of their own boundary. [And, by the same mode of reasoning, St. Leonards might have retorted that she did not see why Hastings should come out of her own boundary, the western portion of which at the time referred to by Ald. Ross was at the Priory Bridge (now the Memorial). The truth was that Ald. Ross and those who sided with him, being foiled at every point in their unfortunate scheme, allowed their zeal to overrun their discretion, and to give utterance to many inaccuracies. They also mixed up in indiscriminate confusion the town of Hastings with the borough of Hastings and the town of St. Leonards within the archway (by Act of Parliament), with the St. Leonards east and north of the same (by right of unpreventable prescription). Hence, they were curiously contending with Mr. Burton’s St. Leonards, not only for the abolition of its post office, but also for changing the name of the people’s St. Leonards. They were, of course, sturdily met by the former for the retention of postal facilities, and by the latter (which they ignored) in defence of their long-cherished name. Ald. Ross’s accusation of “back-door influence” was as erroneous as it was uncharitable, and equally so was the statement that “St Leonards only allowed one tradesman of a sort”. At the time referred to there were at least three bakers (Beck, Vine and Hubbard), two butchers (Parker’s predecessor and Waghorne), two drapers (Pearce and H. Beck), two grocers (Lempriere & Jolly and Viner), two confectioners (Vickery and Williams), three tailors (R. Gausden, Minister senr. and Minister jun.), two fishmongers (Stapleton and Price), two chemists (B.P. Smith and G.A. Murton), two upholsterers (Honiss and Mitchell), two greengrocers (Walter and Beaney), and so with other shopkeepers – hatters, to wit (Gausden and Phillips), and shoesellers (Knight and Philpott). So, largely, however, did the St. Leonards visitors, and especially mechanics and other workmen, many of whom resided at Hastings, spend their money in the Old Town, that, with few exceptions, the tradesmen of St. Leonards were unsuccessful, and bankruptcies were frequent. Seeing this, and knowing how the welfare of the town was thus injuriously affected, it may be admitted that, although Ald. Ross’s statement of only one trade of a sort being permitted was untrue, yet to their credit, rather than otherwise be it said, both the Burton family and the St. Leonards commissioners did what they could to prevent strangers from turning private houses into shops for the purpose of competing with the already struggling tradesmen.
Erroneous Statements Corrected
It is somewhat painful to have to make these correctional interpolations and annotations, yet it is the more immediate if not the better way of putting facts in the place of fiction which has too long remained unmolested. In this case, as in many others, to a writer who endeavours to be impartial has fallen the duty of emending that which, by tradition and other means has hitherto passed for correct history. -
