close to it wholly escaping. Pleasanter it was to turn for a moment to turn from the sad scene to look hopefully for the future in expectation that some means would be taken to prevent any such calamity again occurring. gunpowder was supposed to be a necessary evil. War was still scourging the earth, and our American cousins were at that moment scientifically and deliberately killing each other with the same deadly material. But there was no reason why this terrible compound should be stored near towns or villages, nor ought there to be any necessity for so large a quantity to be kept in one place. one of the visitors to the locality, a powder-manufacturer of extensive experience, speaking of the explosion, said If Purfleet were to go, the country for twenty miles round would, in his opinion, be devastated; and, as to Dartford, he did not
believe there would be left one stone upon another. The last named town at that time 7,000 persons. As the powder and premises were the property of Messrs. Hall and sons who might have been descendants direct or indirect – of the powder-makers Harvey and Hall of Battle, Crowhust and Brede, the said Messrs. Hall would be likely to have heard of the
twenty or more explosions that occurred in those parts of Sussex during the war with France (as described in an earlier volume of this History), and if so, they should have recognised the possibility of such a calamity as this, with such an immense storage, occurring at one time or another. The coroner, in opening the enquiry, well observed "It is deemed necessary to prohibit the storage of more than a certain quantity of petroleum or fireworks, and it is hard to say why no limit should be placed upon the amount of gumpowder, which is the most dangerous compound of all." Hard indeed, it was to account for such strange neglect.
A Tarry Subject
In the St. Leonards Gazette of Jan. 9th were letters of complaint, one of which was as follows: - "Sir, - are we, or are we not in a civilised country, and if the latter, is your town of great beauty and greater boast the most uncivilised of any? You may, perhaps, start up at such a question, but let me tell you why I ask it. I was, yesterday, attracted, like many other persons, to the gardens near the clock tower, where a number of gentlemen and some ladies were skating. I should tell you I was on the outside of the enclosure, and very naturally got close to the hedge with the object of getting a view of the skaters, when, to my horror, I found that my dress (not a common one) was frightfully besmeared with tar, and so far as I now know, completely spoiled. I at first looked upon it as a mere accident, but I soon found, both from what I saw (and heard, that the obnoxious tar had been maliciously trailed all along the Hedge, and the bank beneath. I also learnt from some friends whose clothes were in a similar condition, that this shabby trick was supposed to have been done by order of the proprietor. I ask again, sir, is this civilisation? is it humanity? is it courtesy? is it decency? - A visitor." The Editors remarks were without presuming to know by whom or by whose authority the annoyance and injury complained of -
