also refused to perform its work after it had got a short distance on the way. Nothing could then be done but to detain the passengers for several hours to. await the arrival of the last_down train. much for the South-Coast line; now for the South Eastern. On the 17th of June a great public meeting was held at Hastings, with mayor Ticehurst presiding, at which resolutions were passed urging the South-Eastern Company to extend their railway from Ashford and Rye to the Priory Meadow at Hastings; also from Tunbridge, via Battle, to the same spot, in lieu of a line up the valley to Whatlington, thence round by Battle to St. Leonards, only, as had been reported, they intended to do.
The excuses for non-attendances at the meeting were somewhat serious. Mrs. Frewen, as one of a recent deputation, was absent and declined any further (illegible text) with the South-Eastern Company until an alteration was made in its management. Mr. Fuller also would be unable to attend the (illegible text), but he considered Mr. McGregor was a gentleman of too high a character to state that which was not intended to be carried out. Mr. Hollond was not able to attend the meeting, but was warmly interested in the (illegible text) efforts of the inhabitants to obtain the deserved accommodation. Mr. Brisco was unable to attend but was ready to assist the (illegible text)wants of the inhabitants. Mr. North was also unable to attend, but said his previous impression was confirmed that the company did not wish to construct the line in accordance with the Act. Dr. MacCabe would be sorry to see a bad feeling continue between the Company and the inhabitants.
Mr. McGregor had distinctly stated that the line was to be made, but there was no surety given for a station at Hastings, although he believed there would be one. Mr. Putland was not in any way connected with the South-Eastern Company, but he had spent more time in examining the route of the proposed railway than anyone else, and was firmly convinced that the company never would and never could carry out the proposed line. The expense was enormous, the lowest estimate from Rye to Hastings being £400,000. The Company would only be justified in asking Hastings to assist them in applying to parliament for an Act to substitute another line that would be equally advantageous to Hastings. He held that the present projected line was bad in all respects. Mr. Clement would have them bear in mind that Mr. Putland lived at St. Leonards, and that if the station could be kept there, his property would be more valuable than if the station were removed to Hastings. The Mayor believed the Company would never carry out their lines from Ashford to Hastings unless they were compelled to. Ultimately a committee was formed to watch the Company's proceedings. #It turned out that Mr. Putland was decidedly wrong in his opinion and that the denizens of the old town were unduly nervous over the matter, the Company in question soon giving proof of their intention of running trains into Hastings by their purchase of land through Which to make cuttings and construct tunnels. In June and July, the engineers were busy with their theodolite in the taking of levels, and by the middle of August, shafts were being sunk on the Eversfield estate. The deepest one, (that which is now in Pevensey-road west) was 140 feet. The lowest tender that could be obtained for the construction of the tunnel was £80 per yard, which was thought to be an extravagant price, and so the Company resolved on doing the work themselves. A later offer of £50 per yard, I believe, was accepted. Messrs. Newton, Smith, Mendy, and Co. were the contractors, and the work was said to be satisfactorily accomplished. There was some hitch, however, in the South-Eastern Company's affairs, which caused them in the month of October to suspend the works for a time both in Kent and Sussex, and consequently to discharge a great number of workmen.
Having described in the present chapter the commencement of operations for the South-Eastern line of railway to Hastings and related several matters in connection with the South-Coast line already completed to St. Leonards, it occurs to me that the founder of Warrior square — the irrepressible James Troup, as some persons were delighted to call him — had been trying for some time past to start another railway company in opposition to the South another railway company in opposition to the South-Coast Company. Those who have followed me in this history will remember how, as a shareholder in the last-named company, and one who had not paid up his shares, Mr. Troup sought to sow discord at the half-yearly meetings, and had been obliged to submit to a general rebuke for his dictatorial remarks. This self-assertion of a would-be dictator was so persistent in Mr. Troup that he was frequently entangled in the meshes of law, albeit his adroitness, if it did not always clear him of the entanglement, in most cases baffled the purpose of those who endeavoured to fix him in his difficulties. Two legal suits were filed against him in 1847, the first of which was in connection with his own railway scheme. The plaintiffs were Messrs. Dawson and others, who sought to recover in the Court of Exchequer £478 from the defendant as a provisional committeeman of “The Direct London and Hastings Railway Company” for advertisements inserted in various journals during October and November, 1845. It appeared that “actuated by a desire to benefit the country in general and Hastings in particular,” Mr. Troup embarked on the troubled sea of speculation, and in September, 1845, started his scheme for a direct line from the metropolis to Hastings, he having duly registered himself as ”The Promoters.” Part of the patronage attached to this venture was the office of ”Attorney,” and which Mr. Troup bestowed on Messrs. Potter and Collingridge, who, in consideration thereof, magnanimously gave him a written guarantee whereby they undertook to carry out the scheme free from any liability on the part of the one-man “Promoters” they looking to the public for their remuneration. The question now raised was whether Troup, who ordered the advertisements, or the solicitors, who guaranteed him from liability, should be responsible for the cost of them. Troup, of course, shielded himself under his guarantees but then there was the awkward fact that the Company consisted of a solitary individual, who was just then living at Leeds, and who alone had paid his deposits; a circumstance which amidst a rather extensive panic at the time, caused the scheme to fail. Sir Frederick Pollock animadverted on the objectionable method of getting up companies as exemplified in this case, and said the questions were whether the defendant had given the attorneys power to pledge his credit for the advertisements, and whether those gentlemen had pledged his name and credit with the plaintiffs, If the jury thought that these two propositions had been made out, they would find for the plaintiffs; but if not, they would find for the defendant. After consultation, the jury decided in favour of the defendant.
The next was a chancery suit, when, in the month of June, the trustees of the Eversfield estate sued Mr. Troup to complete the purchase of land in fulfilment of the original agreement. It appeared in evidence that Mr. Eversfield's trustees sold to the defendant in 1836 seven acres at St. Leonards for building purposes at the price of £2050. The vendors had also agreed that at some subsequent period the brick-yard and kilns used by Mr. Mercer should be done away with within a stipulated time. They were, however, worked for a longer time and were even then in existence. The defendant contended that the non-abolition of the brickyard was a breach of the contract, for which he was entitled to claim compensation, as it had delayed his building operations. The Lord-Chancellor said, if the agreement to abate the nuisance formed no part of the contract, the plaintiffs would be entitled to their decree, but the defendant would at the same time be entitled to an undertaking that the nuisance should be forthwith abated. That decision of the Chancery Court had but little effect in accelerating a settlement of the dispute, and as other difficulties followed, it was many years before the Warrior square projected by Mr. Troup was carried on to completion, and then not by its founder, but by Mr. Moreing and others, to whom the land was resold for that purpose.
Interpolatory
Mrs. Hollond
113½ St.
The death of Mrs. Robert Hollond on the 29th of November, 1884—just as I am entering the historic threshold of 1847 - brings to the front a crowd of political associations of the earlier year in which the deceased lady and her less recently deceased husband were prominent figures. It was on the 29th of July, 1847, that Mr. Hollond was returned, a third time, as one of the Hastings representatives in Parliament; his colleague, whom he headed by 16 votes. being Mr. Brisco, of Coghurst Hall. Mr. Hollond’s first election was ten years antecedent to the last-named date, when he became the colleague of the Right Hon. Joseph Planta. who obtained 403 votes, as against Mr. Hollond’s 383. The losing candidate on that occasion was Mr. Brisco, who polled the comparatively good number of 312. This result, as viewed on party lines, was very significant; for whereas in 1835 the number of votes polled for the Conservatives were only 316, as against 665 for the Liberals, in two years’ time the conditions were entirely reversed, the Conservative votes being 715, as against the Liberal 383. At the time of Mr. Hollond’s first election (1837) he was unmarried, his temporary residence being at 2 Breed’s place, and his residential companions being E. L. Richards, Esq., and E. Kendall, Esq. In the following year he took up his abode at Allegria, a pleasant villa in St. Leonards, of which he became the proprietor. It was to this mansion that Mr. Hollond brought his young wife on the 10th of August, 1840, the nuptials having been consummated at the village of Stanmore, near London, on March the 18th of the same year. The bride’s name was Ellen Julia Teed, the only daughter of Mr. Thomas Teed, a Justice of the Peace. For about twelve years out of the fifteen that her husband held a parliamentary seat for Hastings, Mrs. Hollond displayed her amiability among a large circle of friends in her “at-home” balls, dinners and other parties, as well as in many acts of benevolence among the poorer members of her husband’s constituents. She naturally took an interest in the elections of 1841 and 1847, and acknowledged with becoming courtesy the enthusiastic greetings of the Liberals on those occasions, and especially on the chairing days, the magnificent processions of which were events not easily to be forgotten. As Mr. Hollond declined to be put in nomination for the election of 1852, he disposed of this St. Leonards residence to Mr. Coster, and withdrew to his other beautiful mansion, Stanmore Hall, Middlesex. It is there that his widow has recently died at the not over venerable age of 62 years. Mr. Hollond was known to have invested a large sum of money in Hastings and St. Leonards, in addition to the very liberal amount which he expended in various ways, and which, it is fair assume, gave him a considerable hold on the voting power of the borough. I may, perhaps, venture to state that only by the demise of Mr. and Mrs. Hollond has their connection with Hastings and St. Leonards wholly ceased, it being understood that sundry unredeemed or unrealisable properties in various parts of the borough have remained in possession of that gentleman and lady or under the management of trustees until the present time.
The deceased lady survived her husband seven years, the date of Mr. Hollond’s death being Dec. 26th, 1877. In addition to Stanmore Hall, in Middlesex, Mr. Hollond had a villa residence at Cannes, to which he gave the name of Allegria, that being (as before stated) the name of his former residence at St. Leonards. It was while Mr.and Mrs. Holland , were en route for Cannes that the former was seized with inflammation of the lungs. to which malady he succumbed at Paris. Both before and since that time, Mrs. Holland seems to have been as well known in the French capital as at Cannes; and now that she, too, has passed the portals of death a Parisan journal 'La-Justice' refers to the event as of Parisian interest. It says, The deceased lady enjoyed in her widowhood a considerable fortune, of which she made an intelligent and beneficent use. Before her health obliged her to winter in the south of France, she resided a good deal in Paris where she had, during the Empire, the foremost literary and musical salon of the time. It was then called “Le Salon de la Ligue Liberale,” and was frequented by M. M. Guizot, Montelambert, Remusat, Henri Martin, Prevost Paradol, &c. Mrs. Hollond was the original of Ary Scheffer’s “St. Monica.” She had always about her, both in Paris and at her villa, struggling and meritorious Protestants; and one of these, Mdlle Marie Dubois, who, as a pianiste, obtained, last August, the first Erard prize at the Conservatoire, wrote a letter overflowing with acknowledgements of the kindness which she had received from Mrs. Hollond.
Sir Joseph Planta.
Another associative circumstance occurs in the fact that whereas in 1840 Mr. and Mrs. Planta were among the guests at Stanmore when the lady who has just now died at the time of writing was married to Mr. Hollond, so, in 1847, the year to which this History has reached, the death of Mr. Planta was recorded, The right honourable gentleman’s demise occurred at Fairlight place on Monday the 3rd of April, in the 60th year of his age. His father was the late Joseph Planta, F.R.S., a native of Switzerland, who had been long domiciled in England when he became Librarian to the British Museum and Secretary to the Royal Society. The son of this latter gentleman was in early life engaged as a precis writer in the Foreign office, and in course of time became Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, which office he held for about three years. He accompanied the then Marquis of Londonderry as Private Secretary to the Congress of Paris, Vienna and Aix-la-Chapelle, and was greatly trusted by that nobleman, to whom his attainments as linguist and publicist were of great value. From May, 1827, till November, 1838, Mr. Planta was one of the joint Secretaries of the Treasury; and although he never took a prominent part in the business of the House of Commons as Member for Hastings (for which borough he was returned in 1827, 1830, 1837 and 1841), he was generally recognised in official circles as a man of great knowledge and ability. He made Fairlight Place — (a rather small house owned by Mr. Milward) — his Hastings residence for many years; but although a man of fine proportions, his close application to official duties so affected his health as to cause him to resign his seat in 1844 by accepting the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds. At some time during the period 1831-5 the honour of knighthood was conferred upon him, the distinction being a G.C.H. (Grand Cross of the Hanoverian Guelphic Order); and his having also a seat in the Privy Council, entitling him to the prefix of Right Honourable, It would have been difficult to find a man of more presentable features, of more gentlemanly address, or of a kindlier disposition. His death, though sudden, was not altogether unexpected, for his health had been gradually giving way during the previous seven years. His remains were consigned to one of the catacombs of Kensal-Green Cemetery, and his property was left entirely to his wife. He recommended that his papers should be destroyed, but that his wife should first consult her son (Mr, Adolphus Orme) and also obtain the opinion of his esteemed friend, Sir Woodbine Parish, as to what papers it might be necessary to preserve. Where, however, positive directions had been given on the papers themselves, such directions were to be rigidly followed. The right honorable(sic) gentleman was never regarded as a man of great wealth, but he had a large circle of aristocratic and official friends, besides which his personal influence was greater than that which fell to the lot of most other Parliamentarians.
He was thus enabled to procure situations in the Civil Service and other departments for the sons of his constituents when applied to, and in many other ways to benefit the townspeople generally. On the other hand, Mr. Hollond, with his abundance of money, was not slow to assist those who wanted pecuniary help, either by purchasing what they were desirous of turning to profitable account or by lending them money on stipulated securities at less than the usually demanded interest. That Mr. Hollond also spent a large sum of money in the borough in the giving of balls, dinners and parties, and that he contributed liberally to local charities and other institutions, are facts pretty well known to the townspeople of that period. Then there was Mr. Brisco, who was a losing candidate in 1836, ditto in 1837 and 1841, a successor of Sir Joseph Planta in 1844, and again a winning competitor in 1847 and 52. His benevolence and munificence were responsive to every call, whilst the expenses of his electioneering contests must have been enormous. When Mr. Hollond was first introduced to the electors in 1835, a Liberal journal was exuberant in its thankfulness that Mr. Hollond’s wealth would save the borough from the long purse of Mr. Brisco. I think, however, it must be admitted that its effect was to give the borough two long purses instead of one. Anyhow, the commercial and other advantages which accrued to Hastings for about fifteen years through the political rivalry of two long purses and the emulative energy of a third medium, with more of personal than of pecunious influence, were such as I have not since witnessed, and such also as were hardly likely to have been equalled, even in the palmy days of the Lyffes, the Ashburnhams, the Beaumonts, the Parkers and the Pelhams, when the night of election was with the jurats and freemen, resident and not receiving alms. One hardly likes to suppose that there was anything in all this that could by any possible means he considered as partaking of the nature of undue influence, howsoever short a period had elapsed after Parliamentary Reform had been achieved for candidates and electors to wholly forget the pocket-borough system. And yet a dreamy thought almost challenges the bare possibility that imaginations reveled(sic) in the vision of something being due to the electoral body for the preferential bestowal of their votes. It does not seem so very difficult to conceive that something more than an intelligent policy on one side and a purely political conviction on the other was necessary to secure a parliamentary seat even no longer than thirty or forty years ago. When Mr, Elphinstone refused to re-try his chance of election on account of “the ruthless expenditure,” and Mr. North declined a contest on the ground of the expense being “too great for a country gentleman of ordinary means,” it would really seem as though the distribution of wealth was the great political lever in those halcyon days when a greatly extended franchise was still within moderate limits by comparison with what it has subsequently become. If, therefore, vast sums of money had to be spent during the period referred to for obtaining and maintaining a parliamentary seat, let those and the descendants of those who benefited by such necessity be thankful that the possessors of the “long purses“ used them with a genial and generous disposition.
