at All Saints, and similar resolutions were passed. [But for the fact that in this case the Chancery suit was commenced by a gentleman each of St. Leonards and St. Mary Magdalen, and the Charity land itself being in the latter parish, it might be more appropriate to place these historical items under the head of Hastings]. In a letter to the Hastings News upon the Charity petition, Mr. John Smith wrote thus: —
” I feel some interest in the question from the circumstances of my assisting in the enquiries instituted relative to the charities of Hastings and Rye, in 1809; and likewise being one of the three at a St. Mary’s-in-the-Castle meeting some few years ago, who agreed to enquire into the distribution of the Magdalen funds, being informed that that part was given away more for politics and social influence than for alms. Preparatory to my submitting the case to the solicitor employed to enquire into the Guestling charities, I collected some information, but the proposers declined to proceed further. . . . During last century there was scarcely a tenant on the Magdalen Charity land whom the Trust had not allowed to take as his own something belonging to the Charity. About half a century ago the then occupiers of the land gave but £40 a year rent, and took as their own a long length of frontage called Spittleman’s Down that ought to have been added to the farm. It has since been sold in lots at a great price, and is now covered with houses, to the great annoyance and injury of the farm. The next tenant hired the farm by tender at £166 per year; he also took in an eligible piece of frontage, and built two houses, but not having enough outside the farm fence for his back conveniences, he took a piece from the farm, and afterwards a piece for a garden. These houses have lately been sold to one of the Charity Trustees who claims the ground as his own. An adjacent cottage, too, built either on the Charity ground or the highway, which I once bought and sold, he now owns, and has fenced in the ditch outside the farm hedge, abutting upon the road for a garden slip; thereby having possession of a great length of this valuable land — all of which, and all Spittleman’s Down, ought to have been enclosed within the fence of the farm.”
That Mr. John Smith rendered some good service in his investigations in connection with the local charities, — and especially, with those of Guestling — there is no denying, but if he had had access to the Corporation records, methinks he would have found it necessary to modify some of his statements. In the first place, the length of frontage called Spittleman’s Down, which he says ought to have been added to the farm receives some elucidation by the following memorandum: —
- “Indenture, bearing date February 9, 1771, conveys to Thomas Deudney, farmer of St. Mary Magdalen, and his heirs, a tenement and garden, and land, containing one acre at Spittleman’s Down, in consideration of £5 paid to the Corporation, and a rent of 3s. a year.”
The money thus paid to the Corporation, as Trustees of the Magdalen Charity, would, as a matter of course, be added to the funds of that Charity. In that year (1771) and for -
