It will be recollected that towards the close of the season of 1858, the
vestry thought it necessary to remind Mr. Simpson, the proprietor of
Cremorne Gardens, of the arrangement made with them as to the conduct of
his gardens, particularly as to the hour of closing; and that Mr.
Simpson’s reply, although dated the 16th of August, was not received in
sufficient time to be considered until the meeting on the fifth of
October, when it was thought to be unsatisfactory. Last year the vestry
again moved in the matter, by reminding him of these promises, and
requesting to know before Monday, the tenth of September, whether it was
his intention to comply with their wishes and those of the parish, by
closing the gardens at twelve o’clock at night. No reply having been
received from Mr. Simpson at the meeting of the board on the eleventh of
September, it was moved by Mr. Delany that the report of the second of
November, 1857, which the vestry had refrained from making public in
consequence of the pledge on the part of the proprietor, that the gardens
should be closed as near to midnight as possible, and that in other
respects he would meet the wishes of the vestry, and the comfort of the
inhabitants, should be printed for the use of the vestry. The chairman,
however, having ruled that this motion was irregular, it was referred to
the committee of works and for general purposes to consider the whole
question, particularly with reference to the effect, a change in the
proprietorship, from an individual to a company, might have in increasing
the annoyance of the parishioners; and the report of the committee was
presented on the twenty-fifth of September.
That report, which is printed at page 107, recommended the publication of
the report of 1857, and the presentation of a petition to the licensing
magistrates that the hour of closing might be made twelve o’clock at
night, as was the case with other public gardens. A memorial from
forty-four owners of property and ratepayers residing near the gardens,
urging the vestry to act, was presented at the same time the report was
under consideration.
The vestry then decided, by a majority of 17 to 6, to present the
petition, but to withold the publication of the report of 1857; and the
solicitor being in attendance with a form of petition, which was
approved, the seal was affixed to it at once, and it was duly presented.
On the ninth of October, however, a day or two before the licensing day,
a communication was received from the solicitors, which induced the
board, on a division, by a majority of twenty-eight to eight, to pass the
following resolution:—
Resolved, that having regard to the communication now made by the
solicitors, from which it appears that the necessary evidence in
support of the petition cannot be obtained upon the present occasion,
the solicitors be instructed not to incur any further expense in the
matter, on the understanding that if the gardens should be kept open
after twelve at night, and the nuisance, annoyance, and injury to the
parishioners continue, this board, will in sufficient time next year
consider the necessary steps to be taken effectually to oppose the
application for the renewal of the license in 1861.
“THE LOTS.”
“The Lots,” a parcel of land so called lying on the banks of the river
{23a} in front of Ashburnham House, comprises about four acres, and is
the meadow ground formerly allotted to Sir Arthur Gorges by the Lord of
the Manor, in lieu of his right of common. {23b} These are, and have
been for centuries, the Chelsea Lammas Lands, and have hitherto been
accustomed to be opened on the twelfth of August, being the first day of
the month according to the Old Style. The graziers, butchers, and
others, with their cattle, used formerly to assemble in the lane leading
to “The Lots” on the eve of Lammas, and when the clock had struck twelve
they entered upon the meadow.
From the report of a committee, printed at page 108, appointed by the
vestry in the year 1834 to investigate the state of these town meadows,
when it was necessary _vi et armis_ to reassert the invaded privileges of
the inhabitants, it appears that “‘The Lots’ are Lammas land, and have
been for ages appurtenant to the manor of Chelsea. The Lord of the Manor
possesses the right of letting the land on lease for the spring and
autumn quarters, beginning with March and ending in August; and the
inhabitants at large enjoy the privilege of turning in their cattle from
August till February, being the autumn and winter quarters.” Railways,
however, and acts of parliament for smoothing down difficulties in their
way, have sprung up since those pastoral clays; and the Lord of the Manor
having sold his freehold to a railway company, the clerk called the
attention of the vestry, on the 8th of May, 1860, to the following
advertisement:—
West London Extension Railway Company.—Notice is hereby given, that a
Meeting of the Householders, Inhabitants, and Land-owners of the
Parish of St. Luke, Chelsea, in the County of Middlesex, and other
persons interested in the Lammas Lands called “The Lots,” in the said
Parish of St. Luke, Chelsea, will be held at the house of Mr. John
Sparks Alexander situate in Cremorne Road, in the said parish, and
known by the name or sign of the ‘King’s Arms,’ on Wednesday, the 9th
day of May next, at Eleven o’clock in the forenoon, for the purpose
of appointing a Committee to treat with the Company for the
compensation to be paid by them for the extinction of the Lammas and
other Commonable Rights, in or over certain land called ‘The Lots’ in
the said parish of St. Luke, Chelsea, and which is required by the
Company for the purposes of the ‘West London Extension Railway. Act,
1859.’—Dated the 27th day of April, 1860.—EDWARD BELLAMY, Secretary
of the Company.
A meeting took place consequently on the 9th of May, at which the
following resolution was passed:—
Resolved, that Messrs. William Hall (church warden), John Perry,
James Miles, George Wevell Richards, and William Whitehead, being
five of the persons entitled to Lammas or other Commonable Rights
over or in the piece of land called ‘The Lots Meadow,’ otherwise
‘Chelsea Lot Mead,’ situate in the parish of Saint Luke, Chelsea, in
the County of Middlesex, and containing by admeasurement three acres,
two roods, and thirty perches, or thereabouts, and marked or referred
to in the map or plan, and in the book of reference of the West
London Extension Railway, deposited with the Clerk of the Peace for
the said County of Middlesex, by the number 10 in the said parish of
St. Luke, Chelsea, shall be, and they are accordingly, in pursuance
of the provisions of the ‘Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,’
appointed to be a Committee having all such powers as by the ‘Lands
Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845’ are conferred upon Committees of
like description, to treat with the West London Extension Railway
Company for the compensation to be paid for the extinction of all
Lammas or other Commonable Rights over or in the said piece of land.
The important question of the boundaries of the parish has occupied
considerable attention during the past year, and has been the subject of
a reference to a sub-committee of the committee of works and for general
purposes, who have still the subject under consideration.
Various memorials and petitions have been presented during the year, to
which, as they sufficiently elucidate the subjects of them, and are
printed in the appendix (Nos. 23 to 27) no further allusion need be made
here.
The “Public Indicator” erected in Sloane Square by permission of the
board in May, 1860, was removed in the fallowing March, in consequence of
the failure of the proprietors to light it at night, and to provide the
promised clock. It is retained in the custody of the vestry, under a
clause in the agreement, as a lien for the expenses of its removal and
making good the paving.
Plans, books of reference, and parliamentary notices of the “London,
Buckinghamshire, and West Midland Railway” (whose intended terminus was
in the Pavilion grounds), and of “The London Tramway and Dispatch
Company,” were deposited with the Vestry, but both of their bills were
unsuccessful. Mr. Train also made an application to the vestry for
permission to lay down his tramways in Sloane Street and the King’s Road,
but its consideration has been adjourned _sine die._
On the twenty-ninth of January, 1861, Mr. Finch laid before the Board a
copy of a “Bill to Transfer the Seats in Parliament forfeited by the
Borough of St. Albans to the proposed Borough of Chelsea and Kensington,”
which Viscount Enfield, M.P. for Middlesex had given notice of his
intention to introduce in the House of Commons. Immediately the
Government {25} brought in their “Bill for the Appropriation of the Seats
Vacated by the Disfranchisement of the Boroughs of Sudbury and Saint
Albans,” which contained the following clause: “The parishes of Chelsea
and Kensington in the county of Middlesex shall, for the purposes of this
act, together form a borough, to be called the borough of Chelsea, and
such borough shall, from and after the said first day of November, 1861,
return one member to serve in parliament.”
An influential deputation from both parishes, accompanied by the two
county members, had an interview with Lord Palmerston on the fifth of
March, on the subject of the bill, and laid before his lordship various
statistical information (see appendix No. 29). But on a division in the
House of Commons on the tenth of June, the clause was rejected by a
majority of two hundred and seventy-five to one hundred and seventy-two.
Mr. Tite thus reported the circumstance to the board:—
42, Lowndes Square,
Tuesday Morning, 1 o’clock.
My dear Mr. Lahee,—I never was so taken by surprise as by the
division I have just left. The Government Bill was affirmed by two
large majorities, but when we came to the Chelsea question, to my
astonishment we were beaten by one hundred and three. The house was
excessively impatient, and would hardly listen to anything; but it
appeared to me Sir James Graham, whom they would hear, said all that
could be said on the subject. I was also astonished at some of those
I saw voting against us. I will send you the division list as soon
as I get it. The impression in the House _just now_ was that the
bill would be withdrawn, so in happier times we may have another
chance.—Yours very truly,