tion of them, to meet the wants of an altered condition, with a larger population. Improvement, however, was the keystone of the whole. It was improvement that was aimed at in widening the-road near the Archway as the next best thing to the abolition of the Arch itself; and it has been a still further improvement since then by the removal of the gateless "East Gate," never to be re-constructed.
The "Insiders" and "Outsiders" but St. Leonards the designation of both - Suggested new town of St. Marys
Yet, this last operation — and here is another association of dates — is the outcome of a different spirit to that which appeared to animate the "Improvement Commissioners" in 1833, On the 19th of August a special meeting was convened, at which there were present Messrs, Wood, Wells, A. Burton, W. Waghorne, J. Rock, T. Brown, and Capt. Jefferies. It was then resolved "That the Eastern Boundary of the town be more distinctly shown by the words and figures — Eastern Boundary of St. Leonards, 2nd. Wm. 4th, C. 45." I need hardly say that the "words and figures" of the resolution were forthwith inscribed on the Archway, where they remained until the whole fabric was levelled to the ground; neither need I dwell, just now, on the fact that this mark of exclusiveness gave umbrage to some whose habitations were eastward of the boundary, and who for many reasons, were compelled to regard themselves as inhabitants of St. Leonards, although not strictly within the district embraced by Mr. Burton's Act of Parliament. Rather let me direct my readers’ attention to a spot just westward of the Archway, where during the same year, an alteration was effected which resulted in a great public convenience. On the eastern front of what was the Conqueror Hotel — a house which, as though to keep up the coincidences, underwent another change in the jubilee year — there was, originally, a large piece of private ground extending nearly half-way across the open space at the Undercliff, and causing a decided impediment both to pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
The ground in question was the property of Mr. G. B. Greenough, and that gentleman having offered to give up a considerable part of such ground, on condition that the town spend not less than £100 in ornamenting the remainder, the Commissioners wisely accepted the offer, and immediately set about to perform their part of the contract. The reduced area was enclosed with a dwarf wall and railing, the latter being fixed by Mr. Stanton Noakes for the sum of £28 10s. A pedestal was also erected, the ground was turfed, the walks were gravelled, and a semi-circular footpath was formed on the outside. The improvement thus effected at the "Conqueror" (now the "Brunswick") was much as it appears in the present day. One improvement often suggests another; and so, as though on the principle of a new carpet necessitating a new hearth-rug, it was deemed desirable to relay the Undercliff pavement with stones in place of bricks. This was done, the difference of cost being 50s. per house, which sum the owners were called upon to pay.
It was in the same year (1833) that the tender of Messrs. Homan and Scott was accepted for the construction of 125 yards of new sea-wall, westward of the first wall, the tender of Mr. Putland being also accepted for sloping and finishing the new parade. The other public works ordered by the Commissioners during 1833 were as follows:— Mr. Putland to furnish stone for the repair of the roads at 3/8 per ton; Messrs. Noakes and Mann to fix rails on the parade at 10s. each; Edward Smith to take away ashes at 2/6 per week; Mr. Lansdell to paint the lamp-posts; Mr. Norsworthy to alter his steps at 1 and 2 West Ascent; Mr. Johnstone to supply 1,100 feet of granite kerbing; Edward Smith to have one of the damaged water-carts in exchange for 25 tons of hard blue stone; and Mr. Putland to beach the road then in course of formation between 71 Marina and the Sussex Hotel.
Turning from the Commissioners’ meetings at the St. Leonards Hotel to the Vestry meetings at the New England Bank, I find that at one of the latter, in 1833, there were actually present the two overseers, Edward Farncomb and Charles Overy; the two assessors, Wm. Longley and Wm. Ridley; one parishioner, Wm. Payne; and the vestry clerk, John Phillips. The duties were not very heavy in those days, and it need not therefore excite surprise that the five officials and one non-official managed. to examine the accounts, nominate the officers for the ensuing year, make a highway rate at 6d. and a poor-rate at 1s. in the £.
I have said that the act of the St. Leonards Improvement Commissioners in ordering certain words to bé placed on the Archway that the eastern boundary of the town might be more distinctly marked, gave umbrage to those whose habitations were eastward of the said Archway, and who were obliged to regard themselves as St. Leonards people, although they had taken up their abode not strictly within the district embraced by Mr. Burton’s Act of Parliament. I do not remember, however, that the dwellers of the east and of the west exhibited any animosity towards each other of a more serious taint than that which was occasionally shown in a little tall talk and banter. The "Outsiders" taunted the "Insiders," with being "Burton-bound leaseholders," and the Insiders retaliated upon the Outsiders by'calling them "Freeholders of No-man’s land." If the "chaff" was a little more animated than usual, St. Leonards-within would rise to the dignity of saying to St Leonards-without, "You can’t belong to Hastings, and you shan’t belong to St. Leonards." Whether it was this show of exclusiveness that originated the proposal to consider the newer erections eastward of the Archway as a second new town I cannot say, but the idea was certainly mooted to have the district between the Archway and the Seaside Hotel known as the town of "St. Mary’s." Several circumstances appeared to favour this idea, one of which was the building of Verulam place and Cliff cottages, in the year 1838, the commencement of Seymour place soon after, the erection of the first buildings in connection with All Souls’ in 1834, and. the beginning of White-rock place in 1835. The proposal was also directly or indirectly supported by Mr. Troup, who in 1833 commenced Warrior Square with his own house near the centre and on the northern side of the road which divides the two gardens. This house which was taken down many years ago, had only two storeys above the level of the road, the larger portion of the building constituting the basement. In this basement were two wings, originally intended for baths, and which, if they had been completed, would, it was thought, have been a desirable acquisition, There was a subway communication connecting Mr. Troup's house with the two gardens, and the latter with each other. This subway, which is the only relic of what I have been describing, is now disused, and though its entrance and exit may still be seen from the road on either side, it appears to be more a receptacle for rubbish than a means of transit from one garden to the other.
Of the support which Mr. Troup gave to the proposal for a separate town between St. Leonards proper and the Seaside Hotel, it may be said that that gentleman stoutly and coutinuously declared that his property should never be called St. Leonards. And, certainly, he did his utmost to fulfil the realizetion of his edict — an effort, a fruitless effort, to which I bear personal testimony further on, I will only here say in reference to this question of a separate town, that whilst the growth of Warrior Square and the district east of it was a very siow one, the clustering of houses in immediate contiguity with the original St. Leonards was of a very rapid character. Adelaide place, Seymour place, London road, Norman road, Shepherd street, North street and Gensing road sprang into existence in a comparatively short space of time; and but for the fact that these localities came not under the jurisdiction of the St, Leonards Commissioners, it would not have been easy for many of the inhabitants to say whether they were living inside or outside of the St. Leonards boundary.
There was one thing they knew, namely, that it was more than "a mile to Edinboro' Town," or — in less ambiguous words — there was more than a mile of space lying between the Priory-bridge (the boundary of Hastings proper) and the bulk of the property which for reasons other than that of distance, had to take the name of St. Leonards. It stood in the parish of St. Mary Magdalen; so also did the greater portion of the town of which Mr. Burton was the founder. It was also included in the St. Leonards postal district; and — as Mr. Troup had the mortification to know — any person who was foolish enough to have his letters addressed "Hastings" would have to go to Hastings for them. Then again, the property was described in the title-deeds and instruments of conveyance as being situate in "St. Leonards" or "St. Leonards-on-sea." It should be here observed; however, that for many years the distinction of St. Leonards and St. Leonards-on-Sea was either expressed or understood. At the present time this distinction is not so general. It was in 1838 that Mr. George Hyland built the Warrior’s-gate Inn, on the site of the old Warrior's-gate lime-kilns. It was, I believe, designed by Mr. Walter Inskipp, and had — what would appear to be undesirable for a public-house — a central flight of steps for its approach, with a railed-in green plot on each side at the base. It stood, as it now does, on the west side of London road (with its front in Norman road), while on the east side of the same road was a house of corresponding architecture, built by Mr. Lamb. Both these houses had new fronts put to them at a subsequent period, and were otherwise altered, the designs for which were entrusted to Mr. Voysey. As having an immediate bearing upon the license first granted to the Warrior's Gate, the next paragraph may interest my readers.
"Give your verdict," said an eminent Vice-Chancellor, "but assign no reason." This was just what the magistrates did when they refused Mr. Mantel Eldridge a license for the Saxon Hotel. The "Warrior's Gate" had been built and the "Saxon" had been commenced, the notice of application for the latter's license being posted on the doorway. When the time came, Mr. Hyland obtained his license, whilst Mr. Eldridge's application was not complied with. Were I to suggest a reason for this decision of the magistrates, I should first look to the composition of the St. Leonards Commissioners, and endeavour to estimate the weight of influence which such a body could bring to bear on the magistrates at a time when the spirit of rivalry between the Outsiders and Insiders was practically manifest. I should next look at the fact that the Warrior’s Gate license was for an inn only, whilst the one required by Mr. Eldridge was for an hotel, of which character there were two houses already established in close proximity, on the other side of the Archway. It may be that the magistrates thought the "Harold" and the "Conqueror" were sufficiently representative institutions, and it may be also that they scarcely contemplated that the "Saxon," if licensed, would one day have its rival in a "Norman," and that both the "Harold" and the "Conqueror" would soon become defunct. But whatever might have been the magistrates’ reason for non-compliance with the application, they assigned none. Albeit, in their case, the Vice-Chancellor’s advice was acted upon to their detriment; for the King — as those who delighted in pseudonyms were wont to style Mr. Eldridge — was not to be denied his suit by any less regal body; and he therefore summoned the magistrates to Lewes, there to show cause for their refusal. Their pleas were deemed insufficient, and Eldridge, the "Saxon King," came off the Conqueror. In a very short time the Saxon Hotel became a licensed institution, and. during the sixty-three subsequent years of its existence it has been severally tenanted by Mr. Eldridge, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Bacon, Mrs. Vaughan, and Mr. Vaughan. And as I have mentioned the "Warrior’s Gate," I may as well also enumerate the several persons by whom that well-known house has been successively managed. These have been Messrs, Hyland, Knight, Pilcher, Fuggles, Noakes, Wellsted, Lamb, Cuthbert, Freeman, Mrs. Lamb, and the London Distillery Company.
Having, by innuendo, charged the St. Leonards Commissioners (with whom were several members of the Burton family) with having influenced the magistrates in their refusal of a license for the Saxon, it is only fair that I should offer such explanation as would justify the exercise of such influence, whether as a corporate body, or as individual members. The two hotels which were just within the Eastern Boundary were at that time anything but prosperous, and it was ever Mr. Burton’s aim to protect the commercial interest of the town to the utmost of his power. He could not fail, therefore, to view with disfavour another house of similar pretensions competing for that which was inadequate for the support of those already established. His fears in this respect were not groundless; for, aided by the coaches, which took up and set down passengers at the Saxon, this hotel soon became a too powerful rival of the Harold and Conqueror, and the lessees of the two latter (Messrs, Edlin and Mollard) came to grief. Even in that very year (1893) a writer in Watering Places of Great Britain refers to these hotels -
