Grand Procession of High Sheriff - Beach Cottages Dispute
The gaol-bird pact of Horsham alluded to in Chapter XXIX, is a reminder that in more ways than one were Horsham and Hastings closely associated in times past. Not only was the prison of the former the unsolicited asylum of the evildoers of the latter, but also to the polling-booth of the former did the county-voters of the latter "jaunt the weary way" to "record their voices" for their favorite candidate. Horsham, in fact, was to Hastings and pre-St. Leonards in much the same relationship as was Lewes in more modern times. And this latter connection reminds one of the fact that in 1843, Musgrave Brisco, a Hastings man, was the High Sheriff, and that on Saturday, the 18th of March he was accompanied to Lewes by a grand procession such as had not been previously seen in this town and neighborhood for 40 years. The procession was headed by Javelin-men, each clothed in a Lincoln-green suit with red stripes, and each carrying a sword. They were well-mounted on horses with new bridles and saddles; and thus marshalled, they added a picturesqueness to the dashing cavalcade. The Javelin-men on this occasion were Messrs E. Farncomb, of Filsham; H. Farncomb, Icklesham, E. Crisford; Robt. Noakes, Westfield; John Woodhams, Udimore; Robt, Overy, jun., Guestling; and six others. In the Sheriff’s carriage, drawn by four greys, was the Deputy-Sheriff (T. B. Baker, Esq.) and the Sheriff's brother (Wastel Brisco, Esq.), who at the time was Mayor of Hastings. Mr Brisco’s private carriage, drawn by four bays, followed next, and contained the Sheriffs lady and the Mayor's lady, with two other ladies. Ten or twelve private carriages, among them Mr. Duncomb’s four-in-hand, completed the cavalcade, and many hundreds of people lined the route to witness this observance of people lined the route to witness this observance of an old English custom. This occurred on the 18th of March, preparatory to holding the Spring Assizes, and on the 29th of September a similar procession passed through St. Leonards en route for Lewes.
About sixty leading merchants and tradesmen of the two towns had previously met at the Swan Hotel, whence they proceeded to the Sheriff’s residence at Coghurst Hall, there to meet the rest of the cavalcade. When the procession was formed it consisted of trumpeters on horseback; fifty other horsemen; twelve Javelin-men, with their truncheon-man (KE. Farncomb); a carriage of four greys, containing gentlemen; a carriage of four bays, containing ladies; and about twenty private carriages. On arriving at Bopeep, the procession halted, and the horsemen divided to allow the Sheriff to pass into their midst, whilst most of the private carriages returned.
As a kindred topic to the Lewes Assizes, whither Mr. Brisco, as High-sheriff, was twice escorted with all the judicial panoply of olden times, it may be stated that the vexed question of a new prison at Hastings was again mooted at the court which our local magnate attended, and a Committee was appointed to consider the subject. For the better elucidation of this matter, it is well to repeat in substance what has already been stated when treating of the events of 1836 and ’38. It will be remembered that in the first-named year, a letter was received from Lord John Russell to the effect that Quarter Sessions were not to be held at Hastings unless a new gaol were built for the general use of the Cinque Ports. That this was not done is self-evident; but the question of prison-accommodation was frequently to the fore in the deliberations of magistrates and other constituted authorities; and hence — to repeat a former statement — on the 30th of January, 1838, a private meeting of magistrates and members of the Town Council was held at Mr. North's residence to discuss the question of a county gaol, Another meeting was held by the County Magistrates in August of that year. when their approval of the erection of such a structure was pronounced. In February of the following year, however, the Town Council vetoed the Magistrates' decision, and the matter was still an open question, the public all the while getting to know but very little what was likely to be done. I now come to the Report of the Committee appointed at the Easter Assizes at Lewes in 1843, which is as follows :—
This Committee having taken into consideration under what authority it is practicable to carry such arrangement into effect, the Committee report that the holding an adjourned County Session at or near Hastings could only be carried into effect by building a new prison and court-house at the sole cost of the county, and that it is not desirable to effect the object at so great an expense." It is found necessary to enlarge the House of Correction at Lewes, and that the necessity for such enlargement to a great extent will be obviated by the proposed plan of a district prison at Hastings, The holding of Sessions at Hastings would relieve the labours of the Lewes Sessions, and the Hastings gaol might be made capable of receiving criminal offenders now confined there by constructing twenty additional cells at the cost of the county. Having ascertained that Hastings will contribute one-third of the expense, the Committee therefore recommend the building a prison at Hastings for 100 prisoners, together with a court-house, &c.
It is not necessary to say that the Committee's recommendation was not adopted, the difficulty having been solved by the subsequent erection of the new county prison at Lewes.
While leaving the gaol qestion(sic) in the hands of the County-magistrates for further deliberation and ultimate decision, I proceed to gossip over another event the reminiscence of which is evolved from magisterial association. I have heretofore described the unsuccessful attempts of Mrs. Milward and Mr, Wyatt to stop up certain footpaths, and now it is for me to say that in the year under review the Rev. G. G Stonestreet made a similar attempt and with a like result. On the 4th of June, after a long desultory conversation, the Bench passed two resolutions, the first, that legal proceedings be taken against Mr. Stonestreet for diverting the footpath across some fields near the Barrack Ground, and the second, that the obstruction in the original path be removed by the Surveyor. The action taken upon the latter resolution might have rendered unnecessary the application of the former, the path, as I seem to recollect being restored without the intervention of the law. It is a little curious that in the same year and within the same building another pathway contention cropped up between another body of officials and a certain member of the same who had the courage to assert his real or imaginary rights. On the 9th of Nov., after the unopposed election of Alderman Dr. MacCabe to the Mayoralty, some ordinary Council business was brought on in which reference was made to an act: or threat of Mr. Thwaites whereby a path leading across the ship-yard to Beach Cottages would be taken away. Mr. Thwaites retorted sharply that he was firmly resolved to stop-up the path in question, whether the Council disapproved of it or not. The property, he said, was his own, and he should do as he liked with it. Someone sarcastically reminded the gentleman thus jealous of his rights that the property was on ground originally filched from the sea or the Corporation, the whole of Beach Cottages and ship building premises having been constructed on the full of the beach, and consequently on a site that was never paid for. This reminder, however, would nothing avail; possession being nine-tenths of the law, and a more than twenty-years’ possession without legal interference having given a possessory title not to be overthrown. But the incident recalls the contention — epistolary and otherwise — which took place in 1831 between the holders of the Beach-Cottages property on the one side, and the owners of Pelham Crescent and Pelham Place on the other. Some of the latter were members of the Commissioners’ committee appointed to investigate the requirements for a new Act of Parliament for paving, lighting, cleansing and improving the town, and for establishing markets, and supplying the inhabitants with water. In the draft for the said Act, Beach Cottages were scheduled for removal, it being contended by the advocates of such removal that by the taking down of an unsightly and mean block of buildings and extending the parade over the site would not only be a very great improvement in itself, but that it would also help the old town to hold its own against the superior attractions of St. Leonards. The opponents of the proposed improvement contended, somewhat illogically, that it was in the worst possible taste to institute comparisons between the old town and the new, it being very well known that the founding of St. Leonards was a grand speculation by an enterprising architect with whom it became an absolute necessity to have recourse to every means that would contribute to the natural beauty of the site he had selected; whilst to purchase and destroy the Beach Cottages property for a so-called improvement would be a tax on the ratepayers of Hastings for which they would get no return. The fallacy of this argument is self-apparent, but it appears nevertheless that the contemplated improvement was frustrated by the uncompromising resistance to the scheme by those who held possession of the property.
The new Act was obtained on the 28rd of June, 1832, and not only were Beach Cottages not scheduled for compulsory removal, but there was a clause in the said Act which, "Enacted that nothing herein contained shall authorize or empower the Commissioners to take or use any house or houses or other buildings erected or built before the passing of this Act without the consent of the owner thereof being first obtained." Whether the subsequent removal of Thwaites and Winter's ship-building yard and the placing of a Russian gun on the site has been of any advantage to the town in question I will not ask, but that the removal of the "Condemned Hole" in rear of Beach Cottages has at least been a convenience no one will deny. Nor can it well be doubted that the removal of Beach Terrace—to cali it by its modern appellation — would have been a marked improvement, and one which might have saved both the owners and ratepayers a goodly amount of money as well as anxiety. The said houses have always been buffeted by the sea, and an endless expense has been incurred in efforts to protect them.
There was a time, I am told, before the houses were strengthened and enlarged, and some of them rebuilt, when the Council might have purchased the block: at a reasonable price, but that must have been subsequent to the offer of £1300 by the late Benjamin Smith, M.P., to the late William Jordan for No, 4 — a house that has been more wrecked by the sea than any one of the row of eight. Mr. Smith, who had property in the Crescent, imagined that if he could only clear away one house, it would lead up to a sale of the rest; but for a house that probably did not cost more than £200 - the offer of £1300 was not sufficiently tempting to the at that time proprietor.
At a quarterly meeting in the month of February the irrepressible beach question was as much to the fore as it is at the present day, and, after a good deal of desultory discussion, an order was passed that no beach be taken from the foreshore within fifteen feet of the parade wall — an order, by-the-bye, that was as useless as it was precise. There was a great dearth of beach at the Fishmarket, as there has been of late, and the question of a stone groyne was constantly brought forward [at] the April meeting it was again questioned and again deferred. The Town Councillors appeared to be so perplexed with the condition of the stade, the groynes and the beach, and to be so weary of the question altogether that a letter was received from them by the Commissioners at a meeting of the latter on June th, conveying an offer to give up to the said Commissioners the large timber groyne and the contemplated stone groyne at a mere nominal rent. But among other questions broached at the February meeting was the application of a man named Scott to be allowed the opportunity of relieving the Town Crier of his heavy duties for £10 a year, and find his own clothes. Here was an offer which might have startled some governing bodies out of all propriety, but such was the veneration which the Hastings aldermen and councilmen cherished for old institutions that they refused to entertain this liberal innovation.
A more agreeable theme was the report of a committee which complimented Mr. Putland on the due fulfilment of his engagement to construct the road over the Government ground (now Robertson street) for £150, towards which sum the Commissioners of Woods and Forests contributed £100, whilst £48 ‘was obtained from subscribers. But the making of this road, desirable as it was, did not fulfil the whole of the requirements, it being necessary to consider the question of lighting the same. Months and almost years had been spent in negotiations with officials of the Crown ere the much needed road could be arranged for, and then the lighting of it seemed to be as knotty a point as the making of it.
In considering the question as urged in a memorial from the habitants at the Priory, Mr, Ginner remarked that to light with gas between York Build-
