Roman Catholics." But if so much money's worth of beer was allowed to be drawn by beershop keepers, what must have been the limit of the fully licensed houses? Some idea, perhaps, may be gathered even from the simple fact that at the Horse-and-Groom (at that time a Tory rendezvous) a butt of porter - to say nothing of ale, wine and spirits - was completely drawn out in a single day, the liquor being carried away in pails.
Bribery and Treating in 1835 - Corporation Reform Act Passed
Such was the purity of election when Parliament had been reformed! The treating and bribery was said to be such as to demoralize the borough to an extent beyond the power of half a century to rectify; but the good which the Liberals hoped would spring out of it was the improbability of Toryism every being again in the ascendant. Perhaps the Liberals were a little too sanguine in that matter, but if such a result was to be achieved by themselves, it would not be by any lack of disparagement of their rivals. They represented Mr. Planta's supporters as consisting of ten of the fifteen old Jurate and Freemen, a dozen publicans, nearly a dozen whose votes were bad, and a certain number of fanatics who were afraid of the Pope. If this was the only support which Mr. Planta could reckon upon, his prospects were anything but cheering; yet, as I hope to show further on, the re-election of Mr. Planta was eventually secured, his enormous expenses notwithstanding. But the Rt. Hon. gentleman's political contest was not the only expensive one in that general election. It is on record that the return of Mr. Wyndham Lewis for Maidstone cost that gentleman £6,000, or at the rate of £12 per head for every vote polled. Mr. Lewis was also a Conservative, and a wealthy man, to boot.
Yet it must not be supposed that all the wealth of the country was concentrated in the domain of Torydom, nor that the Conservatives were the only persons who were put to expense at elections. Even Mr. North, the independent candidate, did not go entirely scot free, whilst the little bill for the return of his colleague, Mr. Elphinstone, must have had its total somewhere among the quadruple digits. Granted that the costs incurred by the successful candidates were both more legitimate and less in amount, the fact still remains that wealth was a sine qua non in those days for a seat in Parliament, and that a "Workingmen's Candidate" would have had but a meagre chance of success. Of the four gentlemen who contested the representation of Hastings on that occasion, probably Mr. Brisco was the most wealthy. It used to be said of him by a facetious but comparatively impecunious acquaintance of mine, that himself and "Muzzy" (Musgrave) Brisco were the two richest men in the borough, but that "Muzzy" had got much the largest part.
I will now relate another electioneering frolic of the period, and will then eschew politics for a brief space while I turn to other matters. On Saturday morning the 17th of January - ten days after the election - Mr. Henry Williams, a jeweller, and Conservative politician, having made himself conspicuous as the author of some placards, was waited upon by several hairdressers, who had each received a note through the post purporting to be written by Mrs. Williams, requesting attendance for the purpose of "removing the hair from my poor husband's head, he being dangerously excited." Mr. Williams was, of course, much vexed at the waggish trick thus played upon him; but in a tone of humble - or, more probably, ironical - contrition, begged to be excused, under the promise never to offend again. But, lest it be erroneously imagined by the reader that all the fun was on the side of the Liberals and all the chagrin on the side of their rivals, it behoves me to relate another little anecdote in connection with the '35 election to prove the contrary. On the night preceding the day of election, a certain fisherman - whose residence was not a hundred miles from the battery at East Parade, and whose better-half, like many other dames of the period, was in the habit of dispensing sundry two-penn'orths of smuggled eau-de-vie - was wanted to be kept from the wiles of the Conservatives, and for that purpose he was engaged at card-playing during the night. As soon as the poll opened next morning he was conveyed with his Liberal companions to the polling-booth at the top of the town; and lest he should forget for whom it was intended he should vote, the names of "North and Elphinstone" were continually dinned in his ears. On the usual question being put to him, however, "For whom do you vote" ! the reply was "Brisco and Planta." I need hardly say that the glee of the Conservatives was immense, and the vexation of the Liberals as great.
On the 11th of May, in 1835, when Dr. Wilmot was regarded as the Mayor-elect, there was an unusual amount of party feeling exhibited in consequence of it having become known that his nomination was to be strongly opposed. A crowded meeting took place at the Town Hall, presided over by Mr. Scrivens, the retiring Mayor, when notice having been given by the Crier to all who were not Freemen that they were not to approach within 100 yards on pain of having their coats torn, Mr. Major Vidler (then the youngest Freeman, but afterwards the octogenarian Surveyor of Pevensey Levels) proposed Dr. Wilmot for Mayor, and expressed a hope that before the Mayoralty expired, every person who had a vote for the borough would also have a voice in the election of Corporate officers. The nomination was seconded by Mr. Murray (father of the late Mr. J. Murray, of the Marina).
Mr. Anthony Harvey then proposed Dr. Ranking, but by whom his nomination was seconded this deponent sayeth not.
Dr. Wilmot having been asked to explain his conduct in reference to certain statements of which he was the reputed author, replied that it was both possible and probable that he might have at sometime said something that was not pleasing to the Corporation; and if they offended him he might do so again. He did not go there on the backs of the Corporation, and he wanted nothing from the borough-mongering set. He had hitherto done his duty as a magistrate, and he relied for support on the new party of Freemen who were animated with the spirit of liberty and freedom. He pledged himself to do all he could to uphold the interests of the town and the dignity of the Corporation.
Mr. James Harman complained that the opposition was got up exclusively by the Tory party, to avenge in some measure their signal defeat in the Borough Election. Then came the tug-of-war between the two doctors and the two Roberts - Robert Wilmot and Robert Ranking, the former at the close obtaining the victory with 64 against 47. The announcement was received with enthusiastic cheers, and the result was hailed with lively satisfaction at St. Leonards by a few warm politicians of the Reform school who assembled at the Saxon Hotel. These drank to the health of the new Mayor, who had had "the courage to beard the lions in their den." There was at this time abundant evidence that the reported split in the Conservative camp was not without foundation. About a fortnight after Dr. Wilmot's election to the civic chair, the following handbill was circulated :-
"To Friends of Truth. - Robert Montague Wilmot having stated, privately and publicly, that Mr. and Mrs. Planta had declared that in consequence of his not voting for Mr. Planta, they had determined to give him a blow, and also that Mr. Planta had applied to Sir Robert Peel to procure his son a Living to enable him to marry a lady in direct opposition to the wishes of his father and other relations, and for the express purpose of irritating and continuing the disunion of father and son, the above statement is altogether false, and has been fabricated to calumniate the Rt. Hon. gentleman."
This document was signed by Mr. H. Williams, of 52 High street, the gentleman, be it remembered, who had attached his name to previous placards, and who, at the thought of having his head shaved, was said to have trembled in his shoes, and promised not to offend again. The Mayor, however, took no notice of the handbill, and the political feud continued.
When treating the establishment of the Hastings Union, I gave the generally accepted date of 1835 as the year in which the Union-workhouse was erected, although I had some difficulty in reconciling such a date with other events of a parochial nature. I could not, for instance, find sufficient time between Michaelmas and Christmas, 1835, for the movements of the late Mrs. Fitzgerald, as a resident in the parish of Holy Trinity, ditto in the parish of All Saints, next as a pauper in All Saints' workhouse, and lastly as one of the first inmates in the new Union-house. Nor could I understand why, if the new house was built and tenanted in 1835, there should at the same time have been a feeling of irritation against the overseers of All Saints on account of their refusal to allow the aged people in the parish workhouse to have porter even if taken to them by their friends. Then there was the quibble over the election of an All Saints' guardian which somewhat puzzled me. It ran thus :- On July 14th, Mr. George Wingfield was nominated as a candidate for the office of poor-law guardian for All Saints' parish, and was elected without opposition. But through the interference of a party not averse to a little jobbery - so it was alleged - he was disqualified by the Poor-law Commissioners, because he was entered on the list as residing in All Saints street, whereas he resided in Little Bourne street, in the parish of All Saints. I am now, however, free from any doubt in the matter; and, as I hold the opinion that in all historical matter correct dates are of the utmost importance, I hasten to substitute the year 1836 for 1835 as the one in which the Union-workhouse of Hastings was erected. It is among my notes for the month of April in the later year that "A Union-workhouse is to be built in Cackle street at an estimated expense not exceeding £5,000, Mr. George Luck, of Hastings, being the contractor. The date appears to be further proved by the following paragraph :- On the 1st of December, 1836, the Board of Guardians, at their meeting in the new house, entertained the question of admitting the Press to their meetings and rejected the application. The motion was supported by Messrs. G. Thwaites (chairman), Chapman and Payne, but was opposed by Messrs. H. Thwaites, R. Luck, H. Beck, sen., W. Cloke, J. Russell, H. E. Wyatt, J. Barton and Richard Harman. Yet as the narrative of other surroundings is in no way effected (sic) by this change of dates in the erection of the Union house, the year 1835 may still be regarded as the epoch of the practical introduction of the new Poor Law.
It was also in 1835 that another very important measure of reform received the royal assent. On the 7th of September, an Act was passed for the better regulation of the 178 corporate towns, (the city of London and 67 other corporate towns not being included). When the provisions of this measure became known, which was about the first or second week in June, very general satisfaction was expressed by the Liberals of Hastings, and more or less by byth political parties of St. Leonards. The Bill was based on the recommendation of a Government Commission, consisting of a score of gentlemen, each appointed to one of as many districts into which England and Wales had been divided for the purpose. Their business was to enquire into the condition of municipal corporations, the jurisdiction of justices, the method of appointing officers, the privileges of freemen, the management of revenues, &c. The Commissioner for this district was a Mr. Bingley, who, as already shown in a previous chapter, attended at the Town Hall, and received courteous and satisfactory replies to all his questions.
The facts elicited by this enquiry as pertaining to the Hastings and other Corporations were collected into five folio volumes, and a report was drawn up, signed by sixteen of the Commissioners, which concluded as follows :-
"The perversion of municipal institutions to political ends has occasioned the sacrifice of local interests to party purposes, which have been frequently pursued through the corruption and demoralisation of the electoral bodies. There prevails amongst the inhabitants of the incorporated towns a general - and, in our opinion, a just - dissatisfaction with their municipal institutions; a distrust of the self-elected municipal councils, whose powers are subject to no control, and whose acts and proceedings being secret, are unchecked by the -
