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.]
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......."
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 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)
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.]
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.]
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."
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)
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
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]
[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."]
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.]
[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.]
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"
[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.]
[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.]
[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.]
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."
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............"
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...."
[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)]
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..."
(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]
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.]
[The Times 21.3.1889 also had obituary]
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....."
[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.]
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."