Groynes and Drainage of the Priory Stream - Discussion re the Charities
The Priory Stream being the western limit of the town under the jurisdiction of the Commissioners for the Hastings Improvement Act, the said body held a meeting on the 3rd of January to determine what works should be undertaken at the outlet of such water against the encroachment of the sea. Mr. Dumbrel, of Eastbourne, had made a survey, and in his report he stated that a strong gale from the south-west often obstructed the descent of the water at the outlet, and the combined action of the two waters swept away the shingle from the buildings on the east side. He recommended a sluice to be constructed of 240 feet in length, to commence at 220 feet from the Bridge (now the Albert Memorial), at an estimated expense of £320, or with a cast-iron culvert, £505. His opinion was that the sea-walls at St. Leonards and the White-rock were a cause - direct or remote - of the encroachment at the Priory; and that whatever other effect the groynes might have, they were constructed on a principle which tended more to a waste than to an accumulation of shingle on the coast eastward of them. It was generally supposed that the Office of Woods and Forests would add to the series of groynes already in use with a view to protect the Crown land, and if so, said Mr. Dumbrell in his report, it was desirable that the new ones should be of an improved construction. This could be best effected by forming them not less then 150 feet nor greater than 250 feet in length, and at a little above high-water mark, with a gradient of one foot in twenty. The Ordnance groynes at 50 and 55 Towers, he said, were specimens of the improved principle, and were strikingly different to many others along the coast. There was at that time £179 in the hands of the Chamberlain - a small part truly of the £505 which the sluice or hutch was estimated to cost - and the Mayor (Dr. MacCabe) suggested that the question should be postponed. Mr. T. Breeds said he should not submit to anything of the sort, as the nuisance at the Priory ought at once to be removed. Mr. North doubted whether the money, as forming part of the borough fund, could be so employed. Mr. Shorter thought it could, and Mr. Mannington was of opinion that if the water were covered in, the Corporation would gain considerable territory. The discussion ended curiously by Mr. North carrying a proposition for £30 to be devoted towards the expense of the harbour survey. At the next meeting, however, of the newer public body, yclept[a] the Town Council, the Clerk stated that although it was thought that no part of the £179 left by the old Corporation could be applied to the Priory-water scheme, the Recorder was of the opinion that £100 might be so applied. And now as I have poached upon the preserves of the Hastings Commissioners, I may as well suffer for two misdemeanours as for one. I therefore bruit it that at the February meeting of that august body it was shown that whilst the liabilities were £1,650, the income was only £1,000. It was therefore resolved to borrow £600 to get out of debt, as it was paradoxically stated, and a further resolution, signed by Rickman Godlee, Chas. Duke, Will Ginner and Major Vidler, was to the effect that in future the strictest economy should be exercised.
Two days after the Commissioners' meeting referred to, Mr. Elphinstone, M.P., brought before the Bench of Magistrates the proposition which he had made at the Lewes County Sessions "that Hastings, Rye, Cuckfield and Brighton be appointed additional polling-places for the Eastern Division of Sussex." It was, he said, agreed to at Lewes, and he promised to bring the matter before the Hastings Bench. Mr. North, M.P., raised some objections, and contended that nothing could be decided at that session. Certainly not, was Mr. Elphinstone's rejoinder, but an application would be made to the Privy Council, and he had no doubt that it would be successful. He should be glad if Bexhill were included, as it would benefit the town by forming a good circle round it. Voters of the Rye Union, he suggested, might vote at Rye, and thus no voter in the extreme end of the county need travel more than eight miles to record his vote. The proposition was ultimately agreed to.
But the question of additional polling-places was not the only one of which the Borough Members were divided in opinion; for at the same meeting was discussed the propriety or otherwise of a recent petition in connection with the Charities, and in which the feeling of Messrs. North and Elphinstone were shown to be wanting in harmony, if not in actual courtesy. In reply to a question by one of the magistrates relative to the Charities and the trustees thereof, the Town Clerk explained that a report had been made out by a Master, and the same had been confirmed by the Lord Chancellor, but that it could only be completed by the petitioners. The joint expenses were only about £130 and the court had ordered the same to be paid. Mr. North with some warmth, described the proceedings as intolerable, and declared that had he known it he would have petitioned himself, even if it had cost him £30 or £40, as the Town-clerk assured him it would. As to the intolerableness of it, Mr. Elphinstone said he could see none. Both the petitioners and the gentlemen they recommended were, he observed, respectable men, and he must say that the opposition got up by the Town Council was an ill-judged one. The petitioners prayed (continued Mr. Elphinstone) that the Charities be not suffered to remain in the hands of the Old Corporation. Mr. North contended that such could not be the case, as the Old Corporation had ceased to be in office. Elphinstone was aware of that, but it was necessary, in his opinion, to keep the Charities from falling into the hands of the Town Council. Messrs. Jolly and Russell, he contended, were respectable men, and when they sent up their petition and their list, the Town Council also sent up a petition and a list. At this stage of the discussion, whilst the disputants were waxing warm, a cry of "fire" was raised at the Hall door, and immediately there was a rush from the building, followed by a stampede to the house of butcher Weller, in High street, where it was ascertained that some of the soot had ignited in one of the chimneys. After some humorous remarks all round at their instantaneous response to what appeared to be something like a hoax, the magistrates and the borough members separated in a more friendly mood than they were likely to do had not their contentions been cut short by the "house afire" episode. The appointment of the Charities' Trustees was, however, confirmed, and at their first meeting which was on the 25th of January, another "scene" was witnessed. In opposition to Mr. Henry Thatcher's nomination, Mr. North proposed Messrs. Phillips and Shorter as joint secretaries to the Trust, but not finding a seconder, he next proposed Mr. T. B. Baker. On the votes being taken, it was found that Mr. Thatcher had a considerable majority, and was thus elected.
Guestling and Icklesham - The Harbour Project
A good deal has already appeared in these columns about the local benefactions, pro et con the alleged misapplication of the funds in bygone times; and, to complete the story, more will have to be told further on. Apropos, however, of other charitable bequests at the very time when the discussion just alluded to was taking place, a discovery was made of an alleged extensive misappropriation or neglect of charitable bequests to the parishes of Guestling and Icklesham. In a council paper, of February, 1837, it was stated that there were few parishes more liberally endowed with bequests for charitable purposes than Guestling. Property had been left sufficient to educate and keep clear of poverty the whole juvenile poor of the parish, and yet there had not been a school there for 17 years. In an examination, only a year before, Mr. Henge, one of the Charity Commissioners, it was discovered that in addition to between five and six thousand pounds left 100 years ago, from which the parishioners were deriving no benefit, there was one acre of marsh land, part of the Lidham Estate given by someone to the Rector of Guestlng which some years ago was sold, to redeem the land-tax on the Glebe lands. Also that Mr. Fletcher, who died in 1712, left 30s a year to the poor of Guestling, charged on Coghurst Farm, which sum was received and distributed by the Rector. There being no recognised trustees, the Commissioners suggested that in future the churchwardens and overseers for the time being should be appointed as such, and all sums received and expended by them be kept a book ((illegible text)) in the church for that purpose up to the year 1837. However, this had not been done. Also, Mrs. Elizabeth Cheyney, of Guestling, gave, in 1610, about eight acres of land with a house thereon, in the parish of Fairlight, called Cork Fields, to the -
Cite error: <ref> tags exist for a group named "Notes", but no corresponding <references group="Notes"/> tag was found
