Page:Item 2 1835.pdf/123

Celebrating the Queen's Marriage - Col. Williams v Editor of Southern Advertiser

On the 4th of February a Mayor's meeting was held in the Town Hall to consider how best to celebrate Her Majesty's marriage; and it was there decided to commence a subscription for the purchase of food and fuel to be distributed to poor people. The Mayor (F. Smith, Esq.) headed the list, and in a few days the sum of £220 was got together, the said sum being distributed in the Town Hall on the 10th of the month in the form of coals and bread. All business was suspended on that day; and, in addition to two public dinners, provided at the Swan and the Oak, the event was further signalised by a well-attended ball at the Pelham Arcade. At. St. Leonards the celebration assumed a somewhat different form. The money which was there collected was expended in giving the school-children a treat, with the view to a more enduring remembrance of the day. Then, as an enjoyment for the "upper ten" a grand ball was held in the St. Leonards Assembly Rooms, the same being numerously attended. - On the 11th of December, another public meeting was held at the Town Hall, at which a congratulatory address was voted to the Queen and Prince Albert, on the birth of a Princess. At this latter period, there was a numerous company of fashionables at St. Leonards, there being among the aristocratic families, Lord and Lady Leigh, the Hon. Mr. Duncombe, the Earl and Countess Antrim, Col. and Lady Mary Fox, the Bishops of Durham and Chester, Sir Thos. Strange, Baron Alderson, Lady Ogilby, Sir Walter Riddle, Sir H. Bayley, Baron and Baroness de Sands, and Sir Andrew Pilkington.

The Archery meetings were resumed on the 24th of May, as a matter of course, the closing meeting taking place as late as the 19th of November, which meeting passed off with eclât. The grand meeting of the season was held, as usual, on the 17th of August, the proceedings being enlivened by the St. Leonards Band, under the conductorship of Mr. Elford. Miss Mackay won the 1st of the Royal Victoria and the Societies prizes, and Miss C. Mackay obtained the 2nd prize. Mr. A. Burton carried off the silver bugle, whilst Mr. C. G. Eversfield succeeded to the small gold bugle. Miss Price obtained the 1st visitor's prize for ladies, whilst to Capt. Meyrick and Mr. French were respectively awarded the 1st and 2nd prizes for gentlemen visitors. At the conclusion of the shooting, the Archers and their friends dined together at the Assembly Rooms, the catering being in the hands of Mr. and Mrs. Dovey. This was succeeded by a ball in the evening.

It was at about this time that Dr. Lardner was cast into heavy damages at the Lewes Assizes for the seduction of Mrs. Heaviside. Dr. Lardner had previously lectured at Hastings, and had stayed, with the lady in question, at the Victoria Hotel, St. Leonards. In summing up the case, Baron Gurney told the jury they must not estimate the damages by the pecuniary resources of the defendant, but by the fact that the plaintiff had lost an affectionate wife, and his children were deprived of the care of a mother. The jury awarded Mr. Heaviside the sum of £8,000.

Whether politics had anything to do, for or against, the act of Major Jeffries's determination to vote at the Board of Guardians as an ex-officio on account of his being a borough and county magistrate I cannot cay; but his claim to do so was questioned, and the Poor Law Commissioners were appealed to for a decision. In the reply was the following paragraph :-

The Poor Law Commissioners desire to state that under the 38th sect. of the Poor-Law-Amendment Act, none but county magistrates can act as ex officio Guardians. Every such Justice must reside in the parish situate in the county for which he acts.

It was clear then that as a borough magistrate Major Jeffries could not vote as an ex officio Guardian, and that as a county magistrate he was equally debarred in consequence of his not residing in the parish for which he acted. This disqualification was, however, one of the anomalies which not unfrequently cropped up as a consequence of the township of St. Leonards being situated in a portion of two parishes. Major Jeffries, who claimed to act for St. Leonards, resided strictly within the limits of the township, but in that portion of it which lay in the parish of St. Mary Magdalen; and thus, in so far as he was concerned, both the township and parish of St. Leonards could not be represented. The only magistrates at that time who could act in the capacity indicated were Messrs. Elphinstone, Brisco and Flood.

Apropos of the Board of Guardians, it had been resolved at one of their meetings in the preceding year to appeal to the well-to-do classes in each parish of the Union for donations and subscriptions for the purchase of bibles, testaments and prayer-books, and for the establishment of a library with the "design of promoting the moral and religious instruction of the inmates." Among some of the Guardians there was either objection or apathy, and it was thought that the prayer-book stood in their way, they, as Dissenters, not being able to encourage the collection of funds for its free distribution. Anyhow, the contributions of the parishes of St. Mary Magdalen, Holy Trinity, Guestling and Pett were nil, and the Educational Committee, in their report on the 9th of March, 1840, expressed regret that their labours had been less successful than they might have been, owing to the disinclination of some of the Guardians to assist them. They had, however, spent £39 in the purchase of 450 bibles, testaments and prayer-books, and 212 vols. from the Christian Knowledge Society, towards which amount the following donations had been received and annual subscriptions promised:-

St. Clement's	£15	18s.	-	£5	2s.	6d.
All Saints'	£2	11s.	-	£0	15s	0d
St. Leonards	£4	4s.
Ore	£1	12s.	-	£4	0s.	0d.
Fairlight	£2	0s.
St. Michael	£1	0s.

Having, in chapter xxiv, noticed the changes and improvements at the Hastings parade, the Condemned Hole, &c., I here ask the reader to accompany me westward to St. Leonards, but taking the Priory culvert and the "Desert" en route, so as to see what the site of the present Robertson street, Carlisle parade, etc. was like in 1840, and by what circuitous route St. Leonards would have had to be reached had it not been for the resistance offered by the Town Council to the scheme of Government officials. A lengthy correspondence was received from the Hon. Charles Gore, secretary to the Woods and Forests Commissioner, which included a report by Mr. Driver, recommending that the then ​road​ across the Government Ground at the Priory be entirely stopped, and that the ​road​ from Hastings to St. Leonards be in future from the Priory Bridge up the new Hollington ​road​ (now Cambridge ​road​) to near Mr. Jonathan Reed's house, and then descending at a sharp angle with Mr. Long's blacksmith's shop. This would be like traveling up an incline to where the steps now are leading to Sir Thos. Brassey's Institute, and then down an incline to Claremont, instead of going the more direct and level ​road​ through Robertston street. Mr. Driver had the assurance to state in his report that the Council of Hastings were likely to assist the Government in carrying out this scheme. To the credit of the latter, be it said, that the idea was scouted by the whole body, and a resolution was unanimously carried that the Council would be no party to the alteration of the ​road​ unless such alteration placed the new ​road​ southward instead of northward of the existing ​road​. This attempt to divert the means of communication between the two towns appeared to be inexplicable, inasmuch as only four months had elapsed since the Woods and Forests Commissioners gave orders - so it was said - for a ​road​ and foot-path to be formed across the Government Ground. The Council had memorialised the Government for this to be effected, and the memorial was responded to in the manner described. For five years the ground had been as a rough, sandy, shingly and limy desert, in the very heart of the borough, over which her Majesty's mail passed with as much safety only as could be ensured by manageable horses in the hands of vigilant and careful drivers. For the information of strangers and youthful readers who have not read my previous description, it may be briefly re-stated that in the years 1822 and '23, while in the condition of an open waste, the ground was taken possession of and built upon by anyone who had a mind to do so. There is little doubt that the ground in question was originally a part of "Ellsworth's Charity," of which I shall have something to say hereafter; but in the mean time, for the sake of a little diversion, I will here supplement the account given in an earlier chapter of the personal encounters of which I was an eye-witness, with an allusion to one or two other fierce contentions among the claimants of squatter-land. On the 10th of March, 1823, a party who had taken in a plot of ground and commenced to build upon it, was assailed by another party, who claimed to have been the first to mark out the site for himself, and charged his opponent as a usurper who had removed his neighbour's landmarks. A desperate scene ensued, in which, while bandying accusations and menaces, the contending parties actively engaged in pulling down and piling up, until at length the original assailants were beaten off, and a blue flag was hoisted in token of victory. On the 26th of June there was a resumption of hostilities, with an increase of force on both sides, the contention being, of course, the claiming of the same ground by two persons. The battle was long and desperate, and only terminated with wounds and bruises. On the same night some of Messrs. Mark and James Breeds's windows were broken in the High street, from which circumstance my readers will infer that those gentlemen were in some way concerned in the contention.

Not only was the Priory the battle-ground of the so-called squatters; it was also the scene of many a conflict between smugglers and coastguards, and upon it had been witnessed more than one encounter between professors of "the noble art of self-defence." Furthermore, the Priory was the rival of the Fishmarket as a site for the proposed harbour, a project which was described in my treatment of the events of 1838. It is to a contention, in 1840 and 1841, evolved from the last-named scheme, that I now direct the reader's attention. Beginning with a war or words, it was followed by a challenge to a personal encounter and ended in a legal appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench. On the 21st of February, Dr. Mc Cabe, on behalf of a committee appointed at a public meeting, presented Lieut.-Col. Williams with a silver inkstand, together with an illuminated address of thanks on vellum, for the part he had taken towards the proposed formation of a harbour. Anent this presentation, the Dover Chronicle of March 28th had a letter of which the following is a copy :-

Sir, - Noticing in the columns of your valuable journal lately, that the farce of presenting a silver inkstand (subscribed for by about a dozen people out of 10,000) to Lieut.-Col. Williams, had been performed, I trust this will be the last heard of the Colonel in the Borough of Hastings, where his anxieties to get a job have led him from time to time to sow the seeds of dissension amongst those who are connected with its best interests; at the same time proving his utter unacquaintance with engineering science as connected with harbours and groynes. With your permission, I would advise him, in his retirement at Catsfield, to follow the harmless pursuits of 'Uncle Toby,' so happily described by Sterne. If he is at a loss for a 'Corporal Trim,' one may be found in Hastings.

This was a sufficiently vexatious letter, from whatsoever quarter it might have emanated, but appearing as it did in a Radical paper whose politics were those which Col. Williams himself espoused the mental wound which it inflicted may be better imagined than described. Yet was the character of this gentleman more gravely assailed by the Editor of the Southern Advertiser, a Tory paper with which Mr. Troup was connected, but which had dropped its previously leading title of the Cinque Ports' Chronicle at the time when Col. Williams instituted legal proceedings against it. The suit in the Court of Queen's Bench between Lieut.-Col. Williams and the Editor of the Southern Advertiser did not come on for hearing until the year 1841, but as it arose out of proceedings in 1840, already related, it may be better to describe it here to preserve the connection of cause and effect. It was recorded in legal phraseology as "The Queen versus A. Collingridge," in which Mr. Jervis had been instructed on behalf of Lieut.-Col. Williams to apply to the Court for a rule to show cause why a criminal information should not be filed against the Editor of the Southern Advertiser. The grounds of the application were that Collingwood had sent a challenge to Col. Williams, and had charged him with cowardice in not fighting him. The affidavit of the complainant set out that he had been for 30 years in the Royal Engineers, and that having retired from that corps in 1837 on half-pay, he took up his residence in Hastings. Some time since, it being in contemplation by the people of Hastings and St. Leonards to construct a steamboat pier, it was thought that because of Col. Williams's former habits and occupation, he would be an eligible person to consult on that matter. He was ultimately requested to prepare plans, which he did, and the inhabitants passed a vote of thanks to him, and presented him with a piece of plate for his services. In consequence, however, of the parties interested in the scheme being unable to raise the necessary funds, the Pier was for a time abandoned. Col. Williams, as he had a right to do, entertained Liberal opinions, and was present at the dinner given to his (Mr. Jervis's) friend, Mr. Hollond, one of the Members for Hastings, which was a signal for an attack on Colonel Williams by the defendant Collingridge. The first shot fired was in the form of a letter headed "The Radical Lieutenant Colonel," and purporting to be signed by Col. Williams himself. The letter in question was published in Mr. Collingridge's paper. It stated that the Colonel did not possess a shilling interest in the town, and expressed his regret that when rather fresh at the Radical dinner, he should have attacked a gentleman of respectability who had expended thousands of pounds for the benefit of Hastings because the latter had found fault with his (Col. Williams') improvement. The proposed Pier was described as "a pretty little shingle-trap," and the letter which bore the signature of Col. Williams was supplemented by an editorial note, recommending every soldier who set up the trap of a Radical to sell his commission, because a Radical soldier was a disgrace to the Army. Col. Williams was naturally indignant at the publication of this pretended letter, and addressed a communication to a Brighton paper, stating that no editor having the smallest pretension to character would have inserted what was so evidently a falsehood without making a due enquiry; and regretted that a love of truth and honesty had been so completely lost in a political partizan. Shortly afterwards, another article appeared in the same paper, commenting on the letter previously published and stating that there was nothing in it but was gentlemanly and honourable. It charged Col. Williams with having told an impudent falsehood of a respectable inhabitant, and with having refused to pay a debt of honour for some newspapers sent to him. It also alleged that he was a traveling tinker, going from town to town to sow the seeds of dissension between masters and workmen, and assuring him that they should watch his proceedings and expose them to the world. On the 12th of September a letter was addressed to the Colonel, dated "The Bull Inn, Aldgate," and signed by Mr. Collingridge, in which it was stated that the writer had just seen in the Sussex Express a letter bearing the signature of Colonel Williams, containing observations of a strongly personal nature with regard to the communication which appeared in the Southern Advertiser; that he exercised no control over such communications, and that he scarcely ever saw them until they were in type; that there being no good ground for Col. Willliams's sweeping observations, he requested him to correct them or favour him with a reference to a friend for an immediate meeting. That letter was forwarded by Col. Williams to his solicitors in London, and on the 17th of September they wrote to Mr. Collingridge at the address given in his letter, 299 Strand, stating that it was their intention to apply at the earliest moment for a criminal information.

No notice was taken of that letter, and on the 16th of September another letter was sent by Mr. Collingridge to Col. Williams, stating that after his (Mr. C's) distinct avowal of any participation in the communication complained of, he (Col. W.) was bound as a gentleman to withdraw the observations he had made, or uphold them in another place. That letter Col. Williams also sent to his solicitors. On the 18th of Sept. a third letter was sent, charging him with having published a palpable falsehood, and that as he had not the courtesy to retract nor the courage to support the charges he had made, he (Mr. C.) must denounce his statements as lies, and his actions as cowardly to the last degree. Another letter having been written to Mr. Collingridge by Col. Williams's solicitors, a paragraph appeared in the Southern Advertiser to the effect that the Radical gentleman, Col. W. had applied to the Queen's Bench for protection, and that their readers would be shortly amused by the publication of the correspondence.

The learned Counsel having commented on the several attempts made to provoke Col. Williams to a breach of the peace, observed that they had shown the letters of Mr. Collingridge to two persons in London and one in Hastings who all admitted them to be in his own hand-writing, but refused to make affidavits to that effect unless compelled by the court. There were three gentlemen present who would swear that from what they heard the other three persons say they were of opinion that the letters were in Mr. Collingridge's hand-writing.

Mr. Justice Coleridge doubted very much if the Grand Jury could find a bill on such evidence, and the Rule was therefore refused.

Ellsworth's Charity - Infirmary Built and Opened

Apart from the decision of the court as affecting the parties immediately concerned, it was not with-