Prisoner said the child threw a glass bottle at her, but she denied having kicked her - The Mayor siad it was fortunate for the prisoner that the charge was not pressed against her, or the sentence would have been a heavy one.  She would be let off this time with a fine of 5 shillings, or 7 days' imprisonment."

1888-Jan-19 Position Wanted Times
Upper Housemaid job wanted, 4 years character, country preferred.   HG.

1888-Mar-21 Position Wanted Times
Page under butler job wanted, age 15.   WJ

1888-Apr-07 Sale of Hay at New House Farm Gravesend Reporter
"To Hay Dealers and others.  New House Farm, Hartley, Kent.  Mr William Hodsoll will sell by auction at the Railway Tavern, Fawkham Station, on April 13th at 3pm, 110 loads of capital saintfoin hay in 5 stacks."

1888-May-19 Sad Death from Burns Gravesend Reporter
"James Cook (63) of Meopham, who, as reported last week, was admitted to the Gravesend Hospital suffering from severe burns, through a large quantity of hot ashes and refuse having fallen on him at Longfield Station, succumbe on Thursday afternoon, and an inquest will be held.  A man named Letchford, who was less seriously injured under the same circumstances, recovered."

1888-May-26 Fatal Accident at Longfield Tip Gravesend Reporter
"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."

[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)]

1888-Jul-28 Engine for Sale Gravesend Reporter
"For sale, a single cylinder, 8 horse, portable engine, in excellent condition, by Hempstead & Co, Grantham.  Apply to manager of Fawkham Brickfields, near Dartford."

1888-Sep-10 Hartley Court to Let Times
"To be let, on long or short lease, Hartley Court House, 200 acres of good land for corn or fruit, good roomy farmhouse and excellent buildings, in good repair.  More land can be had if required.  Possession at Michaelmas.  One mile from Fawkham Station.... Address, Manager, Hartley Manor, Dartford"

1888-Oct-25 Hartley Manor and Court for Sale Times
"To land speculators, capitalists, land companies, and others seeking a profitable investment in land - Kent 24 miles from London.

Messrs Beal, Son and Chartres are instructed to offer for sale by auction at the Mart, London EC on Wednesday the 14th Nov 1888 at 2 o'clock precisely, unless previously disposed of by private contract, in one or more lots, the important and valuable freehold manorial estate, known as Hartley Manor, situate within 1 mile of Fawkham Station on the London, Chatham and Dover Railway.  The estate comprises nearly 600 acres of excellent land in good condition.  There are two residences of moderate size, one known as Hartley Manor and the other as Hartley Court.  there are 30 acres of brick clay adjoining the celebrated Fawkham Brick Yards; close to the railway siding known as Longfield.  On other parts of the estate are to be found valuable pottery clay as well as layers of flint stones.  The whole of these various soils rests on a subsoil of chal, from which the chalk lime is made.  Most of the land is at present in the owner's occupation.  Capital shooting can be had in the woods on the estate.  the whole forms a very enjoyable residential estate coupled with the great advantages it offers to an enterprising man to develop its undoubted valuable resources.  If not sold as a whole, it will be offered in 6 lots as follows - House and 100 acres; cottage and 12 acres; small farm, 38 acres; cottages and 30 acres; brick earth land, 12 acres; and residence and 392 acres..."

1889-Jan-08 County Council Election Maidstone Journal
Candidates' Addresses (adverts)

(1) William Chambers: "To the Electors of the 1st District of the Dartford Division, comprising the parishes of Ash, Darenth, Fawkham, Hartley, Horton Kirby, Kingsdown, Longfield, Ridley and Southfleet.

Ladies and Gentlemen, at the request of several influential electors of the district, I have the honour to announce myself a candidate as your representative on the county council.  My residence among you for the last 14 years and my connectino with the existing local government bodies of the neighbourhood make me fully acquainted with the requirements of the District, and I venture to think that my close connection with the agricultural interest is a further qualification for the representative of a constituency mainly comprised of those engaged in that industry.  My great endeavour, if elected, will be to restrict expenditure beyond necessary limits and to advocate economy.  I have the honour to remain, your obedient servant, W Chambers, Manor House, Southfleet, 10th November 1888"

(2) Lt-Col Joseph Hartley: To the County Electors of Ash, Darenth, Fawkham, Hartley, Horton Kirby, Kingsdown, Longfield, Ridley and Southfleet forming the 1st Dartford Electoral Division

Ladies and Gentlemen, In response to a request from many influential electors, I beg to say that I am a candidate for the County Council, created by the Local Government Act, and I need not add that I shoudl appreciate highly the honour of being elected.  For more than 20 years I have i this county or in Yorkshire, been regular in my attendance at General and Quarter Sessions, and, as a County Justice and Deputy Lieutenant, been actively concerned in county business, working on several county committees, involving among many other important subjects, County Lunatic Asylum, Rates Basis, and Contagious Diseases of Animals, of which committee I am still a working member.  let me add that I am convinced that by strict economy in the expenditure of the ratepayers' money, the new Local Government Act may be made a real benefit to the country, and a means of relieving the agricultural and trading interests of a material part ofthe heavy burthen of local rates; but to do this, efficient and careful management is of the highest importance, and a main object with me would be to take care that the contribution from the Imperial taxes shoudl be so utilised that the local taxation may be relieved fully to that extent.  There may be, and are, many men in your electoral distrit of larger capacity and more ability than myself, but there is no one more honestly desirous of seeing the affairs of the county efficiently and economically administered, the ratepayers' money saved, and the new Local Government Act made the success  which it ought to be, and will prove to be, if only the electors send as their representatives the right men, and take care that it is not perverted into a mere engine for political and party purposes.  With these remarks I place myself in your hands, and remain, ladies and gentlemen, your faithful servant.  Joseph Hartley LLD.  The Old Downs, Hartley,near Dartford.  November 5th 1888"[Mr Chambers's appeal to the farming interest may have been key to his victory, without saying it he has contrasted himself against his barrister opponent.  Lt-Col Hartley's candidature was an all Hartley effort, as his nomination papers were signed by G P Evelyn of Hartley Manor and J T Smith of Fairby, Mr Chambers was nominated by T A Andrews (Andrus?) and T B Marchant - South Eastern Gazette 15.1.1889]

1889-Jan-12 Kent General Sessions Maidstone Journal
Lt-Col Hartley attends the last working meeting of the Kent Court of General Sessions before it is replaced by Kent County Council.  Although the final formal meeting is to be held on 30 March 1889 to hand over the seals of office.The meeting heard among other things that the number of admissions of tramps to the casual wards of workhouses was little changed from the previous year at 10,324 nights.  Convictions for begging rose from 256 in 1887 to 337 in 1888.  A report from the Chief Constable said the police had prosecuted 1,317 people in the last quarter with 1,115 summarily convicted, 27 committed for trial and 175 acquitted.  He said the clear up rate for felonies in the period 1882-1888 was 97.7% compared with 98% in 1875-1881.

1889-Jan-12 County Council Election Maidstone Journal
"Biographical Sketches of the Candidates - Dartford No. 1 (Darenth) - Lieut Colonel Hartley.

Lieutenant-Colonel Joseph Hartley, who has been for 20 years (in Yorkshire and in this county) a hard working county justice, is a candidate for the first Dartford division, in the midst of which he resides at the rural village of Hartley.  He was educated at St John's College Cambridge, and is now a doctor of laws of that university.  He is a barrister of the Inner Temple, and, besides his magisterial work at Quarter, Petty and General Sessions, he occasionally sits at Sheerness and Chatham as Deputy Stipendiary Magistrate.  He retired from active service in the Prince of Wales's Own West Yorkshire (late 14th Infantry) Regiment in 1882, and is now on the retired list of the regiment, and so he had leisure to devote his energies to the work of the County Council; which will be by no means new to him, as he is at present a member of several county committees.  He is also a deputy Lieutenant, and Fellow and Member of the Council of the Royal Society of Literature."

[The paper didn't mention the other candidate Mr Chambers of Southfleet, either he didn't supply any copy or perhaps the paper favoured Col Hartley.  It is difficult to know party allegiances because most claimed to run as independents then, but it would appear that both candidates for Hartley were Conservatives.  Mr Chambers won, probably because he was better known.]