Fifth Report of the Vestry of the Parish of Chelsea in the County of Middlesex, Appointed Under the Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855: 1860-1Lahee, Charles
History
Fifth Report of the Vestry of the Parish of Chelsea in the County of Middlesex, Appointed Under the Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855: 1860-1
Lahee, Charles
Chelsea (London, England) -- History -- 19th century; Chelsea (London, England) -- Politics and government
The “Public Indicator” erected in Sloane Square by permission of the
board in May, 1860, was removed in the fallowing March, in consequence of
the failure of the proprietors to light it at night, and to provide the
promised clock. It is retained in the custody of the vestry, under a
clause in the agreement, as a lien for the expenses of its removal and
making good the paving.
Plans, books of reference, and parliamentary notices of the “London,
Buckinghamshire, and West Midland Railway” (whose intended terminus was
in the Pavilion grounds), and of “The London Tramway and Dispatch
Company,” were deposited with the Vestry, but both of their bills were
unsuccessful. Mr. Train also made an application to the vestry for
permission to lay down his tramways in Sloane Street and the King’s Road,
but its consideration has been adjourned _sine die._
On the twenty-ninth of January, 1861, Mr. Finch laid before the Board a
copy of a “Bill to Transfer the Seats in Parliament forfeited by the
Borough of St. Albans to the proposed Borough of Chelsea and Kensington,”
which Viscount Enfield, M.P. for Middlesex had given notice of his
intention to introduce in the House of Commons. Immediately the
Government {25} brought in their “Bill for the Appropriation of the Seats
Vacated by the Disfranchisement of the Boroughs of Sudbury and Saint
Albans,” which contained the following clause: “The parishes of Chelsea
and Kensington in the county of Middlesex shall, for the purposes of this
act, together form a borough, to be called the borough of Chelsea, and
such borough shall, from and after the said first day of November, 1861,
return one member to serve in parliament.”
An influential deputation from both parishes, accompanied by the two
county members, had an interview with Lord Palmerston on the fifth of
March, on the subject of the bill, and laid before his lordship various
statistical information (see appendix No. 29). But on a division in the
House of Commons on the tenth of June, the clause was rejected by a
majority of two hundred and seventy-five to one hundred and seventy-two.
Mr. Tite thus reported the circumstance to the board:—
42, Lowndes Square,
Tuesday Morning, 1 o’clock.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account