|
Post by swanarcadian on May 20, 2018 10:11:21 GMT
Absorbed by Wembley UDC in 1934.
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on Aug 31, 2020 10:12:43 GMT
Absorbed by Wembley UDC in 1934. Prior to 1900, Kingsbury existed as a separate electoral ward of Wembley Urban District. Separation occurred as a result of Local Government Board Order 41,093. The new Urban District assumed full powers on 16 April 1900. The district had an area of 1,829 acres and the 1901 census recorded a population of 757. Kingsbury's first election in its own right as a UDC was on 12 April 1900, delayed from the usual day for district elections by the late arrival of paperwork confirming the formation of the new UDC. Note added in edit: The first election may have been 14 April, not the 12th as I say above. I reproduce a few short comments about the situation from the Hendon and Finchley Times, 30 March 1900: By the way, the complete severance of Kingsbury from Wembley had not been effected last week. It was understood that the election of six members to form the new Kingsbury Urban District would take place on Monday, but for some reason or other Mr. F.J. Seabrook, the appointed returning officer, did not receive instructions from official quarters to proceed. It therefore became necessary to elect a member for Kingsbury on the Wembley Council. In view of the fact that the general election will take place almost immediately, no one was nominated to fill the vacancy caused by Dr. White's term of office having expired. A form nominating the retiring member was, however, sent in after the prescribed time, and as there was no other candidate, Mr. Bagshaw, the returning officer, has declared Dr. White duly elected. Since that time the necessary orders separating the two districts have been issued, and the general election of a Kingsbury Urban District Council will take place on 14th April.
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on Aug 31, 2020 10:15:27 GMT
Kingsbury ward, Wembley UDC, 1894 - Polling day: Monday 17 December 1894.
Three vacancies, 141 electors, 105 voted, t'out 74.5%. The Hendon and Finchley Times initially reported that there were 120 electors at these elections, a possible misprint as elsewhere in the article a more accurate figure of 140 electors was mentioned. In order to calculate turnout it is assumed that the reported number of people voting, 105, was accurate.
Thomas S. Anderson 70 (gentleman) Dr. Arthur C. White 57 James Pocock 52
Thomas Goddard 45 (wine and spirit merchant) Benjamin J. Wyand 28 Charles J. Mitchell 26
Note: Anderson, White and Pocock were the candidates of White's party.
Guardians
Thomas S. Anderson 67 Thomas Goddard 37
maj 30 (There was 1 spoilt paper)
Polling Day, 1894
The paper gave a description of the campaign and polling day as follows: "The contest ... has been a very keen one, and party feeling has run particularly high. The polling station for this district was at the Board Schools, Kingsbury Lane, The Hyde, Mr Finch being the presiding officer, with Mr Hart as assistant; whilst Mr Chad was also present in the booth watching the interests of Messrs Anderson, Pocock and White. Outside, this party was particularly active, they having at their disposal a good number of vehicles .... The lanes had been freely posted with bills and the seat upon the Board of Guardians was also stoutly contested.
"Immediately after the close of the poll the boxes were conveyed to the Workmen’s Hall, Wembley, where Mr Skelton, the Returning Officer, counted up the votes. A number of the electors of Kingsbury journeyed over and shortly after half-past eight quite a little crowd gathered outside the hall. [In the hall] the candidates were accommodated with seats upon a special platform. ... Shortly after eleven o’clock, after a lot of apparently unnecessary delay, the result was declared .... There was some cheering, a vote of thanks to the Returning Officer was proposed ... [and] the Kingsbury contingent left for home. By the aid of a big bell the result was duly announced at The Hyde shortly before midnight, the news being received with some cheers."
Kingsbury ward, Wembley UDC, 1896 (123 electors) (Polling day for the remainder of Wembley UDC: Monday 30 March 1896)
Charles J. Mitchell Unopp.
Kingsbury ward, Wembley UDC, 1897 (133 electors) (Polling day for the remainder of Wembley UDC: Monday 5 April 1897)
Dr. Arthur C. White Unopp.
Kingsbury ward, Wembley UDC, 1898 (136 electors) (Polling day for the remainder of Wembley UDC: Monday 4 April 1898)
Thomas S. Anderson Unopp.
Note: Anderson was also elected unopposed as Kingsbury parish representative on Hendon Union Board of Guardians.
Kingsbury ward, Wembley UDC, 1899 (131 electors) (Polling day for the remainder of Wembley UDC: Monday 27 March 1899)
Charles J. Mitchell Unopp.
Note: Although newspaper reports state that Mitchell was offering himself for re-election in Kingsbury, no result of a contested election has been found. It is therefore surmised that Mitchell was returned unopposed.
Kingsbury ward, Wembley UDC, 1900 (147 electors) (Polling day for the remainder of Wembley UDC: Monday 2 April 1900)
Dr. Arthur C. White Unopp.
Note: The circumstances that forced the Returning Officer to issue a Notice of Election for the ward, and to accept the late nomination of White, are discussed in the previous post.
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on Aug 31, 2020 10:35:04 GMT
The following is reproduced from www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/middx/vol5/pp80-82. I have already separately posted this on the main site. Poor and backward, Kingsbury parish was not welcomed by any of its neighbours when urban districts were formed in 1894, especially since sewerage had already caused friction with Hendon. After Kingsbury became a ward of Wembley U.D., Wembley's 9 councillors resented paying for sewerage schemes for Kingsbury, while Kingsbury's 3 councillors were frustrated through being in a permanent minority. Personal jealousies exacerbated the situation, money was wasted in litigation, and in 1899 the inquirer from Middlesex C.C. considered Wembley U.D.C. 'an object lesson in misgovernment'.
In 1900 Kingsbury became a separate urban district with 6 councillors, a clerk who also acted as surveyor, inspector of nuisances and collector of rents, and a medical officer of health. After more turbulence, however, another inquiry was held in 1906, when the district council was described as having furnished an example of maladministration. The trouble was partly inherent in Kingsbury's situation. As a sparsely populated district the rateable value was insufficient to provide essential services except by high rates, which discouraged people from settling there. More important, however, was the struggle among the councillors, the reds and blues, for control of the chair. The two most notorious members were Dr. Arthur Calcutta White of Kenton Grove Farm and José Diaz, a Spaniard who lived at Fern Dene until his death in 1915. White, who had been largely responsible for the trouble with Wembley, owned Gore farm and caused offence with his piggeries and rubbish dumps in Honeypot Lane. Attempted improvements by the medical officer of health or the inspector of nuisances were blocked by White, who in 1904 responded to a summons by dismissing the clerk. Diaz, after his enforced resignation from the chair as an alien in 1904, continued to instruct his faction from the floor [sic] . Government collapsed altogether in 1906, when minutes were rescinded, a rate was cancelled, and bills were left unpaid. Ratepayers petitioned for an inquiry, as a result of which the number of councillors was increased to nine. A works and finance committee and an outdoor committee were formed and salaried officials, a medical officer of health, a sanitary inspector, a clerk, and one man to serve as surveyor, assistant clerk and rate-collector, were appointed. Diaz, now naturalised, was elected chairman, however, and in 1909 White began to interrupt meetings, which became so stormy that the police were called. Two opponents of both Diaz and White ceased to attend in 1910 and Diaz retained control until his death in 1915.
Diaz's death coincided with the building of factories and the beginning of Kingsbury's long-awaited development, which increased the rateable value eight-fold between 1922 and 1933. By 1926 the council had committees for allotments, highways and works, finance, housing, and special amalgamation. It employed a clerk, a medical officer, a rate collector and a joint engineer, surveyor and sanitary inspector. The offices were at Kingsbury Green. In 1934 Kingsbury was amalgamated with Wembley in a new Wembley U.D., which was incorporated in 1937. It was divided into wards, of which four, Roe Green, Fryent, Chalkhill, and Hyde, were formed out of old Kingsbury parish.
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on Sept 1, 2020 15:59:43 GMT
An interesting snippet from the Finchley and Hendon Times, 23 March 1900, provides further background information. The separation of Kingsbury from Wembley no doubt was to the benefit of Wembley; meanwhile Kingsbury descended into further chaos as described above!
Local strife and profitless litigation have, since the readjustment of the local authorities [in 1894], attended the administration of local affairs in the parish of Kingsbury, and heavy law bills have been the consequence. The cost of the inquiry re the separation cannot be complained of on the score of excess. Mr. R.W. Harper's bill for investigating the affairs of Wembley and Kingsbury amounts to £20 19s. The details show that the two days' inquiry cost £5 10s each; examination of the accounts £2 4s; report, £5 10s; and settling the Order, £2 4s 6d. If the division of the two districts proves to be the panacea hoped for, this will be the best £21 the districts have been called upon to provide.
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on Sept 1, 2020 16:36:58 GMT
Kingsbury 1900 - The First UDC Election
This would have taken place on Saturday 14 April 1900 were it not for an unopposed election. An (*) indicates a previous member for Kingsbury ward on Wembley UDC. There were 147 parochial electors on the 1900 Register of Electors.
*Thomas S. Anderson Unopp. (gentleman) Henry Johnson Unopp. (licensed victualler, Plough Inn) *Charles J. Mitchell Unopp. (architect) Thomas Noad Unopp. (farmer) Henry Ward Unopp. (dealer in horses) *Arthur C. White Unopp. (doctor of medicine)
Note: The following three candidates were nominated but withdrew within the permissible period:
Joseph Bannister Pettinger T. Brooks Mason Kidner
The council, at its first meeting on Monday 16 April 1900, elected Mr. John J. Done (a parishioner and obviously not a councillor) as its first chairman. The voting was 4 in favour of Done, 2 in favour of Thomas Anderson. The 1900 Register shows Done as occupying a property called Shoelands in The Hyde. By 1901, he was registered at a property called Delamere in The Burroughs, Hendon. The 1901 Census described his profession as 'land agent'; it is clear from the local press that he acted on behalf of All Souls' College, the owners of extensive property in the parish of Kingsbury.
Taking the chair at the second meeting, Done "thanked the members for the honour they had done him in electing him to a post, which under the circumstances, he was afraid would not be a bed of roses. Kingsbury was a poor little district, but with their co-operation he hoped to do the best possible for it."
At the first meeting Anderson appeared to tender his resignation - he stormed out of the meeting when he wasn't elected chairman, uttering, "Good-day. I have done with it," - but he withdrew it at the second meeting. Anderson then protested in robust language, as the Hendon and Finchley Times reports (27 April 1900):
He [Anderson] might say that he had had several interviews with very important parishioners, and he had in his pocket a memorial signed by 25 of the largest ratepayers in the parish, condoling with him on the "dirty trick" which he had been served. On Wednesday last one of the justices called at his house to say that he did not know a more shabby or dirty trick that could be played upon a man who had served the parish of Kingsbury for so many years. Although he had heard rumours, he had no idea that a matter of this kind would be carried out. He had laboured assiduously for the best interests of Kingsbury for a great number of years, when probably no other man would have done the work, and to be served in the manner that Mr. Done had served him, was a "dirty trick". The chairman could depend upon it that it rebound four-fold upon him. He [Mr. Anderson] would not have served the chairman so on any account whatever. Mr. Done knew all about it; he was one of the party; but yet he would not let him [Mr. Anderson] know what he wanted to become. Under a cloak, and behind the scenes, he had however brought himself into the chair, and he despised him for it.
The portions in bold I have highlighted, for dramatic effect!
The council then went on to apply to the Middlesex County Council that they should hold triennial elections for the whole council, rather than annual elections for two members.
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on Apr 30, 2021 13:19:54 GMT
Kingsbury 1901 - Polling day Monday 25 March 1901
Source: Hendon and Finchley Times, 8, 15 and 29 March 1901. 1901 Harrow Parliamentary Division Register of Electors. There were numerous advertisements in the 'classified' section of the Times, 15 March edition, page 4, setting out the positions taken by the candidates at the election.
There were six vacancies. 125 electors, 105 voted = 84.0% t'out, 1 spoilt paper
Henry Ward 76 Dr. Arthur C. White 58 Mason Kidner 53 Louis Mieville 50 Pettinger T. Brooks 48 Henry Johnson 42
Thomas Noad 40 Thomas S. Anderson 31 Charles J. Mitchell 31
Note: Anderson and Mitchell contested the election on a joint 'ticket'. Kidner, Mieville and Brooks contested the election on a 'ticket' together.
Note: Ward, White, Johnson and Noad sought election together, and were in favour of Kingsbury having its own system of sewerage (instead of entering into agreements with Hendon and Wembley).
Guardians
At the concurrently held election for one seat to Hendon Board of Guardians the result was:
Dr. Arthur C. White 58 Thomas S. Anderson 41
maj 17
Polling Day
The Hendon and Finchley Times, reporting election day, commented that during the past year Council "matters have not worked altogether smoothly and as a result a good deal of feeling has been imparted into the present contest. .... Election addresses have been issued by all the candidates, the district has been freely placarded with literature; whilst canvassing has by no means been neglected. .... Mr W.T. Mansfield, the clerk to the Council, was Returning Officer, and the polling room — the Board School, Kingsbury Road — was opened promptly at eight o’clock. Mrs Wells had the honour of being the first voter, but Mr Brooks was very early on the scene. .... Many persons assembled outside the school in the evening, and during the last hour or two there was a great deal of excitement." Of the count, the paper commented that "it was expected that Mr Ward would take a prominent position [and] Dr White also found many supporters, but the electors had not confined themselves to voting for a party and that party only, the six votes being in many instances divided indiscriminately."
Further Developments and a By-Election
At the first meeting of the council after the election Mr. J.J. Done JP was again co-opted to act as Chairman.
Following the resignation of Cllr. L. Mieville, who had moved away from the district, a by-election was held on 11 January 1902: Source: Hendon and Finchley Times, 20 and 27 December 1901, 3 and 17 January 1902. 1902 Harrow Parliamentary Division Register of Electors.
There were 135 electors on the register (although the Times claimed there were 133). 105 voters polled, of whom 101 cast valid votes and 4 were spoilt. Turnout was therefore 77.8%.
Daniel D. Bulger 61 (gentleman) William Burton 40 (jobmaster and farmer)
maj. 21
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on May 1, 2021 15:47:05 GMT
Kingsbury 1904Source: Hendon and Finchley Times, 11 March and 22 April 1904. 1904 Harrow Parliamentary Division Register of Electors.The number of parochial electors was 135. An election was avoided: Thomas C. Chad Unopp. (Registrar to Public Company) Jose Diaz Unopp. (gentleman) Henry Johnson Unopp. (licensed victualler, Plough Inn) Arthur Jones Unopp. (farrier) Mason Kidner Unopp. (jobmaster) Howard H. Spicer Unopp. (paper merchant) Note: A seventh candidate, Daniel D. Bulger (gentleman), was nominated, but he withdrew his papers within the allowable period. He was, however, co-opted on to the new Council as Chairman. He claimed that an uncontested election saved £20, equivalent to a half-penny rate. He moved from the district to live in Leighton Buzzard in October 1904. If an election had been necessary it would have taken place on Monday 28 March 1904. Note: An entry in wikipedia describes the major events in Spicer's life. He received a knighthood for technical advice to the War Office during the Great War. GuardiansRev. Alexander G. Locke Unopp. (Clerk in Holy Orders) Note: Locke resigned as a Guardian in November 1905, upon accepting the living of St. Thomas, Portman Square, St. Marylebone. He was replaced by Mrs. Muriel E.B.H. Spicer who attended her first meeting of the Board on 18 January 1906. It must be assumed that she was elected unopposed as no report of a contested election has been found in the Hendon and Finchley Times.
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on May 2, 2021 12:23:26 GMT
Kingsbury: 1905, A Year of Chaos and ConfusionFollowing the election of Cllr Jose Diaz to the Chairmanship of Kingsbury UDC in April, the Hendon and Finchley Times, 12 May 1905, published a photograph and biography of the new Chairman: In the article we learn that Diaz was a "descendent of a very ancient family of Hidalges [noblemen] from the North of Spain". His father had fought in conjunction with the Duke of Wellington in the Peninsular War. However, Diaz, despite being born in Spain, had lived in England nearly all his life. Diaz was a trustee of the Kingsbury Charities, chairman of the Executive Committee of the Kingsbury Club, and a playing member of the Kingsbury Polo Club. The paper reports him as being "kind and charitible to children", a "true friend of the working classes", a "strict Catholic" and that he "patronises art". It was noted that he had a collection of "fine oil paintings and watercolours ..... also old china and rare books". Diaz was married to a "very amiable and benevolent English lady". Things started to go wrong early in Diaz's chairmanship. The Hendon and Finchley Times, 9 June 1905, reports a meeting called by three councillors - Kidner, Spicer and Chad - who were considering resigning as councillors. The headines for the article were: DISSENSION ON KINGSBURY COUNCIL --- MESSRS KIDNER, SPICER AND CHAD EXPLAIN THEIR POSITION --- A VOTE OF CONFIDENCE AND A DEMAND FOR RESIGNATIONS --- MR DIAZ AND THE CHAIRMANSHIP
The accompanying article consumed four full columns of the newspaper. The three were considering resignation on account of their differences with the Chairman. They said that having received a strong request not to do so, they had decided to call a public meeting of all the ratepayers and electors to determine their wishes. Those ratepayers who were present expressed their confidence in the councillors by a vote of 19-0. The disagreements with the Chairman are difficult to summarise from such a long article, but appear to be mainly personal (grudges and snide remarks about the rateable value of their respective properties and land, for example) and political (e.g. whether there should be annual elections or not). In the Hendon and Finchley Times of 29 September 1905 it is reported that Diaz had resigned as a councillor for Kingsbury UD. This appeared to be somewhat abrupt, but may have been prompted by events reported in the issue of 6 October 1905: DISFRANCHISEMENT OF MR. DIAZ---Is Mr Diaz an Alien?During a session of a Revision Court called to consider the Harrow Parliamentary Division Register, one of the Overseers for Kingsbury, Mr. W.H. Harper, reported that Diaz was "an alien, and not a naturalised British subject, and as such had no [ownership] claim. .... He has not taken out letters patent to become a naturalised British subject." Diaz, in a letter apologised for not being able to be present in person, claimed to be a British subject and had been on the voting lists for 17 years; the issue was only being questioned now following recent personal and political disagreements. The Revising Barrister removed both Mr and Mrs Diaz from the lists. From the reports it would seem that the Overseers only investigated the ambiguity of Diaz's position following the publication of the biography and photograph that appeared in the Hendon and Finchley Times.
The paper, on 3 November 1905, reported on the by-election to fill Cllr. Diaz's seat. It was held on 28 October 1905. The official number of parochial electors was 144, but the Times implied two of these had died (or "joined the great majority", as they described it). 123 electors went to the poll, of which 122 were valid votes and one was spoilt. The turnout was therefore 85.4%.
Henry Ward ("Red") 65 William H. Harper ("Blue") 57
maj. 8
The newspaper headlined the by-election as being "A Sharp Fight," adding that half of the votes were recorded before noon. "So enthusiastic were the supporters [of the candidates] that some time before the ballot box was sealed every voter that could possibly attend had been brought up to the Council offices." It went on to report that people living some distance away travelled to the polling station. For example, James Willing junr., an ownership elector, travelled from Teddington, Daniel D. Bulger returned from Leighton Buzzard and Cllr. Thomas Chad journeyed from Chadwell Heath. The paper mentions that Ward was helped by Diaz, and that Harper was supported by Mr. St. Leger Stephen, Cllr. Kidner and Cllr. Spicer. From this we can see a clear division between the supporters and opponents of Diaz, the latter being known as the "Blues". One could speculate that the use of red for Diaz's group may arise from the red of the uniform worn by his father during the Peninsular War, a fragment of which was in Jose's possession.
From the Hendon and Finchley Times of 10 November 1905 it is learnt that there was an inquorate meeting of the Council on 8 November. An agenda item would have been to receive the resignation of Cllr. Thomas Chad from the council. The clerk reported informally that resignation letters had also been received from Cllrs. Arthur Jones and Henry Johnson, who, it would appear, were in Diaz's camp. Johnson, in his resignation letter, said he would leave it to the electors to say whether "it is to be [the] 'Reds' or 'Blues'. The other day they said 'Reds'. If [it is to be the] 'Reds', [then] workmen's cottages, cheaper rents and lower rates; if [the] 'Blues' [then it would] keep the parish in rural, picturesque beauty and [the] rates high."
So, there was a total of three new vacancies on Kingsbury UDC. From the edition of the Times of 8 December we learn of the nomination of 6 candidates, and that polling will take place on 15 December 1905. There were three candidates for the "Reds" and three for the "Blues", who called themselves independent candidates. Of the 144 on the Register, 121 went to the poll. Turnout was 84.0% and there was one spoilt paper.
Dr. Arthur C. White ("Red") 71 John J. Walker ("Red") 65 Robert Pettitt ("Red") 64
William H. Harper ("Blue") 57 Charles J. Mitchell ("Blue") 52 William Walton ("Blue") 52
The Council now consisted of four "Reds" (Ward, White, Walker, Pettitt) and two "Blues" (Kidner and Spicer, the latter having assumed the Chairmanship on the departure of Diaz). Pettitt was a serving member of St. Pancras Borough Council, having been elected as a Moderate councillor in Ward No. 8 in both 1900 and 1903.
Electioneering at the by-election was rough. At an eve-of-poll meeting held by the "Blues", their candidates doubted the ability of the "Reds" to deliver on their promise of lower rates, lower rents and better housing for the working classes. Harper stated that his opponent at the earlier by-election, Ward, had "only attended two meetings of the school authority since June 1903, and to elect a man like that on the Council was simply ridiculous. He was sorry for the district if they were to be controlled by one man. Mr. Diaz was at the bottom of all the trouble." Harper also expressed his displeasure with the former Chairman of the Council, J. Done, for his role in the siting of the smallpox hospital, saying: "he [Done] had no right to bring that source of danger into the district."
Later in the meeting Mitchell stated that in 1894 he had opposed making Kingsbury an urban district, "and this was the cause of all the trouble". As an overseer, he [Mitchell] was prepared to stand by his actions in the raising of assessments, including raising the assessment on his own property. He was baffled that Mr. Done referred to him as a "decoy". Walton also stated that he too had striven for equitable assessments and "would not listen to the dictation of anyone".
Cllr. Spicer, speaking in support of the "Blue" candidates provocatively referred to the defeat of the Spanish Armada, and said he thought "history would repeat itself on the morrow".
Of this second by-election, the Hendon and Finchley Times suggested the election result "was somewhat unexpected" as "hardly anyone anticipated that either side would achieve complete success, especially after the close fight in October." The paper added that "the poll was opened at 8 am and closed twelve hours later, but, as was the case on the last occasion, business was by no means brisk during the last hour, so energetic had the workers on either side been earlier in the day. Towards evening a good crowd gathered outside the offices, and the appearance of the Returning Officer at about twenty minutes to nine to declare the result was hailed with much cheering."
Other events worthy of note:
A meeting of Kingsbury UDC on 4 October 1905 agreed to take out proceedings against Dr. Arthur Calcutta White and Mr. Silas Eggleton, for removing road material without authority. Five subsequent attempted meetings of the Council were inquorate until the meeting of 29 November (see below).
A meeting of Kingsbury Ratepayers' Association at the residence of Henry Ward was held on 20 November. The "company numbered over one hundred". Jose Diaz, presiding, accused the "Harper-Bulger-Kidner party" of "tyranny and oppression". Diaz claimed that Kidner and Spicer had been requested by 110 ratepayers (out of a possible 138) to resign "in order to restore peace and goodwill in our parish." Diaz accused the overseers of putting on the Register "many of their friends (three or four workmen occupying a bungalow were put on) and had struck off an English-born lady and then had attacked him." Newly-elected Cllr. Ward claimed that former councillor Jones had been tricked into resignation, fearing that he would lose work if he remained on the Council.
The deadlock on the Council was broken at its meeting of 29 November. The Clerk had been in touch with the Local Government Board and had been told that the council could proceed with a quorum of two, so that the seats of the three resigning councillors could be declared vacant. After this was done, Cllr. Spicer accepted the chairmanship, whereupon Ward finally took his seat; Ward stated that he had been opposed to the possibility that the Chairman would be co-opted.
At a meeting of the Council of 19 December the council agreed to withdraw proceedings against Dr. White and Eggleton. White explained that the removed material concerned was mainly leaves and grass, taken because it "stopped the flow of water in the ditches." (A total of eight [!] summonses had been instigated by the Clerk (Mr. Mansfield) against White ..... this no doubt explains some of the animosity between the two.)
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on May 20, 2021 16:41:53 GMT
Kingsbury: 1906 - The InquiryThings started to get worse early in the new year. The Hendon and Finchley Times, 12 January 1906, page 3, contained the following headlines: Early in the meeting Cllr. Spicer vacated the chair after Cllr. White refused to accept he [White] was out of order in calling for the clerk to leave. The clerk and Cllr. Kidner left with Spicer and the four remaining councillors voted Cllr. Ward into the chair. The newspaper continued: Mr Ward said they would wait a few minutes to see if they were going to be put out [i.e. asked to vacate the premises] . Inspector Hyam and two constables, in company with the clerk, then entered the room. The police were acquainted with the facts by the clerk, but Inspector Hyam said they were there to see that no breach of the peace took place.--The clerk requested Mr Diaz to leave [Diaz was observing the meeting as a ratepayer and member of the public] , but that gentleman refused to do so.Words ensued, and finally the clerk endeavoured to forcibly eject Mr Diaz. A struggle took place, Mr Diaz appealing to Mr Ward, as chairman, to protect him.Mr Ward: I will. Mr Diaz (to the clerk): You dare to touch me. I will not go.The whole meeting by this stage was in an uproarious state, and some time elapsed before anything like order could be secured.Mr Pettitt then proposed they should get on with the business.--Dr White seconded.--Carried. This was not the end of the matter. On 17 January, at Edgware Petty Sessions, William Thomas Mansfield, clerk to the Kingsbury Council, appeared to answer a summons for assaulting Mr Jose Diaz. Mansfield pleaded not guilty. The stormy meeting of 9th was reviewed at length; eventually Mansfield agreed to apologise to Diaz on the understanding that no costs would be awarded. During the proceedings it was revealed that the clerk had visited Diaz on 31 December, asking for Diaz's support for a proposition that he [Mansfield] be appointed clerk to the council for life, and that he could not be removed except for dishonesty. Diaz declined saying Mansfield should be employed on the usual terms of three months' notice. [This incident confirms the impression, reported in an earlier post (31 Aug 2020), that although no longer a councillor, Diaz was considered to have enormous influence.] The InquiryWe know from that earlier post, quoting extensively from www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/middx/vol5/pp80-82, that later in 1906 an Inquiry was held into Kingsbury UDC having been instigated by the Middlesex County Council under the terms of the Local Government Acts 1888 and 1894. It commenced on 20 April under the auspices of W. Harold Squire, esq., barrister-at-law, and was held at the Kingsbury Council School, and continued periodically until late July. The Various remedies were to be considered, including dividing Kingsbury up among neighbouring (well-governed!) authorities: not surprisingly, such authorities (Wealdstone UDC, Wembley UDC, Hendon UDC, Hendon RDC) opposed such an action. In the end, it was decided to increase the number of councillors to nine at the next election, to be held in 1907. The Harrow Observer edition of 27 April 1906 reports on the opening day of proceedings. The evidence of Mr Walsh, who represented 80 out of 145 electors, gave a detailed history of "the lamentable state of things." We get full information on the nuisances in Honeypot Lane, and it is worth quoting extensively from the Observer story: Mr Walsh, dealing with the internal condition of things, said there was an absolutely positive scandalous state of things, unparalleled and unprecedented in municipal history. Nuisances on Councillors premises had become personal questions, and it was not to the credit of Middlesex that such a state of things should be allowed to continue. Although there were six members, last October five meetings of the Council were adjourned because there was no quorum of three, as required by the bye-laws. The Council were divided into two factions—a minority of two and a majority of four. The minority of two met, and the majority absented themselves for personal reasons. Then the Local Government Board, to whom an appeal had been made, decided that two formed a quorum, and the minority duly elected one of their number chairman—Mr Spicer—and proceeded with the business.
When the majority found themselves outwitted, then they began to put in an appearance, and meeting after meeting was adjourned in consequence of disorderly proceedings. Then the majority of four took to holding meetings of their own, with imported clerks, and the minutes of these meetings were afterwards revised and inserted in the minute book. The majority—organised by Mr Jose Diaz, and with the co-operation of Dr White—called themselves the Reds .....
Dr White, who was a member of the Council, was a doctor, a professional man, and a pig dealer (laughter). For his own profit he allowed an outside contractor to shoot rubbish in Honeypot Lane, and when the medical officer reported a nuisance existed, at the Council meeting he moved "That no nuisance existed," and the matter went no further. A most offensive condition of things existed, and on one occasion no fewer than seven dead pigs were found on the manure heap. It was also decided to take proceedings against Dr White to prevent him removing road matter. The case never went to Edgware, for he undertook to pay the costs, £1 8s., and £2 12s., value of material, at the last moment. That had not yet been paid. Things had come to a pretty pass when such a gentleman was returned at the head of the poll.
One night the gas was put out, and the majority held a meeting by candle-light. These minutes were entered and signed "F.A. Trendle, clerk, who, he was told, was a shunter on the Midland Railway (laughter). The Inspector: How did they get him? Counsel: I expect they called him in to shunt the chairman (loud laughter). Mr Walsh, continuing, said Dr White attempted at another meeting to exclude the proper clerk, and at a subsequent meeting the minutes were signed by another person, "A. Lawrence, jun., clerk pro tem." This was Dr White's son-in-law (laughter).
Mr Diaz returns to the RegisterAt a meeting of the Revision Court, held 2 October 1906 at the Harrow Council offices, the Revising Barrister (Mr Paul Strickland) reinstated Diaz to the Register. The Kingsbury overseers present at the hearing were Mr Lawrence and Dr White.
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on May 20, 2021 20:26:51 GMT
Kingsbury UDC - Mr Diaz breaks from Dr White - The 1907 Election - Polling Day Monday 25 March 1907
The Hendon and Finchley Times of 29 March 1907 describes a stormy public meeting held before the election. The paper devoted almost the whole of page 2 (five full columns) to reporting the meeting. At the meeting Diaz expounded at length, explaining that he was "sorry that Dr. White and I have ceased to regard local matters in the same light." There were three main areas of disagreement between them:
1) The sewerage farm and the state of the roads, 2) The "W. Rowland incident". [Not totally clear what that was, but Rowland may have made an accusation that Diaz intended to make Mansfield the permanent clerk], and 3) The clerk. White had dismissed the clerk shortly before the election; Diaz felt the matter of the clerk was best dealt with by the newly-elected council.
Consequently, 18 candidates contested the election: nine belonged to Diaz's party (designated D below) and all were elected. The other nine were the members of White's party (designated W) and all were unsuccessful. In their newspaper advertisements, Diaz's party urged electors to "Vote for the Solid Nine (One Vote to Each)".
There were 169 electors on the Register (the Times claimed there were 168), and 138 were reported to have gone to the poll = 81.7% turnout.
Jose Diaz (D) 93 (gentleman) Alfred Lawrence (junr) (D) 83 (insurance broker) John W.H. Wheeler (D) 82 (warehouseman) John J. Walker (D) 82 (contractor) Archibald McIntyre (D) 81 (farmer) Henry Johnson (D) 72 (licensed victualler, Plough Inn) Alfred Shefford (D) 69 (bricklayer master) Thomas Noad (D) 68 (farmer and cowkeeper) Frederick A. Trendle (D) 66 (railway foreman)
Arthur H. Ward (W) 60 (auctioneer) Charles J. Mitchell (W) 59 (teacher) Francis Judge (W) 52 (canine specialist) Frank Sibley (W) 52 (farm bailiff) Dr. Arthur C. White (W) 50 (doctor of medicine) William T. White (W) 45 (butcher) John Perry (W) 45 (horsedealer) Edward E. Lack (W) 44 (chemist’s assistant) Charles A. Goodwin (W) 35 (convalescent home manager)
Note: Having decided that he did not have the time to be a councillor if elected, Goodwin withdrew from the election asking voters to transfer any intended votes for him to a different candidate.
Source: Hendon and Finchley Times, 8 and 29 March 1907. 1907 Harrow Parliamentary Division Register of Electors.
Guardians
Mrs. Muriel E.B.H. Spicer Unopp. (married woman)
Polling Day
The Hendon and Finchley Times reported extensively on the scenes on election day, calling it "the most exciting election that has ever taken place in the history of Kingsbury," as follows:
"Canvassers have been busy .... and the district has been supplied with a good deal of election literature. The hoardings have been covered with posters of every colour, and the Union Jack was in evidence on all the placards and leaflets issued on behalf of Mr. Diaz and his party. .... Mr F.J. Seabrook, the clerk to the Hendon Guardians, acted as Returning Officer due to the fact that at the present moment the Council is without a permanent clerk. The polling station was at the Council Schools, and Mr Seabrook, who personally conducted the election, was assisted by Mr Arthur Bone. .... There was a plentiful supply of carriages and no effort was spared on either side to gain a victory. We hear of electors having been fetched long distances to vote. Mr Diaz worked incessantly throughout the day either in a motor or carriage. In his attempt to bring voters from near St. Albans his motor broke down, but he managed to reach St. Albans and return to Kingsbury. Many ladies helped Mr Diaz very much, and not the least enthusiastic worker was Mrs Diaz.
"Punctually at eight o’clock the station was closed and the Returning Officer at once began the task of counting the votes. Mr J.D. Newton acted as scrutineer on behalf of Mr Diaz’s party and Mr Spencer for Dr White and his colleagues. .... Although the whole of the candidates on one ticket were returned, the voting was by no means solid. There were only a few plumpers, and these were mainly supporters of Mr Diaz. .... A crowd numbering several hundreds had assembled outside the offices, and a cheer went up as Mr Seabrook .... announced the result of the poll. .... Mr Diaz was approached to allow his enthusiastic supporters to take his horses out of his carriage, and pull him home, but he asked them not to do so...."
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on May 21, 2021 17:17:11 GMT
Kingsbury 1910 - Polling Monday 4 April 1910
Before chronicling the result of the 1910 election, the election address of Diaz's party makes clear that a certain amount of unpleasantness took place on the Council in 1909. The following is their view of what happened, printed in the Hendon and Finchley Times:
One incident in the past has caused grief to us all. In 1909 a policy of obstruction was commenced by two members of the Council. One of these members expressed his determination to prevent the business of your district being carried on, and on several occasions attempted to put his resolution into practice by making an intolerable noise during the sitting of the Council, banging the table, shouting, defying the chair, and insulting his fellow Councillors .... [so] we had to resort to severe [measures]. Upon this, the two members in question shirked their duty and deserted their posts at the Council, one since the 24th day of March, the other since the 21st day of April [1909].
The two councillors in question were A. Lawrence and J.W.H. Wheeler; the former retired from the Council in 1910, the latter was dropped from the Diaz party 'ticket'. During the 1909-10 Municipal Year Wheeler attended only one meeting out of a possible 23; Lawrence attended none. There was no attempt by the remaining councillors to disqualify either of them for their failure, over a period of six months, to attend meetings of the Council. Apart from this issue, it would appear that Kingsbury UDC had became a more settled place in the 1907-1910 period.
Source: Finchley and Hendon Times, 18 March and 8 April 1910. 1910 Harrow Parliamentary Division Register of Electors.
There were 224 electors on the Register (the Times reported 227), 197 went to the poll and there were two spoilt papers. Turnout was therefore 87.9%. I have labelled the non-Diaz party candidates 'Ind' (the Times did not give them a designation).
Jose Diaz (D) 175 (gentleman) Charles W. Burton (D) 154 (dairy farmer) Thomas Noad (D) 142 (farmer) Archibald McIntyre (D) 141 (farmer) Henry Johnson (D) 140 (retired licensed victualler) John W. Reeves (D) 130 (licensed victualler, The Bald Faced Stag) Alfred Shefford (D) 126 (master bricklayer) Frederick A. Trendle (D) 124 (railway foreman) John J. Walker (D) 106 (freeholder)
Charles J. Mitchell (Ind) 73 (schoolmaster) Arthur H. Ward (Ind) 67 (auctioneer) Frederick H.G. Galvayne (Ind) 66 (manager) John W.H. Wheeler (Ind) 60 (warehouseman) Francis Judge (Ind) 48 (canine specialist)
Note: The independent candidates asked voters to also give votes to Diaz and Burton.
Guardians
Mrs. Muriel E.B.H. Spicer Unopp. (married woman)
Note: Mrs. Spicer's resignation, following moving from the district, was received at the Board meeting held on 19 May 1910. A date of 8 August 1910 was fixed for the by-election, but Jose Diaz was returned unopposed.
Polling Day
As usual, the Hendon and Finchley Times provided a commentary on the proceedings of election day. "‘Vote Solid for Diaz’s Nine — One Vote to Each’ was the advice given to Kingsbury ratepayers by striking placards, with Union Jack at the head. This advice was followed. .... The polling station was at the Council Schools, Mr J. Deacon Newton being the Returning Officer and Mr R.C.N. Newport poll clerk.
"The parties entered into the fight with much enthusiasm. Mr Diaz is a very successful organiser .... [and] another big victory has to be placed to [his] credit. Not only has he been returned at the head of the poll, but all his ‘soldiers’ — to use a phrase beloved of him — [were] also elected. .... The worth of Mr Diaz was recognised on all hands. Even his bitterest opponents bore testimony to his value as an administrator .... it is remarkable that there were only twenty papers on which the cross had not been placed opposite his name.
"A good deal of literature was circulated, and .... the ‘opposition’ held a meeting at the Council Schools on Friday, Mr H.H. Spicer, who at one time loomed largely in the Kingsbury municipal world, being in the chair. .... There was a fair amount of excitement outside the polling station in the evening [of polling day], and as motors and horsed carriages drove up cheers were raised. There appeared to be no lack of vehicles for a small election. At one time two or three motors were standing outside the offices. Mr Diaz knows the value of vehicular accommodation, and he is happy in having friends to rally round him when support in this direction is needed. ....
Mr Newton commenced the counting of the votes a few minutes after eight o’clock. He was assisted by Mr Newport. .... It was almost half past ten before the result was known. .... Mr Newton announced the result from the steps of the schoolroom, and at this time there must have been a crowd of two hundred or more outside. After the names of the newly-elected councillors had been given .... there was loud cheering."
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on May 23, 2021 12:16:21 GMT
Kingsbury 1913 - Polling Monday 7 April 1913
Source: Finchley and Hendon Times, 21 March and 11 April 1913. 1913 Harrow Parliamentary Division Register of Electors.
Inspection of the Register shows 277 parochial electors at this election (the Times incorrectly reported 280), of whom 220 went to the poll = 79.4% turnout. There were 4 spoilt ballot papers.
Jose Diaz (D) 162 (gentleman) Samuel Hopkins (D) 130 (farmer) John W. Reeves (D) 125 (refreshment caterer) Thomas Noad (D) 122 (farmer) Martin W. Bird (D) 122 (farmer) Henry Johnson (D) 121 (licensed victualler, Red Lion) Archibald McIntyre (D) 113 (farmer and auctioneer) George E. Fowler (Ind) 110 (schoolmaster) Frederick A. Trendle (D) 109 (railway foreman)
Alfred Shefford (D) 103 (master bricklayer) Thomas C. Chad (Ind) 99 (commercial clerk) Sidney Lee (Ind) 97 (Second Division Clerk, War Office) Dr. William Innes (Ind) 93 (Doctor of Science) Charles J. Mitchell (Ind) 92 (schoolmaster) Miss Alice W. Harvey (Ind) 78 (spinster)
Note: Dr. Arthur Calcutta White signed nomination papers (either as proposer or seconder) of all six Independent candidates. However, in a letter to the Finchley and Hendon Times, Lee denied that he and his four fellow male independent candidates were "Dr. White's party", and that they ran as independents. Note: Miss Harvey sought election independently of the other independent candidates. She denied, in a separate letter to the Times 14 March 1913, that she was a "militant suffragette". This was in response to statements circulating in the district which she said were detrimental to her candidature.
Guardians
Jose Diaz Unopp. (gentleman)
Note: Diaz died on 17 July 1915. At a meeting of the Board held on 11 November 1915, a letter from Kingsbury UDC was considered which recommended that Mr. Lewis Stanley be appointed Guardian for Kingsbury. This was agreed.
Polling Day
The Hendon and Finchley Times gave a short description of election day. "Matters were very quiet on polling day until the evening advanced, and then a considerable crowd collected outside the schoolroom. While the counting proceeded bells were rung and horns sounded. The result was received with loud cheers, and Mr Diaz, on stepping forward to thank the electors .... had a great reception. Mr Diaz, who was evidently feeling the strain of the contest, following as it did upon his fight for the County Council, said he thanked them from the bottom of his heart for their support given to his nine. At the same time his heart was pained to know that the unity of the nine had been broken. Mr. Diaz, who was evidently feeling the strain of the contest, following as it did upon his fight for the County Council [where he lost his seat as the member for the South-West division of Hendon], said he thanked them from the bottom of his heart for their support given to his nine. At the same time his heart was pained to know that the unity of the nine had been broken."
The election, and subsequent death, of Mr Fowler
The Annual Meeting of the Council took place on 23 April. The Hendon and Finchley Times, in their report of the meeting (issue of 25 April) stated that "for a reason for which no public explanation was given, [Mr Fowler] did not take his seat at the Council table, but with other ratepayers occupied a place at the back of the room."
No explanation was immediately forthcoming until the Times reported the proceedings of a meeting of the Kingsbury Ratepayers' Association held on 16 October (17 October issue). During the evening Fowler was afforded the opportunity of updating the membership:
Mr Fowler, referring the fact that he had not taken a seat on the Council, although successful at the election, said he considered a game of bluff had been played upon him. At the first meeting of the Council after the election he attended to sign the book. He was asked into the clerk’s room, but was then requested to wait until every member had gone out. A document was handed over for the clerk to read, and the clerk, after apparently reading the document, said the Council were advised that he was disqualified because he held a position under the Council. He [Fowler] was morally certain that this was wrong.
He was told that if he signed this particular book he was liable to a fine of £20; that if he sat at the table he was apparently liable another fine of £20; and if he happened to vote there would be a further fine of £20. Under the circumstances he thought it well to take further advice, and his information was that there was no bar whatever to his taking the seat, as similar cases had arisen in the County.
He must confess that he was not aware the book must be signed within one month of the election according to the Standing Orders the Council. A meeting should have been called for May 7th but this was not done. The next meeting did not take place until May 23rd and when he attended he was told he was disqualified, as it was too late. He took further advice, and it was suggested to him that he should allow the matter to come before the Courts. This, however, would have meant putting the parish to unnecessary expense, and he had decided to let the matter rest for a time.
The Kingsbury Council made no effort to declare his seat vacant, however, and Fowler continued to attend meetings from the public gallery and engaged with the Council by letter. There is a file on the question of Fowler's election at the London Metropolitan Archives, reference code MCC/CL/GP/03/266.
Fowler, who was headmaster of the Council Schools at Kingsbury, was killed on the evening of 21 January 1915, when he was hit by a motor car in the Edgware Road, near Shoelands Farm, The Hyde. The inquest recorded a verdict of accidental death.
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on May 24, 2021 11:27:19 GMT
The Sudden Death of the Chairman of Kingsbury UDC - Cllr. Jose Diaz - 17 July 1915 The Hendon and Finchley Times reported the death of Diaz, at the age of 73, and the subsequent inquest, in the issue of 23 July 1915.
The paper reported that Diaz had been depressed following the death of his wife in 1913, but, apart from that, all seemed well except he had been suffering painful headaches for a number of days. It was possible that Diaz had picked up the cyanide - purchased to deal with wasps - in the mistaken belief it was aspirin. (The housekeeper testified that his dressing room was in a muddled state.) Testimony from Diaz's physician was that he suffered from heart disease and that his heart was twice the normal size.
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on May 24, 2021 15:22:01 GMT
Kingsbury UDC: Casual Vacancies, 1915-1919
Source: Various issues of the Hendon and Finchley Times.
There were three vacancies filled at the meeting of the Council on 22 September 1915. These were occasioned by the deaths of Cllr. J. Diaz and Cllr T. Noad. The vacancy caused by G. Fowler not taking his seat, and subsequently being killed in January 1915, was filled at this time. Those co-opted were:
James P. BATES, of Burnt Oak Farm John NOAD, of Blackbird Farm Lewis STANLEY, of 'Halvergate', Edgware Road
A vacancy was filled at a Council meeting held on 25 July 1917, caused by the resignation of Cllr. M.W. Bird on moving to Potters Bar:
Robert PETTITT, of Shoelands Farm, The Hyde, Edgware Road. [Pettitt was a former Kingsbury councillor, elected at a by-election in December 1905.]
A further vacancy occurred in October 1917, caused by the resignation of Cllr. J.P. Bates upon moving from the district. This was filled at the meeting of the Council of 30 November 1917 by co-opting:
Charles LANE, of Ferndene, Kingsbury [This was the property of the late Mr. Diaz.]
At a meeting of the Council held 27 July 1918, it was reported that Cllr. R. Pettitt had died. The vacancy was not filled.
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on May 24, 2021 15:54:29 GMT
Kingsbury 1919 - Polling day Monday 7 April 1919
The correspondent of the Hendon and Finchley Times, 14 March 1919, expressed a little optimism for the future of the urban district:
The meeting of the Kingsbury Council on Wednesday was the last before the election, and Mr J.W. Reeves, the chairman, happily so far recovered from a very serious illness as to be able to attend, made an exhaustive statement as to the difficulties under which the work had been carried out during the war, and of future problems. Nominations for the Council have to be sent in by Monday next, but, as far we can gather, the election is not likely to create the great amount of excitement which marked those when the late Mr Diaz, as the leader of a party, kept printers and billposters busy. Municipal business is now conducted on more sedate lines, the present Council has done much useful work during a very trying period, and we should imagine that the majority, if they so wish, will not experience much difficulty in getting a renewed vote of confidence.
One vacancy has arisen by the death of Mr R. Pettitt, consequently there will be some new blood. Kingsbury is in the process of development, and much more work is thrown upon the Council than was the case when urban powers were prematurely given. Happily, instead of being a by-word, the district is now admirably governed. The next few years, however, will be most trying, for there is no reason why Kingsbury’s 839 population should not rapidly rise to 10.000.
The Election
Source: Hendon and Finchley Times, 21 March and 11 April 1919. 1918 Hendon Parliamentary Division Register of Electors.
There was a total of 372 local government electors (the Times, overlooking a single entry for Division I in the Supplementary List, stated 371), of whom 229 went to the poll. Turnout was therefore 61.6%.
The eight sitting members sought re-election, and were joined in the contest by Lavender on their 'ticket'. Lee stood as an Independent candidate and had previously been associated with the Kingsbury Ratepayers' Association; he had unsuccessfully contested the 1913 election in opposition to Diaz's party.
John W. Reeves 182 Henry Johnson 161 Sidney Lee (Ind) 156 Archibald McIntyre 141 Samuel Hopkins 133 Charles Lane 131 John Noad 130 Lewis Stanley 130 Frederick Lavender 115
Frederick A. Trendle 108
Guardians
Lewis Stanley Unopp. (gentleman)
Polling Day
Of polling day the Times commented that "Mr Turner, assisted by Mr R.C.N. Newport, conducted the election, the polling taking place at the Kingsbury Council Schools. Three quarters of an hour after the close of the poll Mr Turner announced the result, it being tolerably clear that Mr Lee had many plumpers."
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on May 25, 2021 11:26:37 GMT
Kingsbury 1922 - The Labour Party get a foothold - Polling day Monday 3 April 1922
Source: Hendon and Finchley Times, 17 March and 7 April 1922.
Eight of the nine sitting councillors sought re-election, Cllr. C. Lane retired. Charles Mitchell comes 'in from the cold' to join the eight on their 'ticket'. Meanwhile, the Labour Party nominated six candidates, mainly from the Roe Green area, to contest the election. Unfortunately, the number of electors and turnout is not recorded in the paper. The Autumn 1921 Register has been sourced at Barnet Archive, the number entitled to vote at the election was 805.
It could often be the case that voters, when attending the polling station, would ignore simultaneously held Guardians elections. Turnout at the Kingsbury election to the Hendon Union Board of Guardians, based on the number of valid votes and the electorate, was 61.9%. In all likelihood, the turnout at the council election would have been higher.
John W. Reeves 343 (gentleman) Sidney Lee 319 (civil servant) Archibald McIntyre 268 (farmer) Charles J. Mitchell 268 (schoolmaster) Frederick Lavender 261 (farmer) Samuel Hopkins 258 (farmer) Lewis Stanley 250 (gentleman) John Noad 246 (farmer) George E. Jenkins (Lab) 241 (engineer)
William H. Pugsley (Lab) 237 (wood worker) Henry Johnson 218 (licensed victualler, Red Lion) Henry G. Hill (Lab) 210 (engineer) Albert S. Whitaker (Lab) 199 (wood worker) Mrs. Gertrude Argent (Lab) 183 (married woman) Charles Allen (Lab) 172 (metal worker) Charles Brown (Mod) 148 (engineer)
At the simultaneously held Guardians election, for one seat on the Hendon Union Board of Guardians, the result was:
Mrs. Clarissa King (Lab) 256 (married woman) Lewis Stanley (Ind) 242 (gentleman)
Maj. 14
A By-election and a Defection
Following the death of Cllr. L. Stanley in February 1923, a by-election was held on 26 March 1923 to fill the vacancy. Source: Hendon and Finchley Times, 30 March 1923. The paper does not disclose the number of local government electors or the turnout. The Autumn 1922 Register could not be found in the LMA system, but was available at Barnet Archive, to give a local government electorate of 834. The turnout was therefore 65.3%.
William H. Pugsley (Lab) 309 (joiner) William T. White 236 (butcher)
maj. 73
This brought the Labour representation up to two members. In 1924 (unfortunately the exact date has not been discovered) sitting councillor Cllr. C.J. Mitchell joined the Labour Party; the Labour Group now consisted of one-third the total number of councillors.
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on May 25, 2021 20:38:58 GMT
Kingsbury 1925 - Polling day Saturday 4 April 1925
Source: Hendon and Finchley Times, 20 March and 10 April 1925.
This was the last of the triennial elections to Kingsbury UDC before moving to annual elections. There were two slates of candidates: 9 Independent or Non-Party candidates, and 9 from the Labour Party. The paper reported that there were "about 1,200 electors"; however, this was an over-estimation and there was a total of 1,069 entries on Autumn 1924 Kingsbury Register, of whom 999 were qualified to vote in the UDC election. 799 ballot papers were issued, therefore turnout was 80.0%. As well as the use of the Kingsbury Council School for a polling station, for the first time one was opened at Chalk Hill.
The election was viewed as a setback for the Labour Party, who were unable to hold the seat gained by the defection of Cllr. Mitchell to Labour.
John W. Reeves (Ind) 461 (gentleman) Sidney Lee (Ind) 444 (civil servant) Carl H. Fisher (Ind) 441 (automobile engineer) William H. Pugsley (Lab) 411 (joiner) Elmer T. Ashman (Lab) 408 (headmaster, Kingsbury Schools) Archibald McIntyre (Ind) 396 (farmer) Samuel Hopkins (Ind) 390 (farmer) Charles Brown (Ind) 388 (engineer) Frederick Lavender (Ind) 388 (farmer)
Thomas H. Hedges (Ind) 383 (builder) George E. Jenkins (Lab) 375 (press tool maker) Alfred Stewart (Ind) 367 (engineer) Charles J. Mitchell (Lab) 362 (architect) Henry G. Hill (Lab) 282 (engineer) Edwin F.R. Catterell (Lab) 273 (engineer) Walter C. Tapp (Lab) 259 (aircraft inspector) Victor P. Tortonese (Lab) 243 (material inspector) Frederick G. Hughes (Lab) 216 (coach body builder)
Note: Reeves, Lee and Fisher were deemed elected for a term of three years. Pugsley, Ashman and McIntyre were deemed elected for a term of two years. Hopkins, Brown and Lavender were deemed elected for a term of one year.
Guardians
Mrs. Clarissa King (Lab) Unopp. (widow)
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on May 25, 2021 21:34:12 GMT
Kingsbury 1926 - Polling day Monday 29 March 1926 Source: Hendon and Finchley Times, 12 March and 2 April 1926. It was reported that there were 1,259 electors on the Register. This was the total number of entries in the Autumn 1925 Register, a copy of which was sourced at Barnet Archive. The local government electorate was 1,176. The Times reported that 743 voters went to the poll, which leads to a turnout of 63.2%. Samuel Hopkins (Ind) 403 (farmer) Charles Brown (Ind) 399 (engineer) Frederick Lavender (Ind) 388 (dairy farmer) George E. Jenkins (Lab) 337 (press tool maker) Charles J. Mitchell (Lab) 333 (architect) George A. Harris (Lab) 265 (printer's cutter) In a speech after the poll was declared, Mr Jenkins said, "The Labour Party thrives on defeat. Every defeat encourages us to greater things. There are certain people in Kingsbury," he declared, "who would vote for a guinea-pig if it had a Tory rosette on it." He added that Labour had been handicapped by a lack of motor cars, which was the principal cause of their defeat, and their opponents had not acted in a "sporting manner by bringing people from Roe Green as they might have done."
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on May 26, 2021 11:28:40 GMT
Kingsbury 1927 - Polling day Saturday 2 April 1927
Source: Hendon and Finchley Times, 18 March and 8 April 1927.
Cllr. Pugsley did not seek re-election due to ill-health. The election saw Labour losing all representation on the Council. A third polling station was opened, at Roe Green, at this election. The paper reported that there were 1,421 electors at the election; this however is the total number of entries in the Autumn 1926 Register for Kingsbury. There were in fact 1,301 local government electors, 910 of whom went to the poll. T'out = 69.9%.
Frederick S. Bennett (Anti-Soc) 447 (engineer) Alfred Stewart (Anti-Soc) 423 (engineer) Archibald McIntyre (Anti-Soc) 381 (farmer)
Elmer T. Ashman (Lab) 343 (schoolmaster) Charles J. Mitchell (Lab) 290 (architect) William F.D. Powell (Lab) 256 (accountant) Maurice Melhuish (Ind) 201 (mechanical engineer) Henry Millward (Ind) 189 (schoolmaster)
Polling Day
The press reported that for the first time a polling station was opened at Roe Green, that "many motor cars were brought into use in bringing voters to the poll" and that "the ‘Blues’, or anti-Socialists, had the support ... of several of the sitting members."
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on May 27, 2021 10:57:11 GMT
Kingsbury 1928 - Polling day Monday 2 April 1928
Source: Hendon and Finchley Times, 16 March and 6 April 1928. The paper reported that the electorate was "just over 1,700", but gave no indication as to the turnout, simply commenting "the number polling was considered very creditable." An examination of the Register determined there were in fact 1,705 electors eligible to vote in the UDC election. Cllr. C.H. Fisher retired at the election; he spoke at a meeting in support of the Ratepayers' Association candidates.
John W. Reeves (Ind) 637 (gentleman) Elmer T. Ashman (RA) 607 (schoolmaster) Mrs. Grace H. Millward (RA) 534 (married woman)
Alwyn W. Marven (RA) 520 (company director) Cyril W. Champion (Ind) 501 (farmer) Sidney Lee (Ind) 496 (civil servant)
Note: Reeves, Champion and Lee sought election on a joint 'ticket'. Note: Two Ratepayer Associations supported all three Ratepayer candidates. They were the South Kingsbury Ratepayers' Association and the Kingsbury and Townsend Park Ratepayers' Association.
Guardians
Mrs. Clarissa King Unopp. (widow)
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on May 27, 2021 16:41:36 GMT
Kingsbury 1929 - A Striking Victory for the Ratepayers' Association - Polling day Monday 25 March 1929. Source: Hendon and Finchley Times, 8 and 29 March 1929. Due to the growth of the district, a total of four polling stations were provided (although the Register was not officially organised into four sections). The paper reported their registered electorates - presumably those with the local government franchise: Kingsbury School | 547 electors | Roe Green | 515 | Council Offices, Kingsbury Green | 666 | Chalk Hill | 589 |
These numbers implied a total electorate of 2,317. A careful examination of the October 1928 Register revealed there were in fact 2,318 persons entitled to vote in the election. The Times reported that 1,353 ballot papers were issued = 58.4% t'out. Cllr. C. Brown retired from the Council, and Higginbotham joined the two seeking re-election (Hopkins and Lavender) on an Independent 'ticket'. The result meant that the Ratepayers achieved a majority on the Council with five seats, compared to four seats occupied by the 'old guard'. Cllr. J.W. Reeves did not seek re-election as the Chairman of the Council after the election, apparently on doctor's orders. (Reeves had been Chairman continuously since the death of Jose Diaz in 1915.) Alwyn W. Marven (RA) 966 (director of limited liability company) Walter B. Hill (RA) 955 (motor engineer) Edwin H. Everett (RA) 951 (solicitor's managing clerk) Samuel Hopkins (Ind) 383 (farmer) Frederick Lavender (Ind) 375 (dairy farmer) Henry Higginbotham (Ind) 360 (builder and engineer)
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on May 28, 2021 7:53:22 GMT
Kingsbury 1930 - Polling day Monday 7 April 1930
Source: Hendon Times and Guardian, 21 March and 11 April 1930.
None of the sitting councillors - Messrs. Bennett, Stewart and McIntyre - sought re-election. We see the Ratepayers' Association gaining huge support - they are clearly appealing successfully to the new residents of this expanding district.
The number of electors grew, according to the local paper to 3,553. However careful examination of the May 1929 Register (still in force for the election), showed there were in fact 3,378 local government electors - up by over 1,000 in a year. (This increase in electorate is partly due to the development of Kingsbury as a residential district and partly due to the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928.) We must assume that the paper's statement that 1,533 ballot papers were issued is correct, in which case turnout was 45.4%. There were 5 spoilt papers.
Avery W. Clarke (RA) 1,101 (designer and engraver) Walter J. Thomas (RA) 1,071 (engineer) Devonald G. Griffith (RA) 1,065 (schoolmaster)
William H. Pugsley (Lab) 424 (general foreman) Frederick C. Woods (Lab) 378 (civil servant) Alfred W. Harper (Lab) 367 (printer's assistant)
Note: Woods was formerly a member of Hendon Council, being a councillor for Child's Hill ward, 1926-1929.
No reason to explain Labour's absence from Kingsbury elections in 1928 and 1929 has been found, so far. It could be that if Labour had contested them, they stood a chance of success in the dynamics of those elections - i.e. 'in the mix' against two other slates of three candidates - and may have gained representation through 'split ticket' voting. The current situation would appear to be a hopeless one for Labour in the district: the Ratepayers control eight of the nine seats; the effects of the financial crash and the Labour debacle of 1931 are yet to come.
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on May 28, 2021 16:37:32 GMT
Kingsbury 1931 - Polling day Saturday 28 March 1930.
Source: Hendon Times and Guardian, 13 March and 3 April 1931
Long-standing member Cllr. J.W. Reeves did not seek nomination. There were now three polling stations, with, according to the newspaper "6,000 names on the register". A close examination of the Register showed there were 5,944 electors eligible to vote. [This figure exactly matches that quoted in an earlier edition of the Times with regard to the Middlesex County Council election.] Only 1,736 voted, so turnout was 29.2%.
Elmer T. Ashman (RA) 1,275 (schoolmaster) Mrs. Grace H. Millward (RA) 1,246 (married woman) Joshua Anchell (RA) 1,205 (civil servant)
Frederick C. Woods (Lab) 449 (civil servant) Alfred W. Harper (Lab) 431 (printer's assistant) Frank P. Crook (Lab) 408 (civil servant)
Note: Anchell was in effect expelled from the Ratepayers in May 1933. A note appeared in the Hendon Times (issue of 19 May 1933) that at a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Kingsbury Ratepayers' Association, held on 11 May, it had been unanimously decided the Association could no longer support Anchell as one of its representatives on the Council, as it was "satisfied that he had ceased to observe the ideals of the Association." A perusal of reports from 1933 of Kingsbury UDC meetings in the Times shows that Anchell was frequently voting against the proposals and motions of the Council, usually as a minority of one (or sometimes two).
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on May 28, 2021 16:49:40 GMT
Kingsbury 1932 - Polling day Monday 4 April.
Cllr. A.W. Marven, who had been elected in 1929, resigned from the Council in July 1931, and his seat remained vacant only to be filled at the 1932 election. Ostensibly, Marven's resignation was prompted because he could not support the "policy of the Council on the boundaries question." His relationship with former colleagues deteriorated: the Hendon Times and Guardian reported the proceedings of the annual meeting of the Central Branch of the Kingsbury Ratepayers' Association in January 1932. "For almost [ninety minutes] Marven cross-examined the members of the District Council. On more than one occasion tempers appeared to be frayed until they were about to burst...."
Election source: Hendon Times and Guardian, 18 March and 8 April 1932. The paper reported that there were 8,800 electors and that only 1,419 voted. If true, turnout was a pathetic 16.1%, a huge contrast from the >80% turnouts of former days. The result confirmed the total hegemony of the Ratepayers' Association.
In order to check the electorate, an examination of the 1931 Kingsbury Register was undertaken, using the London Metropolitan Archive scans available through the ancestrylibraryedition. Unfortunately Register entries AA1818 to AA1931 inclusive were not scanned; I wish to thank the LMA for supplying a copy of the two missing pages. The local government electorate at this election was therefore 8,830 and the turnout 16.1%.
Edwin H. Everett (RA) 1,025 (solicitor's managing clerk) Walter B. Hill (RA) 1,013 (storekeeper) Charles Thurston (RA) 1,012 (railway official)
Frank P. Crook (Lab) 366 (civil servant) Alfred W. Harper (Lab) 365 (printer) Frederick W. Collingbourne (Lab) 345 (engineer)
Polling Day
The newspaper further reported of election day as follows: "The Kingsbury Labour Party’s poster to ‘spring clean the Council’ did not have the desired effect at the District Council Election on Monday, for the Kingsbury Ratepayers’ Association were successful in obtaining the three vacant seats. .... For the first time for many years members of the general public were allowed to witness the count, which took place at Fryent Schools. There were about 50 people present when the count was commenced at 9.40, and while it continued for an hour the buzz of excited whispering testified to the interest that was created.
"The result was declared in the playground of the school, but the excitement which is usually looked for was absent and the proceedings were conducted in a manner which spoke well for the way in which the Labour Party accepted defeat."
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on May 29, 2021 6:08:44 GMT
Kingsbury 1933 - The Final UDC Election - Polling Day Wednesday 5 April 1933 Source: Hendon Times, 17 March and 7 April 1933. For this final election we see the entry of Conservative Party candidates, spearheaded by former Cllr. A.W. Marven. In a newspaper advert before the election the Tory candidates claimed to be "Real Ratepayers' candidates"; in their statements to the press they implied it was unhealthy for the District Council to consist of members of a single party ..... "What Kingsbury needs is Investigation". The point was emphasised by Marven in a speech after the declaration of the result, noting that the Conservatives and Labour between them had secured more votes than the Ratepayers’ Association. He was convinced that opposition was needed in the Council chamber and in the future he "was sure the public would come to think the same way." Sitting councillor D.G. Griffith did not seek nomination. According to the Times there were 10,743 electors, a three-fold increase since 1930. A thorough check of the Register found there were in fact 10,750 electors. If we assume the paper is correct in saying 2,436 voted, then turnout is 22.7% t'out. Walter J. Thomas (RA) 1,195 (engineer) Avery W. Clarke (RA) 1,123 (designer and engraver) Athwell Rowbottom (RA) 1,122 (commercial traveller) Alwyn W. Marven (C) 756 (wholesale stationer) John W.G. Snook (C) 703 (publisher) Henry B.B. Weeks (C) 687 (departmental manager) Frank P. Crook (Lab) 518 (civil servant) James Day (Lab) 474 (engineer) Mrs. Jenny E. Fordham (Lab) 469 (married woman) The End of Kingsbury UDCEarly in 1933 proposals emerged that would see an amalgamation between Kingsbury and Wembley UDCs. These proposals had the support of both councils, and at the Ministry of Health's Inquiry into the proposed review of districts within Middlesex, held in March 1933, only two ratepayers (Mr. W. Fish and Mr. C.B. Clarke) objected. The outcome of the Inquiry - which was to form the basis of the Middlesex Review Order 1934 - was reported in the local press (issue 11 August 1933). The Inquiry confirmed, inter alia, the amalgamation of Kingsbury and Wembley. The former Kingsbury area was to have four wards, and ten representatives, on the new District Council. The wards were: Chalkhill (two councillors), Fryent (two), The Hyde (four) and Roe Green (two). The Council of Kingsbury Urban District held its final meeting on Monday 26 March 1934. The first election to the enlarged Wembley UDC took place on Saturday 24 March and the new Council assumed full powers on 1 April 1934.
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on May 30, 2021 10:23:43 GMT
The 1934 Election - How the Kingsbury wards voted
Source: Hendon and Finchley Times, 9 March and 30 March 1934.
Chalkhill ward (2 members)
John W.G. Snook (RA) 441 (publisher) Sydney Harris (RA) 434 (publicity manager)
Horatio M. Liversedge (Lab) 189 (master builder) James Day (Lab) 187 (consulting engineer)
Fryent ward (2 members)
Frank P. Crook (Lab) 486 (civil servant) Edwin H. Everett (RA) 464 (solicitors' managing clerk)
Elmer T. Ashman (RA) 459 (headmaster) Ram Singh Nehra (Lab) 451 (solicitor, Priviy Council agent)
The Hyde ward (4 members)
Albert E. Mason (RA) 705 (accountant) Avery W. Clarke (RA) 682 (designer and engraver) Mark Levy (RA) 653 (local government officer) Charles Thurston (RA) 622 (official, LPTB)
Ms. Mary F. Lloyd (Lab) 96 (school teacher) Mrs. Elsie L. Welsh (Lab) 51 (married woman)
Roe Green ward (2 members)
Athwell Rowbottam (RA) 454 (dairy manager) Harold J. Soar (RA) 445 (foreman)
Mrs. Jenny E. Fordham (Lab) 240 (married woman) Leonard G. Rule (Lab) 218 (journalist)
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on Jun 1, 2021 20:03:13 GMT
Further ReadingGeoffrey Hewlett (ed.), A History of Wembley, Brent Library Service, 1979. Geoffrey Hewlett, Kingsbury Through Time, Amberley Publishing, 2010. Len Snow, Brent - Wembley, Willesden and Kingsbury: A Pictorial History, Phillimore, 1990. Len Snow, Kenton and Kingsbury, History Press, 2001. [From the Images of England series.] Adam Spencer, Wembley and Kingsbury, Sutton Publishing, 1995. [From the Britain in Old Photographs series.] Philip Grant, Jose Diaz: The Spanish Chairman, 2013. [A five-page illustrated biography available online from the London Borough of Brent, here.] Further ResearchI am confident that I have captured all the elections and by-elections that took place for Kingsbury UDC during its 'chequered' life. If the opportunity arises, I hope to discover/confirm the electorates for the post-WW1 period. If successful, I will simply update the relevant earlier post.
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on Jun 13, 2021 6:43:04 GMT
Census Data - Kingsbury UD areaDate of Census | Population | Males | Females | 'Private Families' | Separate Dwellings Occupied | 1 April 1901 | 757 |
|
| 149 |
| 2 April 1911 | 821 | 408 | 413 | 195 |
| 19 June 1921 | 1,856 | 930 | 926 | 470 | 440 | 26 April 1931 | 16,636 | 8,308 | 8,328 | 4,470 | 3,937 |
(Figures extracted from the Vision of Britain Through Time website.)
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on Jun 17, 2021 16:07:51 GMT
Register of Electors statistics for Kingsbury parish
The statistics are contained in the attached Excel file. The first sheet shows data from the Harrow Parliamentary Division Register and covers the years 1895-1915. The second sheet contains the data from the Hendon Parliamentary Division Registers for the years 1918-1934. The sheets show the total number of Register entries with the numbers entitled to vote at Parliamentary, County and Parochial elections. ('Parochial' elections = UDC elections, Guardians elections).
|
|