since done. The chairman thought all matters had been settled. Yes, said Mr. Ticehurst, the Chancery suit has, but it now came to the truth between him and Mr. Ellman. He still said that Mr. Tester had not been paid a farthing[1] on his account of £900. He was willing to go into the whole case, and prove his accuracy. The following communications, in corroboration of Mr. Ticehurst's statement were then read by the chairman
We, the undersigned, hereby certify that we were present at the George Inn, Battle, on or about the month of March, 1839. At that meeting Mr Fredk, Ellman produced a paper with the signatures of several gentlemen giving a priority to any one who would advance the sum required on the Hollington road.
Mr Ellman stated a person was ready to advance all that was required, and went into statements shewing the road was in debt £3000, Tester the contractor’s portion of it being about £900, or nearly one third. He did not produce any written list of debts, but state the money required was to clear the road from all debt, and the future income, after paying repairs, would go for interest to the shareholders. Many questions were asked, and Mr Ellman repeatedly made use of the hardship of Tester’s case to induce those to sign who were reluctant to do so. We distinctly recollect that Mr E. Weller was unwilling to sign, that he asked for many explanations, the last of which was 'if I sign this, then will Tester get his money' Mr Ellman replied he would, Mr Weller then taking the pen said, 'I dont like it, but as it is for that poor fellow to get his money, I will' We further certify that we are of the opinion the parties who at that meeting did sign were principally induced to do so that Tester the contractor might be paid his £900. We further certify that we have never heard until since your last meeting that Mr Ellman ever denied any part of this statement.'
Date 21st March, 1842, and signed by T. Ticehurst, Wm. Noakes, Charles Emary, Wm. Weller, James Landsell, Wm. Ticehurst, J. Shaw, and E. Weller. "We, the creditors, having mortgaged our shares on the Hollington road hereby certify that we were induced to do so from the representation of Mr. F. Elman that a person was ready to advance the money required to pay all the outstanding debts, £3000, being due to the contractors and others; and had we not distinctly understood the contractors would be paid out of the money so raised, we would not have given such priority to the person who lent the money" — Dated March 12th, 1842, and signed James Burgess, G. Slatter, Wm. Neve, and John Kenward.
This, said Mr. Ticehurst, was all true, and the fact was that Ellman had borrowed the £3,000 and misapplied it. Sir Godfrey Webster, turning to Mr. Ellman, said - "I am afraid that when you applied for a priority of claim you told my mother that you wished to settle with Tester and to pay the money that was owing on the road, and thus obtained her signature with that of others. I now understand that the money has been otherwise applied, and I shall not sign your paper for the abandonment of the Chancery court. Sir Charles Lamb was of opinion that Mr. Ticehurst had proved his assertions, and he moved that such be recorded on the minutes. It came out that it was in consequence of the creditors not having been paid, they had seized the gates. It had been proposed to erect a gate south of the Tivoli to clear the Hollington Gate, to which Mr. Brisco observed that such a proceeding would be breaking faith with the public and particularly with the people of Hastings. They were bound in honour not to put up such a gate. Mr. Lawrence would only give his consent to the new gate remaining till the catch gate on the St. Leonards and Sedlescomb Road was removed. Now for the commentary on these proceedings by the Brighton Guardian, which under its sub-title of the Hastings and St. Leonards Journal, was as follows:-
The proceedings of the trustees of the Hollington road at their last meeting (a report of which appears in another part of this day’s publication), are as extraordinary as they are censurable and to every honourable and unprejudiced mind they must carry the conviction that it is high time not only that the clerk but that the whole of his supporters resigned the trust they have held, but neglected to fulfil. We are quite satisfied to leave Mr. Ellman to the verdict which public opinion will pronounce upon the facts which were disclosed and confirmed at the meeting.
The calm but cutting observations of Sir Godfrey Webster, and his refusal to confirm the consent of his mother, on the conviction that her consent for himself to the Priority had been obtained under false representations, cast a lot upon the clerk’s proceedings which can never be effaced. Added to this, there is the overwhelming testimony of the principal tradesmen of the town of Battle supporting the assertion of Mr. Ticehurst, that they had been deceived by Mr Ellman; and yet in the face of these facts, no one trustee had the moral courage to second the straightforward motion of Sir Charles Lamb, which would have placed, as ought to have been done, on the minutes of the trustees the justification of the whole of the proceedings taken by Mr Ticehurst. Among the Trustees, falsehood has triumphed over truth and justice; but they may rest assured that the verdict of the community will be given in favour of Mr T.'s statement.
It is indeed astounding to see such men as the Rev. Mr. Vernon, the Rev. Mr. Haley, and Mr. Laurence lending themselves to such proceedings, There can be but one conclusion that other reasons for it exists than are within the knowledge of the public. The waste of money has been great; and that the whole might be finished with as great a proof of wanton extravagance as possible, Mr Ellman drives parties to run the trust to a hundred pounds expense, and then is glad to beg on his knees almost the terms offered to him a year ago. And all this is allowed to pass without one word ‘of reproof! and what is still worse, the refusal of the trustees to place on their minutes a statement of their belief in Mr Ticehurst’s assertions gives a virtual contradiction to them, and sets at nought the testimony of their superiors in business and manly bearing. We understand that Mr. Ellman says now, that he has not resigned, that he never intended to resign, and that he shall not resign his shadow of the clerkship to the trustees of the Flimwell road.
We could readily believe almost any inconsistent act this inexperienced young gentleman may be guilty of, feeling satisfied that he is reading up very fast to qualify himself as a candidate for Ticehurst; but this last freak and denial of what he had so solemnly stated out-herods Herod. Will Mr. Vernon, Mr. Haley, or even Mr. Wetherall who lamented over that resignation, support Mr. Ellman in his present disclaimer of resignation? We will not believe that they will, If there is not a resolution to record his resignation on the minutes of that meeting, it is an omission, perhaps designed, on the part of Mr. Ellman, for its reception was moved by the Rev. Mr. Haley and put from the chair and carried, that it should be entered on the minutes, With these observations, we leave the subject for the present; but not without again expressing our regret that this unwarranted contention is to be continued and to find it promoted and upheld by the countenance of the clergy who alone set themselves up to support that which all around them condemn."
Letters of censure on these proceedings were sent to the county papers, both from Hastings and Battle, and further comments in the same direction appeared in the Brighton Guardian of June 29th, but enough has been reproduced for the present.
At a vestry meeting in the month of April, the Castle parish resolved that £60 be paid to attract poor people to emigrate, and to expend as much as might be expedient, to help off to Canada. William Went, his wife and 7 children. Also on the 5th of May, the overseers and others of the said parish perambulated the boundaries, and finished with a dinner provided by Mr. Yates at the Oak Hotel.
Within a few days of the fatal boat accident described in Chapter XXVII, an accident occurred on the road from Rye to Hastings by the overturning of a cart, in which Sergt. Jessop was conveying a prisoner charged with felony. The sergeant being considerably hurt, the prisoner, although handcuffed, made his escape.
A Curious Election & Parliamentary Enquiry
In chapters LXXX & LXXXI of The Premier Cinque Port, I gave a biographic sketch of Sir Howard Elphinstone and the pedigree of his family. This circumstance is here mentioned because reference is there made to Sir Howard's contrived election in 1841, which, as admitted by him-
- ↑ An explanation of old currency and coinage may be found at the following website Pre-decimal currency, accessdate: 16 June 2022
