Trains from Longfield to Victoria with time at Victoria in brackets: Mon-Sat 8.03 (9.23), 8.46 (9.55), 10.45 (11.50), 15.10 (16.19), 18.10 (19.13), 18.51 (19.50), 22.04 (23.25), Sun 8.39 (9.54), 11.25 (12.45), 18.34 (19.55), 21.38 (23.00).
Not very many changes from 1877 timetable with the exception of some afternoon trains retimed.
Mr Whitford said he was pleased to state that the loss sustained was only 1¼% of the total sales.
Mr Hart, as chairman of the Depot Committee, was much gratified at the bad debts being so small. He had received a letter from the clerk containing all the details, and he should be happy to let Mr Side see if if he wished. He contended that the establishment of the depot was one of the best things which had happened for the parish, inasmuch as it had been the means of saving Newington an immense amount of money in the course of hte year.
The following letter from the clerk (Mr L J Dunham) was then read: Dear Sir - Some doubts having arisen upon the question of bad debts made upon the sal eof refuse from the depot. I have gone into the matter, and find that since the opening of the depot on the 28th July 1873, the committee have sent away 201,340 tons of ashes and mixture, and this quanitity has been sold at £29,585 5s 1d. Of this sum only £2,806 3s 1d was due at Christmas, since which date i have received £1,403 18s 7d, leaving only a balance therefore of £1,402 4s 6d due on all consignments made to 31st December 1879. Since the opening of the sidings, the sum of £214 2s 11d has been allowed as rebate off accounts, and from the balance of £1,402 4s 6d now owing the vestry only £120 14s 6d can be put down as bad or doubtful, aso that by taking the two items of £214 2s 11d and £120 14s 6d, only £334 17s 5d can be deducted from the sum of £29,585 5s 1d as the amount lost which is less than 1½% of the total sales."
[This report is interesting chiefly for details of the sheer volume of manure and ashes sent from Newington to Longfield.]
Mr john Lees is instructed by the executors of the late NJ Collier esq to sell by auction at the Mart, London on Thursday, April 22nd at 12 for 1 o'clock the above desirable leasehold property, to hold for an unexpired term of 10 years at a low rent..."
The patients are reported as coming from various parishes or districts in the following proportions: Gravesend 498, Milton 424, Northfleet 175, Denton and East Milton 59, Perry Street 54, Rosherville 36, Swanscombe 25, Chalk 23, Meopham 18, Grays (Essex) 18, Southfleet 14, Tilbury (Essex) 14, Shorne 13, Cobham 8, Greenhithe 6, Higham 6, Orsett (Essex) 6, Besham 5, Corringham 4, Singlewell 4, Mucking (Essex) 4, Dartford 3, Galley Hill 3, Stone 3, Fobbing (Essex) 3, Chadwell 2, Horndon 2, Lee 2, Stanford-le-Hope (Essex) 2, Ash 1, Longfield 1, Nurstead 1, Barking 1, Thurrock (Essex) 1; total 1,600. Of the 97 cases admitted to the infirmary, 71 were cured, 13 relieved, 7 died, 6 remaining under treatment, Gravesend contributing 21, Milton 19, Northfleet 11, Shipping 9, Swanscombe 6, Tilbury 6, Perry Street 3, Southfleet 3, Dartford 2, Galley Hill 2, Rosherville 2, Chalk 1, Green Street Green 1, Higham 1, London 1, Meopham 1, Shorne 1, Strood 1, 6 not being recorded.... The greatest number in the wards at anyone time was 13.....
The financial statement ... showed - cash at bankers Arpil 1 1879 £81 10s; subscriptions £421 18s 6d; donations as previously acknowledged in reports £26 16s 10d; patients' pence £24 4s 6d; dividents and interest £102 9s 11d; legacies £219; indoor patients £23 12 6d; ????? £6 3s 3d; collections etc outdistricts £23 3s 2½d; Hospital Sunday £10 7s 5½d with other small items, making a total of £1,111 1s 2d. The disbursements included provisions £235 6s 6d; drugs £130 15s 5d; House Surgeions £147 17s; repairs £98 11s; drapery £14 16s 1d; Gas £14 14s; instruments £16 19s 9d; coals £21 9s 11d; upholstery £18 18s; wages £107 18s 11; purchase of Consols £224; collectors commission £21 12 8d; and numerous small items making a total of £1,109 4s 9d; leaving a balance of £1 16s 5d. The total sum invested in sock and standing to the credit of the trustees being £3,243 13s 5d."
But confining ourselves to Newington for the moment, it appears that about 5 years ago it occurred to certain members of the Vestry that it would not be unadvisable, on sanitary and economic, and perhaps on other grounds, to establish a dust mart in the parish, and in due course the Depot sprang into life. To the traveller on the London, Chatham and Dover, this monster muck-heap has anything but a pleasant appearance, and the casual observer is forced to the conclusion that the whole rag and bottle trade of the metropolis has made Newington its abiding home. But whilst the wretched side of the picture is thus thrust upon us, its pleasant pecularity is entirely lost to view. We marvel at the zeal with which the local Governors of Newington run after dirt and unsavouriness without so much as suspecting the reward which is in store once a year for such devotion. The recent dinner at the Bridge House explains it all. There is in Newington a parochial heaven this side the grave, where services freely and generously given are as generously rewarded; and we are rather inclined to rejoice that such is the case. It is confessed on all hands that the establishment of the Walworth Depot has been beneficial in many ways; and no-one can dispute the fact that the members who manage it on behalf of the ratepayers have many unpleasant duties to perform. It seems, therefore, a little ungracious that such exceptionally disagreeable parochial work should not have one streak of light - one moment of pleasure. It is perhaps possible to conceive the existence of a being who would find his highest reward in the work itself, though such ideal devotion is confessedly scarse in parochial matters.
But the dinner about which so much has been said was given, we take it, not to vestrymen for services rendered, but to farmers and others for favours received and to come. Douglas Jerrold once remarked that if London were dstroyed by an earthquake tomorrow, a place would be cleared among the ruins in which the citizens would dine together to celebrate the event. Now, the vestrymen and farmers have something of a tangible character to rejoice over - the only appearance of ruins being those of a well-served dinner. It may be that the farmers who purchase the 'Newington mixture' make it a condition in the bond not to settle their little accounts except over the dinner table; but let the case be as it may, it cannot be doubted that a little rational festivity makes the wheels of business travel smoothly over the ground. The farmers might perhaps be equally induced to purchase if the article were sold at a reduced cost, but there is a great staying power in a dinner, and Newington, whien it has got some good and substantial customers, has an evident desire to retain them. The means devised for carrying out such a laudable desire may not be free from objection, but so far hey have been as succesful in effect as they are parochial in character. At all events, compared with other festive gatherings in neighbouring parishes, it cannot be said that the Newington revellers have been extravagant, since the dinner cost £20 less than the estimate sanctioned by the Vestry some months previously!"
[The paper appears to usually support the ruling group on Newington Vestry, and this light hearted article supports the dinners attended by councillors and the customers of the Longfield Depot. It does not paint a pretty picture of the Walworth depot though!]
[Kent House station on the line from Bromley to London commemorates the former farm.]
Mr Henry Booth Hohler, of Fawkham Manor, who said he believed the proposed lines would be of great service to such villages as Fawkham, Longfield, Horton Kirby and Sutton at Hone.
Mr Walter Solomon, of Westwood Farm, Southfleet, said that the line would be a great advantage to the farmers in his district, because the fruit could be put on the train and taken right into the market.
Mr Charles Douglas Fox said the line would run from Fawkham, near Westwood, Southfleet, Springhead, Northfleet, and Rosherville, and it would terminate in the block of property lying between West Street and Church Street, immediately adjoining the Town Pier and the ferry Station of the Tilbury and Southend Railway. The cost of the works on the line would be £125,349 which, together with the cost of the land, would bring it up to a total of £164,936 for the railway. In addition to which it was proposed to expend the sum of £18,605 in widening Church Stree, adn £11,285 for making a short new street in Gravesend. He believed the powers in the bill to enable the Corporation to subscribe for street improvements had been struck out. They proposed to have one station for Southfleet and Westwood, another at Springhead, and a joint station for Rosherville and Northfleet, immediately adjoining the Rosherville Gardens. The house property that would be affected in Gravesend would be of the very worst description, some of the worst he had ever seen - many of the cottages being perfect hovels. The number of houses disturbed in Gravesend would be 113, inhabited by 686 people.
Sir Sydney Headley Waterlow, bart, MP, in answer to Mr Pope, said that he was member of Parliament for Gravesend, and deputy chairman of the London, Chatham and Dover Railway. He was named in the proposed Bill as one of the first directors of the proposed line, having been induced to accept the position, both by reason of his connection with the London, Chatham and Dover Railway, and from the opinion of his constituents. When he was member for Maidstone he did all he could, and ultimately succeeded in getting a third line to the town, because he though it would be a good thing for his constituents and the inhabitants; and when he became member for Gravesend he set himself to work to see if he could not do for Gravesend what he had done with so much advantage for Maidstone. When the third line was opened to Maidstone the inhabitants obtained a much larger number of trains, running much more quickly, with better carriages and a great many other conveniences and facilities that they did not possess before, and he hoped the same would be the result if the committee should pass the Bill for a line to Gravesend. He had committed himself to serious personal responsibilities with a view of obtaining this line. He was of opinion that the people of Gravesend were practically unanimous in favour of this new line, for as far as he had been able to gather the opinion he knew of no one of influence who was not in favour of it, and naturally so because of the conveniences and facilties it would afford.
Mr Arthur Stride, general manager of the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway, spoke of the increased facilitiies for communities that would be afforded between Mid Kent and Essex if the new line were made.
Mr Robert John James, cattle salesman and drover of 55 Queen Street, Gravesend, said that if the new line came into operation it would give him better facilities and advantages in teh way of business."
Trains from Longfield to Victoria with time at Victoria in brackets: Mon-Sat 8.03 (9.23), 8.46 (9.55), 10.45 (11.50), 12.13 (13.15), 15.10 (16.18), 16.10 (17.15), 18.10 (19.13), 18.51 (19.53), 22.04 (23.25), Sun 8.39 (9.54), 11.25 (12.45), 18.34 (20.04), 21.28 (22.45).
Since 1880 there has been one additional down train and 2 additional up trains.
[There is no-one called Thomas Antrie living at Hartley in 1881, so I think this may be a misspelling of Thomas Outred who was aged 44.]
About 22½ acres of valuable Underwood, in various woods and shaws on the above estate.
Also 16½ acres at Hartley Manor, near Fawkham Station, the property of Colonel Evelyn.
Mr Sullivan the bailiff at Fawkham Manor, will show the lots there, and Packman, the woodreve, those at Hartley Manor, of both of whom catalogues may be had, also at the point of sale, and of the auctioneer, Farningham, Kent."
[It appears only woodland at Hartley Manor was being sold, not the land itself.]
Mr Hart, in moving the adoption fo the report, expressed regreat that the financial results were different to what they had been previously. As compared with last year, they had sustained a loss of £1,369 on the depot. That was very serious, as it meant a penny rate. They wwere anxious to make the Longfield Depot as complete as possible, so that in case of any accident they might have a place to deposit the refuse etc. He did not anticipate anything of the kind, because he believed the depot would continue to be a success. It had been a success throught the piece, and would be a success in the future. Even if this balance remained against them, it would be considered cheap for he cleansing of the parish. Mr Scowcroft seconded.
Mr Whitford said they ahd sustained a loss of £1,270 by the withdrawal of St George's Vestry; but he expected to find a corresponding reduction in the working expenses of the depot. It was a matter of great concern to the parish that they shoudl not be called upon to pay a larger amount towards the maintenance of the depot, and considering the large amount they would have to pay towards the permanent works of the country depot, it was most important that the committee should try and reduce the present expenditure. He knew the great difficulties against which they had had to contend, but the loss sustained this year was a very serious matter.
Mr Snell said the committee had foreseen this difficulty. They knew that when St George's withdrew, they would have a corresponding reduction in the receipts. As St George's had gone, they must pay for it. But he hoped the time was not far distant when other parishes would come in.
Mr Side said that as there had not been so great a demand upon the exertions of the working staff at the depot, there ought to have been a corresponding reduction in the wages and expenditure.
Mr Ivison considered that this loss was only a temporary one. If the depot was worked with the same energy it had been worked hitherto - and he gave the principal credit for this energy to Mr Dunham, the clerk - better prices would be obtained in the future. He considered the loss of St George's a very good one, as they had got rid of a very great nuisance.
Mr Chester said the loss they had sustained was quite comprehensible If they withdrew from their business that which enabled them to pay a profit, they lost to the extent of that profit.
The resolution was carried, and the vestry adjourned."
Ann Cripps stated that the deceased was her husband. He was 52 years of age, and was a labourer in the brickfield. He lived at the brickfield at Fawkham [I think Longfield is meant here].
John Ansell, foreman to Mr Hickmott, brick merchant, Fawkham, stated that the deceased worked in that field. On Sunday [sic] afternoon, between 4 and 5 o'clock, he paid him his wages. Deceased had been drinking, but was in his usual health. He was leaving his service, and his furniture had been removed.
Frank Noakes stated that he was in the service of his mother. On Saturday afternoon, he was driving a donkey and cart from hartley to Longfield, and met the deceased near the brickfield. He asked witness to give him a lift, but witness told him he could not. Deceased appeared to be 'boozy' and held onto the cart. he went along with witness about a quarter of a mile on his way to the railway. After witness got home, he saw deceased pass, and he went in the Green Man, and when he came out he could not walk straight. Witness's mother and he watched him. Deceased turned down Mr Scratton's field straight for the railway gates. He walked much worse than when witness first saw him.
Stephen Ansley, an engine driver in the employ of the London, Chatham and Dover Railway Company, stated that on Saturday last he was the driver of the train due at Meopham at 5.41pm. When between the two bridges on the west side of the station he saw the deceased walking in the 6ft way, and when witness was within about 100 yards of him deceased looked back and saw the train coming. He then started to run, still keeping the 6ft way. When the train got within 15 or 20 yards of him, he turned apparently to cross right in front of the engine. Witness opened both whistles, and saw no more of the deceased until he passed. He was going at 10 or 12 miles an hour at the time. On looking back he saw him lying in the 4ft way, the train having passed over him. He pulled up and informed the station master.
Robert Halls, a porter employed at the Meopham station stated that on Saturday, just before the arrival of the 5.41 train, he saw a man running down the line in the 6ft way. The train was coming, and just before it got up to him he turned out of the 6ft into the down 4ft road in front of the approaching train. The engine knocked him down. On going to the spot, he found the deceased lying in the 4ft way, the train having passed over him (his head was smashed, and one foot nearly cut off). He was quite dead.
The jury returned a verdict of 'Accidently killed', and expressed an opinion that no blame be attached to the railway company or their servants."
Benjamin Berry, 12 Scott Street, Maidstone, papermaker, judgement in favour of Philip Hyman for £9.15.0 etc filed 17 June.
Elvy Cooper, Hartley, blacksmith, judgement in favour of Philip Hyman for £20 etc filed 17 June."
[The plaintiff, Philip Hyman, might be a watchmaker who lived at Chatham.]
Messrs Tootell and Sons are directed to offer for sale by auction at the Mart, Tokenhouse Yard, London, EC on Tuesday Oct 17th at 2 precisely in one lot, the NORTH ASH ESTATE, comprising 430a 1r 7p of good, sound, high level and productive land, with ????? , undulating banks, interspersed with belts of thriving woodland, affording sufficient cover for a good load of game. A comfortable farm residence stands in the centre of the property, and excellent farm buildings in a great part recently erected, are placed at suitable positions. Good roads communicate with the homesteads, the cottages and gardens. About 48 acres are meadow, 54 wood, 316 arable, 6 hops, 4 acres homsteads, gardens and cottages. The whole is in hand and possession will be given on completion of he purchase...."
Mr Dunham (the clerk) said it was quite true that potatoes had been grown on the surplus land at Longfield not required for immediate use, and that by his direction a sack had been sent to nearly every member of the Depot Committee. After sending a sack to those members who had not yet received any, he should have sufficient left, the sale of which would realise a sum in excess of the amount required to pay for the seed, planting, digging, and distribution, so that no part of the cost would be charged to the ratepayers. It was only right, however, the Vestry should know that before planting the ground, he offered the land to persons in the neighboourhood for cultivation, but they declined to take it except under an agreement for 3 years, with a 12 months' notice to determine the tenancy, the highest rent offered being 30 shillings. Under these circumstances ____ Mr Medland (interrupting): I simply wanted to know whether __ (cries of 'Chair, chair') __ whether it was true or not (renewed cries of 'chair, chair') I did not want a long statement from the clerk. Mr Robinson: I rise to a point of order (Cries of 'chair, chair'). Mr Tilling: I contend that Mr Robinson has the right to rise to a point of order (cries of 'chair, chair'). The Chairman: As soon as Mr Dunham has completed his answer I will hear you. The clerk (continuing) said that under the circumstances to which he had referred, it was not considered desirable to part with possession of any of hte land until the requirements o the vestry were ascertained, and the only possible loss, therefore, to the vestry, was the rental of 30 shillings, which he should be only too happy to pay if the vestry should so wish....
Mr Robinson complained that very little was ever heard of the work of this committee. They seemed to be always working in the dark.
Mr Side asserted that they went about the country looking after depots. He also hinted that they were spending money without the sanction of the Vestry (interruption). Mr Ivison rose to order. Mr Side was not discussing the committee's report (hear, hear). Mr Side said he was discussing the actions of the committee. Probably Mr Ivison had had a sack of potatoes (laughter). It was a great disgrace to accept such a present when he knew they belonged to the parish (Laughter).
Mr Scowcroft said Mr Side was a member of the Depot Committee, and also of the sub-committee and therefore ought to be aware of what was going on. (hear, hear). Mr Robinson: He refused the sack of potatoes, and was the only one that did....
Mr Hart said he utterly denied the statement that the committee went into the country looking after depots. If Mr Side had not a sack of potatoes to enjoy, he enjoyed himself very well at the depot tea the other day (laughter). Those who lived in glass houses should not throw stones. The report was adopted." [Not all councillors on Newington Vestry supported the Longfield scheme and were quick to notice any irregularities. Sending free sacks of potatoes to councillors certainly did not look good. Only one councillor (Robert Henry Side) refused to accept the gift.]
Mr Hart, in moving the adoption, said the money had been well spent, although they had exceeded the original estimate by £369. They wanted the depot at Longfield to be in such a condition that they could carry on a large business there. Mr High seconded.
Mr Side said this £369 had been spent without the consent of the vestry. In the course of his remarks he was several times called to order by the chairman, who told the speaker that if he came to a meeting where public business was transacted he must conform to the rules of debate.
Mr Chandler said there was no doubt that a magnificent work had been carried out by their clerk, but he should like to know by whose advice the committee expended this money.
Mr Marsland said the whole question had been previously thrashed out. The work had always been done by the committee, with the assistance of the clerk.
Mr Hart, in reply, said the work spoke for itself. Mr Side had been the cause of thousands of pounds being spent for the action taken by him in regard to the depot. The recommendations were carried."
[Bit of mystery. No house of this name is known, and no suitable "EG" in the 1881 census for Hartley. EG advertised again in the edition of 7.10.1886, saying this time she had to leave after 3 years 8 months due to death. Also that she was aged 33.]
Mr Hart said the return which their clerk had prepared had taken everyone by surprise. The sale of 291,943 tons of mixture and house dust during the 9 years ending Lady Day 1882 had realised £46,282 18s 7½d and the loss upon this large return had been only to the extent of £208 8s 6d. Having regard to the bad searsons the farmers had had to contend with, this return was of a most remarkable character. It was not the wish of the committee to take any credit with regard to this return. The whole refuse had been disposed of by their clerk, the whole money had been collected by their clerk, and they thought that to him was eminently due this return (hear, hear). Mr Hart then reminded the vestry that when the depot was purchased in 1871 it was calculated that it woudl be to the interest of the parish to pay the railway carriage of 1s 8d per ton on the refuse into the country or an annual charge of £2,000. During the 9 years ending Lady Day 1882, the vestry would have paid £1,800 for the carriage of refuse into the country, and £10,610 for interest and instalments on the depot loans of £14,000, or an average £3,179 per annum; but after the first 9 months' working, the vestry found that by mixing the house dust with the road sweepings as collected, the house dust impoverished the sweepings as manure, and the sweepings on the other hand spoilt the dust for brickmaking - the result being that at Lady Day 1874, the vestry were without a single offer to take away any of the refuse even by paying the carriage into the country. It was then determined first to deposit the refuse in the depot, and screen the house dust and sell this refuse to brickmakers and the road sweepings to farmers, which enabled the vestry to dispose of the whole of the refuse arising from the parish during the year ending Lady Day, 1875, for £1,609, or at the rate of 1s 6½d per ton. It was not possible to arrive at the actual cost it would have been to the vestry to dispose of the refuse only of this parish in the manner explained for the 9 years ending Lady Day 1882, in consequence of the increased business, and thereby beneficial results arising from the receoption into the depot of the refuse arising from St George's Parish; but if it cost this vestry £1,609 in the year ending 1875, before the contract with St George's Vestry was entered into, and £1,200 during hte present year, after the termintion of this contract, having regard to the increased facilities arising out of the establishment of the country depots, it was only reasonable to suppose that the average annual cost to this parish, had St George's contract never been entertained, would have reached £1,300, or for the 9 years £11,700 which showed a saving of £6,300, as against the original estimate made in 1871. But by the vestry receiving the refuse from St George's parish, and thereby enabling the committee to enter into large contracts, the annual balances appeared on the credit instead of the debit side of the account, which for the 5 years this contract was in existence amounted to £3,635. To this amount must be aadded the former debit balance of £1,300 per annum, making together £10,135 which this parish had gained by the two parishes working together, or within £475 of the total amount paid by the vestry for interest and instalments on the loans for the establishment of the depot. The result of 9 years working showed an expenditure to the parish, therefore, of £12,175, as against £28,610 which the vestry in 1871 was prepared to expend, or an acutal saving of £16,435. This great financial benefit was entirely irrespective of the improved sanitary condition of the parish, arising from the more rapid removal of the refuse from the streets and dust-bins. Although the business, as carried on at the depot during the 9 years ended Lady Day 1882, had only resulted in a saving to the parish of £16,435 as against the expenditure sanctioned in 1871, it was very evident that but for the depot the general rates during the same period would have had to bear an increased expenditure of £34,725 - which sum, as a matter of fact, the parish had benefited by the establishment of the depot.
Mr Tilling pointed out that notwithstanding the favourable picture drawn by the report, the rates in Newington were still very high.
Mr Marsland said the depot had undoubtedly resulted in a saving. It should be remembered that in times past they had no School Board rate. The assessments had increased, but so had the expenditure.
Mr Ivison agreed that the depot was one of the finest institutions they could have; but when they came to the question of St George's parish, he totally disagreed with Mr Hart. He contended, as he had before contended, that the balance-sheet showed they were far better off with their own refuse than with that of St George's (oh, oh and hear, hear)."
[The report says 291,943 tons of mixture and house dust (ashes) had been sold since the railway siding (? at Walworth) was opened in 1873. It is not entirely clear from this report how the depot at Longfield was doing, as a lot of the "benefits" are just that they hadn't spent quite as much as they thought they would in 1871.]
Trains from Longfield to Victoria with time at Victoria in brackets: Mon-Sat 8.00 (9.20), 8.31 (9.29), 9.25 (10.29), 11.00 (12.15), 12.47 (13.50), 14.15 (15.40), 15.51 (16.55), 19.07 (20.10), 20.16 (21.30), 22.09 (23.30), Sun 8.39 (9.54), 11.25 (12.45), 17.50 (19.18), 21.33 (22.50).
Since 1881 there were few changes to the down trains but Victoria bound services saw a lot of changes including an additional morning train which did not call at Sole Street or Meopham. Note: poor quality photocopy so some of the timings may be out.
[The trial at the quarter sessions was mentioned in the Kent and Sussex Courier 13.7.1883. Wallis got 3 months with hard labour and others 1 month with hard labour, all to get 12 strokes with the birch rod]
Mr G Barclay Bruce proposed the health of Lady Waterlow. The health of the Queen had been drunk, and they would go from monarchy in general to the queen of the occasion (hear, hear). It was exceedingly kind of Lady Waterlow to have honoured them by turning the first sod, and the best way he could thank her for doing so was by publcly expressing the gratitude the railway owed to her and her husband. To speak broadly, but for Sir Sydney Waterlow the railway would never have been an accomplished fact. He had fought for it against its enemies, and what was a far harder task he had protected it for its friends (hear, hear).
Sir Sydney Waterlow, in reply, said Lady Waterlow was proud of the privilege that had been accorded to her, of being hte first navvy in the employ of hte company. The sight of so many people to witness the cutting of the first sod had, he was quite sure, gladdened Lady Waterlow's heart. They could only hope that that day would be a good beginning, and that success might attend the Gravesend railway. He was sorry that it was the practice of the present age and the custome of society not to permit ladies to reply for themselves, as he was sure Lady Waterlow could have done so much better than he could do for her. She had not told him what to say, and he hoped they would allow him a little latitude (hear, hear). Lady Waterlow came from a country where making railways was a very different matter to what it was in England, where the ofrmation of a railway was, as a rule, afairly remunerative undertaking, if only Parliament once consented to the scheme. In her country, however railways were developed under very different circumstances, in fact a relation of heres had one had to carry a line through a tract of country where for 300 iles there was not a drop of water to assist him in his work The new Gravesend Railway would be formed under very different circumstances, and he hoped htat the work of the contractor would bring success to all concerned in it.
The Mayor of Gravesend gave 'Success to the Gravesend Railway'. Gravesend was daily increasing in size and growing into a large and important town. They could already boast of two railways connecting the town with the Great City, and they had that day seen the first sod of a new railway turned. Gravesend was, in fact, progressing very rapidly (hear, hear). They had tram cars running between the town and Northfleet, and if anyone doubted that statement, they could experience the effects of riding in one for the sum of twopence (applause and laughter). The docks on the other side would and did conduce to the trade, and, therefore, prosperity of the borough. They had a Thames tunnel looming in the distance, and he hoped they would all live to see it. They had a new Town Hall, and he hoped they would all live to see that finished as well as the Thames Tunnel (hear, hear and laughter). The fact that Gravesend was progressing so rapidly assured him that the toast he had given would be well received (applause).
Sir Sydney Waterlow said he felt the Mayor of Gravesend had placed a great responsibility upon him in calling upon him to respond to the toast. He was not, however, surprised that he had done so, remembering that he had been chairman ofthe company for some years. When he was firstelected the Parliamentary representative of Gravesend, he found that htis project had been almost destroyed in its conception, and he came to the conclusion that it would be to the benefit of the borough if it could be revived. By a deviation from the original plan and by adding a pier in the Thames for colleting the river traffic, they were enabled to induce Parliament to sanction the scheme, but evn then they had not conquered all their difficulties. They had to find those who would be resonsible for the cost of constructing the line, and he thought the alliance with the London, Chatham and Dover Company constituted one of the best means of securing the success they were all anxious for (cheers). The Chatham company had taken the smaller one in hand, and had promised to see them through their difficulties - an arrangement which was possibly facilitated by his dual position of vice-chairman of one and chairman of the other company. He thought the inhabitants of Gravesend might rest satisfied that the railway would be completed. They could not, he was sure, have placed it in the hands ofa stronger, more earnest, more satisfactory, and more energetic contractor, than Mr Bruce, and in a very short time he hoped that, through the kindness of the landowners, Mr Bruce would be in possession of the land necessary for the work, so that those residing near would witness the immediate and rapid progress of the undertaking. 'Success to the Gravesend Railway' meant two things - remuneration to those who had found the capital, and increased prosperity to Gravesend; therefore they would reaslise that he heartily concurred in the toast. It meant increased prosperity because it would give additional facilities of communication between the town and the great metropolis. The new line would afford directe communication with Bromley, Beckenham, Penge, Sydenham, Dulwich, Herne Hill, Camberwell, the Elephant and Castle, and Blackfriars, and to all the southern parts of London. It would open up the district around Gravesend to all the new stations in London - to Victoria, Holborn Viaduct and Ludgate Hill, and to Moorgate Street for those who wished to go to the other end of the city, while communication with the norther and eastern couties would be made more easy. Again the deep water peir to be constructed in connection with the Gravesend terminus would give facilities to passengers by the large steamers - especially those of the P and O line - to land from the steamer's teder by the side of their train, and be carried to any part of the south-west of London without a change of carriage. To enter the train at Victoria for Gravesend would form an easier and more rapid method of transit than proceeding from either the Fenchurch Street or Liverpool Street Stations (applause). He was very pleased indeed to hear the kind expressions which fell from the lips of the Mayor of Gravesend, because he believed that the words to which his worship gave utterance were spoken not merely in his individual, but also in his corporate capacity, and represented the feelings of their inhabitants of the town (hear). If they were kindly disposed towards the undertaking, and if they favoured it as a route to London in consequence of the increased facilities it afforded them, then the success of the line was assured (hear). There wre now a large number of pleasure-seekers who visited the borough, and he ventured to think that as the new railway would give additional facilities to the daily incresing number of holiday-keepers, the business of the town would be augmented. He had known the town ever since he could walk; he remembered it wen it was much more used by visitors than now, for the town was ieft in the cold because people migrated further for their holidays. But brighter days were now were now coming, and he believed that the increased traffic which they had reason to expect would prove even more beneficial than that they formerly enjoyed, as it would be more of a commercial character. The Mayor had reminded them that in all probability they would have a new Thames Tunnel in the course of a few years, and that it would connect Tilbury and Gravesend. He himself blieved that the project would be carried out, for about 10 days ago he had a long discussion with one of the promoters, and was assured that funds would be forthcoming to make the tunnel. Well, its construction would give more rapid communication to the eastern parts of England. It would enable butchers from Gravesend to go to Romford market for their cattle, and bring them home direct, instead of taking them first to London, and he hoped the inhabitants would give as much encouragement to that scheme as they had been kind enough to offer to the Gravesend Railway (applause).
Mr C Douglas Fox also replied. He felt that they had got over all their worst difficulties, for, though they had had a very stong opposition from the railway companywho were already in possession of the field, they had proved successful. The scheme originated, he believed, among a number of gentlemen in Northfleet and Gravesend, among them being Mr Nettleingham, who was then Mayor of the borough. In November 1879, plans were deposited and in 1880 they had their first fight before a Parliamentary Committee. The London, Chatham and Dover Company gave them a friendly pat on the back, but did not render them any material assistance, and as they were strongly opposed by the South Eastern Railway Company, and several landowners, among whom was Mr Bevan, their bill was rejected. But in 1890 they recommenced ther work under new auspices, and he was thnkful to remember how much they were indebted to Sir Sydney Waterlow for the great assistance he gave them in Parliament, and for what he did in securing them practical support from the London, Chatham and Dover Company. The result was than in 1881 they obtained the first Act for the line. A deviation being, however, rendered necessary, an amended Act was obtained int he follwoing year, and now they were assembled under very happy auspices to witness the comencement of the work. The line would commence with a junction with the main line of the London, Chatham and Dover Company at Fawkham, and would proceed almost in a straight line to the field (near Stuart Road) in which they were assembled. When finished there would be a station close to Southfleet, another near Rosherville, and another closed to where they were then sitting. He felt sure that Mr Bruce, although his work was cut out for him would, with the advantage of fine weather and the cooperation of the landowners, be able to complete the line within the year and half stated by the contract. When the railway was completed it would be connected at Gravesend with a deep water pier on the Thames. The pier would be so situated that the largest steamers would be able to go alongside at any state of the tide. He did not think that when those plans had been carried out, the railway would fail to be a great benefit to Gravesend and neighbourhood (hear, hear).
In submitting 'The health of the directors of the company', the Earl of Darnley said they believed the railway would give increased prosperity to the borough and additional facilities to the locality. Railways, his lordship continued, had no politics, and he thought that as son the directorate were to be found Sir Sydney Waterlow and Sir W Hart Dyke, they might trust to two such distinguished gentlemen to make the management of the undertaking both Liberal and Conservative in the best sense of the word. He would ask them to give a hearty welcome to the gentlemen who had undertaken and conducted the enterprise, the inauguration of which they were celebrating that day.
Sir William Hart Dyke, in responding, remarked that, though the existence of the directorate of his colleagues and hiself might be but ephemeral, yet he should be proud of having been connected with an undertaking, which could not but conduce to the prosperity of Gravesend, for he was sure that his colleagues all joined with him in the sincere desire to conduct the scheme to a successful issue.
Mr Nettleingham gave 'The health of the contractor' of whom he spoke in eulogistic terms.
Mr Bruce suitably responded, and introduced the toast of 'The Visitors', which was answered by Mr Lewis MP.
During the day the bells of St George's Church were ringing merrily."
[A lengthy report of the celebrations of the beginning of construction works for the line between Longfield and Gravesend. Lady Waterlow, the wife of the Liberal MP for Gravesend Sir Sydney Waterlow, dug the first sod. Sydney Waterlow (1822-1906) was from the famous stationer company of the same name and led a varied political career, he built Trosley Towers in 1887, the house is no longer there but the land is now Trosley Country Park. He was also noted for his philanthropy, he gave Waterlow Park in Highgate, London as a 'garden for the gardenless'. He apologised to his wife for the fact that under the custom of the day, she was not allowed to speak at the occasion.]
[This would appear to be a sequel to the magistrates court case reported above on 16.6.1883, as Thomas Baker was one of the children accused of burglary at the Hatfields' house]
[This is the sad case of a porter called Hasleden. The 1881 Census has a Thomas Hasleden, railway porter, living with his wife and 3 year old daughter (born at Faversham) at one of the cottages around Hartley Green.]
For particulars and to view apply to Messrs Tootell and Sons, Land Surveyors and Valuers, 13 King Street, Maidstone."
Plants - Richard Porter, Mrs Longhurst, Mrs Gilham, Mrs Smith, Mrs Scott, Mr Levi Bean
Bouquets - Mr Brown, V Bennett, Alice Parker, J Chadburn, and Mr Vincent
Vegetables & Fruit - Mr Longhurst, Mr Brown, Mr Geere, Mr H West and Mr Lynds
Cookery - Mrs Elkin (cake), Mrs Bean (cake), Mrs Porter (bread)
Gardeners - Table decoration, Mr L Bean; collection of vegetables, Mr L Bean and Mr Rye
Honey - Mr J Lynds
Cards of merit, most tastefully decorated by Miss Lukis were given to - Mrs Evenden for a specimen of point lace, the work of many years; Miss K Hassell for a beautifully arranged centrepiece of cultivated flowers, and also one of wild flowers; Mr J Evenden for centrepiece of cultivated flowers; Mrs Jennings for illuminated Christmas Cards; the Rev P H Jennings for dried flowers and ferns; Mrs Dunn for painting; Miss Trowel for work; and Miss H Haines for work.
A few words of thanks to her ladyship and the exhibitors were next offered by the Rector (the Rev P H Jennings); and the proceedings closed wiht a vote of thanks to the Rector and Mrs Jennings for the immense labour and pains they had bestowed. Two bouquets of wild flowers were given to Countess Darnley and Lady Alice Bligh. Mr Sims, gardener to Mrs Bennett, Meopham, and Mr Phillips, gardener to Dr Baber, kindly acted as judges."""
Mr Hart, in moving hte adoptio of the report, said the completion of these works was recommended on the score of economy, as well as efficiency.
Mr Side was of opinion that if they were going to make as large a depot at Longfield as they had at Newington, they were making a great mistake.
Mr Poulton said no better work had ever been done by the Vestry than this. As the parish increased, so it would be advisable to increase the depot at Longfield.
Mr Hart said if Mr Side, who objected to this proposal, had begun to build a house and got towards the roof, he would not be wise man if he went no further, and left the roof off That was his suggestion in the present case.
The resolution was carried."
Messrs Willoughby & Son are instructed by the Kent and Essex House Land and General Investment Company Limited to offer for sale by auction, at the Railway Tavern, Fawkham (sic) on Thursday February 21st 1884 at 3 o'clock precisely, in 45 lots, the above eligible building estate, containing 21 plots suitable for the erection of shops and villas, with important frontages to Station Road; and 24 plots in the Main Road leading to Gravesend, for the erection of cottages, which are in great demand in the neighbourhood.
Nine tenths of the purchase money may remain at 5 per cent interest, payable in equal quarterly installment, but the whole or any part of the balance may be paid off at any time without notice. Free conveyance." [An important milestone in the development of Longfield, before the railway there was little more than the Church, Court and Railway Tavern at this end of the parish.]
[As mentioned elsewhere, the Longfield depot was a highly controversial issue in Newington Vestry. The clerk Levi Dunham published a leaflet to justify his (and the majority party's) policy, which this anonymous letter writer supported, although he thought Mr Dunham was unwise to break the neutrality expected of officers.]
Messrs Cronk have received instructions from Mr G Barclay Bruce jun (the contract for the Fawkham and Gravesend Railway beingt nearly completed), to sell by auction at the contractor's yard, Old Dover Road, Gravesend, on Wednesday September 10th 1884 at 10 o'clock, 20 excellent cart horses, very powerful, fit for London contractors or brewer's work, and the usual contractor's plant, comprising 10 collar and 14 chain harnesses, 2 carts, capital dog cart, erection of smith's shop and tools, quantity of picks, shovels, crowbars etc."
Messrs Cronk will sell the above by auction, at the Mart, on November 11th 1884 at 2pm in 6 lots. Particulars of Messrs Farrer & Co, 66 Lincoln's Inn Fields WC; and of Messrs Cronk, 12 Pall Mall SW, and Sevenoaks, Kent."
The Depot Committee recommended that they be empowered to expend a further sum of £350 in labour and material in completing the lowering works, the erection of concrete walls, and other works, such as paving etc, necessry to prepare the lower portion of Longfield Depot as a place for the storage, screening, and sale of ashes and breeze.
Mr Nobes, in moving the adoption of the report, said the Longfield Depot was rapidly approaching to a condition of perfection. All the 7 docks were thoroughly paved, and all the arrangements made for the purpose of receiving the mixture from Newington. There were other works, however, to be completed before they could obtain complete efficiency, and the committee made these recommendations in accordance with that object. The oney spend over the Longfield Depot had been wisely and judiciously spent, and he was sure that ther successors on that vestry would be grateful to those who had done so much to meet the requirements of the day. Mr Harvey seconded.
Mr Robinson was opposed to this expenditure altogether. He thought the ratepayers of the future would regret that there had been gentlemen on that vestry to promote such a scheme.
Mr Smith moved, as an amendment, that the report lie on the table. The chairman said he could not accept that amendment, as the report had been received. Mr Smith said that being so, he would move 'that it be referred back' and in the course of his remarks, the chairman had to remind him that he was wandering from the subject, and that time was an object to the vestry.
Mr Clark said to build a cart and only to put one wheel on was idiculous. It would be equally so not to complete the necessary works ommenced at this depot. In the future they might have to get rid of the depot at Manor Place. Then they would find the utility of the depot at Longfield.
Mr Side jun said he would never allow an opportunity to pass without protesting against the expenditure of money at Longfield. He charged the committee with deliberately misleading the vestry by leaving their present proposals out of the estimates.
The chairman said that was accusing the committee of fraud. He must ask Mr Side to withdraw (cries of 'withdraw').
Mr Side ultimately withdrew, but said the committee acknowledged this in their report by stating 'that when the £530 was inserted in the estiates, it was understood that this amount would only last till Michaelmas'.
On Mr Side sen rising, Mr Josland wished to know on a point of order whether Mr Side was qualified to sit there as a vestryman. At Plumstead they had instituted actions against vestrymen who had compounded for their rates. Mr Side said counsel's opinion had been given in his favour. The chairman said that was not the time to raise such a question as this. Mr Side then spoke in condemnation of the committee's proposal.
After some further discussion, and a division on an amendment moved by Mr Snell 'That the report be referred back', the committee's recommendation was approved, and the vestry adjourned."
[also mentioned briefly in Gravesend Reporter 15.11.1884, who names the injured man as Henry Offer]
Reds, Dark or Pale and moulded bricks to any pattery. Sound stocks, grissells and place at JJ Hickmott's, Fawkham Brickfields, Fawkham (near Dartford), close to the station.
[so really in Longfield]
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.]
The parish of Newington is a thickly populated district south of the Thames of 108,000 inhabitants contained in 632 statute acres, with 37 miles of roadways adn 15,500 houses, including several large blocks of dwellings of the artisan class. The Vestry undertook its own scavenging work in the year 1868, from which period to the year 1873 they contracted with the barge owners for the removal of house dust by barge by means of the Surrey Canal in the parish of Camberwell, and carted teir road sweepings to gravel pits in the same parish. The collection of house dust at this period, including its disposal, cost the Vestry 3s 5d per load, and the road sweepings 3s per load, only from 3 to 4 loads daily being accomplished by each horse and cart. The number of loads of both house dust and road sweepings was observed to increase rapidly each year with the population and traffic, and this fact, attending with the increased cost of procuring barges and consequent difficulty of preventing accumulation on their wharf, besides the great cost of cartage to more outlying shoots, compeeled the vestry to consider the expediency of sending the refuse into the country by rail, the result being that the Vestry's depot at Manor Place, Walworth, in connection with the London, Chatham and Dover Railway, was established and opened in July 1873. The railway runs through this depot upon arches, and the premises contain about 4 acres of land which are freehold, with the use of 17 large arches on lease for 999 years, at rental of £340 per annum. The Vestry expended in railway sidings, boundary walls, offices, machinery, plant and paving £23,794; the mortgage debt being £14,000; the balance being borne in annual instalments during construction out of the rates. In this depot the house dust is deposited, then screened, and the ashes and breeze sent to the brickfields in Kent, realising large sums, which have in some years not only recouped the cost of screening and railway carriage, but also the cost of collection. The hardcore and old tins are broken and sold for road making, and the softcore mixed with the road slop, thus dealing with and utilising everything collected with house dust, with the exception of old mattresses, baskets, mats, and such like rubbish, which are sent into the country to be burned. The road slop and drift is made into a manure mixture by admixture with stable dung, which the Vestry also collects, and the softcore from the house dust, the process of which is shown from the reports of the medical officer of health of the parish to cause no nuisance to the surrounding district. This manure is sold to farmers in Kent, realising from 3s to 6s 8d per ton, the vestry paying the railway rates for carriage of the whole bulk of refuse sent away. During the 10 years ending Lady Day 1883, the Vestry thus sent away to farmers and brickmakers 325,432 tons of manure and ashes, which realised £51,433 6s 10d, the vestry in addition receiving during the same period £6,147 10s from an adjoining parish for the privilege of using this depot as a shoot for refuse, so that the receipts of the vestry of Newington reached £57,580 16s 10d. The cost attending the disposal of this 325,432 tons, including £31,162 paid for railway carriage, wages of sifters and other workmen, rent and all other establishment and incidental charges amounted to £59,560 10s 8d, leaving only a small balance of £1,979 13s 10d, or upon an average £197 19s 4d per annum, as the cost attending the disposal of the refuse when collectd. There had been in addition of course, the interest and instalments of the loan of £14,000 to pay, which is now reduced to a mortgage debt of only £5,983 6s 8d, the average payment for the 10 years named being £884 10s 4d. During the 10 years mentioned 224,023 loads of road sweepings and 158,110 loads of house dust were collected and taken to this depot. Now for the practical result of sending away the refuse by rail into the country. Before the establishment of this depot the road sweepings cost the vestry 3s per load for cartage to a shoot, and the house dust 3s 5d per load, including collection and th cost of sending it away by barge; whereas for the 10 years named the cost of carting the road sweepings from the roads to the depot only amounted to 2s per load, and house dust, including collection, 2s 10d per load, which included in both cases a 10th part of the interest and instalments on the mortgage debt and the balance of establishment charges in the management of the depot in excess of the receipts. In other words the Vestry of Newington now collect and dispose of their house dust at £430 per annum less than it cost the parish 18 years ago, and they had also effected a saving of £1,230 per annum in the removal of road sweepings. Of course the actual saving must be considerably more than the sums above shown because in 1870 under 7,500 loads of dust were collected, whereas in 1885 the number exceeded 14,000 loads; so that if it cost 3s per load to dispose of the smaller quantity 18 years ago, it would evidently cost considerably more per load to dispose of the larger quantity at the present period, and the same remark applies equally to road slop. Whilst, therefore, other Metropolitan Vestries are obliged to pay an increased charge per annum for the removal of their refuse, the Vestry of Newington, by grappling with and solving the question of disposal of town refuse years since, are now in a position to dispose of their refuse at a less cost than in former years, besides benefitting the country by the method of disposal adopted. The result could ntk however, have been accomplished by the Vestry without country depots, as it was found in practice impossible to prevent accumulations to an unneccessary large extent taking place in the town depot during certain periods of the year, such as haying and harvest, when farmers were too busy to draw manure from the railway trucks. This induced the Vestry, in 1874, to take on lease 3 acres of land at Meopham, and purchase 2 acres of land at Longfield, both adjoining the railway, as a shoot for the refuse to meet contingencies such as we have referred to. The depot at Meopham was afterwards (1878) formed into a place for deposit of manure at a cost of £245, from which farmers could afterwards draw from at their own convenience. At this depot 17,813 tons have been deposited and sold, realising £2,652 13s 6d. These deposits enabled the Vestry to keep the town yard clear of large accumulations, and obtain a higher price from other stations on the line than otherwise would have been the case. The cost of this depot, from teh increased price obtained for the manure as explained, was more than recouped during the first two years after it was established, and this induced the Vestry to form and establish the more important depot at Longfield, which adjoins the railway embankment midway between the stations of Meopham and Fawkham. This depot has railway frontage of 900 feet, with a fall from the sidings of 5 ft at the entrance to 45 ft at the extreme end. The retaining wall the carry the embankment and railway sidings, and the bays for storage of manure and dust, have been constructed in a very substantial manner in concrete, composed of Portland Cement and broken hardcore picked from the house dust in the process of screening. The first portion of the depot contains 7 bays for the storage of 5,000 tons of manure, into which have been deposited and sold 23,489 tons during the past 5 years, realising £3,661 3s 7d, the cost of this portion of work being only £2,350. The lower portion of this depot, which has cost £4,000, contains 4 large bays, which will provide storage space for 4,000 tons of forked dust, togtehr with 5 other bays for the reception and storage of an equal quantity of screened ashes and breeze, the object being to do away with a dust yard at the town depot at Walworth. When Longfield is opened as a place of business it is proposed to fork the dust daily as collected at Walworth for the removal of hard core for roadmaking and sort core to put into the slop, and then send the rough dust to Longfield, where by storage it is found to improved in value and facilitate the screening process, all vegetable and other matter being destroyed by its own heat, making the ashes much sharper and the breeze clean and free frm dirt. In connection with the works a furnace has been constructed for the destruction of old mats, etc. The sidings at the lower end of the depot have been carried over arches, which have been turned into cottages for the workmen. The roadway between the upper and lower bays has been covered with a concrete arch to protect the workpeople employed in screening, which we gather is intended to be done by machinery. The screened ashes and breeze will be loaded up into skips and taken under the roadway, and lifted by a steam crane into the railway trucks for sale to the brickmakers. Then in addition to the 2 acres upon which this depot has been formed the vestry have recently secured another 2 acres of land, which provides a shoot for 200,000 tons, thus placing the parish of Newington in a perfectly independent position for several years to come, even if there be no demand for ashes. The great advantage by the formation of this depot arises from teh fact of the vestry being in a position to store to such a large extent, and thus being enabled to retain that which has proved so valuable in former years until it may prove advantageous to have it screened and sold, and thus recoup themselves a large percentage on the outlay. The whole expense of this depot has been borne by yearly and easy instalments out of the rates, which has not been felt by the parishioners; and the parish in years to come will, there can be no doubt, derive much benefit both on sanitary and economical groundsby the establishment of this depot, without which it would be impossible to work the town depot economically, and - during the summer months - without great risk of the accumulations causing a nuisance. If other vestries would grapple with the question as Newington has, and send tehir refuse into the country by rail instead of by water, they would not only benefit their owner parishioners, but also Newington, as this vestry can only sell their mixture between Beckenham and Meopham and stations between Faversham and Margate and Dover and Deal, the district between Rochester and Faversham being glutted with the refuse of other parishes."
[A very useful description of the Longfield tip at the time. It must be remembered though that Mr Dunham was very invested in the scheme and as we will find out later was very good at manipulating statistics! We have to ask if the scheme were really so successful, then why was it not emulated by any other London borough?]
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. The Bexleyheath Observer of 12.1.1889 provides brief biographical sketches of both candidates: "For the Darenth and Horton Kirby district, Mr W Chambers and Liut Col J Hartley are before the electors, and no doubt the fight will be a close one. Mr Chambers is vice-chairman of the Dartford Board of Guardians, is a large ratepayer and employer of labour, and is in every way qualified to represent the district. His opponent Lieut Col J Hartley is a barrister of the Inner Temple, and his magisterial work in th Quarter and General Sessions makes him a fit candidate for the post he seeks." 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."
[Pitch and Toss was a gambling game of tossing coins closest to a post or wall.]