Page:Volume 3 1840.pdf/16

From Historical Hastings
This page has been proofread



Troup's first three houses in Warrior Square - Parochial and Turnpike roads

In chapter XX & XXIII, Mr. James Troup figured largely as a newspaper proprietor, in the question of roads, and in other movements of a public character. Incidental allusion was also made to the first three stately houses (now 23, 25 & 27) in Warrior square, which were built for Mr. Troup. In consequence of some misunderstanding, these remained unfinished for several years. Troup's idea was that a Mr. Ricardo would advance money tor the undertaking to any amount, and Ricardo’s contention was that the money to be advanced had an understood limitation. I mention this circumstance now because it is present to my mind, although its more appropriate place would be where I shall have to describe the further extension of buildings in that district. It was the same Mr. Troup who has already been a prominent figure in these historical sketches; and as he was one of the Surveyors of Highways in the early part of 1841, the leading incidents of which year I am about to relate, I may as well give a list of the town’s officials for that year, commencing, as was usually the case at about Ladytide.

For the parish of St. Mary Magdalen, Hy. Hughes and Stephen Stubberfield were overseers; John Austin and Nelson Andrews were surveyors; and Wm. Noon and Geo. Voysey were assessors.

For the parish of St. Leonards John Painter and Edward Farncomb were overseers, Chas. Deudney and Edward Farncomb were surveyors, and John Reed Harman and Wm. Longley were assessors.

The following gentlemen also constituted the board of the St. Leonards Commissioners: —Major Jeffries. Rev. W. C. Leshe, F. North, R. Holland, M.P, John Harwood M.D., C. Deudney, R. Deudney, A. Burton, and T. J. Rawson.

As the said Commissioners had no jurisdiction in St. Leonards-Without, it necessarily devolved, on the parish officers and the Trustees of the Eversfield Estate — two very different sets of functionaries — to provide for that portion of the town’s public necessities. One of these was the lighting and watering of roads; and in the month of May a special rate was made for the lighting of that part of St. Mary Magdalen’s which was not provided for by the St. Leonards Act, whilst in the following July, the visitors having complained of the dusty roads, another parish meeting was held, at which the sum of £20 was voted to be spent by the surveyors towards the expense of watering the roads, The continuous building operations, however, together with the do-little policy of the Everstfield Trustees, and the dislike of the rate-payers to taxation, had the effect of keeping the roads in an unsatisfactory condition, and it was no uncommon occurrence for tradesmen and others to water and beach the road in front of their own dwellings. In this particular the "outsiders" were worse off than the "insiders," for besides the disbursements of the St. Leonards-Commissioners for the improvement of the roads of both parishes within their jurisdiction, there was less stint in the outlay of the St. Leonards surveyors on the roads and highways under their special control. Over £150 was expended by them for road improvements in that one year.

While treating on the subject of roads, it may be stated that at a meeting of the St. Leonards Commissioners on the 27th of September it was agreed to comply with the application to take down the wall which separated Norman road from Lavatoria, and to make a carriage way through the same, provided that the consent of all other interested parties was obtained and that the Commissioners were put to no expense for the alteration. At the same meeting consent was also given to Mr. Greenough, the owner of 15 Marina, to make alterations at the east side of his house, according to a plan exhibited, the Commissioners stipulating that the consent of all parties concerned should be obtained, and that Mr. Greenough should lay out the ground as an ornamental enclosure,and restore the whole of the ground and premises to their former state whensoever required. It should be explained that the ground in question was a public thoroughfare leading directly down from. Undercliff terrace and Market terrace to the Archway, and that the consent of the public was never asked for. The place was walled in, a garden was formed, and the path was diverted. No remonstrance, however, was publicly made, notwithstanding that there was a general buzz of dissatisfaction, the malcontents not knowing under what rights and conditions the alteration was effected. More than 20 years subsequently passed without protest, and the public having thus lost their possessory and prescriptive title, the space, instead of being "restored to its former state," was utilised in the erection of rooms for the Commissioners’ meetings, and since that body became defunct, the building has been taken over by the Urban Sanitary Authority for the use of the rate-collector.

The original application of Mr. Greenough was on the plea that the continual running up and down the paved pathway immediately contiguous to his house by men and boys disturbed the inmates, and the granting of the alteration applied for was that it would be the means of removing a nuisance. As the inhabitants took no decided steps to avert this appropriation, it should be borne in mind that the Press at that time was excluded from the Commissioners’ meetings, and that the public were ignorant of what had been resolved upon until operations had actually commenced. In after years, when St. Leonards had a journal of its own in the founding of the St. Leonards Gazette, many of the inhabitants, growing weary of the meetings of the Commissioners with closed doors, made use of the new journal to express their indignation, which, being supported by. editorial comments moderately expressed, resulted (1st) in the publication of the Commissioners' accounts in the local journal and (2nd), in the admission of reporters to the monthly meetings. It is not generally known that when those meetings were privately held, the offer was more than once made as a special concession to the Gazette for its editor to attend those meetings, one gentleman expressing himself satisfied that, no improper advantage wonld be taken of the privilege, Just as little is it known that the offer was declined on the ground that the meetings of a public body ought to be open to the public press, and not to one member of it only. This argument was persisted in, and at a later period the question was raised by the Rev. J. A. Hatchard and the late Mr, Charles Savery, and by their warm advocacy, the meetings were at length thrown open.

As in 1840, so in 1841, the battle of the roads was quite a prominent feature. The transactions thereupon in the former year, have been narrated in chapter XXIII, which closed with the passing by a Parliamentary Committe the Bill for a new road through Hawkhurst and Cranbrook to Staplehurst. At that time only £3,000 had been subscribed of the £12,000 or £15,000 that were required. Slow was the progress of the movement for some time, and it was somewhat late in the year when the leading spirits of Hastings and St. Leonards began to stir themselves in its behalf. A meeting of its promoters was held at St. Leonards on the 15th of October, when it was proposed by Sir Joseph Planta M.P., and seconded by Robert Hollond, Esq.,M.P., "that the proposed road called Hawkhurst Junction, will be a great convenience to the public, and will confer the most important benefit on the owners and occupiers of property in Hastings and St. Leonards." It was also proposed by Major Jeffries and seconded by Mr. Troup "that it is desirable that the said Hawkhurst Junction road should be made, and a local committee; be formed to assist in the same." The committee appointed consisted of Sir C. Lamb, Major Jeffries, F. Smith, Esq., Rev. J.H. Rush, A. Burton. Esq., G. Duke, Esq., Dr. Mac Cabe, Messrs. G. Clement, C. P. Hutchings, T. Hikes, W. Ginner, and J. Austin. As there have already been given a summarised report of previous proceedings, the following brief resume should be ample as a refresher. The proposal was to construct what was known as the "Hawkhurst Junction" turnpike, to receive the traffic from Hastings and St. Leonards for the South Eastern Railway for London and Dover, and to save three miles (or as some contended 1½ miles) between Hastings and Hawkhurst, as well as to connect more thoroughly the counties of Kent and Sussex. This was opposed by the parties interested in other roads, and on the Sth of April a petition was presented to the House of Commons from the creditors of the Hastings, Hollington and Flimwell Trust against the new project. A month later, the pros and cons of the Bill were argued at great length before a Parliamentary Committee, and on the part of the opposition it was urged that the communication with London from Hastings to Staplehurst was 24 miles and 3 furlongs, whilst of the 23½ from Staplehurst to Tunbridge Wells 12 would be railway, making in all 35½ between Hastings and Tunbridge, instead of 30, as by, existing routes. The evidence given in favour of,the promoters was, however, too strong for the opponents, and the preamble of the Bill was adjudged to have been proved. During the inquiry it came out incidentally that on the Flimwell and Hastings Trust there existed a total debt of £45,600 namely a mortgage of £21,380 a floating debt of £4,900, a Robertsbridge debt of £2,561, and arrears of interest £743. This indebtedness, and. particu-