We can see the layout of the pre 1906 Promenade with the wide walkway
next to the river, the original garden layout and the simple low
fencing on the boundary with the road. In 1897 the Promenade had
been gravelled with limestone chippings purchased from the
local firm of Messrs Greatorex and Son in Matlock Dale[1].
This postcard almost certainly dates from 1904 or 1905. Things
were soon to change. In the week of 18-23 September 1905 Matlock
Bath's Urban District Council held several meetings to put into
operation the provisions of the new Matlock Bath Improvement Act,
1905, which had received the Royal Assent on August 4th. The Council
wished to deal with the Act in sections and the first part to be
adopted was part V. This concerned the Promenade grounds rented
by the Council. The clerk, Mr. F. C. Lymn, was directed to give
all owners on the left bank of the river, opposite the Parade, "notice
to treat" for the sale of the land to the Council. In other
words, the Council wanted to compulsorily purchase land they did
not already own under the powers they had been given by the new
Act and they needed to agree a price with the owners. The area
extended from the railway station to the Devonshire Hotel property.
The new law was expected to be in full working order by the following
Easter (1906), when the promenades were to be enclosed, with a
charge made for admission of not more than 2d per head. The income
from this was estimated at £800 a year and with money raised
entertainments, bands, etc., were to be maintained as visitor attractions.
However, the ratepayers and residents were to be admitted free
to the Promenades, as in the past[2].
In April 1906 the "Manchester Courier" stated
that the Council had just enclosed the four or five miles of free
walks which were opened in the Jubilee year as a memorial to Queen
Victoria. Initially the Council had also wanted to introduce dancing
in a marquee on the Lovers' Walks but the idea was abandoned[3].
Interestingly, Matlock UDC opposed the Bill whilst it was going
through Parliament and had spent £1,213 10s. 9d. in the process[4].
|
References:
[1] "Derbyshire Times and Chesterfield
Herald", 6 March 1897.
[2] "Derby Daily Telegraph",
23 September 1905.
[3] "Manchester Courier and Lancashire
General Advertiser", 12 April 1906.
[4] "Derby Daily Telegraph",
3 October 1905. Councillor Wildgoose claimed Matlock UDC had gained
a victory. The Council resolved to send their bills to the taxing
master of the House of Commons.
|