Uncovering Kilburn’s History – Part 2

Welcome back to this second instalment of Kilburn’s story. If you missed Part 1, please “click” on the link.

 

1. The location of several Kilburn pubs on a map from 1800. (From Google Maps World, on the internet)

 

Modern Kilburn is well known for its many public houses, but these only continue a long tradition. The position of Kilburn on a major route facilitated the establishment of several inns from the 15th century onwards. The “Red Lion” claims to have been established in 1444, and “The Cock” was probably around by the early 1500s. The “Black Lion” may date from 1666, but it is the story of “The Bell”, which existed by 1600, that we will look at here.

 

 

2. The Red Lion in 1789, and the frieze on the later building, with 1444 date. (Brent Archives image 2024)

 

A spring of water with medicinal properties (it was impregnated with iron) in Abbey Fields gave rise to Kilburn’s reputation as an 18^th century pleasure resort. It was in the grounds of The Bell. In 1714 the spring was enclosed in a brick reservoir. By 1733, The Bell’s proprietor promoted the water as a cure for stomach ailments, in imitation of the nearby Hampstead Wells.

 

3. The Bell Inn, 1750, an illustration from Walford’s 1878 book. (From the Kilburn & Willesden History blog)

 

Joseph Errington became the landlord of the pub, which came to be called “Kilburn Wells”, in the 1770s. He placed an advert in The Public Advertiser in July 1773 which lists its many attractions:

 

 

‘Kilburn Wells, near Paddington. The waters now are in the utmost perfection: the gardens enlarged and greatly improved; the house and offices re-painted and beautiful in the most elegant manner. The whole is now open for the reception of the public, the great room being particularly adapted to the use and amusement of the politest companies. 

 

Fit either for music, dancing or entertainments. This happy spot is equally celebrated for its rural situation, extensive prospects, and the acknowledged efficacy of its waters; it is most delightfully situated near the site of the once famous Abbey of Kilburn, on the Edgware Road, at an easy distance, being but a morning’s walk, from the metropolis, two miles from Oxford Street; the foot-way from the Mary-bone across the fields is still nearer. A plentiful larder is always provided, together with the best of wines and other liquors. Breakfasting and hot loaves.’

 

 

 

4. A late 18th century engraving of Kilbourn Wells. (Brent Archives online image 2026)

 

Despite seeking to welcome ‘the politest companies’, Kilburn Wells soon acquired a notorious reputation, as it attracted visitors from the nearby Belsize House, an immoral place of entertainment!  

 

In 1801 Dr John Bliss, a famous physician who specialised in treating gout, carried out a series of experiments and analysed the water from both Kilburn and Hampstead. He wrote about Kilburn – 

 

“The spring rises about 12 feet below the surface and is enclosed in a large brick reservoir, which bears the date of 1714 on the key stone of the arch over the door. The water collected in the well is usually of the depth of 5 or 6 feet but in a dry summer it is from 3-4, at which time its effect as a purgative is increased…. When taken fresh from the well a few inches under the surface it is tolerably clear, but not of a crystal transparency – at first it is insipid, but leaves and evident saline taste on the tongue. At rest, and even on alight agitation, no smell is produced but on stirring the water forcibly from the bottom of the reservoir, it becomes turbid from impurities which have been collected in it, and a considerable odour is emitted like that from the scouring of a foul gun barrel.” 

 

Bliss said that when between one and three pints were taken at very short intervals, the purgative operation was slow and gentle. He recommended it for indigestion and various other problems.  

 

Until 1819, when duelling was outlawed, Kilburn Wells was also a favourite spot for duels, being suitably secluded. A particularly infamous duel was fought here on 2 July 1792, between James Maitland, the 8th Earl of Lauderdale and General Benedict Arnold, ‘America’s first traitor.’ Arnold was an officer in the American Army, and when in command of the garrison at West Point, he secretly negotiated to be paid for surrendering his garrison to the British. He later defected and lived comfortably in Britain.

 

5. 8th Earl of Lauderdale, by Gainsborough, and a contemporary illustration of a duel. (From the internet)

 

During a speech in the House of Lords, Lauderdale had insulted Arnold, who challenged him to a duel at Kilburn Wells. Thankfully, unlike in the illustration above, neither participant was hurt. In fact, only days before, Lauderdale had ‘duelled’ on the same spot with the Duke of Richmond, but their argument was settled with a shake of hands!

 

The Bell was also the scene for dog fighting and pugilism - bare-knuckle fighting, the original form of boxing. Bare-knuckle fighting was very popular in the 18^th and 19^thcenturies and attracted big crowds. In 1783, one of its most celebrated figures, Daniel Mendoza, beat John Matthews here in a fight that lasted 2 hours. 

 

 

6. Two engravings, by Gillray (1790s) and Kinsbury (1789), of the boxer Daniel Mendoza. (From the internet)

 

Mendoza, from Whitechapel, was the first Jewish champion fighter, and was Heavyweight Champion of England from 1792 to 1795. He developed his own concept of fighting. His popularity, and acceptance by British royalty (his patron was the Prince of Wales, and he was the first Jew ever to speak to King George III) helped elevate the reputation of Jews in English society, which was deeply anti-Semitic at the time. 

 

Despite the fact that at the height of its popularity Kilburn Wells could rival the nearby Hampstead Wells, some of its owners went bankrupt. In 1837, the line of Robert Stephenson’s London & Birmingham Railway (later the London & North Western) went through Abbey Farm fields, cutting the Kilburn Wells gardens in two. The part next to the pub became a tea garden, and that on the other side of the railway, which contained the well, became a kitchen garden.

 

7. The Old Bell (left) and new railway line, c. 1840. (Image from Allan Russel, on Twitter)

 

The wells were in decline, but under its original name, The Bell remained popular as a tea garden and a tavern. The Old Bell pub was demolished and rebuilt in 1863. The well disappeared in the Victorian building boom.

 

8. "The Old Bell", in its Victorian building on Kilburn High Road, 2010. (From the internet – pubwiki)

 

The memory of Kilburn Wells lives on in the name of the Wells Spa House (1a West End Lane), and a stone plaque on No.42 Kilburn High Road at the junction with Belsize Road, which says that this was the site of Kilburn Wells. There is also a black stone square on the ground in front of the building.

 

9. The plaque marking the site of the Kilburn Wells, 2007. (Brent Archives online image 5867)

 

Eventually, Kilburn developed to be more than just a place of pubs and farms, and we will explore that side of its history next week. I look forward to sharing that with you.

Irina Porter, Willesden Local History Society.

 

A special thank you to local historian Dick Weindling, co-author of 'Kilburn and West Hampstead Past' and History of Kilburn and West Hampstead blog

Brent Council announces 'Days of Action' in areas worst affected by Covid19 to reinforce rules

Brent Council Press Release (unedited)

Some of the areas worst affected by the coronavirus pandemic in Brent will receive additional support, as part of the Keep Brent Safe initiative.

A team of council officers made up of staff from across a range of services, including enforcement officers, will be out and about to remind individuals of the social distancing rules, hand out free ‘Keep Brent Safe’ face coverings and ensure businesses and individuals are complying with restrictions.

The teams will be in Church End on Wednesday 7 October, Harlesden Town Centre on Thursday 8 October and Ealing Road on Friday 9 October.

Brent’s Cabinet Member for Public Health, Culture and Leisure Councillor Neil Nerva said:

I want to thank everyone in the borough for continuing to do their bit to keep Brent safe.  The vast majority of individuals and businesses have made big sacrifices to comply with the rules to protect themselves, and their loved ones. However, we know that some people still need more information and support – which will be provided by our teams across these days of action.

Where individuals and businesses continue to refuse to follow the rules, more serious enforcement could take place including escalating situations to the Police.

Businesses that are putting individuals at risk by not following the rules can be reported to the Citizens Advice Consumer Helpline on 0808 223 1133 or by emailing trading.standards@brent.gov.uk  

Large gatherings should be reported to Brent’s Community Safety team by calling 0208 937 1058 or emailing community.safety@brent.gov.uk

Residents are invited to share their own local initiatives, that are providing support to individuals during the pandemic, using #BrentTogether on social media.

Schools Adjudicator finds Islamia Primary's new admissions arrangements disadvantage siblings

The Schools Adjudicator, whose role is to ensure that school admission arrangement are fair and conform to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, has issue a determination in the case of objections to revised admission arrangements at the state-funded Islamian Primary School in Brent. The governing body at the school determines its own admission arrangements.

 

The case raises important issues regarding class (in the guise of professional status) and race (relating to the Somali population).

The objection by two individuals relates to the criteria applied when the 60 pupil intake school is over-subscribed. 

 

The adjudicator summarises the criteria as:

 

a.     Looked after Muslim children and previously looked after Muslim children.

b.     Children of staff.

c.     Muslim children of at least one parent who has reverted to Islam (not born in the Islamic faith). Up to a maximum of 25 per cent of the PAN (Planned Admission Number).

d.     Muslim children of parents who are former pupils of the school (alumni) since it became a Voluntary Aided school (1998). Up to a maximum of 15 per cent of the PAN.

e.     Muslim children who have a sibling at the school.

f.      Other Muslim children.

g.     Other looked after children or previously looked after children.

h.     Other children.

 

 The objectors argument is summarised:

 

1.              Taken together, the objectors argue that newly-introduced oversubscription criteria giving priority to Muslim children of at least one parent who has reverted to Islam and Muslim children of parents who are former pupils of the school (alumni) are in breach of paragraphs 1.9 e) and f) of the School Admissions Code (the Code), which prohibit the giving of priority to children, respectively, on the basis of any practical or financial support parents may give to the school and according to the educational status of parents applying.

2.              Both objectors point out that, as a result of the introduction of the new criteria, the priority for children with siblings at the school has become the fifth rather than the third oversubscription criterion. The objectors refer to the “disadvantage” and “hardship” this will create and describe the change as “unfair.” Paragraph 14 of the Code requires admission authorities to ensure that the practices and the criteria used to decide the allocation of school places are fair.

 

The objectors felt that the priority given to alumni was made on the basis of their  ability to give support to the school including financially through voluntary contributions. One objector said:

“During the [consultation]meeting the panel explained to the parents in attendance that they wished to encourage alumni to come back to the school as they tended to be professionally successful, therefore they could ‘share their skills to drive standards up, hold the school to account and give something back thanks to their professional status.’

 

The Adjudicator comments:

 

My task at this stage, though, is not to come to a conclusion about what the true reasons for the new criteria are, but to determine whether those criteria are in breach of the Code. In order to qualify under either of the criteria, parents are not required to make any financial contribution to the school or to give it practical support, or indeed to pledge to do. The governing board may hope that parents may do so, but it is not necessary to gain priority for a place. I therefore do not consider that they are in breach of paragraph 1.9 e). 

Similarly, with reference to paragraph 1.9 f), there is not a requirement that parents demonstrate that they are employed in a particular occupation. In order to be considered alumni of the school, parents must, of course, have attended it. I do not regard this as conferring an “educational status”, which I take to relate to educational achievement, including qualifications obtained at school and in further and higher education. I do not uphold the objection on the grounds that the criteria giving priority to the children of alumni and reverts breach paragraph 1.9 of the Code.

 

The Adjudicator adds on this and  the issue of 'reverts'  LINK (people who become Muslim as did the original founder of the school Cat Stevens/Yusif Islam):

Whilst it is clear that there is strong disagreement about the appropriateness of the reasons the admission authority has given for giving priority to children of alumni, those reasons could not be described as arbitrary or irrational. With respect to the priority of children of reverts, it is common practice for schools with a religious character to differentiate between adherents of the faith of the school in their admission arrangements, for example, on the basis of for how long or how often they attend a place of worship. It is not unreasonable to take account of when someone became a member of the faith (provided this can be established objectively) and to give their children priority for places at the school as they may need more support than children born into the faith. I therefore consider that these criteria meet the test of reasonableness.

There was a further argument made in correspondence that the Adjudicator termed 'very important':

 

In her initial objection, this objector argued that the proposed changes “will directly impact families from poorer socio-economic backgrounds.” She develops the argument in subsequent correspondence, explaining that there has been a change in the demographic profile of the school, due to a large number of Somali families being housed in what was previously the catchment area. She says, 

 

“This has translated into a net increase of Somali children and their siblings securing spaces at Islamia due to closeness to the school, being within the catchment area and having sibling priority.  l believe these changes are aimed at reducing that through decreased sibling priority.

Moreover, since there are close to no Somali alumni from 20 years ago and traditionally no reverts from Somali heritage these changes will effectively exclude a large portion of parents  and directly affect their ability to secure spaces for a second, third or fourth child. I believe these changes are discriminatory and aimed at curbing the access of poorer families from specific ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds usually in need of more spaces.”

 

 The Adjudicator found that the revised arrangements discriminate against siblings and adds a warning (my stress) regarding the above point:

 

I have found that the arrangements unfairly disadvantage siblings. Although the objector’s arguments appear to me to have some merit, it would be difficult to establish whether the effect of the proposed changes would be specifically to disadvantage the Somali racial group. Indeed, any finding in this matter would not add materially to my conclusion relating to unfairness. I therefore make no further comment, other than to stress the importance of the admission authority’s monitoring of the effect of the arrangements in future years to ensure that they do not run the risk of a successful challenge that they may cause indirect discrimination on the grounds of race. Indirect discrimination occurs when a practice or criterion, which applies to everyone in the same way, has the effect of disadvantaging a group of people who share a protected characteristic listed in the Equality Act 2010. It is a defence against indirect discrimination if the criterion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

 

Summary of Findings

 

1.              The consultation conducted by the admission authority prior to the introduction of new criteria prioritising the children of alumni and reverts met requirements. The criteria do not contravene paragraphs 1.9 e) and f) of the Code as they do not give priority to children on the basis of practical or financial support parents may give or on parents’ occupational or educational status. I do not uphold these aspects of the objection.

 

2.              Children of alumni and reverts (up to 40 per cent of the total to be admitted) have a higher priority to siblings, some of whom might not obtain a place. The disadvantage to siblings and their families is not outweighed by the benefits the new criteria bring. The arrangements do not meet the requirements of fairness in paragraph 14 of the Code. In this respect, I uphold the objection.

 

Determination

 

3.              In accordance with section 88H(4) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, I partially uphold the objection to the admission arrangements for September 2021 determined by the governing board for Islamia Primary School, Brent.  

 

4.              I have also considered the arrangements in accordance with section 88I(5) and find there are other matters which do not conform with the requirements relating to admission arrangements in the ways set out in this determination. 

 

The Chair of Governors at the school has been contacted for a  comment but has not yet responded. 

 

The full report can be found HERE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Free 'Cycle Buddies' scheme launched in Brent - sign up to pair with an experienced cyclist to gain confidence and knowledge of safe local routes

 

A very welcome and enterprising scheme is introducd by Brent Cycling Campaign:

Brent Cycling Campaign has launched a scheme  to pair experienced riders with people new or returning to cycling to help them navigate their new work commute, get around locally or enjoy a leisure pootle.

After lockdown there was a 200 percent increase in cycling.  Local bike shops are busy with people buying new bikes or repairing bikes which have not been used for a while. New cycle lanes and healthier, low traffic neighbourhoods are making it easier to get around by bike. 

Government and local authorities are actively encouraging people to cycle short journeys to keep public transport running at social distancing capacity and prevent more pollution and congestion building up on the roads. 

Brent  Cycling Campaign wants to help people keen to get on their wheels, to do so safely. They will pair up new with experienced riders so they can meet up and ride together - to work, to local shops or just to the park for a bit of practice.  Experienced riders will help plan routes on quiet streets, make use of existing cycling provision, give the new riders support and share their experiences of riding on city streets. 

Cycle Buddies has helped many new and returning riders across London already. 

If you are a new or returning to cycling - or if you are an experienced cyclist who would like to help others - sign up - it's free! to Brent Cycle Buddies at  https://www.brentcyclists.org.uk/2020/09/30/brent-cycle-buddies-scheme/

Carmen Solino, from Wandsworth, where the Cycle Buddies scheme was first launched, said: 

I hadn't been on a bike for 17 years. After a couple of rides with my bike buddy I found the confidence to take a ride all the way to work, near Westminster and found out about the Quietways, a safer, less stressful way to cycle in London!

Dr Bruce Lynn, who helped set up Cycle Buddies in Southwark commented:

I am delighted to be involved to pair up new cyclists and experienced riders to explore and enjoy London in a different way. They will see how quick and pleasant it is to ride around the city. 

Sylvia Gauthereau, coordinator of Brent Cycling Campaign:

We already have a good number of people interested to help out, including a mum who is keen to inspire other parents to cycle the school run. So please do not hesitate to get in touch so we can start finding you a cycle buddy.

 

 

Court finds in favour of Brent Council in Bridge Park Case

  

The community meeting that launched the campaign to prevent Brent Council from selling off Bridge Park

The High Court verdict in the Brent Council versus Bridge Park case was delivered virtually today. Michael Green QC found in favour of Brent Council's claim on the land and granted an injuction against any further claims.  The redevelopment can now go ahead.

Although admiring the initial concept of a community centre addressing the needs of the community at the time of the riots and paying tribute to Leonard Johnson's  charismatic leadership qualities he decided the case strictly on its legal merits, but at the end of his long judgment (posted in previous article) called for co-operation between the parties in the case. He said:

I do not want to end this judgment on that note. While I have been somewhat critical of the Defendants’ strategy of opposition to Brent’s proposals in relation to Bridge Park, I am saddened that it has been necessary for this dispute to be determined by me in a long judgment that deals with the legal position in relation to the ownership of Bridge Park. The fact that I am delivering this judgment means that the mediation and settlement talks have failed to reach an outcome satisfactory to both parties. As I said at the beginning of this judgment, a trial of the issues before me is not the way to resolve the real issues between the parties. This dispute has come to a head in the context of understandably heightened tensions within the black community and the important focus on the Black Lives Matter movement. While the parties may be able to take such matters into account in seeking to resolve their differences out of court, I cannot do so. I had to decide the case on the facts surrounding the acquisition nearly 40 years ago and the law. 

 

I totally understand that Bridge Park was Mr Johnson’s conception and that the critical aspect of it, if it was to work and the riots were to be avoided, was that it would be run and managed by the local community for the local community without any direct involvement of Brent. Brent understood this, as did central government and the GLC, and they all shared Mr Johnson’s and HPCC’s philosophy. Everyone wanted it to succeed in that way as the stakes were so high. And, for a time, it did succeed. But the failure to set up a community co-operative or to agree the terms of a lease to the Steering Group Company, then the break-down of relations between HPCC and Brent leading to Brent’s repossession of Bridge Park and, for the last 25 years, HPCC being completely uninvolved in its management, all undermine HPCC’s claims to a beneficial interest. Those facts also confirm that the absence of any reference in any of the documentation to Brent holding the Property on trust whether for charitable purposes or HPCC or anyone was deliberate, reflecting the understanding of the parties that Brent did not hold the Property on trust. Instead the Property was held beneficially by Brent for its statutory purposes which are essentially to act in the best interests of the community, as I believe Brent is striving to do with its proposals for Bridge Park. Mr Gutch, the Defendants’ witness, admitted that “at the end of the day, the asset was Brent’s” even if it was acquired so as to be run by the community and even if the community aspired at some stage to own it. 

 

It is obvious that something needs to be done to Bridge Park. Brent cannot just allow it to languish and be of diminishing use to the community. Brent has to respond to the current needs of the community but says it can only provide a newly enhanced leisure and community facility if it sells off part of the Property. It is not right, in my view, for Mr Johnson and HPCC to claim a veto on anything that Brent may wish to do with the Property based on an inaccurate recollection of what was said at the time of the acquisition. All of Brent’s witnesses paid glowing tributes to Mr Johnson and the tremendous achievements of HPCC. I do too. But now that the legal issues have been resolved in my judgment, I would again urge the parties to move on and seek to achieve, by mutual co-operation and agreement, the best outcome for Bridge Park and the local community.

Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, made a statement following publication of the Judgment:

It’s great that the court has made the legal position over the ownership of Bridge Park absolutely clear.We’ve always said that whatever the outcome of the court case, our door remains open to everyone in the community to discuss the future of Bridge Park and that absolutely remains the case.

What this result means is that we can now get back to work in delivering on the promise of unleashing the potential that’s been trapped for far too long in this treasured but crumbling site. This is the chance we’ve all been waiting for to come together as a community and finally revitalise this invaluable facility.

If you want to work with us on the future facility please do get in touch.

 The Bridge Park Campaign has been contacted for a comment.

Brent Council v Bridge Park Judgment published