The Marine Gardens

by **rathbone** » 18 Sep 2007, 08:52

On 16 December the Revd. D. Merrick Walker of the Baptist and Congregational church, Portobello, was appointed officiating clergyman to the troops stationed at the Marine Gardens and the Continental Chocolate Factory.

by **rathbone** » 19 Sep 2007, 09:00

by **rathbone** » 20 Sep 2007, 08:58

On Boxing Day considerable trouble was experienced when a number of Icelandic ponies were landed at Leith.

They were being driven along Seafield Road when, frightened by a railway train, they stampeded and knocked down Patrick Wynn, a farm worker, who with two other men was in charge of them. Wynn was walking ahead at the time and sustained some cuts and bruises about his head, limbs and body. After being attended to at the Marine Gardens, he received further treatment at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary.

Saturday evening and the whole of Sunday were spent in rounding up the ponies, of which ninety were still at large on Sunday morning. The frightened animals ran far and wide and several of them were recovered at Musselburgh, Dalkeith, Bonnyrigg, Niddrie, Gilmerton, Millerhill and elsewhere in Midlothian.

by **rathbone** » 21 Sep 2007, 08:58

A quaint method of marking the departure of 1914 was followed at the Marine Gardens. Following the close of a Hogmanay concert, the 5th (Imperial Service) Battalion of the Royal Scots court - martialled No. 1914 Private Old Year, the sentence of the court being that he be drummed out at midnight, which was duly done. The culprit was impersonated by a member of the battalion in the garb of Father Time.

Inter company shooting matches and a revolver shooting match for the officers were engaged in during New Years day. A dance followed in the evening.

It was noted that since the much appreciated Guild Institute was opened in the Gardens after Christmas, upwards of 3000 letters and postcards had been dispatched by the men in preparation for their departure for France.

by **rathbone** » 22 Sep 2007, 08:47

by **rathbone** » 23 Sep 2007, 07:33

A meeting of the shareholders of the Edinburgh Marine Gardens Limited was held in Dowell’s Rooms, Edinburgh on 2 March 1915. Mr. Thomas Ramsay, architect, Glasgow, presided.

Ramsay said that seeing that the War Office were at present in possession of the Gardens it was impossible for the directors to say anything definite with regard to the future movements on the part of the company.

He was asked if they could be informed what the arrangement was with the military authorities regarding the Gardens. He replied that the most of the meeting knew the arrangement and as the war Office authorities were not at all anxious that the arrangements should be made public he would like to avoid giving any public intimation of it.

It was argued that it was only right that the shareholders should know what the company was doing with their money and that the shareholders should know the terms of any arrangement and especially what the rental was. Other people said that they did not want to know. Others demanded that they be informed when the military authorities entered into arrangement with the company and what the rental was.

On a division it was agreed by nine votes to five that the information be withheld.

The Chairman stated that the confidential information desired could be got privately. The directors had no intention of withholding any information that was in the interests of the shareholders, but he did not think that sensitive information relating to the war effort should be stated to the shareholders publicly.

by **rathbone** » 24 Sep 2007, 11:13

by **rathbone** » 25 Sep 2007, 09:06

by **rathbone** » 26 Sep 2007, 09:24

by **rathbone** » 27 Sep 2007, 09:35

by **rathbone** » 28 Sep 2007, 08:59

On 3 June the Duke and Duchess of Hamilton also visited the Church of Scotland Guild Institutes at the Marine Gardens and the Chocolate Works, accompanied by the Rev. John Muirhead, Avondale and Mr. W.M. Ramsay, hon. superintendent. Her Grace gave an address to the men.

by **rathbone** » 29 Sep 2007, 12:19

A meeting of Edinburgh Parish Council was held on 19 June 1916.

The Finance Committee minutes showed that the Collector had reported that the rates on the Marine Gardens had been in arrears for the last two years.

In a reply to a question on the point it was stated that the difficulty arose owing to the place being in the possession of the military.

by **rathbone** » 01 Oct 2007, 09:10

A shed used as an ice cream saloon and store at the Marine Gardens Portobello was destroyed by fire on the night of 5 December 1916. The Edinburgh Fire Brigade extinguished the blaze.

by **rathbone** » 02 Oct 2007, 09:10

by **rathbone** » 03 Oct 2007, 09:15

The Marine Gardens Company protested at the continuing occupation of the Gardens by the Military and in March 1917 they took their case to Court.

However, Lord Ormidale in the Court of Session dismissed as irrelevant their action against the Crown with reference to the possession by the Government of the Gardens.

An apparent inequity arose to the Company for they themselves were under obligation in terms of their lease to pay a large sum of rent for the use of the Gardens from which they had been evicted by the Government and were liable for large sums also for taxes and insurance.

The Company asserted that although the Government entered on and retained the possession, occupation and use of the Gardens in virtue of the powers conferred upon the Crown by the Defences Act 1842, the Government was liable to pay £75 a week or such sum as might be determined to be a fair rent or alternatively that the Government was liable to pay compensation for the use of the subjects as assessed by a jury summoned under the Defence Act 1842 and that the Crown should be orered to pay £5121 in name of rent from August 1915 to december 1916 and thereafter £75 per week.

Lord Ormidale felt that to some extent the inequity was more apparent than real for it was at least possible that they had a complete answer to any demand for rent and also, it appeared to his Lordship, for taxes.

His Lordship said that the pursuers averred that the Crown entered into an agreement with them. His Lordship thought that agreement was concluded without reference to the Defence Act 1842. There was nothing in the agreement itself to indicate that the Act was in the mind of either parties. It was an entirely voluntary bargain and one which both parties were competent to enter into at common law. In terms of the agreement a week’s notice was given and accepted in August 1915 of the termination of the agreement. As it was, the lands continued in Government occupation and endeavour was made to adjust a rent but parties failed to come to terms.

The Company were advised to apply to the defence of the Realm Losses Commission. They replied that they had done so so, with a result that was not satisfactory to them. His Lordship would only say that the Company had good grounds for asking the Comission for a re hearing and it was satisfactory to think that the Commission had expressed their willingness to allow that so soon as the present proceedings were out of the way.

by **rathbone** » 04 Oct 2007, 09:23

The case dragged on.

The War Office offered the Marine Gardens Company £400 as compensation for the use of the site from August 1914 until September 1917. The Company responded that they had had to pay £480 in ground rent and £520 in taxes over the same period, so they would be £600 out of pocket.

In effect, the Company was subsidising the War Office, and had not had the use of their property, valued at over £50,000 for upwards of three years. In response to that point, the War Office considered that as there was a war on, the Marine Gardens were assumed not to be capable of being used for their ordinary purposes owning to the lighting restrictions.

The Company responded that the lighting restrictions only applied at night. As their business was usually conducted between May and September, that issue did not arise. In effect, they had been evicted from the property when it was requisitioned as a barracks and hey did not see why they, who had no ability to use the property, should be paying the ground rent and taxes when the army, who were using the buildings, did not.

The issue was taken before the Burgh Assessor, Mr. Smart. He was not sympathetic and considered that although very great hardship might be entailed upon the Marine Gardens Company, it was by no means a unique case. The fact that the War Office had taken over the buildings and had given them a very inadequate sum, had nothing whatever to do with the Assessor’s duty. He put forward a suggestion to regard the subjects as being the same as an unused factory and assess it at half its value, namely £600. As Burgh Assessor he decided that the figure of £480 for the use of the site must stand. With regards to the buildings, the Marine Gardens Company were proprietors, the War Office occupiers and the valuation of £1200 for the buildings was reduced to £500.

by **rathbone** » 05 Oct 2007, 09:09

by **rathbone** » 07 Oct 2007, 07:19

The issue wasn’t settled until May 1918, when, on 23 May the negotiations were brought to a successful conclusion. A joint minute was lodged under which the action had been taken out of Court. The agreement between the parties provided that the War Department shall paid the Marine Gardens Company £1680 a year for rent. An allowance of £150 per annum was to be made by the company to the Crown to maintain the buildings in good order and the Crown took over the obligation to pay rates and taxes. Counsel were heard on the question of expenses. Mr. Robertson Christie K.C. maintained that the Company had had substantial success in their action. Mr. Pitman, for the Crown said he was not instructed to ask for expenses against the Company. He submitted that each side should bear their own expenses and pointed out that the negotiations had resulted in a reduction of the pursuers claim from £3900 to £1680. The Court interponed authority to the joint minute and found that the Company were entitled to expenses.

by **rathbone** » 08 Oct 2007, 09:11

by **rathbone** » 09 Oct 2007, 09:17

by **rathbone** » 10 Oct 2007, 09:17

On Wednesday 19 July at 11 o’clock, prompt, Messrs Castiglione & Scott sold by auction, in the field adjoining the Marine Gardens, a quantity of agricultural machinery, 3 motor cycles and side cars, 3 Ford delivery vans, Weigher transporters, Bailers and 5 trailers.

Then on 28 July there were more motor vehicles (without reserve) comprising 16 Ford vans. 1 Ford ambulance. 4 Ford touring cars. 1 Wolseley ambulance. 19 Maudslay heavy lorries. 2 Peerless lorries. 4 AEC lorries. 1 LGOC lorry. 2 LGOC ambulance buses. 4 Talbot ambulance cars.

And so it went on.

26 September saw 67 motor lorries, v ans, cars and cycles (without reserve) of the following makes:- Commer, Fiat, Hallford, Kelly, FWD, Peerless, Seabrook, LGOC lorries. Daimler, Austin, Studebaker, Wolseley, Hispanosuiza, Straker Squire, Siddeley, Deasy, Reo Garford, Willys Overland and Ford cars and vans. Peerless workshop lorry and Peerless store. 3 Lacre 5 ton tractors. 31 solo and combination motor cycles including Douglas, Clyno and Phlon & Moore.

On 20 October it was a Peerless workshop lorry. Jeffery Quad workshop lorry. 8 Maudslay heavy tenders. 4 AEC heavy tenders. Bristol, Jeffery, Peerless, Pierce Arrow, chassis and H.T. 13 Ford vans. 2 Ford ambulances. 6 Ford touring cars. 3 Hallford 3 ton chassis. Hallford 3 ton lorry. 19 combination and solo Douglas cycles.

And on 12 December motor lorries, ambulances, cars and vans comprising Hallford, Peerless, FWD, Daimler and Napier lorries. GNC, Daimler, Siddeley, Deasy and Studebaker ambulances. Sunbeam, Studebaker and Talbot touring cars. Foden & Fowler steam tractors. Thorneycroft and Peerless workshop lorries. Locomobile, Packard and Peerless store lorries. Halley charabanc. Ford cars and vans. Ruston Proctor searchlight trailers. Ruston Proctor, Foden, Wallis and Stevens trailers.

And again, the following week 84 solo and combination motor cycles including Sunbeam, Douglas, Triumph, Clyno, Royal Enfield .

The last sale in 1919 was on 30 December, which was a sale of spare motor parts for Peerless, Pierce Arrow, AEC, Maudsley, Raleigh, Drake and Gorham lorries and cars. Also tyres, tubes, levers, front and rear lorry wheels fitted with tyres.

by **rathbone** » 11 Oct 2007, 09:32

And the auctions carried on through 1920.

There were sales on 23 January, 27 January, 6 February (Castor oil, grease and paint), 12 February, 13 February, 19 February, 20 February, 24 February, 5 March, 11 March (aeroplanes), 23rd March (363 army blankets. 169 bedsteads and trestles. 165 bedstead boards, 100 mattresses. 284 palliasses. 44 tables. 38 chairs. 11 forms. Office safe. Cash boxes. Wheelbarrow. Pots. Pails. Brushes. Enamelware and a miscellaneous variety of articles for domestic use.)

Finally, on 29 December: The whole buildings on the Marine Gardens ground at Seafield Road, Portobello, comprehending large dancing hall with maple floor, Promenade hall, Concert Hall, Restaurants and other buildings, two gas engines complete with compressed gas plant etc. The ground extending to approximately 19 acres and containing a sports field.

by **rathbone** » 15 Oct 2007, 09:38

by **rathbone** » 16 Oct 2007, 09:22

by **rathbone** » 17 Oct 2007, 09:13

by **rathbone** » 18 Oct 2007, 08:57

by **rathbone** » 19 Oct 2007, 09:15

Edinburgh Corporation were not in a mood to give up on the Marine Gardens, however, and on 15 September the Lord Provost’s Committee recommended that the remainder of the Marine Gardens site, extending to about 27 acres be purchased at a price of £13,000.

Bailie Hastie moved approval of the recommendation, the real intent of the purchase being to gain the foreshore rights, which would prevent removal of sand from that stretch of the beach. If they did not secure the foreshore rights someone else would be able to remove the whole of the sand which was worth about £700 a year to the proprietor of the foreshore.

The Town Clerk explained that the position was as he had ascertained at a meeting with the proprietors on the previous day, that if the Town Council agreed to offer £13,000 it would be accepted. An offer of £7000 for the foreshore rights alone would also be accepted. If this was not offered, they would accept the offer of a private person for the whole.

The Lord Provost’s Committee had asked the expert who formerly advised the Corporation with regard to the foreshore, Dr. Owens, to submit another report in view of the removal of the sand and the effect of the report was that sand had been taken away to such an extent that at present, in his opinion, the amenity of the foreshore had been affected. Dr. Owens was of the view that if the Corporation took steps now they would be able to get the necessary bylaws which would prevent any further removal of sand.

Bailie Hastie said he could forsee a great deal of litigation over the bylaws. By 22 votes to 16 the Town Council decided to take no action.

The matter rumbled on, again coming before the Lord Provost’s Committee who empowered the Town Clerk to continue discussions with the agents of the Craigentinny Estate.

Finally, on 19 November, it was agreed that the Corporation would purchase the foreshore rights at Seafield.

The Marine Gardens

Who is online