Late Victorian embellishments to Margate
LATE VICTORIAN EMBELLISHMENTS TO
MARGATE
ANGELA C. BENNETT, B.A.
'And the result promises to be that, soon upon the coast of Thanet, a town will
stand, remarkable not only for the ecstasy of its invigorating breezes, but conspicuous
also, among seaside towns, for the beauty and taste displayed in its internal
economy and in the architecture of its streets and buildings.
That these are not empty words, anyone who has this year chosen Margate for his
holiday jaunt and sees on every hand improvements which are daily nearer
perfection will testify .'1
This statement in The Covent Garden Magazine must have seemed
like manna from heaven to the advocates of one of the most
contentious of the improvements - the New Road. This was one
scheme of the many which occupied the town during the latter part of
the nineteenth century. Margate, like rivals such as Brighton and
Folkestone, was faced with the task of improving its facilities to
ensure the continued loyalty of its visitors as well as attempting to
attract new holidaymakers. The emergence of a vast army of artisans
and clerks with enough money to afford a week away at the seaside
made competition between the existing resorts considerable. In
addition to which, the emergence of new resorts as the railways
expanded the distances that could be travelled with ease increased
the competition. In Margate, there was a myriad of schemes and
suggested improvements, ranging from the question of sewage and its
disposal through to the siting of a gas works and the debate about a
public tramway. The new road along the seafront was the cause of
great discussion and disagreement within the community and especially
within the Council and was to throw a shadow over future plans
for improvements. In part, at least, this was due to the difficulty of
financing any Council spending plans. Rates, then as now, were a
1 Keble's Gazette, Saturday, 15th May, 1880, Sc.
331
ANGELA C. BENNETT
sensitive issue and, inevitably, the ratepayers bore the brunt of any
capital expenditure on town improvements.
In contrast, the construction of the Jubilee Clock Tower was,
eventually, to prove a more healing experience for the town. It is a
comment on the divisions over the 'new road' that the Town Council
refused to have any hand in celebrating Queen Victoria's Golden
Jubilee. It was left to a number of prominent and loyal citizens to
organise and finance both the celebrations on the day in the town and
the long-term mark of the town's loyalty to and affection for Her
Majesty.
In the nineteenth century Margate was a well-known holiday
resort, but the town still suffered from a narrow and rather ugly High
Street and a parade which was certainly not extensive. Indeed, in
1799 the Parade was said to have 'little to boast of in respect to
elegance or even cleanliness'. 2
By 1875, Margate was also becoming a favourite day resort for
Londoners. Its situation was ideal, being served by two railways, the
South-Eastern Railway and the London, Chatham and Dover Railway.
In 1878, the 3rd Class travel day excursion fare London to
Margate was 5s., and 'at that time both companies carried during the
season 12,000-18,000 passengers on day trips to Margate, and about
20,000 every Sunday.' In addition to the railways, there was also the
steamboat by which the Londoner could travel from the heart of
London to the sands of Margate and Ramsgate. There is some
evidence that these boats offered serious competition to the trains.4
Margate could also be said to have benefited from nature. The
natural sweep of the main bay from the point at Nayland Rock to the
harbour was very attractive. The construction of a retaining sea-wall
and the construction of a new road, linking Marine Terrace to Horn
Point, would provide an attractive drive and walk as well as a
pleasant sea view. The efforts being made by competitors like
Brighton and Folkestone made it imperative for Margate to improve
the amenities it had to offer the holidaymaker. This was especially
the case, if it wished to continue to attract the 'better-class' visitor.
There was, therefore, some recognition in the town that changes
needed to be made. Thus, in 1877, the Margate Extension and
Improvement Bill was safely piloted through Parliament. This led on
Tuesday, 12th March, to Margate Council receiving a Report from
2 John K. Walton The English Seaside Resort, A Social History 1750-1914 (1983),
114.
3 John Whyman, 'Kentish Railways: Their Construction and Impact', in Cantium:
A Magazine of Kent Local History, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Winter 1973/4), 80.
4 Ibid., 75.
332
VICTORIAN EMBELLISHMENTS TO MARGATE
the Road Building and Improvement Committee (previously it had
been the Parliamentary Committee). The report recommmended
'that the Council carry out the new road connecting the Marine Terrace with the
Parade, according to the clauses 1 and 2 of the 29th section of the Margate Extension
and Improvement Bill 1877, and that the necessary steps be at once adopted to
proceed with the same and that the Surveyor have instructions to prepare the
requisite plans and working drawings. Also that in connection with this work the
necessary notices be issued for acquiring under the terms of the aforesaid Act all the
properties from and including Horne Corner to and including the Globe Hotel
together with the area required out of the Harbour, as shown on the accompanying
plan.'5
Alderman Knight moved the adoption of the report, seconded by
Councillor Reeve. The ensuing debate was long and detailed and
was, in a strange way, a preview of what was to follow in the actual
construction of the road. Councillor Pointon, the member for Marine
Ward (that most closely concerned), stated that in 1852 Mr Goodale,
the late Mayor, Mr Reeve and himself were appointed to a subcommittee
to ascertain what improvements could be made in the
High Street and to build a new road. The iron bridge was to be
removed and a new road constructed; this plan had now been much
improved in the Act. He considered that the plan should meet with
approval; but he objected to the purchase of the Globe Hotel. From
this, it is clear that the construction of some kind of new road had
been under consideration for at least twenty-six years. The reference
to the purchase of the Globe Hotel was important, as the hotel was to
cause problems even after the completion and opening of the new
road.6
The Globe Hotel was to cost the Council in excess of £7,000. It was
finally sold to Edward Craddock of 13, The Grove, Clapham
Common, for £5,050.7 The Borough Surveyor had stated on a
number of occasions that the Council was sure to get £6,000 for the
Globe. The total costs of the purchase of the Globe including both
freehold and the lease alone came to £6,500. The precise cost was
unclear, even at the time. Mr Bloxham, an anti-road candidate in
Pier Ward, in his speech before adoption to replace Cllr. Eveling as
candidate for the ward, mentioned a larger sum: 'plus the purchase of
the Globe Hotel for £8,000. '8 Certainly, the Globe cost the Council at
5 Keble's Gazette, 16th March, 1878, 2b.
6 /bid.
7 Borough of Margate Minute Book 1878-/883, Council Meeting, 25th January,
1881, 81.
8 Keble's Gazette, 18th October, 1879, 2a.
333
w
w
...
Upper and Lower Marine Terrace - Print c. 1840?
PLATE I
►
z
Cl
tT1
r"'
►
0
tll
tT1
z
z
9
VICTORIAN EMBELLISHMENTS TO MARGATE
least £7,191.
9
Eventually, they were able to sell it for a mere £5,050.
Financing and the control of the money involved in the building of
the road were extremely lax, if not criminally negligent. The disparity
between projected costs of £18,000 and actual costs of £40,000 is
impossible to explain adequately on the information now available.
Much ink, anguish and anger were expended in the town on the
question of the financing of the new road. The original Act had
allowed for the borrowing of £40,000 for the construction of the road.
The Borough Surveyor believed that the road could be built for an
estimated cost of '£18,000 - less or more'. Prophetically, Councillor
Chambers interjected: 'it may be £40,000.' As reported in Keble's
Gazette, Saturday, 16th March, 1878, nobody took any notice. Yet
the building of the road became a saga of spend, spend and spend
until, at the very last minute, the initial sum of money borrowed from
the Alliance Insurance Company, £25,000, was all gone and the road
far from completed. The initial loan of £25,000, had already added a
noticeable burden to the rates, the exact amount being in dispute.
(The loan was to be financed at 4 per cent per annum over 50 years,
with half yearly repayments of £630 13s. Od. including principal and
interest, which was, according to Cllr. Munns, equal to a 5d. rate, but
was, according to the Town Clerk, just over a 4d. rate. ) 10 Councillor
Munns at the same Council meeting pointed out with some justice
that: 'first it was £10,000 or £12,000 now it is £18,000, where will it all
end?' He continued: 'because of the cost of the plan and because of
the poverty of the inhabitants, I must vote against it.'11
Mr Latham, the Margate Town Surveyor, had painted a picture of
what a putative road might look like. It was a road which apparently
linked the Parade via the Lower High Street to Marine Gardens,
breaking through to the seafront near the King's Head, but it was not
the road that was in fact contemplated by those in power. According
to the editor of Keble's Gazette, it appeared that
'the painting as done by Mr Latham was an attempt to throw dust in the ratepayers'
eyes. We know for the first time that the level road has been for years the favourite
idea of the scientific, the far seeing and the most experienced, the beautiful picture
was painted to deceive. We regret the Council has paid so little attention to the
wishes of the burgesses.'12
In the same month the Council rejected the complaints of the
9 Ibid., 17th January, 1880, 5bc.
10 Ibid., 26th October, 1878, 6a.
11 Ibid., 26th October, 1878, d.
12 Ibid., 24th August, 1878, Editorial, Sa.
335
ANGELA C. BENNETT
ratepayers who had collected 1,200 signatures to a Memorial concerning
the road and the payment of a sum of money to the Pier and
Harbour Company. The sum involved was £4,000. It was to pay for
the land and properties which stood at Horne Corner, £2,800 for the
four tenanted cottages, £280 legal costs, leaving £920 for the section
of the foreshore in the harbour which would be needed for the
road. 13 It was to transpire later that the money paid to the Pier and
Harbour Company for the foreshore was a mistake, as a further
£1,000 was paid to the Marquis of Conyngham, whose family held
ancient rights to the foreshore of Thanet. Complaints in the Council
concerning the payment of nearly £2,000 for the same piece of
foreshore seem to have led nowhere. The Minute Books of the Pier
and Harbour Company confirm the receipt of the £4,000 from the
Council, which was invested bJ the Chancery Division of the High
Court in India at 4 per cent. 1 It would seem that no attempt was
made to try to obtain the return from the Pier and Harbour Company
of the £920 paid for the foreshore to which the company had no
claim.
The Memorial was signed by a number of leading citizens, including
the Vicar of Margate and Mr Cobb, together with a number of
traders in the High Street. This objection was in part based on those
traders' concern that a lower road would seriously affect their trade
since people would no longer pass that way to and from Marine
Terrace, but clearly, on the other hand, an element of the population
was against the construction of the road, believing it to be too big and
expensive a task for the Council and Mr Latham, the Borough
Surveyor. As usual the local paper had a relevant comment
'If it be really thought that the new marine road as projected by the surveyor will be
too serious an expense - let us adopt at once the less expensive improvement of
simply widening The Parade. - Great and expensive works are better carried out
when they are in sympathy with the public mind. - But in any case we ask for the
most thorough public discussion of these questions. It is a great evil that they are
debated so much in private or settled secretly in committee. '15
By January 1879, the work was beginning and the first invoice for
payment of materials was received. The following month saw the first
payments of wages as well as for materials, though it is interesting to
note that the work was held up to some considerable extent, the
Surveyor reporting that the 'considerable delay was caused by the
13 Ibid., 22th February, Sa.
14 W.J. Mercer, Extracts From The Minute Books of The Pier and Harbour
Company 1862-1912, 167.
15 Keb/e's Gazette, 3rd August, 1878, Editorial, Sb.
336
VICTORIAN EMBELLISHMENTS TO MARGATE
strike in the engineering trade in London; one of their cranes having
broken, it had been sent to London to be repaired, and was kept
there three weeks.' By mid-March, Cllr. Munns was providing some
interesting information about the work and costs of the work on the
new road which make fascinating reading.
'There were 79 persons employed, and 64 of these were paid not more than Sd. an
hour, the highest being 8d. and only four or five received more than £2 a week. The
greatest number of hours in the wages sheet- was 84½ in one week- only 16 hours per
day. In the previous week he found one man working no Jess than 120 hours - that a
man had worked for six consecutive days no less than 20½ hours per day. - but
because it was a man - and a poor man, too - there was no man to interfere and
prevent such slavery. He thought their officials should give some explanation. ' 16
Apart from a question from Cllr. Kendall as to whether the men were
asked to work so long and the Mayor's response that they were not,
the matter was dropped. Yet how was it possible for a man to work
that length of time in the last days of February and the first weeks of
March? Are these inflated hours to give a better wage for the
workmen or is there some other explanation? The total lack of
response in the Council shows either a callous disregard for the
working man or some knowledge no longer available.
From March to June, the Council meetings were presented with a
series of accounts of money spent on the road but not with the current
total of overall costs. On Saturday, 5th July, Keble's Gazette carried
the account of the monthly council meeting which showed that the
Road Building and Improvement Committee was heading rapidly
toward insolvency. Cllr. Munns, as ever, was to the fore asking
whether there was enough money to execute the current recommendation
to pay the outstanding bills of £4,999 9s. 7d. The
Surveyor's answer was a form of sophistry: there was £1,000 left in
the Bank since they had not yet paid the Victoria Bathing Rooms
their money, plus the £6,000 for the Globe and the land attached to
it, if it were to be sold. This was in addition to the circular that he had
issued showing the cost of the road to have been £26,600, a rebate for
£5,000 for sales, etc., leaving a net cost of £21,600. 17 By 26th July,
matters had come to a head. At a special meeting of the Town
Council a resolution that would permit the Council to borrow an
additional £5,000 which had been deferred from the previous week
was discussed. According to Cllr. Bayly the sum needed would be
£7,000. The actual sum needed became academic since when it was
16 Ibid., 15th March, 1879, 4d.
11 Ibid., 5th July, 1879, Sd.
337
ANGELA C. BENNETT
put to the vote, the Council rejected the borrowing of any further
money. Voting for were the Mayor, Alderman Fagg, Cllrs. Bayly,
Davis, Eveling and Reeve; while voting against the idea of borrowing
any further money were Aldermen Chambers and Kendall, Cllrs.
Munns, Perry, Pointon, Poole, Searles and White.
It was at this same meeting that the question of relieving the
Improvement Committee of their 'burden' was also discussed. It was
finally decided that the oversight and control for all further work on
the new road should be taken over by the Council acting in
Committee. This was proposed by Cllr. Searles, his resolution being
that no further loans would be allowed by the Council unless the
expenditure of the same be in the hands of the Council in Committee.
This motion was accepted unanimously. The Surveyor at this point
asked the Council what he was to do; it was eventually decided that
the work should continue to the end of the week. (This was the
decision of the first meeting of the Council in Committee as reported
in Keble's Gazette, Saturday 26th July, 1879).18
At the next monthly meeting of the Council, 29th July, 1879, there
was much discussion and disagreement as to what should be done. A
resolution recommended by the Council in Committee to continue
with the new road was rejected unanimously. A longer and more
restricted resolution was finally adopted after much discussion. This
resolution allowed for the sea-wall to Horn Corner to be finished, and
also for the filling in behind the wall as far as was needed. The
resolution also stipulated that no further work was to be attempted
without authorisation. At the same time an additional loan would be
requested from the Cobb Bank of £3,000 which was to be charged to
the General District Fund and would be borne by the rates.
Matters had come full circle. In January 1878, the Council had had
some discussion over how the work on the new road was to be
supervised. Some had wanted the Council to act in committee, while
others had wanted to give supervision to a small committee so that
the regular reports of that committee, being given in the Council,
would enable the local ratepayers and citizens to have some idea of
what was happening. Indeed, the leader in Keble's Gazette (Saturday,
26th January) had been specific:
'It was decided on the motion of Alderman Pickering to appoint a small committee
to report upon these matters, but we cannot help expressing regret that efforts were
made to relegate the matter to a committee of the whole council. This unconstitutional
mode of conducting public business was a very favourite one a few years ago, and
the result was very prejudicial to the public interests, as it really means a
18 Ibid., 26th July, 1879, 6a-c.
338
VICTORIAN EMBELLISHMENTS TO MARGATE
deliberation in private without the public having an opportunity of knowing what
was done. - We were in hopes that the pernicious practices had been abandoned by
the Council, but there appears to be a lingering affection for it [sic].'19
Yet clearly the small committee supervising the work was now
deemed inadequate as the cost of the road was obviously completely
out of control and the small group of men who constituted the
committee had little apparent conception of what control and supervision
meant. Such a situation only strengthened the hands of those
who had wanted, at the beginning of the whole process, to put the
work out to tender rather than leave it under the control of the town
surveyor, Mr Latham. The small Improvement Committee had been
totally unable to exercise any real financial constraint on construction
costs, while the Surveyor had had no financial or time limits to work
to. Were men like Mr Bayly as lax in financial control of their own
businesses as they had been over Council business? It is interesting to
note that the Council, at this time, consisted of a number of
shopkeepers, hotel owners, auctioneers and house agents who were
often also insurance agents. Were they as inefficient in the control of
their own businesses as they were in keeping some control over the
rate-payers' money? Even the Town Surveyor was doing work
outside his Council employment; he had an office in Cecil Square for
non-Council activities.
The lack of any real desire on the part of the majority of the
Council to put the new road either to competition for design, or out
to tender for construction raised and raises serious questions about
the concepts and attitudes of the men involved in local government.
That a new road was necessary was not disputed, but the manner of
design and construction gave the impression of a small group of
influential men riding roughshod over the feelings and opinions of the
ratepayers of the town; they knew and they alone knew what was
necessary. As Councillor Munns said in Council on 7th October,
1879:
'if this had been in the hands of a contractor, he would have taken care to have got
the cheapest labour, and would have got the work done more expeditiously, as he
would have begun both ends together. As to expedition the road had been just
twelve months in hand, and he really did not see when they were likely to see the end
of it - he hoped the oldest of the burgesses would live to see the day when it should
be finished. •20
19 Ibid., 26th January, 1878, Leader, Sc.
20 Ibid., 11th October, 1879, 6a-c.
339
ANGELA C. BENNETT
It was at this same council meeting that a further £7,000 had to be
borrowed to provide for the progress of the works on the new road.
This additional money was to be a further charge on the General
District Rate. Apart from the comments of Cllr. Searles and similar
remarks by Cllr. Munns, the loan was passed without comment with
merely one dissentient.
By the 18th October, the local newspaper was reporting a meeting
of Pier Ward to choose a new candidate for the Council. A ward
election was necessary because of the resignation of Cllr. Eveling. In
the speeches made at this meeting, some reaction on the part of
ratepayers can be seen. A Mr Ryan, in proposing Mr Bloxham,
claimed that:
'the day of class legislation was over, both in the House of Commons and in this
Borough; they were now left in the slough of despond [sic] by the artistocracy of the
town, and having been deceived - the burgesses should now send in a man who was
suitable from intellect alone, and not merely from position.'
He was seconded by Mr E. Wootton, who went on to make several
points about Mr Eveling.
'having gone into the Council with many promises, - that he would be ruled by the
voice of the people; and yet he had worked for the new road against their wishes and
the only thing in which he had been consistent was the support of the road.'
Mr Bloxham in his speech went further back to the Act by which the
Council had acquired 'certain ill-defined powers - almost under false
pretences.' He was also very unhappy about the purchase of the
Globe Hotel, which he claimed had cost £8,000.21 On the other hand,
Keble's Gazette of the following Saturday, 25th October, 1879, states
that the only contest for the Council took place in Cecil and
Cliftonville Wards. If opposition to the new road in the town had
been so great, surely there should have been more contests in the
wards. The divisions which existed within the Council over the vexed
question of the road came to a head after the elections. The Mayor of
the last two years, Mr Wood, J.P., received no vote of thanks from
his fellow councillors on his retirement, an unusual and rather
unpleasant situation. Though the vote was proposed by Cllr. Bayly,
there was no seconder. The only clue to what was going on is a cryptic
comment made by Cllr. Searles on a statement that he claimed Mr
Wood had made claiming that he had retired from the contest
"'because he did not wish to associate with those in public, with
21 Ibid., 18th October, 1879, 2a.
340
VICTORIAN EMBELLISHMENTS TO MARGATE
whom he would not associate in private;" that was what he said of
gentlemen who the burgesses sent to be members of the Council. m
That the new road was at the root of this quarrel would seem
certain; the leader in the Keble's Gazette of Saturday, 1st November,
states:
'why was not an open court held to discuss it in detail, and the plans submitted to
general inspection? It was wrong to delegate all the power - to a small committee -
[who] were irresponsible, and would complete the new road and everything
belonging to it in accordance with their own private, though united, views. '23
Mr Wood when Mayor had been a member of that committee,
together with Aldermen Fagg and Pointon and Cllrs. Bayly and
Walton. The subsequent report of a 'Complimentary Banquet' given
for the ex-Mayor and attended by a long list of local luminaries,
including Sir James Bowyer, one of the two east Kent M.P.s, with a
letter of apology from Sir Moses Montefiore for his inability to attend
because he was confined to his room, gave a further indication of
divisions within the town.24
At the Council meeting after the local ward elections on Saturday,
15th November, Cllr. Searles proposed that the Road and Building
and Improvement Committee be split into two bodies, the Imfsrovement
Committee being constituted by the whole Council. 5 The
acceptance of this resolution meant that not only the new road but
also the widening of the High Street was effectively taken out of the
public's knowledge - the very thing that Keble's editor had been
worried about at the beginning of the new road scheme.
Additionally, a new difficulty emerged: who actually had the right
to the foreshore in the harbour area? The Council had paid £4,000 to
the Pier and Harbour Company, £920 of which was for the foreshore
in the harbour for the new road. At a special meeting of the Town
Council had purchased the foreshore from the Marquis of
Conyngham (foreshore from the western boundary of the Borough to
nyngham (foreshore from the western boundary of the Borough to
the north side of Broadstairs Pier). The price paid for the west
portion to Margate pier was £1,000. The remainder was to be
purchased by valuation. It was Cllr. Perry who raised the inevitable
query '£4,000 paid to the Pier and Harbour Company who appear to
have had no claim. '26 The Mayor's response was that that was a
22 Ibid., 15th November, 1879, Scd.
23 Ibid., 1st November, 1879, Leader, 4e.
24 Ibid., 29th November, 1879, Scd, 8ab.
25 Ibid., 15th November, 1879, Scd.
26 Ibid., 13th December, 1879, 2a.
341
ANGELA C. BENNETT
matter for subsequent consideration. The meeting degenerated into a
noisy, uncontrolled discussion which the Mayor, in the Chair, was
unable to control. Indeed, he was forced to terminate the spectacle
by withdrawing and ending the Council meeting.
The danger of the Council in Committee was demonstrated when,
in January, Cllr. Munns, by use of a resolution in the full Council,
brought matters into the open. In proposing a resolution concerning
the 'filling in of the new Marine Drive', he opened the way for an
extensive and wide-ranging discussion which perforce revealed to the
general public what had been going on behind closed doors. There
was an admission that no decision had been taken as to the width of
the new road. There were the complex problems of what should front
the land side of the road and whether any foundations should be laid.
There was the difficult question of whether the shop keepers in the
High Street should be given shop fronts along the new road and the
difficulty of the Council having thus possibly improved the value of
their businesses. This was a particularly awkward question, as some
of the Councillors had shops in the High Street. Thus, the help of an
outsider had been decided upon. This gentleman, Mr Chadwick, had
submitted his written report to the Council that very morning. Even
Mr Chadwick, however, was not immune from suspicion by the
anti-road faction. Cllr. Munns was concerned at his connection with
the Pier and Harbour Company and questioned his independence.
There was some distrust of the Company within the town which was
compounded by the fact that most of those closely connected with
and supporters of the new road, were also supporters of the Company
or connected with it in some capacity. There was still the outstanding
question of the foreshore payment and the fact that the company had
insisted on the payment of full fees for all the landfill and other
materials for the road which had been landed by ship, as the vast
majority had.
A second report was given to the Councillors at that meeting. This
was the one which had been demanded in November 1879 from the
Surveyor. The breakdown of the costs for the road shows clearly the
sums paid, but at no time are there any quantities given. The
looseness of this could easily have led to accusations of dishonesty or
at least considerable slackness.27
On Tuesday, 20th January, the Mayor called a special Council
meeting. There was prolonged discussion about the new road.
Matters had, to a great extent, been precipitated by the presentation
of a Public Health Certificate from Mr Knight Trevers (Medical
Officer) stating:
27 Ibid., 17th January, 1880, 2bc, 5b-e.
342
VICTORIAN EMBELLISHMENTS TO MARGATE
'that the portion of the new road not yet filled in, formed a receptacle for the sewage
of the houses abutting onto it, constitutes a nuisance that is dangerous to health, the
unfilled portion is imperfectly flushed, and is of the nature of an open cesspool, and
in the warm weather will become very dangerous to the public health.'
The question of sewage had been raised on the 17th January, when it
was stated that although the sewage was piped to the sea, the longer
piping prevented the tides from clearing the pipes, often resulting in a
lake of sewage collected in that part of the road which had not yet
been filled in. Nothing having been done about the matter at the
earlier meeting, it was left to Mr Knight Trevers to force the issue.
Eventually, the Council accepted a following resolution 'that the
Surveyor be instructed to forthwith prepare an estimate of the total
sum required to complete a road 70 ft. wide, and that the question of
the disposal of the surplus land be left until the works are
complete. '28 From this point on, there is litle mention of the road
until the formal opening ceremony in May.
Even this was spoilt by the odd behaviour of the Council in not
announcing any details of the opening, almost as if they were
ashamed of what had been built, or perhaps it was to prevent the
advocates of the road from indulging in expensive celebration and
self-congratulation. As Keble's Gazette explained:
'Divided Councils moved the Corporation as to what should be done in connection
with the opening of the road. In consequence of this variety of opinion, no
information was afforded outsiders as to times and places and the assembled crowds
waited some two hours-and-a-half before they had the pleasure of witnessing the
scant ceremonial which graced the occasion. In fact some of the details were only
arranged a few minutes before their actual occurrence. '29
So loose were the arrangements that the Mayor, stopping at The
Kent to open the road, was overtaken by the East Kent Mounted
Rifles (163 strong) led by Lieutenant-Colonel the Right Honourable
the Earl of Guildford and Major the Most Honourable the Marquis
of Ormonde. When all the troops were on the new road, the Earl
halted them and the Mayor drove to their head to give his address.
He simply declared the road open. They all then continued to the
Parade, where they dispersed.
The road had been built, but clearly at a cost which some at least
considered too great. The Council had shown itself to be little
different from many other local councils. The very fact that the
council meetings took place during the day made it inevitable that
28 Ibid., 24th January, 1880, Sbc.
29 Ibid., 22nd May, 1880, Bab.
343
ANGELA C. BENNETT
only those with the opportunity to be free at such a time could stand
for the Council. The lack of a local, important and wealthy landowning
aristocrat, as for example Lord Radnor in Folkestone, made i1
possible for a small clique of local shop-owners and insurance agents
to monopolise the council. They were hardly the men of vision
needed to enable Margate to compete successfully with the emergence
of Folkestone and the continued success of Brighton. Margate,
though constructing apace a more select area at Cliftonville, was
beginning the move into becoming the playground of the lowe1
classes. Given the communications and the relevant nearness to
London, this may well have been inevitable. It was almost certainly
helped by the attitude of the Council and, indeed, many of the
ratepayers, who disliked any increase in their rates. Yet it was in the
town's interest to attempt to lengthen the season, which was only
fourteen weeks and which could only have been done if they could
have attracted the 'better sort' to the town. In competition with the
elegance and provisions of Brighton, Margate came a very poor
second. The failure of the council to add attractive new buildings and
gardens at the time of the new road was unfortunate but, given the
limits of their vision and their poor leadership within the town, was
perhaps inevitable. It was unfortunate, however, that the local paper
was able to draw attention to the ugly side of the new Marine Drive,
quoting from the magazine Society:
'The new Marine Drive improvements have brought into full view the backs of
certain shanties which formerly overhung the waves or sand, as the case might be,
according to the state of the tide. Now if the local magistrates be wise, they will clear
away these eyesores and excrescences before the season of Margate sets in. [There
are] sundry rumours to the effect of replacing the shanties with shops. If the L.M.
[sic - Local Magistrates?] be wise, they will allow nothing of the kind to be done. To
make the new esplanade really beautiful it should be thrown open to the High
Street, and the centre laid out as a lawn and planted with shrubs. (They] might
design a fountain for the lawn, an ornamental platform for the band. A row of shops
on the esplanade would prove a great mistake. '30
The Council seemed determined to learn from the experience of
the construction of Marine Drive. Thus, when it came to the
celebrations for Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee, 21st June, 1887,
the Council was not in any way officially involved. The entire
celebration, the children's party, the tea for the retired and elderly
and the firework display, as well as the permanent memorial, were all
to be financed and controlled through the voluntary principle. In such
a way, the Council would not have to increase the rates as they had
30 Ibid., 26th June, 1880, Se.
344
VICTORIAN EMBELLISHMENTS TO MARGATE
had to do to build Marine Drive. The Mayor, Henry F. Hermitage,
was clearly determined to see that the town did something and so
arranged for a public meeting to be held to discuss the matter. This
meeting would seem to have been widely advertised, including the
use of posters. It was also helpful that the Mayor was able to hold the
meeting at the Town Hall.
At this meeting, which was attended by a great number of men
from the area, including the M.P. for Thanet, the Right Honourable
Colonel King Harman, various ideas for a permanent memorial were
suggested, the first being 'that in the opinion of this meeting a Clock
Tower erected at the foot of the Marine Terrace Green will be a
suitable permanent memorial.' This was proposed by Mr A.B. Cobb,
and seconded by Mr W. Leerham, J.P. An amendment was proposed
by Mr Eveling, seconded by W. Coleman 'the Memorial should take
the shape of Alms Houses or Jubilee Cottages for the use of widows
or spinsters who had been 50 years in the town.' A second amendment
was proposed by S. Hawkins and seconded by J. Hudson Jr.
'that this meeting is of the opinion that in Her Majesty's Jubilee year
measures should be taken to acquire the interest of the Pier and
Harbour for the benefit of the town.' The first amendment was lost by
a 'large majority', while the second was withdrawn. The opinion of
the meeting was that the cost of cottages would be at least £10,000,
clearly raising a doubt as to whether such a sum could be collected.
Any attempt to gain control of the Pier and Harbour Company would
have cost even more than this sum. It is, however, an indication of
the feeling of some in the town that the Company did not always act
in the interests of the town - the foreshore question was not
forgotten. The same report in Keble's Gazette contains an enlightening
and interesting statement made by Mr Latham with regard to the
proposition by Mr Cobb of a clock tower and 'getting it done'
'if proposed by Mr. Cobb [there is] a fair way of having it carried out.'31
The Cobb family contributed £600 of the £2,098 16s. Od. received.32
What is clear is that, once again, a group of prominent citizens had
obviously made their decision before any meeting took place - a
clock tower was to be the town's memorial of the Jubilee.
The public meeting then went on to form a General Committee to
carry out the previous resolutions and with power to co-opt
additional members from five listed groups. It is important to note
31 Ibid., 19th February, 1887, Sire.
32 Margate Jubilee Committee Donations Already Promised List.
345
ANGELA C. BENNETT
that the Honorary Treasurer was Mr A.B. Cobb, an indication that
the Cobb and Co. Bank clearly played an important role in Margate's
affairs at this period, whether by lending the Council thousands of
pounds to help in additional financing of the Marine Drive or acting
as bankers and backers to the Jubilee effort of the Mayor.
At a General Committee meeting on Monday, 27th February, the
Mayor reported having sent a printed copy of the resolutions passed
at the public meeting to 'every gentleman' on the committee.
Amongst the letters in reply had been one with a donation of £500
from the firm of Cobb and Co., together with a further personal
donation from Mr Francis Carr Cobb of £100, and a letter from Col.
King Harman, M.P. A vote of thanks to the Cobbs was proposed by
the Mayor, seconded by Mr W. Pointon, 'for their munificent
subscription'. 33 It was also agreed that competitive designs for a clock
tower should be obtained, but further consideration of the matter was
adjourned until the next meeting, when it was hoped that they would
have a clearer idea of the money that could be devoted to it.
At the subsequent meeting of the General Committee it was
decided to appoint two committees, one for Entertainments and the
other for the Clock Tower. The Clock Tower Committee consisted of
12 members - Mr F.M. Cobb, several councillors and at least one
solicitor, Mr T.H. Boys, as well as the Mayor, Alderman Henry
Hermitage.34 It was also agreed 'that the Town Council be asked for
a description as to the site for the proposed tower.'
During this period, the Clock Tower Committee had had printed
and circulated announcements of the competition for a design for the
Clock Tower. Yet there is no record of this, either in the Committee
Book or in the local papers. The Committee Book does, however,
contain a copy of the announcement. The time given for the
submission of designs from the date of announcement was 28 days,
not a long period unless those who wished to submit a design had one
ready. There must have been at least one Clock Tower Committee
meeting to discuss the terms of the competition, in particular the
decision to impose a limit of £800 for the cost of construction. Or was
this, once again, an example of a small group deciding, or an example
of the secretary to the Committee, Mr Foord-Kelcey, who was also
Town Clerk, being overworked with Town Council duties and unable
to keep full written accounts of the meetings?
At a General Committee Meeting on 21st April, the Chairman
33 Margate Jubilee Committee Book, General Committee Meeting, Monday, 27th
February, 1887.
34 Ibid., General Committee Meeting, Friday, 11th March, 1887.
35 Ibid., Clock Tower Committee Meeting, Saturday, 30th April, 1887.
346
VICTORIAN EMBELLISHMENTS TO MARGATE
reported that the Town Council had given permission for the use of
the site on Marine Terrace for the proposed Clock Tower. Volunteers
were also organised to collect subscriptions throughout the town
now that the site of the tower was known.
Some sense of urgency showed itself on Saturday, 30th April. The
Committee meeting at the Town Hall at 8 p.m. was to organise the
choice of a design. It was announced that Mr Fagg (previously Cllr.
Fagg at the time of the Marine Drive) was 'willing to allow the Long
Room at the White Hart Hotel to be used during the following week
for exhibiting the designs at the small charge of Two Pounds [sic] for
the week.'35 This offer was accepted by the Committee. It was also
arranged that the Clock Tower Committee should meet at the White
Hart on Monday, 2nd May, to arrange the designs and that the
General Committee be called together at 4 o'clock on Monday at the
hotel. On Tuesday and Wednesday, both subscribers and the general
public would be invited to inspect the designs between the hours of 11
a.m. and 1 p.m. and 3 and 5 p.m. The Clock Tower Committee would
meet at the hotel at 6 o'clock on Thursday, 5th May, to make their
final decision.
The General Committee meeting at the White Hart moved the
resolution
'That the Clock Tower Committee be empowered to select three designs and that
the General Committee be then called together for the purposes of making the final
selection therefrom. '36
Sixty-three entries were received. The reporter writing of the exhibition
at the White Hart in Keble's Gazette, Saturday, 7th May, 1887,
seemed disappointed at this number of entries since 'the applications
for particulars were more than double that number.' From the same
source, it is clear that those members of the public who went to see
the designs exhibited were somewhat at a loss to understand them
since there were no drawings of the completed towers, merely the
working designs. 37 Although the reporter was disappointed with the
response, the Committee given the task of selection realised that one
sitting would not suffice. Instead of meeting on the Thursday alone,
they in fact also met on Wednesday, 4th May.
Their first decision was not to include four designs which had
arrived late. They then set about the task of making a first elimination,
whereby they retained 22 designs for further consideration.
The meeting of the Committee on Thursday was better attended,
36 Ibid., General Committee Meeting, Monday, 2nd May, 1887.
37 Keble's Gazette, 7th May, Sb.
347
ANGELA C. BENNETT
with 11 members present as opposed to the previous meeting's nine.
Three rounds of elimination were proceeded with, leaving three
designs, nos. 10, 48 and 49 - 'Artz, Karl and Enctor ut Vincan'.38
Each of these designs represented a different style of architecture
according to a subsequent report in Keble's Gazette. The selection
process was carried out without anyone on the Committee having any
idea of the architect involved in any of the designs.
The final decision was taken by the General Committee held at the
White Hart with 35 members present. This would appear to have
been a rather animated and exciting meeting. Design 48 was eliminated
since only the design had been submitted but no 'conditions'.
Cllr. Head then proposed that the design no. 10 be eliminated,
seconded by Mr Boys. The question put to the vote resulted in the
following:
'For the Resolution 13
Against the Resolution 14'
The minutes continue with a reference to 'several gentlemen having
intimated that a misunderstanding had arisen in the matter of the
vote'. 39 There was clearly some rather intense discussion. In order to
overcome this disagreement as to who had voted for what, it was
determined that a physical vote was needed. Those wishing to keep
no. 10 as the chosen design going to the south end of the room, while
those wishing to retain design no. 49 went to the north end of the
room. It must have been an interesting sight, especially as the result
was a tie. It was left to the Mayor, as the Chairman, to use his casting
vote in favour of design 49. The choice of no. 49 was moved and
unanimously approved. The Town Clerk (Mr Foord-Kelcey) then
opened the envelope to discover the name of the architect. It was Mr
Ernest Kaufman, 158, Sinclair Road, West Kensington. The Committee,
now they had the details, had the exact site of the Clock
Tower marked out on Marine Gardens on the following Wednesday,
much to the interest of people in the town.40
At the next meeting of the Clock Tower Committee, Mr Kaufman
was present. Almost immediately problems began. It transpired that
though niches were shown on the design, they were not included in
the costs and conditions. After Mr Kaufman had withdrawn from the
meeting considerable discussion took place and it was decided that he
should be asked to submit specifications and working drawings before
38 Margate Jubilee Committee Book, Clock Tower Committee Meeting, Thursday,
5th May, 1887.
39 Ibid., General Committee Meeting, Friday, 6th May 1887.
4° Keble's Gazette, 14th May, 1887, Sb.
348
VICTORIAN EMBELLISHMENTS TO MARGATE
the invitation of tenders. It is clear from the minutes that already
there is some hesitancy with regard to Mr Kaufman's plans since the
Committee felt it necessary to pass a resolution making it clear that
Mr Kaufman would have no claim on the Committee should the
estimates for construction exceed the sum laid down in the conditions
of the competition. Such a resolution was unusual, especially as the
terms of the competition had been clear. 41
The meeting of 3rd June was attended by Mr Kaufman, who
brought his working drawings and specifications. The Committee
decided to submit these to an independent architect for his advice on
sufficiency and practicability, as had been made clear in the initial
advertisement announcing the competition. A Mr Beazley,
F.R.S.B.A., was suggested as the independent architect. Mr Kaufman
undertook 'to write his consent to the proposal'. What the
precise problems were is unclear from the minutes. Three and a half
weeks elapsed before the next meeting. The minutes contain cryptic
references to a letter received from Mr Kaufman and correspondence
between Mr Lacey, Mr Kaufman and Mr Beazley. A draft letter of
reply to Mr Kaufman was submitted to the Committee for approval,
which was unanimous. Unfortunately, the contents of none of these
letters appear in the Committee's Minutes.
By the middle of July, Mr Beazley had informed the Committee
that in his opinion
'plans and specifications were not sufficiently explicit to enable a builder to make a
proper contract and that the work could not be carried out for less than £1,500.'42
The Committee requested Mr Kaufman to revise the specification
and the drawings and 'completing them to the satisfaction of Mr
Beazley within a fortnight'.
The changes made must have been acceptable since, at the next
recorded meeting, the plans had been handed to Messrs. Stoner and
Sons as quantity surveyors. The problems of the Committee were not
over, however, since at the same meeting there was mention of the
difficulty of collecting money which had already been promised. By
October, the Committee was comparing the current working
drawings with the original design and had found that details from the
original were missing! By November, the omissions to the value of
£50 and additions to the value of £25 had been established. It was
resolved, however, to proceed with the tendering for the erection of
41 Margate Jubilee Committee Book, Clock Tower Committee Meeting, Tuesday,
10th May, 1887.
42 lbid., Clock Tower Committee Meeting, Monday, 18th July, 1887.
349
ANGELA C. BENNETT
the tower in the following week's papers. Careful as ever, the Council
resolved 'That the builder be required to give security to the
Committee to the amount of a sum not under £300.'43
The receipt of tenders made it clear that within the terms of the
competition the cost was too high, so 'the arrangements made with
the Committee concerning his plan will not be further proceeded
with. '44 Mr Kaufman was tenacious and had to be told in a further
letter, sent on the instructions of the Committee, that they declined
to continue further with the matter and they also stated that any
further correspondence would be futile. At the same time, Mr
Beazley was requested to advise them as to their present position.
Mr Beazley now took on an important role. The Committee clearly
did not want another wasted choice. He, therefore, went through the
re-submitted designs, advising the Committee on their construction
costs. By March, he had 'selected two designs likely to be carried out
within the limits of £800.'45 Financial restraint, therefore, in reality,
had taken selection out of the hands of the Committee, who on 20th
March accepted his recommendation of the design of Mr Cheers. By
the end of March a meeting between Mr Cheers, the Committee
Hon. Secretary and Mr Beazley had cleared up any difficulties. Mr
Cheers had agreed to some small alterations to his design and assured
the Committee that his design had not been executed anywhere else
and would promise that it would not be reproduced, if constructed at
Margate.
A General Committee meeting (27th March) accepted the
explanation of the difficulties over design 49, the high cost of tenders,
the obligation to reject the design, the resubmission of 38 of the 'old'
designs and the recommendation of Mr Beazley. The Committee
went on to ask the Clock Tower Committee to carry out the necessary
work on its foundations, construction and to organise the purchase of
a clock, chimes, and all other matters concerned with completing the
building.
By 4th July, it had been decided that the tower was to be built in
worked Kentish ragstone rather than Portland stone. This meant that
the lower half of the Tower up to the shelf below the clock faces
would be worked Kentish ragstone, while the stonework above would
be in Portland stone. Dotts and Son of Leeds had received the
contract to provide the clocks, and tenders had been received after
advertisements had been placed in The Builder and the local papers.
43 Ibid., Clock Tower Committee Meeting, Friday, 18th November, 1887.
44 Ibid., Clock Tower Committee, Tuesday, 3rd January, 1888.
45 Ibid., Saturday, 10th March, 1888.
350
VICTORIAN EMBELLISHMENTS TO MARGATE
Everything was at last going well. Mr Cheers was easy to work with
and the tenders had been reasonable, with three coming within the
stated limit of £880, which had become the new limit. The Committee
awarded the contract to Ring Brothers of South Norwood. The
architect had undertaken to supervise the work of construction, thus
avoiding the necessity of employing a clerk of the works. The Clock
Tower Committee had appointed a Committee of Specification and a
Committee of Inspection. Both these committees had the same
members, Alderman F. Hermitage, Mr F. Edwards and Mr J. Reeve,
in order to both expedite the work and simplify the supervision of it
when in progress. Everything seemed, at last, to be going smoothly.
It was an illusion since, by 16th July, the minutes show that
Ring Brothers had not replied initially to the letter offering them the job of
construction. A second letter elicited the reply - to the effect that there had been a
clerical error - and they wished to withdraw the estimate. '46
There was 'considerable discussion' and it was resolved that further
consideration of the question be adjourned until Tuesday, 17th July.
At this meeting, there was a report of the 'Deputation's interview
with Mr Pearce'. Clearly, a small group of the Committee went to see
Mr Pearce about his tender, the second lowest. Whether the group
was self-appointed or not is unclear from the minutes. In any event,
as a result of this initiative, it was moved that Mr Pearce's tender be
accepted subject to his entering into a proper contract and giving a
security of £300. The architect's fee for supervision would be 25
guineas. The Committee accepted these terms.
All was ready to begin, and, on Thursday 26th July, Mr Pearce
quite innocently caused considerable consternation in the town:
'Some surprise was caused by preparations being made for the erection of the
Jubilee Clock Tower on the Marine Terrace. The scaffolding was erected, but a
petition was at once prepared and signed by over 40 persons asking the Council to
put a stop to the work until after the season. A considerable amount of feeling was
excited at the steps taken in commencing the work at this time of the year, and the
work has been stopped and the scaffolding removed this (Friday] morning.'47
The Committee's travails were not over, however, since in September
an effort was made in the Town Council to stop the construction
of the Clock Tower altogether. The feelings of the Committee can
only be guessed at, but the secretary had stuck into the minutes
46 Ibid., Monday, 16th July, 1888.
47 Keble's Gazette, 28th July, 1888, Sc.
351
ANGELA C. BENNETT
(Friday, 21st September) at the relevant place a cutting giving all the
details of the Council meeting which had discussed the whole
question of the Clock Tower. At the same Council meeting, a
Memorial was presented from the residents of Marine Terrace and
others asking the Council not to sanction the commencement of the
work on the Clock Tower until after the end of the first week in
October. This same Memorial went on to ask that a new site 'might
be found' for the Tower since if erected where planned it might do
'considerable injury' to lodging-house keepers in the neighbourhood.
Perhaps the lodging-house keepers had the same worries as Mr
Paramor, who was quoted by Alderman Hermitage at the Council
meeting as having had the intention of signing the Memorial because,
living as he did in Grosvenor Villas,
"'he would hear the clock chime and it would disturb his night's rest.'"
This comment relayed by the Alderman to the council caused some
laughter. What emerges from the account of the council meeting was
vacillation and inconsistency. The council had, on 19th April, 1887,
granted permission for the Clock Tower and the placing of it on
Marine Terrace Road. There had been no votes against and only one
abstention. As a result of the Memorial and discussion at the later
council meeting, in September 1888, the council divided almost
equally on the motion to rescind council permission for construction
of. the Clock Tower, seven including the Mayor voting against the
rescinding motion and five voting to rescind permission. The Council
agreed to the original site being retained and the postponement of the
beginning of the work until 15th October. The same Committee
meeting was also informed that the South-Eastern Railway Company
had agreed to allow their station yard to be used for the preparation
of the stone for the tower - to avoid taking up too much space on
Marine Terrace.
By November, work was finally in hand and the architect was
demanding a decision, previously put off, with regard to the medallions
on the tower. The Committee resolved to order three medallions
of the 'best' type with the Heads of the Queen, the Prince and
the Princess of Wales with the fourth space used, subject to the
approval of the architect for a 'suitable inscription in terra cotta'.
There was also the need for the architect's comments on the
desirability of iron gates on the doorway of the tower.
At the end of April 1889, Doulton, who were happy to announce
that the medallions were nearly complete, claimed that they were so
busy they could not send a man down to affix them, but the
Committee insisted the'y did so. Mr G.T. Chandler had been
352
VICTORIAN EMBELLISHMENTS TO MARGATE
appointed by the Committee at a fee of three guineas for the task of
the three-monthly winding of the clock and to be responsible for
looking after it once it was in place. The question of the handing over
of the tower to the Council had now become paramount. Mr Boys
moved, and Mr Cobb seconded that
'the Committee will be prepared to ask the Council to accept the Clock Tower and
ask that a small committee should be formed to co-operate with this committee to
carry out the necessary arrangements.'48
At the subsequent Council meeting, the letter sent by the Clock
Tower Committee was read, the Mayor responding with the
comment that
'there could only be one opinion about the very handsome structure and addition to
the town which had been put up on the Marine Terrace.'49
The Council then went on to appoint the necessary committee. Cllr.
Hawkins also expressed the hope that the Committee would be very
careful that there should be no permanent charges made in the
arrangements of 'the taking of the clock tower over'.
A meeting of the General Committee authorised the Clock Tower
Committee to make all the necessary arrangements for the handing
over to the town and to deal with any questions that might arise.
Messrs A. Cutlack and Jones were requested to act as auditors on
behalf of subscribers, and a vote of thanks was passed expressing
'great appreciation of the result of the labours' of the Clock Tower
Committee.
A joint meeting between the Clock Tower Committee and the
committee appointed by the Council took place on May 15th. The
Mayor made it known that the committee was prepared to recommend
the acceptance by the Corporation of the Clock Tower and it
was moved by the Clock Tower Committee that they hand over the
tower to the Council of the Borough on 24th May, the Queen's
birthday. The ceremony duly took place on that date. The Committee's
work was nearly done. At a meeting on 4th June the
subscription lists and accounts were examined by the accountants and
the balance sheet was signed and sent to Keble's Gazette for
publication.
The attractive results of the Marine Drive and the Jubilee Clock
Tower can be seen in Plate II. The comparison of control over
48 Margate Jubilee Committee Book, Friday, 21st September, 1888.
49 Keble's Gazette, 4th May, 1889, 5d.
353
=
UJ
f