Misplaced milestones
A couple of weeks ago I wrote about a misplaced milestone outside the Organ Grinder pub, so today I thought I'd investigate another one - well, actually, not a misplaced milestone, but a misplaced boundary marker!!!
Whilst out and about last weekend, I was particularly interested in the heritage
information boards around Quorn, and the maps of the local footpaths that are
in danger of being closed, as they are unrecorded. One of these is close to the
house called One Ash, and another is over the Woodthorpe Bridge across the
canal, and leads diagonally across the fields to the path that heads down to
the Moor Lane Bridge. It was this latter one that particularly interested me,
not least because it’s a route we often walk, but also because of its position,
approached from the Leicester Road, along the path that’s adjacent to the
Bull-in-the-Hollow farm.
Looking at an old map, I was reminded that a parish boundary marker just beyond the turn into the path, on the left as you go out of Loughborough towards Leicester, appears on the map. The Ordnance Survey carried out a Boundary Survey between 1841 and 1888, which was a huge undertaking to record these across the country, and the result of the survey was such that local administrative boundaries for the whole of Great Britain were accurately mapped for the first ever time. Boundary posts, plates, stones or markers appear on maps with various abbreviations, like BP or BS: ours is BP.
In order to provide information on their maps, about these boundaries, the OS gathered information from local people who were familiar with the boundaries, and it was following this that reform of local government areas first began. The year 1888, was a landmark time in the history of the town, it being the year of the incorporation of the Borough of Loughborough, which brought with it, of course, the position of mayor.
Anyway, to boundaries!! To my mind, boundary changes are very tricky things!! Also, to my mind, maps are tricky things!!
There are two
boundaries marked on a map dated 1885-1913, and two boundary posts, or boundary
plates, on the A6 as you travel towards Leicester, one before the
Bull-in-the-Hollow, and one just after it. The first boundary line is labelled
as “Munl. Boro. By.” Meaning:
The second boundary line, that is, the Quorn side of the Bull-in-the-Hollow, is not labelled on that stretch, but is on the stretch between Quorn Lodge and the hamlet of Woodthorpe, where it says: “Union & U.D. By.”
It looks as though there are still two boundaries on a map dated 1892-1914, and two boundary posts, or boundary plates, as before, on the A6 as you travel towards Leicester, the one before the Bull-in-the-Hollow, and the one just after it. The name against the first of these boundaries (Municipal Borough Boundary) appears to have gone, but the second one that comes just beyond the Bull-in-the-Hollow is labelled along the adjacent path and clearly says: “Union and U.D. By.”.
As this later map is post-incorporation, it looks as though the new boundary set at incorporation had been extended beyond that marked by the first boundary post, up to the second boundary post, which was the start of Woodthorpe, and this would seem to chime with the known extent of the reach of the Loughborough Union (with its associations with the workhouse) and the Barrow-Upon-Soar Union, of which Quorn was a part, but Woodthorpe was not.
This also chimes with some of the discussions reported in the newspapers about which areas were, and which areas weren’t to be included in the new Borough of Loughborough, created in 1888.
In 1887, after much discussion, it was decided to apply for a charter of incorporation for the town of Loughborough, and in November that year, an inquiry was held at which many aspects, both for and against such an application were discussed. The ‘Nottingham Evening Post’ of 4th November 1887 carried the following report:
“THE
PROPOSED INCORPORATION OF LOUGHBOROUGH: OFFICIAL INQUIRY THIS DAY.
This morning the Hon. T.W. Pelham, barrister-at-law, the commissioner appointed by the Lords of her Majesty’s Privy Council, opened an inquiry at the Town Offices, Loughborough, to take evidence in reference to the application for a charter of incorporation for the town of Loughborough, according to the provisions of the Municipal Incorporations Act, 1882.”
During this inquiry there was much discussion concerning the proposed boundaries, and several people expressed their opinion about where these should be, and what parts of the area should be included:
“Mr H. Humphreys, on behalf of Mrs Perry Herrick, of Beaumanor, applied to the Commissioner that the hamlet of Woodthorpe and Outwoods should not be included in the corporation of the borough of Loughborough.
In reply to the Commissioner, Mr Humphreys stated that there were 14 inhabited houses in Woodthorpe. He believed the children went to school at Loughborough, but some might go to Quorndon. He stated that Woodthorpe had a separate existence, collecting its own rates and electing its Guardians [of the Poor law]. It was entirely outside Loughborough for sanitary reasons, and for Local Board reasons. It was connected with Loughborough by a mistake of the Commissioners in 1848, and he might say it was entirely outside of Loughborough for any water supply or light.
Mr Jarratt [Clerk to the Local Board] contended that the fortunes of Woodthorpe had been united to those of Loughborough for the last 37 years, and that the children went to the Loughborough schools. He believed the whole of the inhabitants came to Loughborough Church. If Woodthorpe were detached from the Local Board district Mr Humphreys would find that the rates would be as large if not larger than at present. He might say that the petitioners would not object to Woodthorpe being outside the borough boundary.
The Commissioner observed that 5,000 acres was a large area for a population like that of Loughborough. Last year, three places which petitioned for charters in Lancashire were all refused, because they had too much area, two having a population of 20,000 and one of nearly 30,000. What was good for a Local Board was not necessarily good for a borough.
Mr Jarrett said they were so convinced in the matter that they were not anxious to retain Woodthorpe if Mrs Perry Herrick wished it. They were quite willing that it be left outside. (Applause).
Mr Hodson proceeded to state that if Woodthorpe did not belong to a wealthy lady (Mrs Perry Herrick), it would now be a popular residential suburb of Loughborough. Land in that neighbourhood was increasing in value day after day simply because of the prosperity of Loughborough.
Mr Gordon said that he supported the application for the charter, but asked that the Outwood Farm be left outside the boundary.
Mr Godkin and Mr Humphreys were requested to forward plans to the Commissioner.
Mr C.H. Adams, Mr E. Jarratt, and Mr J. Corah spoke as to the correctness of signatures to the petition, and Mr Newman verified the amount of rateable value.
The
Commissioner in closing the inquiry, said he would not express his opinion
about the application, as it was a matter for the Lords of the Privy Council to
decide whether a charter should be granted. He would be able to report as to
the feeling of the town being unanimously in favour of a Corporation. He would
also report as to the boundaries, and let it be known as soon as possible. He
would be glad to know what extent of property belonged to those who objected to
the inclusion of their parts of the district in the new borough.”
Reports of progress towards incorporation appeared in various newspapers, including this report in the ‘Leicester Chronicle’ of 14th January 1888:
“THE
PROPOSED INCORPORATION OF LOUGHBOROUGH
We understand that the application of the inhabitants of Loughborough for a charter of incorporation has been favourably received by the Lords of the Privy Council. On Thursday, Mr Jarrett, clerk to the Loughborough Local Board, received a communication from the Hon. T.W.H. Pelham, the commissions who held the inquiry in November last, requesting him to submit plans and a description of the boundaries of the parish as suggested by the commissioner, together with a description of the boundaries of the proposed borough. In the communication it is hinted that in all probability Woodthorpe and some of the rural portions of the parish of Loughborough will be eliminated from the charter. It is therefore possible that only 3,000 out of the 5,000 acres of land will be included in the parish. The Hon. T.W.H. Pelham will shortly visit Loughborough to arrange definitely upon the boundaries.”
The ‘Melton Mowbray Mercury and Oakham and Uppingham News’ reported on another meeting in the Town Hall, in its issue of 16th February 1888:
“THE PROPOSED
INCORPORATION OF LOUGHBOROUGH: THE BOUNDARIES QUESTION
…the Hon, T.W.H. Pelham … held an inquiry at the Town Offices, Loughborough, with respect to the boundaries of the proposed borough. The Commissioner stated that he had reported to the Privy Council the result of his inquiries on the last occasion, and the Privy Council, without giving an actual decision as to the application, which could nor be done until a draft of the charter was submitted to the Queen, expressed an opinion that some of the more rural parts of the present district should be omitted – the hamlet of Woodthorpe and the more southerly part of the parish of Loughborough. The reasons which led him to recommend that course to the Privy Council were that that part of the present district was entirely rural in its character… ”
The article goes on to explain that rural areas were sometimes unable to raise enough money to maintain their roads, so such parishes were part of the Local Board, but that incorporation was a different matter. Land value was also different, but rates charged would be the same. Further mention was made that a local board was a temporary set-up and could be changed at any time by the Local Government Board, whereas a municipal borough could only be changed by parliament. Further comment about Woodthorpe continued thus:
“The hamlet
of Woodthorpe was a separate poor law parish, which could not be said to be
urban, and which had a centre of its own. It was not dependent to any great
extent on Loughborough, and the same might be said of the southern part of Loughborough
parish. These were not entirely dependent upon Loughborough for their labour,
and it was thought by the privy Council that that part should be omitted.
There follows some long and complex discussion about where the actual boundaries should fall, before the Commissioner “proceeded to examine the plan of the proposed boundaries with the object of fixing them…[saying] it had been a pleasure to him to pay another visit to Loughborough, and he was glad the latter had been so simple. He did not think there would be any great injustice done. It was the right thing to exclude the southern portion of the parish. This concluded the public enquiry.”
On 7th March 1888, the Nottingham Evening Post reported the following news:
“INCORPORATION
OF LOUGHBOROUGH
We learn that the Privy Council have set the boundaries of the proposed borough, which are practically the same as those suggested by the Commissioner at the inquiry on 10th ult [Feb 1888]. The part of the township of Loughborough lying to the south of a line drawn by the side of the occupation roads leading from the Parks Farm across the Park Road and Park Lane to Forest Lane, and then to and along the boundary of Burleigh Park to Ashby Road, also the detached portions of Knightthorpe, are excluded from the borough. The detached portions of Thorpe Acre are within the boundary. The division of the borough into wards has also been approved, and the Privy Council suggest that provision should be made for six councillors to each ward with six aldermen to form a Town Council of 24 members.”
Of course, consideration and a resulting decision upon the granting of a charter takes quite some time, so it wasn’t until 15th August 1888 that the ‘Nottingham Post’ was able to carry the following headline:
“THE INCORPORATION OF LOUGHBOROUGH: THE CHARTER GRANTED”
In its publication of 18th August 1888, the Leicester Chronicle included a copy of the confirmatory letter that had been received by Mr Jarratt:
“Council Office, 11th August 1888. Gentlemen, I am directed by the Lord President of the Council to inform you, with reference to the petition of the inhabitant householders of the borough of Loughborough for the grant of a municipal charter to that borough, that her Majesty has been pleased to comply with the prayer of the petitioners, and has approved of the draft of a charter. The draft of the charter will be issued to the Home Office in the course of a few days, and to that department any further communication on the subject should be addressed… C. L. Peel, Messrs. Sharpe and Co..”
The ‘Leicester Daily Post’ further commented, on 8th September 1888:
“The charter recently granted for the incorporation of Loughborough came into operation yesterday, and from henceforth the second town of importance in this county will be governed by a municipal corporation.”
The report goes on to say that although the district was created a borough, it “does not include the whole of the parish”.
Thus, if I’ve understood all this correctly, Woodthorpe found itself outside of the new municipal borough, and the boundary post sited before the Bull-in-the-Hollow, as one leaves Loughborough, heading to Leicester, is the one that should be there post-1888, and the one sited after the Bull-in-the-Hollow is therefore redundant. What happened to the marker on the new boundary I have no idea, but it seems the other one somehow made its way to the hamlet of Woodthorpe itself, and sits proudly next to the entrance of a farm on Main Street, Woodthorpe. Word on the street is that this was rescued from being disposed of sometime in the 1960s. A 1937-1961 map shows only the first boundary marker:
As does the map 1945-1965:
I'm pretty sure I've contradicted myself somewhere in this post, but to be honest I've a little more than confused myself in trying to clarify how and why the Woodthorpe boundary marker moved!! Ah well... At least the description of the incorporation of the borough is a bit more succinct in 'A-Z of Loughborough'!
Posted by lynneaboutloughborough 29 August 2021
You are welcome to quote passages from any of my posts, with appropriate credit. The correct citation for this looks as follow:
Lynne
