same usage as that at Hastings. The Commissioners next disputed Mr. Edlin's charge for the room at the Victoria Hotel in which the meetings were held. The number of meetings had been eighteen, and the charge for the same was £8 5s. This was at the rate of 7/6 per meeting, which the Commissioners thought excessive, and they therefore resolved "that Mr. Edlin be paid £5 10s., and that £1 be given to the head-waiter." As it required two consenting parties to this arrangement, and as one of them declined to abate one jot or tittle of the claim, it was found easier to pass the resolution than to carry it into effect. The Commissioners had no town-hall wherein to congregate, and to meet in an ordinary tavern would be infra dig. They therefore made a virtue of necessity, paid the full demand, and vowed in the future that their clerk should pay ready money for the room everytime it was hired. As the meetings sometimes did not exceed an hour's duration, a saving was probably sought to be effected by the ready-money payments. Another saving was contemplated by a change of scavengers. Edward Smith had collected ashes for £2 14s. per quarter, and William Smith would supply similar service for £7 10. a year; and so the latter contract was substituted for the former. Among the other transactions of the Commissioners that year was the giving of their consent to the Rev. J. C. W. Leslie to make a carriage-way across the foot-path to his residence at 8 Maze Hill; also to make alterations in the approaches to the church at his own expense. It should be here stated that Mr. Leslie had just succeeded Mr. Widdrington as Incumbent of St. Leonards church, and that such succession brought with it one of those alterations which seem to have been the inevitable fate of the church to undergo with every change of incumbency. The annual meeting of ratepayers of £20 and upwards of the parishes of St. Leonards and St. Mary Magdalen within the Commissioners' jurisdiction was held on the 17th of August, when it was resolved that as Robert Hollond, M.P., and Ephraim Bond had failed to subscribe to the oath or affirmation for 12 months after their election, the former be re-elected, and the latter give place to the Rev. John Charles William Leslie. A quarterly meeting of the Commissioners was then immediately held, and, among other transactions, it was ordered that no person be allowed to dry clothes, beat carpets or deposit rubbish on the beach eastward of the Market; and that all goats and donkeys found astray in the streets be impounded by the policeman.
As a matter of course, the two half-yearly rates of 1s. in the £ on houses and shops, and 6d. in the £ on agricultural buildings, were levied upon the inhabitants; and equally as a matter of course orders were given for rate-defaulter to be summonsed. It was so usual for certain of the ratepayers to require this reminder that the order became as it were stereotyped. Albeit, there would appear to have been a somewhat sympathetic feeling in that respect between the governors and the governed; for the Commissioners themselves, with an exchequer almost invariably low, were in the habit of treating rather cavalierly those persons who had demands upon them. Hence a proposition something like the following would not unfrequently appear on the minutes:- "Resolved that a draft of £100 be signed for Mr. So-and-so's interest, and that the remainder be paid when the balance in hand will admit of it." Having referred to the Rev. C. W. Leslie as having become the Incumbent of St. Leonards church, and as a Commissioner-elect for the town, I may add that he also took the chair at a vestry meeting which, for some cause not known to me, was exceptionally held in the vestry-room of the church, the previous and subsequent meetings (until 1845) having taken place at the "New England Bank." The overseers for that year were John Painter and Edward Farncomb; and the rates levied were a poor-rate at 6d., a borough-rate at 4d., and a county-rate at 3d. As a rule, these rates were paid with less reluctance than the Commissioners' rate, and the only amounts which the overseers that year were unable to collect were 23/2 on the borough-rate, and 30/6 on the poor-rate. Their contribution to the Union that year was £114 15s., a rather large amount, considering the then comparatively small population of the town. The Surveyors of Highways were Charles Deudney and Edward Farncomb, in whose accounts there was an item of £3 19s. 8d. paid to Richard Lamb for direction posts, which posts, I believe, are still existing near Shornden Villas and St. Leonards Green.
From a review of the year's work of the St. Leonards Commissioners, and then of the Overseers, and the Surveyors of Highways I turn to the proceedings of the Hastings and Flimwell Trust, as an institution of somewhat relative character, and as composed of influential gentlemen belonging both to Hastings and St. Leonards, as well as of others residing in the neighbourhood. Their first meeting in 1839 was held on the 15th of February, and if there was at times just a "leetle" absence of courtesy, it was perhaps more than compensated for by warmth of manner and plainness of sentiment. Of this, however, my readers shall be judges after they have perused the following summary of the proceedings. Among the persons present were Sir C. M. Lamb and the Hon. C. Lamb, of Beauport; Tilden Smith, of Vinehall; F. North, W. L. Shadwell, Wastel Brisco and George Scrivens, of Hastings; Hon. Percy Ashburnham, of Catsfield; E. B. Curteis, of Herstmonceux; R. and J. Watts, and C. and J. Laurence, of Battle; A. Burton, of St. Leonards; Archdeacon Birch, of Bexhill; the Dean of Battle, Rev. J. Pratt, of Sedlescomb; Rev. W. Pearce, of Fairlight; Rev. H. Vernon, of Westfield; H. Sharpe, of Oaklands; Rev. H. Rush, of Crowhurst; and Rev. R. Wetherell. The last-named gentleman having been proposed to preside, a storm of words arose in consequence; Mr. Sharpe and Mr. Curteis accusing him of partiality on a previous occasion, and of having said "yes" to a question, when his reverend brother, Mr. Rush, said "no," the former answer being inconsistent with truth. Mr. Wetherell denied this, and contended that he also said "no." "Decidedly not!" retorted Mr. Curteis, "you said no such thing!" Sir Charles Lamb here interposed, and said he cared not who was chairman, so that he acted fairly and with moderation; but he (Sir Charles) was obliged to say that he had invariably found Mr. Wetherall too much a partizan, and too unlikely to check any disorderly meeting, seeing that he himself had at previous meetings failed to uphold the dignity of the chair. Mr. Sharpe proposed Mr. Shadwell for chairman, but the latter gentleman declined. Well then, said Sir Charles, let us have any one sooner than Mr. Wetherll; but as during the confusion, no other trustee would undertake the office, Mr. Wetherell was elected, and immediately called on Sir C. Lamb to introduce the first topic. The hon. baronet then brought the financial condition of the Trust under consideration, pointing out that creditors had not been paid their interest for the last year, and that to many of the investors who looked to such interest as a means of procuring the necessaries of life, the non-payment of it was a great inconvenience. He could not conceive why the Hollington side-gate had been removed, which removal had caused a loss of £400 or £500 per annum. It might be said that the creditors had approved the removal by signing a memorial; but that document contained fallacies which needed only to be exposed to be censured. It struck him that one party had always had the ruling of the Trust through the majority of their votes, and that such rule had brought them into their present difficulties. He would suggest, therefore, that gentlemen of that majority should give their personal security for the sum required, when the money would be easily obtained wherewithal to pay their debts.
Then, to prevent future embarrasment (sic) he would suggest some additional check-bars - one across the two roads near the entrance to St. Leonards, and one at the Harrow, giving the right of clearing either the Hastings or Battle gates, but neither of the gates to clear the central gate. Thus, persons traveling from Battle to Hastings, or vice versa, would only have to pay two gates as theretofore, yet a profit would be derived from the whole of the immediate traffic, which would perhaps amount to £600 per year. Mr. Brisco disapproved of the suggestion, alleging that it would drive the traffic on to the Sedlescomb road. At this stage the chairman called on the Secretary to read a statement. This was to the effect that the mortgaged debt on the Trust amounted to £21,340, and that the liabilities were £4,380, which latter sum required to be borrowed. Mr. Sharpe contended that no more money ought to be borrowed until those who had removed the Hollington gate had recompensed the Trust for the loss sustained. The Chairman and the Clerk expressed their belief that the money would be forthcoming at the general meeting. Sir Chas. Lamb had no doubt that the two gentlemen had arranged matters to their own satisfaction, but he would reserve the right of bringing the subject forward at another time. Mr. Sharpe contended that no order had been given by the trustees for the removal of the Hollington gate, but he was sharply told by Mr. Brisco to go and look at the books. The chairman also ruled that the subject had been discussed before and had nothing to do with that meeting. Mr. Sharpe urged that the subject before the meeting was the pecuniary difficulties of the Trust, and that if £500 a year could be obtained by replacing a certain bar, it would be so much towards getting the Trust out of its difficulties. This was too much for the chairman, who shouted "Order, order!" Mr. Shadwell thought the subject before the meeting was the borrowing of money wherewith to pay their debts. "Again" (responded Mr. Sharpe) "do I complain of these interruptions. Some of you gentlemen caused an alteration to be made on our Trust without our sanction which has deeply injured the Trust, and I maintain that those gentlemen - be they who they may - are liable to be made responsible for that injury." But Mr. Sharpe at this stage had to "shut up," so overpowered was he by the eloquence of Mr. Brisco who said, "By replacing that gate, instead of gaining £500, you will lose £2,000; you know that, and that's all about it." Mr. Sharpe, while thanking Mr. Brisco for his courtesy, made one last effort to proceed, when he was again met by Mr. Brisco, with violent gesticulations, and reminded that "It has been discussed; it has, it has; you know it has." Mr. North then appealed to the meeting whether the course they were pursuing was not calculated to retard the settlement of the dispute then existing between the Hastings and Flimwell and the St. Leonards and Sedlescomb Trusts. He had that morning seen Lady Webster, who had expressed her readiness to abide by the decision of the referees if the whole subject were left to them.
"I beg pardon (exclaimed Mr. Brisco) she never told me so." "But she did me," rejoined Mr. North. Sir Chas. Lamb agreed with his friend, Mr. Sharpe as to the unjustifiable removal of the Hollington gate. The Clerk stated that the gates were then let for £2,730; that the expenses on the road during 1837 were £1,580; that the accounts for 1838 were not made up; and that in his opinion, if they incurred no heavy law expenses, their present means would meet the outlay. The Rev. H. Rush, in a lengthy speech, proposed that in placing a main gate between Battle and Hastings, it should clear the gates at those towns without those gates clearing the new one, which would restore the £500 lost by the removal of the Hollington side-bar; and by rendering the gate at the entrance of the Sedlescomb road unnecessary, would prevent a breach of faith with the Sedlescomb Trust, as well as with the Hastings party. He could not imagine a more ungracious action than that of placing a side-bar at the entrance of the Sedlescomb road; for, without the assistance rendered by the St. Leonards and Sedlescomb gentlemen, they would never have got their Act of Parliament. The Committee might not be aware of the situation in which they had placed themselves by the removal of the Hollington gate. According to the opinion of an eminent barrister, which he had obtained, and which he would read to them, they had rendered themselves individually liable to the creditors for their act. Those gates were given as so many securities when the mortgages were effected, and those securities had been lessened by £500. If, in the plenitude of their power the Committee had taken away all the gates, the entire security would have been destroyed. He would therefore adhere to his proposition with a view of restoring the £500 that had been lost. - Mr. Curteis said Mr. Rush was perfectly right; and then as to borrowing money, they might do so again and again, and the creditors still remain unpaid. He understood from a practical man that it would require £500 to remove the slips and otherwise repair the road between Battle and John's Cross; and the Committee were not justified in publishing wrong statements. This latter sentence was too much for some of the gentlemen, who at once repudiated the soft impeachment. Mr. Curteis, however, repeated the charge with greater emphasis, declaring that he would bet any one of them £50 that it was so. Mr. Brisco then started up with the rejoinder, "I know we are not liable, that's all about it; I'll bet a thousand pounds we are not liable, I will; I don't care a rush about it." Perhaps a rush - the Rev. Rush, his antagonist - was equally indifferent. "Really, gentlemen (interposed Mr. Shadwell), let us have no betting here, and let our proceedings approach to something like business." A letter was then read from the Earl of Eglintoun, as one of the mortgagees of the Trust, complaining of the diminution of the securities by the removal of the Hollington gate, and holding the committee responsible for the same. - Mr. Sharpe moved, and Mr. Rush seconded, that the Earl of Eglintoun's and others' letters should be entered on the minutes. It was contended that those who removed the Hollington Gate knew that the act was illegal, and it must be against them that the Trust should take proceedings. Even Mr. Stevens - as they had been assured by Counsel's opinion - could claim compensation for his loss by such removal. A resolution was passed in 1835 that no gate should be removed without proper notices being given. - After a further animated and irregular discussion it was resolved "That the clerk be ordered to make proper arrangements for borrowing £4,382, but that only £3,500 would be expended until the whole of the accounts had been investigated by a finance committee consisting of the Rev. Dr. Wetherell, Mr. Scrivens, and Mr. Tilden Smith. Upon this a protest was drawn up; signed by Sir. C. Lamb, Hon. C. Lamb, W. Margisson, H. J. Rush, Spirling, H. Sharpe, and J. Pratt, as follows:-
We the undersigned, trustees of the Hastings and Flimwell road, do hereby protest against the resolution passed by a majority at this meeting on the question of raising an additional sum on mortgage, as proposed by the Hon. Percy Ashburnham, and seconded by Wastel Brisco, Esq. And we also take this opportunity of recording our dissent from all measures of the same party, which have brought the affairs of the Trust into their present state of pecuniary difficulty, and more particularly by the undoubted illegal removal of the Hollington side gate, in order by that sacrifice to assist the improvident expenditure of another Trust; which dissent is proved by our votes at all the meetings we have attended, and will appear by the list of divisions which are, or ought to be, entered upon the minutes.
Sir Chas. Lamb, then, in support of a notice he had given, said he understood from the Report that no moneys were due to Stevens, but recommended that £50 be given to him as a gratuity if he paid up the balance due from him. He had not complied, and a prosecution had been commenced which must be ruinous to him. They had let him the road, with two side gates upon it for his protection as a contractor. They had removed one of those gates, and would they be acting as honest men if they insisted on his paying money which he never received, but would have received if they had done their duty? - Mr. North here stated that he was one of a committee who investigated Stevens's loss, and it was ascertained that it did not amount to £50, but, wishing to be liberal they offered him that amount. At this, Sir C. Lamb expressed himself satisfied. - Oil was now beginning to be thrown upon the troubled waters, and the meeting which was at one time so wanting in amenities, closed with the following resolution proposed by Mr. North -
"That this meeting is extremely glad to find that the Trustees of the Sedlescomb road will use their best endeavours to effect a reconciliation between the trusts, and to keep up good and cheap roads for the use of the public," &c.
This reference by Mr. North to the St. Leonards and Sedlescomb Trust brings me to the fact that on the second May in the same year the road under that trust was opened from the Tivoli (Silverhill) to Cripp's Corner, except the piece vexatiously withheld by Lady Webster, and that within two months from that date the road was opened for traffic throughout; A Bill having passed the House of Lords on the 14th of June for the removal of all obstructions interposed by Lady Webster. This new road to Sedlescomb was regarded with much satisfaction by the resident and visitorial population. It not only opened up to a comparatively easy access many villages, hamlets and farmsteads which before were approached by very circuitous and tedious routes, but it also reduced the distance to the celebrated ruins of Bodiam Castle from fourteen to ten miles; thus placing that historic spot within an easier as well as a shorter drive. I stated in a previous chapter that the Hastings and Flimwell road was opened in 1838. I also described some of the difficulties with which the competing road had to contend. Putting the two chapters together my younger readers may get an inkling as to the time and manner of constructing what are still the two principal roads out of the borough, whilst they rejoice that in consequence of Government purchase, those roads have become entirely disburdened of tolls.
I had purposed saying nothing more of railroads and turnpike roads until this narrative of events had extended over another year or even a longer period; but an esteemed correspondent of the Gazette having suggested that the proposed branch of the South-Eastern Railway to the Hastings Fishmarket "was perhaps a mere hearsay," and that the proposed branch from the London and Brighton Railway was inaccurate as to time, I feel it to be incumbent on me to produce proof of my statements. I may premise that the Fishmarket scheme was quite within my own knowledge, as I had opportunities at the time of conversing with one of the surveyors employed to take the levels; and as to the other scheme, I trow that the quoted resolutions of the St. Leonards Commissioners and the Hastings Town Council are sufficiently explicit. My readers may rest assured that I shall state nothing upon "mere hearsay," without qualifying it as such; but that I may in this case substantiate what has been described, I will here reproduce portions of two advertisements which appeared in the Cinque Ports Chronicle of Feb. 23rd, 1839. The correspondent alluded to has doubtless been thinking of the opening of the Brighton and Hastings Railway in 1845, -
