Volume 2

1790 – 1880 AD

CHAPTER TEN

THE NAKED CHRONOLOGY

Horsham 1790-1815

HORSHAM IN THE REVOLUTIONARY ERA

In 1789 the French Revolution started in France. In Horsham, the Duke of Norfolk, Robert Hurst and Thomas Medwin were secretly negotiating their own revolution: the taking back of the burgesses into the sphere of political power, from the influence of the Irwin family. Both revolutions were based on ideas and on notions of liberty. Norfolk’s on the liberty expressed and defined in the Magna Charta, and in manorial law; whilst in France it was the removal of the French versions of these very manorial customs and duties. In France, the culmination of stage one of the Revolution was the execution of the King and Queen in 1793, which saw a fracturing of society and notions of sovereignty. The Norfolk’s revolution culminated a year earlier in 1792 when the sovereignty of parliament was obeyed, the usurpation of power quashed, and Norfolk’s Horsham MPs were forced to resign.

In France, the second stage of the Revolution saw the revolutionary leaders turn on themselves and a constant state of revolt occurred. In Horsham, the revolution carried on, but inside a framework of law, so therefore it has not been seen as revolutionary. But it was, because, in effect, Norfolk was trying, and to a large extent succeeding, in turning back the clock to the medieval period. Norfolk was now using medieval laws to ensure his control of the town was absolute. Laws which had slowly been forgotten, or neglected, were now resurrected by his men in Horsham and he used the law to achieve his goal; for example, the right to a horse, the deal with the War Department over the barracks, fines for commons etc.

The Horsham the Duke was now trying to control was a town that lay between the bustling, growing seaside resort of Brighton and the rapidly-growing London. The turnpiking of the roads led rapidly to increased coach traffic. By 1775 there were six stagecoaches between Horsham and London a week, and a post office and postmaster are recorded in 1769 (a thrice-weekly service was mentioned in 1678). Whilst the town was connected by mail and turnpike roads, it was not on the canal network. In 1787, the Wey and Arun built a wharf at Newbridge near Billingshurst (which was the end of the navigable part of the river Arun.[1]) But Horsham could not get an extension built. In 1790, the trading success of Horsham was tied to the road (in 1785, balloon flight had been tried, with Rear admiral Sir Edward Vernon and Count Zambeccari leaving Tottenham Court Road at 4pm and crashing in a field just outside Horsham an hour or so later). 

Horsham society was evolving, with ties being formed amongst people with related interests but not necessarily family ties. This had occurred first of all through religious beliefs, (Catholics, then Quakers, Baptists, Methodists etc); now it was spreading to social beliefs with the creation of societies to help each other, mutual self-help groups. This development marks the growth of social differentiation, the growing awareness that your concerns might not be the same as your neighbours. As we will see later, it then spread to groups such as book groups and then down to agriculture and horticulture, but that is taking us well in to the 19^th century. The first notable one was The Prosecuting Society, formed in 1784, mentioned above. This was followed two years later by the Horsham Society for the Benefit of Widows; both worked on the benefit of members rather than the town as a whole, the latter being a type of insurance organisation, so ensuring widows were not turned out of home and into the workhouse.[2]  Set out below are the articles of the Society which show how it operated.

Both these Societies were based on the notion of risk aversion, helping to spread risk. Another society, club, team, that was formed during this period was the Horsham cricket team, whilst the Bell ringers were also an early society. As no constitution or rules for these two groups have been found, it is difficult to know how they viewed themselves. The fact that none have been found suggests that the association was quite fluid, whereas the Prosecuting and Widow organisation had a very tight structure, possibly because they dealt with money. What can be said, though, with certainty is that Horsham was a town where societies and organisations could grow and develop.

As these societies sprang up, it was not long before the business world would cotton on to the success that a locally well-supported network of help based on income could provide. (The Turnpike trusts had shown how successful raising revenue on projected income could be. But the trustees were not all drawn from the town, but from towns and landowners through which the road went.) Within five years Horsham had its first Bank, the Horsham Bank, in 1791. The partners were Thomas Hansen, Samuel Shergold, Thomas Scutt, Stephen and John Rice and John Lanham.[3]

Today we take banks for granted, yet they are a comparatively recent phenomenon and at the time of writing Tesco, the supermarket chain, has just announced record profits for 2004; one area which provided those profits was its financial and banking section. However, John Lanham was there first, for his main trade was as a grocer who then diversified into banking, rather like the supermarkets, promoting his banking interests when selling groceries.[4]  Before Horsham Bank appeared, how could budding entrepreneurs raise funds to expand?  They could save, but there was no interest paid on savings stored under the bed. They could sell parts of the business, they could go into partnership, and they could on certain items raise subscriptions, as for example on the Evers book mentioned above, and so spread the risk and cost.

Another way to raise money was to mortgage their property. But there was no building society, and the mortgage would be done with another individual. For example, Bysshe Shelley was, according to his letters to Robert Hurst, always on the lookout for making money by lending money at a high rate of interest. One such was a tripartite mortgage agreement in 1799, when he lent to William Hammond, landlord of the Lamb Inn together with the widow of Captain Draper, Elizabeth Draper, £600, followed by a further £200 in 1806. By 1815 the mortgage was still worth £546.5s (loan and interest).[5] This of course was only possible to prove if you had the title deed to the property, and if that title was to a burgage plot, you also had the right to vote.

With the competition between Norfolk and Irwin there was rampant property inflation. This happened with the old gaol. The dilapidated building that had been a running sore on the expense account of the county was sold in 1782 at auction to Lady Irwin for £620. (It was then discovered that it should not have been sold without an Act of Parliament, which was duly passed in 1787.) The building was then used as a schoolhouse. When Norfolk wanted to gain control of the town, the prices of burgage properties rose substantially.[6]

The Horsham Bank was the first attempt to make a pool of money available that was not tied to property but to projected income. It was using the mechanics of the Turnpike Act for everyday purpose. The Horsham Bank was the first business set up in Horsham that involved multiple partners. Whilst lawyers need to know the law in order to prosecute the cases and offer advice, with the Bank all they had to do was lend money, fix a rate of interest and get a return; they did not necessarily take equity on the property. In that sense it was probably the first business in Horsham that actually produced nothing, nor relied on any assets. However, this was probably its downfall. The lawyer relies on knowledge of the law; that is his main asset; the banker should (as they do today with the “subject to status” clause) assess the risk of the individual, whether they will default on payment, and the risk of the money markets changing, and thus fix a rate of interest that is high enough, or flexible enough. Horsham Bank did none of this and so within two years was literally bankrupt.

In the year of its foundation, in 1791, M. Pintosh issued a Horsham token with the sign of the anchor and the monarch’s head on the back with the motto “long live the king”. However, recent research has shown that, unlike the 17^th century tokens, the Pintosh token is a fake (See Elaboration at the end). The fact that no tokens were issued suggests one or all of the following: the need for small change was slight in Horsham, reflecting a stagnating trading situation, a declining market, or that the demand for small change was being met by tokens being issued from other town’s traders; perhaps even London, reflecting the widespread trading links; or trust in the worth and status of Horsham was so low that no-one would accept any coin issued from a Horsham trader. If two years later the bank collapses, what does that say for the creditworthiness of the town? Tokens, more than any other coin, were directly tied to trust, for it was not legal tender, though it was not illegal tender either; it simply relied on people agreeing its value.

By the 1790s, Horsham had become a centre of a network of turnpiked roads that enabled it to exploit a hinterland. (In 1787 it was commented on that the turnpiking of the Dorking to Horsham road enabled Horsham’s Saturday market to attract much of Dorking’s corn trade[8]. The first wave of turnpiking had ceased by around 1772, though subsequent Acts were passed for improving the roads already turnpiked. In effect, by 1775 the road network had been established. However, the use of the waterways for transporting goods had hardly developed beyond that of “correcting” river courses.

The Arun at Horsham was too shallow for barge traffic which could only get as far as Newbridge near Billingshurst. By 1790 Horsham was beginning to notice a decline in trade. In November of that year it was agreed to see if the weekly beast and cattle market granted to John Wicker and established in 1705 could be resurrected.[9] The market had failed previously and there was no certainty that it would succeed this time, other than the fact that Medwin was now involved in it and he had the ear of the Duke of Norfolk. It became apparent, not only to those in Horsham, but also to national manufacturers, that if Horsham could be linked to the growing network of waterways then Horsham could function as an inland port. All they had to do was make the Arun navigable. On 9 July 1792 a packed Town Hall heard the first plan to make the Arun navigable from Newbridge to Weald Cross, Slinfold[10]. This was a relatively cheap option; however, it did not really provide the solution they wanted, so the great canal builder and surveyor John Rennie was commissioned to make a survey from Newbridge to Farthing Bridge, a mile further upstream, on the main Guildford to Horsham road. The estimated cost was £18,133. Subscribers were sought to fund it and soon £15,000 was raised. Amongst the subscribers were the Wedgwood family who obviously saw the attraction of transporting their china and earthenware by canal rather than over the roads, though their subscription of £3,000 by varying amounts from the brothers suggests also a clear commercial money lending decision rather than just a manufacturing one, a decision that probably reflected Horsham Bank’s investment and those who invested from London. 

The creation of a new market and the thought of increased trade brought by the canal probably encouraged the town to make sure its market was well run, following best practice, and if that meant buying a new brass bushel measure for the Clerk of the Market so be it, so in November Horsham had its official measures,[11] which are now on display in the Museum. Horsham could offer a well-regulated, trustworthy market.

In February 1793, the following year, a bill for this was presented to the House of Lords for Horsham Navigation and soon Horsham would be connected by water to the ports in the south. Except it didn’t happen. The scheme could only work by using the river Arun. The latter part of the River Arun was controlled by The Arun Navigation and agreements could not be reached. The scheme went into liquidation in 1794, though its apparent desirability was obvious to all including William Marshall who in his Rural Economy of the Southern Counties promoted the extension of the Arun to Horsham either by improving the river or cutting a canal across the vale through Billingshurst. In fact, there were a number of canal schemes proposed for which the West Sussex Record Office hold plans. There was one from New Bridge to Farthing Bridge dated 30 September 1811 and another for the same year for a proposed “Merstham and Newbridge canal …at Newbridge”. This scheme involved creating a reservoir in St Leonard’s Forest and Tilgate as well as creating an aqueduct over the waste-water stream from Warnham Ponds. A year later another plan was drawn up from the Wey and Arun to Broadbridge Heath.[13]

---

Although we don’t know exactly when, we can say for certain that by 1794 St Leonard’s Fair had moved from St Leonard’s Forest onto Horsham common[14] where it sold mainly Welsh cattle. The Fair was first recorded in 1438, when it may have been established to sell wild horses. By 1441 and later, it was held on St Leonard’s day (6 November), but after the calendar change in 1752 it moved to 17 November. In 1608 it was described as being held on Booth’s land and in 1724 as being held in Mannings Heath  By this time the Fair did not sell just livestock, but also items such as stockings which were recorded as being bought in 1717 by the farmer Thomas Merchant[15].

Before the collapse of the canal scheme; and possibly partly the cause of it, in 1793 France had become a Republic and declared war on Europe. Whilst the French Revolution had been stirring up the intellectual foment of European thinkers, the governments of the day were concerned but not unduly threatened. The King had issued a proclamation “for the suppression of wicked and seditious writing” which the townsfolk had supported at a meeting in the Town Hall in July 1792,[16]  but there was little sign of political agitation. Now, with the execution of the Royal family, panic spread, with the other royal families demanding a lid to be put on the revolution. England, which had started the century in a European war, was ending the century in one also, and within the 90-odd years, England had become Britain and was now the dominant power in Europe; economically, technologically and militarily.

HORSHAM AT WAR

In 2000 Horsham Museum marked the Bicentenary of the founding at Horsham of the Rifle Brigade, the world’s first. At their foundation in March 1800, they were known as the Experimental Corps of Riflemen, changing to the 95^th Rifle Regiment, and it was this Regiment that a fictional character, Richard Sharpe, created by Bernard Cornwell, joined. He gave the exhibition the title “Sharpe’s Horsham”. The exhibition drew on the Medwin archives to create a story of Horsham during the years of the French Revolutionary and then Napoleonic Wars. In the exhibition I used all the legal papers and other documents to create a series of newspaper-style stories. They have never been published, but were well-received as a way of making dry legal documents interesting. So whilst the style is different from the normal history book, they are included here in the mini essay at the end of this chapter. The following boxes set the scene for what is recounted below.

THE REVOLUTIONARY WARS 1792 to 1815 – An Outline

The wars were fought in short, sharp attacks and battles rather than stretched-out warfare. This is because the French could not sustain long periods of warfare. The soldiers were not paid, but lived off the land they marched through. Once an area had been taken over, the French army stripped it bare and new revolutionary governments were set up.

Sussex was Britain’s frontline during these wars, with temporary barracks and supply depots being constructed across the county.

The wars can be summed up by three coalitions between European powers against France in 1793-96, 1799-1801 and 1805-14. The coalitions were organised by the British with Austria, Prussia (modern Germany) and Russia supplying the troops. Unfortunately, the coalitions did not last long because the coalition partners often had a different agenda from the British.

FIRST COALITION 1793-96

Russia made little contribution to the war effort, as it had taken over Poland and was dealing with absorbing that territory. Prussia dropped out in 1795 for the same reason. This left Austria, which ruled the Netherlands and northern Italy, to face a French attack. The Spanish changed sides in 1795-6, leaving Britain isolated with just the navy to defend its shores and empire.

SECOND COALITION 1799-1801

This coalition was made possible by a new Tsar in Russia who was eager to play a larger role in Europe. The Russian army managed to recapture most of Austria and Italy before Napoleon retook the area. Unfortunately, the Tsar was assassinated, leaving Britain isolated again. The Continental allies made peace in 1801. This was followed by a Peace treaty with Britain in 1802 that lasted for less than a year.

THIRD COALITION 1805 -1814

This war started with the naval Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, in which Horsham-born John Pilfold captained the Ajax. It was this decisive battle that ensured British naval supremacy and stopped a French invasion. Unfortunately, on land, Napoleon destroyed each of his enemies in turn. Vienna, Berlin and Warsaw were soon in French hands. In July 1807 a Peace treaty was brokered between Russia, Prussia and France, leaving Britain isolated for the third time.

The British fought back, waging a naval war against French trade. The British also moved into Portugal and Spain in 1808, making their civil wars into an international war which Napoleon could not muster enough forces to subdue. One by one the allies began to rejoin the Coalition. The Russians grew tired of the French and joined with Sweden against France. In 1812 Napoleon put 600,000 troops on the Russian border with Poland and decided to take Moscow. It was a bad decision, as his army was stretched out over 500 miles, the Russian winter was severe and the Cossacks had a scorched-earth policy. Napoleon fled, and fewer than 1 in 20 of his men survived. The campaigns of 1813-1814 were decided more by logistics than great military strategy. In April 1814, with the British, Russians and Prussians camped in Paris, Napoleon abdicated. The war was over.

THE PEACE OF 1814

News of Napoleon’s abdication travelled slowly. Wellington was still fighting Soult, the French commander, six days after Napoleon had abdicated!  Some two months later, in June, Corfu’s Imperial garrison only surrendered when a British frigate called on them to do so. 

THE ONE HUNDRED DAYS

In February 1815, Napoleon escaped from Elba where he had been sent in exile. Within three weeks he had won over Marshal Ney who had been sent to capture him, and had entered Paris in triumph forcing Louis XVIII to flee. Within three months he was threatening the forces of the Coalition.

On 16 June he defeated the Prussians, but they managed to regroup. On 18 June he attacked the British led by Wellington at Waterloo near Brussels. After a day of unending slaughter, the Prussians, riding over the horizon, played the decisive blow. On 22 June Napoleon abdicated and on 15 July, a fugitive at Rochefort, he surrendered. He was taken to Plymouth and then to exile on the island of St Helena.

The Duke of Norfolk, who had seen his two candidates for the election of 1790 be selected and then rejected on appeal in 1792 by the House of Commons, decided to let nature take its course. Francis Viscountess Irwin was now 58 years old, and by biding his time he could see the town become his; either through default, lack of political ambition by her inheritors, or by behind-the-scenes negotiation.

It must be remembered that the Duke of Norfolk was playing the “long game”; he was someone who planned ahead; he, after all, virtually project-managed the long-term rebuilding of Arundel Castle; his interest in history could give him a sense of perspective. So whilst it may be seen as not doing anything, it was probably his game plan. Granted, if he was successful in his first election at Horsham he would have accepted a “quick kill”, but in reality he probably expected a long-term fight on his hands, gradually clawing back political power, and that is the reason why, come the next election, he let things ride. He would, with the help of his steward, continue to re-establish his manorial and legal rights. Add to that Norfolk’s interest in genealogy; it was he who financed the great Dallaway’s History of Sussex.

He would have been aware that Viscount Irwin only had daughters. The estate would go to the daughters and whomever they married. The eldest daughter, Ann, had married Lord Viscount Beauchamp, who would become Marquis of Hartford. Isabella was the beauty of Georgian society and known social hostess in the circles in which Norfolk would mix; a circle that included the Prince of Wales, a man whom Norfolk would count as a friend. (It was said that Ann persuaded the Prince to accept the restricted Regency when his father was incapacitated; obviously taking after her mother in astute counselling). Norfolk would have known the Hartford family would inherit the Irwin estates; a statement of fact made implicitly clear in her father’s will issued on his death in 1778, two years before Isabella’s marriage, that Hartford had to take the Ingram name before their family name in order to acquire title. All he had to do was maintain his friendship and await his time[17].

The added factor in the planning was the political turmoil in France which was spreading into England, causing some to question the validity of any election where the vast majority could not vote. Norfolk believed in the radicalism of conservatism, rather than liberalism. Doing political battle in Horsham would draw attention to the iniquities of the system and also to the fact that Norfolk was trying to recreate the “ancient regime” of Medieval England in 18^th century Horsham. So after the excitement amongst the few, in 1792 Horsham politically went to sleep and no need to concern with Horsham’s history for at least 20 years or more. The election became a 152-page account written in Volume II of Frazer’s Controverted Elections, along with Steyning, that featured in the same volume. The account is particularly interesting as it contains a map identifying all the burgage properties. This information was provided by Medwin.

The 1790s saw a rapid rise in prices, rampant inflation and falling wheat production caused by bad harvests, as noticed as illustrated by the bread supply problems mentioned in the various correspondence.[18] This would have led to a decline in trade in Horsham markets; particularly corn. Some of this could have been ameliorated by the increased productivity brought about by continued investment in agricultural improvements. The Shelley family of Field Place were noted for their interest in selective breeding;[19] these were, after all, the years in which Southdown sheep were, through selective breeding, growing in popularity.[20]  However, it was the arrival of the barracks in Horsham that saved the town and neighbouring area. By 1796 the war against the revolutionary army was going badly, in that the First Coalition established by Britain had fallen apart, leaving Britain isolated. The Government set up a Barracks Department with a plan to establish 23 barracks in Sussex, making it a militarised zone as it had been some 800 years earlier. However, this time it was the Government rather than the King directing the effort, though still using the Lords to administer the finer details. Horsham had one of the largest barracks in the county. In September, a lease was signed for 21 years with Treadcroft for the land.[21] This might suggest that the War Office expected the war to last that length of time or, more likely, it was the shortest amount of time that Nathaniel would lease the land for.

The barracks lay under what are now the houses in Worthing Road and Horsham Cricket club, with “Barrick Field” being used for shooting practice. Costing £60,000, they were not cheap, and the investment of that magnitude was made to be in constant use. The Barracks could take 960 men in total (though on occasion, overcrowding was noted in 1813).[22]  Each regiment stayed for around three months at a time, and at least 69 regiments were stationed in Horsham.[23] In effect, Horsham, whose population in the urban area in 1801 was recorded in the census as 1,539,[24] saw its population increase by 50% for the period 1796 to 1800, in 1804 and then from 1807, to 1814. Importantly, it was a population of young men, with few attachments, who were drawing the income in, not recirculating the money within the community. In addition, money was also coming in from the Government, who had to feed and clothe the soldiers. John Brown, a draper who lived in West Street, wrote a memorandum about this time in Horsham, but the memorandum was written many years later in America. Brown suggests that £1,000 a week was being pumped into the Horsham economy, and this was new money, not money drawn from the community of Horsham and then spent within Horsham. It cannot be underestimated how much this money saved Horsham.

It should also be remembered that the government was in the process of introducing, or had already introduced, a number of taxes, not on income; that would occur later, but on goods and services. As a contemporary satirical poem of the day had it:

“Should foreigners staring at English taxation

Ask why we still reckon ourselves a free nation,

We’ll tell ‘em, we pay for the light of the sun,

For a horse with a saddle-to trot or to run;

For writing our names;- for the flash of a gun;

For the flame of a candle to cheer the dark night;

For the hole in the house, if it lets in the light;

For births, weddings and deaths; for our selling and buying;

Tho’ some think ‘tis hard to pay threepence for dying…;

One would think there’s not room one new impost to put,

From the crown of his head to the sole of his foot.

Like Job, this John Bull his condition deplores

Very patient indeed, and all covered with sores”,

Billy Budget [25]

The impact of these taxes on candles, on windows (whose effect can still be seen today in Georgian houses with blocked-up windows), on soap, on watches (which led to the making of the Parliamentary Clocks; those large-faced clocks that hung in pubs enabling people to see the time from the street and of which the Museum has a fine example), and other products, such as a tax on bricks (see below), would have had an effect on Horsham market and town in restricting trade. The £1,000 a week bought in by the army was even more keenly required.

The quality of the barracks was commented on in a contemporary 1797 account: “I cannot say much praise of the Barracks at Horsham, they appear to be Miserable ill built places and must be wretchedly cold in Winter”[26]. Ann Jemima Clough (which suggests that the £60,000 cost didn’t buy quality, unlike some of the military architecture of the period). Though it should be noted that the buildings were of such a standard that they were taken down at the end of the war and re-used, and two are at least still in use today.[27]

1798 was the year that income tax was introduced as a wartime measure, paid at 10% of income over £200 per year. It was also the year that Horsham, as a town, decided to get involved in the war effort; perhaps some degree of shame came into play, of Horsham having a military barrack in the town but no-one to defend the town itself, except the expectation that the soldiers would do so. As a letter written at the time by Sarah Hurst to Robert, who was then probably thinking of buying Park House, this notion was clearly prevalent at the time. “What can poor Horsham have done to you, if you dislike its military populousness, who ever ran away from their defenders: surely those shou’d not who have families & fortunes to protect”[28]. Though it was more likely because of the sense of panic brought about by the Government considering, and then passing, the Defence of the Counties Act which proposed the mass evacuation of the entire population except for able-bodied men if there had been an invasion. This plan had been brought about by the realisation that by the end of March 1798 the French had enough boats to transport 70,000 men[29].

It had taken exactly four years for Horsham to respond to the call first made on 1 May 1794 for able-bodied Sussex men to volunteer to defend their county. On 1 May 1798 a meeting was held at the Town Hall when it was unanimously resolved that all those capable of bearing arms should form an “association” for the “preservation of public peace and the protection of lives and property”. One corps of cavalry and one of infantry would be trained and exercised twice a week. The cavalry would defend the countryside in a ten-mile radius of the town; the infantry within a five-mile radius. Services to be given free but the Government would provide uniform and arms.

In all, twenty joined the Cavalry under the leadership of Timothy Shelley of Field Place, and 66 joined an infantry under commander of General Leland of Strood Park. Though by 11 May, doubts were expressed if they could make the “Loyal Horsham Volunteers respectable”[30],  On 20 May, Timothy decided he had better things to do, so he claimed to the Duke of Richmond, Lord Lieutenant, that he could not find enough “persons composed of the better classes of the Community”[31]. Whilst Timothy was backing away, his friend Sir Cecil Bishop of Parham personally raised and equipped a troop of yeomanry in 1798. Perhaps the fear of invasion subsided by the middle of May; so, with it, the imperative to act.

Whilst the need to raise a militia diminished, it did not stop the march of the statisticians. An audit, though then called a survey, was carried out parish by parish identifying what was available by subscription, not demand, if an invasion occurred.

The Parish of Horsham was the second largest in West Sussex, covering a total area of 17.3 square miles. It included the now separate parishes of Southwater, Roffey and Broadbridge Heath as well as parts of Rusper, Faygate and Lower Beeding. Whilst the schedules identified materials available by subscription, they do give some, even if hazy, indication of the movable wealth of the area.

Schedule 1: Livestock and transport

Draught Oxen	54
Fatting Oxen	26
Cows	355
Young cattle and colts	415
Sheep	2057
Hogs and pigs	817
Draught Horses	326
Riding Horses	67
Wagons	117
Carts	144

Schedule 2: Removal of livestock

No. of persons appointed for the removal of horses and wagons Conveying such persons unable to remove themselves	6
No. of persons appointed to superintend this service	4
No. of persons appointed for the removal of cattle	26
No. of Overseers for same	6
No. of persons appointed for the removal of sheep and other Livestock	11
No. of Overseers for same	5

Schedule 3: Arms and men (in effect, volunteers)

Men at arms: No. of men	40
On horseback	11
On foot	29
How armed: Cavalry;      swords and pistols	–
Infantry;    firelocks	29
pitchforks	–
No. of persons to be provided with arms at the point of general assembly	–

Schedule 4: Men employed to be “pioneers” (to damage road and bridges)

No. of persons	62
Implements they can bring:   felling axes	60
pickaxes	7
spades	4
shovels	8

Schedule 6 (5 is missing:) Transport

No. of subscribers	6
No. of wagons with tilts (covers or awnings)                                                               4 horses or more	1
3 horses or more	3
No. of carts with tilts	–

The amount of data collected in these and other schedules took over two years to process, so was not reported on to the County until 13 August 1801 when it was decided that the whole clearance of the county was not possible. It would require over 50,000 wagons to remove grain and hay.[32] Whilst identifying the amount of stock subscribed to, i.e. allowed to be taken, the audit does reveal that Horsham Parish was quite an agricultural one still, with a large number of sheep. It also backs up the apathy of local people to fight.

We get a good look at Horsham in 1799[33], as it was described in some detail in a book written by James Edward, a land surveyor, publisher and engraver who wrote Companion from London to Brighthelmston which he published in several parts from 1796 onwards, with the Horsham section written in 1799. The publication relied on the same techniques first promoted by Pope at the beginning of the century, using subscribers to fund the production cost, with Horsham having over 20 subscribers. It is not a travel book, nor is it really a guidebook to the town. It does describe the route in and out of Horsham, but the buildings that are identified are more as spatial markers for verbal directions for those who can not read maps.

The book is a literal and geographical map that concerned itself with travelling through a landscape, a landscape that was also part of the people’s memories, and those memories litter the descriptions of the houses and buildings. And just as memories can be misleading, so are those comments and the spellings given. The description of Horsham reads as if Mr Edwards’ route through Horsham had been decided on by having identified subscribers who, for vanity reasons, would want to be mentioned. He then asked passers-by for information about prominent houses; those spatial markers, and they told him what they could remember, including spelling of names. 

Edward gives an historical account of Horsham that is at odds with what was known at the time. His opening paragraph states that Horsham was a lordship of the Howards “till forfeited to the crown”; that might be true, but the Howards did recover it and, at the time the book was written, the Duke was aggressively trying to maintain the ownership of the town (see above). He goes on to describe the church as an “elegant and spacious building, and the hall where the assizes for the county are often held very commodious”. This compares which what we know: the church was in very poor state of repair as described by previous travellers, and the hall was in need of a rebuild some 12 years later. As for the comment “Here is a well endowed free school”, this was patently an untruth; a school so badly-endowed as to be non-existent, with a headmaster claiming £30 a year, but not having any pupils. This account is what we would today call “spin”, and what at that time was called puffery; to ‘puff’ was to exaggerate in order to sell a place.

Having said that, the book does have some interesting comments. The Dog and Bacon pub was called the Dog and Beacon, because “Dog and” was a correcting of a phonetic word for Dorking: the pub was actually then called The Dorking Beacon. In the account for Denne Park House, he mentions the avenue of trees and “a fine painting of Lord Stafford”, but not the large portrait that was mentioned in the previous description of the house in 1723 which now hangs in the Museum. One of the longest descriptions in the book concerns a lost mansion of Horsham, probably more than the building of the barracks; it was this house that caused the greatest gossip in the town as it was a mansion built but never lived in.

It would appear that Bysshe Shelley (the poet’s grandfather) had pulled down Warnham Place and then erected a “spacious brick edifice”, with neither offices or stables, “and the new erect mansion stood many years without having an inhabitant; and about four years since was entirely pulled down”, with the materials sent to Gorring to build his new mansion near Worthing. He describes this story in detail yet, when he visited, the building no longer existed, except a stable block on which he hangs the story. The stable block had been built by John Shelley, Bysshe’s brother (see above) for a mansion that he planned to erect on the corner of the Bishopric and Worthing Road, but that mansion was never built. So the story is about a building that was never built, and a house built but never lived in and then pulled down. A fascinating, gossipy story, but not relevant in a public guide that gives directions to travellers, except possibly to indicate what a strange place Horsham is. Though, if the account is based more on gossip, then it makes sense, as the waste would have been retained in people’s minds; a sort of “urban legend”.

---

In December 1799 the Duke of York announced that a camp for training elements of the regular army was required, including “a Corps of Riflemen by detachments to be returned” to their battalions “when properly instructed and the exercising of the five Regiments together as a Light Corps”[35] There then followed a debate amongst the military strategists as to how the specialist marksman, a soldier who had shown his worth in America and agreed a necessity, should operate within the structure of the Army. Should they follow the Austrian model and have them mixed in with the battalion, or follow the Prussian model and have them as a separate single specialist corps which would support the light infantry? In the end, the Duke decided on training just a small body of men from every battalion to act as sharpshooters.

On 17 January 1800 he ordered that 14 regiments were to detach 30 privates, two corporals, two sergeants, one ensign, one lieutenant and one captain “to form a corps of detachments from the different regiments of the line for the purpose of being instructed in the use of the rifle and the system of exercise adopted by soldiers so armed”[36]. It was made clear that, once trained, the soldiers would return to the regiments and another 14 regiments would send troops. The Duke also instructed that only “such men as appear most capable of receiving the above instructions and most competent to the performance of the duty of Rifleman” should be sent; some regimental commanders saw it as an opportunity to send some of the worst men.

The next question was: where would they be sent for training? It was decided that Horsham offered the best facilities, perhaps because of the large training field that would later acquire the name “barrack field”; not where the barracks were built, but where men from the barracks trained. In early February, eight of the detachments had arrived at Horsham; the Duke, as Commander in Chief, forced the other six detachments to be sent, only to notify five of the colonels that all 34 of the men they sent were “unfit for Service” and so to send “good and serviceable men”, whilst some individuals from the remaining regiments had to be sent back. By late March 33 officers and 510 men had been selected, and on 1 April 1800 the first parade of the “Experimental Corps” took place in Horsham. A month later they were marched to Swinley near Windsor Forest for intensive training. Horsham’s role in the formation of one of the great regiments of the Napoleonic war; the 95^th has slipped from the town’s memory.[37]

The war against France was going badly for Britain. Not only that, but the years 1798-1801 were very poor harvests, causing fears of food shortages and leading the government to put artificially high prices on corn to encourage growth. In July 1801 a secret circular went out to the District Commanders warning of the threat of imminent invasion. It was probably this circular that encouraged another detailed survey to be done, and another one two years later in 1803.[38] The survey was far more comprehensive and accurate, but it did reveal marked changes in livestock numbers which are difficult to explain away. The data is also presented in a different format: rather than combine livestock and transport, it is now separated out.

Schedule 1: Livestock

Fatting oxen	46
Cows	325
Steers, heifers and calves	486
Colts	34
Sheep	123 7
Lambs	266
Hogs (for bacon)	363
Sows (for sausages)	138
Pigs (for best pork)	695
Riding Horses	137

Schedule 2: Transport

Wagons	134
Carts	180
Other carriages	59
Draught horses	340
Draught oxen	9

The sizeable drop in number of sheep in the parish, from 2057 to 130, was a marked transformation in farming practices. Alan Siney has argued that the wetter weather led to chronic foot problems, as it was not only Horsham that saw the reduction.[39] The other possibility could be the time of year, with the great sheep fairs taking place in September. The reduction in number of draught oxen from 54 to 9 might suggest a change in use to draught horses, which rose from 326 to 340, though there is no direct correlation. (Oxen reduced in number by 45, and horses increased by 14), which suggests one would expect a reduction in the number of wagons as there are fewer draught animals, or perhaps a change in transport from the heavier wagon to the lighter cart, but the number of wagons increased by 17 and the number of carts by 36.

In fact, it is dangerous to read too much into the figures, because you are not comparing like with like. The first set of figures are voluntary, those subscribed to, or given in return for a payment; the second set are actual numbers available. So the first set is probably the minimum number, the second the actual number. This in turn means that any increase in number from 1798 to 1801 cannot be read as an absolute increase in number, whilst any reduction in number between 1798 and 1801 figures can be, unless the enumerator miscounted or misinformed. 

In the 1801 survey a number of bread ovens were recorded for the first time. It revealed that there were eight bakers with large baking ovens and 297 small private ovens. In the land tax for 1785, some 566 inhabitable houses were recorded in Horsham parish, which suggests that around half of all homes in the parish had bread ovens, which is surprising when you consider the mid-19^th century Dickens’ story A Christmas Carol using the baker’s oven to bake the roast – though that was in an urban area.

The demand for accurate statistical information was such that the first national census was conducted in 1801. It revealed that Britain’s population stood at 10.4 million and London at 864,001, with the population of Horsham given at 3,204 (which probably included the inhabitants of St Leonard’s Forest in Lower Beeding), and the population of the urban area given at 1,539.[40]  Horsham, although seen as a town then, today would be viewed as no more than a village. It is perhaps worth remembering this small number of people, as it would directly play a part in the revenue base for future improvements. (This of course excludes any revenue generated through the market tolls).

In effect, the town had to rely on the munificence of the wealthy few to obtain any civic building, as the population was too small to pay for it. In this respect one cannot but admire the Horsham folk for playing the political card so well that they managed to get things done in return for giving up political freedom. At a time when identity was tied to locality rather than nation, why worry about who your MP was, providing that the local Lord or Lady paid for a new organ, fire engine, town hall etc?

On 27 March 1802 Britain signed the Treaty of Amiens; war was over. In reality, both sides were exhausted after nine years of fighting, and both sides knew war would start again. So both sides prepared for it, using the 14 months of peace to catch their breath. But life also went on in much the same way as before. Timothy Shelley stood as MP for Shoreham and was duly elected in July of that year. He then set about enhancing the value of his property in Worthing by getting a Turnpike Act passed for a new road to the seaside resort.[41] “A Mr Heath of Horsham was responsible for the road improvements carried out which not only eased the gradients, but reduced the distance by two miles compared with the route via Steyning”.[42] Visitors to Worthing would travel on the Horsham to Steyning turnpike opened in 1764, then on to Worthing; this new link left that turnpike just south of West Grinstead Park. This new turnpike eventually became the A24 and passing through Horsham encouraged greater coaching traffic.

Horsham was now at the apex of two growing coastal routes: one to Brighton, as indicated by Edwards’ book (mentioned above), and one to Worthing. Today, when we are used to World Wars where the nation as a whole was fighting the cause, it seems strange that money was laid out on new turnpike roads to seaside resorts. But in reality the bulk goods could be taken by the ports and the riverine canals that grew up along the coast; roads were not built for bulk transport but for the pursuit of leisure.[43] The impetus for leisure was peace so it is not surprising that in the 14 months of peace the Turnpike Act was passed, followed by Timothy Shelley being made a Commissioner of Worthing, when the little village was given the status of a town in 1803.[44]

It was in this period of peace that the Society of Independent Protestant Dissenting Calvanists, as they called themselves, who had been in Horsham “for many years”, built “a new brick building or Meeting house” in what became Springfield Road. In 1769 John Cragg sold a quarter of an acre of land in the “back lane” from West Street to the Common, to John Morth, the Carpenter. In March 1802 John sold part of the property and part of another to allow Society members to have access to the new meeting hall. The pastor was one John Harm, who gave the chapel its common name: “Harms Chapel”. It was a popular chapel, so popular in fact that by 1813, plans were afoot to build a new one. It is the new chapel built in 1814 that appears as a woodcut in Howard Dudley’s History and Antiquities of Horsham[45].  

The creation of the turnpike road to Worthing now made Worthing part of Horsham’s hinterland rather than, as it had been in medieval times, the other way around. In medieval times, the Manors of Tarring cum Marlpost and Broadwater owned outlying land in Horsham which they exploited seasonally. By the end of the medieval era seasonal exploitation of the woodland had to a large extent ceased. Now the creation of the roadway, a superhighway, enabled the connection to be re-established; except, and only for a short period, Horsham was the dominant partner. The fact that the Shelley family owned land in Worthing and its neighbourhood only enhanced the connection between Horsham and Worthing. It also led to the establishment of businesses in both towns: for example James Phillip, printer, of Horsham, would set up a branch for his sons C and W Philips at 12 Warwick Street.[46] The fact that the bill for printing carried out in Worthing was issued from Horsham suggests that the profits were not being ploughed into Worthing, but into the Horsham economy, Worthing being more like a colony[47] (though, in this particular case, the printing of a book by Shelley might be more complex than that and involve false imprints.)

In 1803 the Napoleonic Wars started. This time the fear of invasion was palpable. On 7 July a meeting took place in Brighton with the Duke of Richmond in the chair at which volunteers came forward to serve in a militia. By September 1803 there were 5,000 Sussex Volunteers and, as MP, Timothy Shelley had to take responsibility for the Horsham Company. The volunteer force was highly structured and well organised. Major Beauclerk of St Leonard’s Lodge was in charge of the northern division of the Rape of Bramber. Next in command was Captain J W Commerell of Strood Park (who was also High Sheriff), who was in command of the Horsham Company. He then had three Lieutenants: Timothy Shelley, Nathanial Treadcroft Esq. and Hon. J.P. Capel of Holmbush. By 16 February 1804 the first official inspection took place on Horsham Common when the inspecting officer, Colonel Lyon, complimented the officers and men on their smart appearance but rebuked them for “unsteadiness under arms.”[48]

In July 1804 negotiations occurred between the Duke of Norfolk and the Board of Ordinance for the erection of a Depot to house extra armaments. The negotiations successfully concluded with a letter dated 6 August 1804 when the Office of Ordinance wrote to Thomas Medwin as Steward to the Duke of Norfolk and town clerk saying that the Duke of Norfolk had “signified to the Board of Ordinance his consent to the Erection of an Armoury to contain 10,000 stand of Arms, on Horsham Common”, to which Medwin replied that the Duke would like 100 guineas to pay for the acre of ground.[49]  This is revealing for it shows the assuredness that the Duke now feels he has in Horsham’s affairs. Whilst he owned the land, he would have to get the permission of the burgesses to, in effect, remove an acre of land from common use. He obtained permission and kept the money.

Why was the Arms depot built so far from the Barracks? The reason was probably due to the fear of armed mutiny. As well as fear of French invasion, the Government of the day also feared mutiny and riot amongst the soldiers. A fear that was spread by the number of what were considered seditious writings. Horsham had, in 1792, held a meeting to praise the King for the suppression of  seditious writings.[54]  The effigy of Thomas Paine was put on a donkey and paraded round the Carfax before being burnt[55], whilst in 1797 the Derbyshire Militia quartered at Horsham Barracks offered a reward of 70 guineas  “for the apprehension of any person or persons concerned in the distributing seditious publications or by any other artful means tending to excite discontent and disaffection in the regiment to the prejudice of good order and military discipline.”[56] Then, before any theatrical performance could take place in the town, the manager had to obtain permission from the barrack commander that it would not lead to trouble.[57]

As a footnote in the life of William Blake, the author, poet artist and radical Nathaniel Tredcroft, of the Manor House, sat in judgement on Blake when he appeared at the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions held on 4 October 1803 at Petwoth. Tredcroft “always wore powder in his hair and his dress was a blue tail-coat with gilt buttons, buff waistcoat, and drab cloth trousers, with either top boots or gaiters.”[58]  Blake had left London and had settled at Felpham, a small hamlet near Bognor, where some altercation occurred and in the fever of the times Blake was arrested. He was taken to Petworth where the jury charged him with being a “Wicked seditious and Evil disposed person who had attempted “with force and arms” to “encourage and incite as far as in him lay the Enemies of our said Lord the King to invade this realm” and that he said “Damn the King and his Country; his Subjects and all you Soldiers are [59]sold for Slaves”. 

The jury also concluded that Blake had attacked a man. Blake had to plead: pleading guilty, he would have been tried straight away; pleading not guilty he would have to await a further trial, which he did, with it taking place in Chichester in January 1804. At the trial, at which Tredcroft was not in attendance, Blake was found innocent, or as a contemporary account had it, “After a very long and patient hearing he was by the Jury acquitted, which so gratified the auditory, that the court was in defiance of all decency, thrown into an uproar by their noisy exultations”[60]. Whilst back in Warnham, some two or three years earlier, another poet, Shelley, born in 1792, would write his earliest known poem, The Cat. The poem was an early critical attack on the landlord against the tenant, the first strains of his radical intention. However, the impact of Percy Bysshe Shelley is very slight in Horsham’s history until the late 19^th and late 20^th century, and it is there that his story will be told.

Around 1804, for some reason yet to be found, the Mercer Company renewed its interest in Collyers school. For half a century it had let the school slide into educational torpor but now, in the middle of a major war, it started to make enquiries about its school in Horsham. Was this because of a national demand for educated poor children to enter the ranks of the navy, as shown in the records of the then London, but later Horsham, boarding school Christ’s Hospital? The vicar of the day, Jameson, was a strong Tory supporter and ally of Lady Irwin. He had in 1786 asked for a rise in his salary as Master from £30 a year, but that was turned down. In 1801 he took on as Usher at the school James Thornton, son of Richard Thornton and partner in Thornton’s Academy. Obviously conflict of interest was not an ethical issue though, as will be seen, James was a deliberate thorn in the side of the Mercer Company in its endeavours to resurrect the school. In 1804 the Company willingly gave £100 to repair the Usher’s rooms at the school, perhaps as a way of removing the maiden ladies; two Miss Hunts, who had leased the room for a circulating library.

The willingness of the company to give the £100 made Thornton realise that the Company was no longer content to sit back and do nothing. He wrote to Robert Morrison of Wolverhampton where the citizens had removed the Company from involvement in the grammar school, obviously thinking along similar lines. The reply he received suggested that he should employ a good “attorney of ability and integrity”, and that the success of the case depended on showing “neglect and misapplication of the Property entrusted to them,”[61] that is, the Company. Therefore, if Thornton was going to go ahead or threaten it, he would have to show that the Company neglected the school. He did not want to stir things up and force the Company hand, and by doing so encourage the Company to become involved, so he filed the letter away, and carried on teaching in his father’s school.

That Horsham should have a circulating library is not that surprising. The economics of the book trade meant that books written by long dead authors and those out of copyright were getting cheaper and cheaper, but new books were getting more and more expensive each year. This was not down to the material costs, but to the payment of authors and their copyright fees and the fact that the publishers working together demanded higher prices for newly-written books.[62] So, whilst the Romantic era may be dominated by Byron and Scott in terms of sales, authors such as Thompson, who published his Seasons in the 1720s, were being sold in vast numbers. A mistake often made by writers of this period is to assume that authors such as Shelley were influential, but the cost of buying his work when published was prohibitive to the majority of the population; only when he was published by the pirates did his work move into the hands of the radicals. Therefore, the only chance many people had to read the current literature of the day was through the circulating library, or book club.[63]

From Highmoor’s account mentioned above, we know that a bookshop was running a circulating library of sorts in the 1780s. It is possible that Phillips, mentioned above, also ran a small circulating library as he was involved in surveying, stationery supplies and printing, but we do not know for certain. What we do know is that the library situated near the Church suggests, and no more than that, a weekly reading pattern with books being taken out and returned on the Sunday. It is also possible that the soldiers in the barracks were good customers with the library being close by. What can be said for certain is that some people in Horsham were reading and taking part in the intellectual debates of the era, something that becomes apparent later in our story.

---

Interestingly, there is one area of Horsham that has a connection with the Battle of Trafalgar, and that is the area of the Common around the Nelson public house. The streets in this area have names such as Shelley Road, Victory Road, Spencers Road. Nelson Rd, and Trafalgar Rd. The renewed interest coming up to the Bicentenary of Trafalgar has led to museum staff being asked, or on occasion told, that the land was owned by Nelson, or had a connection with the famous battle. This is where history can get in the way of a good story.

Before the land was built on in the 1870s to 1910 period[64], there was a terrace of early- to mid-19^th century houses along Trafalgar Road that developed with detached houses of the same date in North Parade.[65] The museum archives hold a lease for 21 years from Edward Lucas to Samuel Woollan for Trafalgar House dated November 1819. Edward Lucas lived at Stamerham, whilst Samuel resided at Duke Street, London. The property consisted of Trafalgar House, a brew house, coach house, stable, Garden and a field or croft lying opposite the house. Trafalgar House is also mentioned in a legal case in 1832, so the name was current throughout this period and may have given itself to the road name.[66] However, Spencers Road is not named after the only British Prime Minister assassinated in 1812, Lord Spencer, but after Spencers farm; a farm, along with other property, that was owned by Sir Percy Florence Shelley, son and heir of the poet who sold Spencers farm along with other farms on 13 July 1875[67], providing large amounts of land for development, just as he had done in Worthing.[68] 

Shelley Road is probably named after the family rather than any direct connection with the poet. So the Trafalgar connection is down to a house named after the battle, a house that gave a sense of identity in an area with no distinguishing physical features; hence the unusual name,[69] that led property developers to name the streets after the battle, whilst Spencer being a Prime Minister at the time of Shelley was coincidence rather than design. The popularity of Nelson and the nation’s regard for him can be seen in the large number of commemorative souvenirs produced at the time or for centuries afterwards. On display in the gallery Horsham’s History can be seen a bone cribbage case with a very naϊve painting of the memorial to Nelson. The case itself holds a set of dominoes.

The impact of the Battle of Trafalgar has been greatly debated. It has been argued that it led Napoleon to give up any notion of invading England and, thus, the fear that caused the volunteer forces to be established diminished. A recent work summarises the most recent thinking on the battle. “At the end of the campaign Britain had an unchallenged command of the sea, in quantity and quality, materially and psychologically, over all her actual or potential enemies, which she had never known before. …On 2^nd December Napoleon won a great victory at Austerlitz over the Austro-Russian armies and destroyed the coalition Pitt (the British Prime Minister) had laboured to construct. Seven weeks later Pitt himself was dead. Whatever Trafalgar had won, it had not won the war. Nor had it saved Britain from invasion, for Napoleon’s invasion schemes had already collapsed under the weight of their own absurdity so completely that even the emperor had noticed.” Rodgers goes on to state that the Battle must not be seen as of marginal importance, though “Napoleon had no sooner thrown away his fleet than he realized how much he needed it to break out of the strategic limitations of his situation, and spent the rest of his reign in a futile and immensely costly attempt to reconstruct it…We shall see, moreover, that Trafalgar was also the guarantor of Britain’s economic prosperity, which allowed her to continue at war and to subsidize her allies at war, while Napoleon ground up and consumed the resources of France and all western Europe to feed his military ambitions”[70]. And a Horsham man, Captain John Pilfold, played a part in that victory.    

The following year one of the burning issues within Parliament took place, and one in which Horsham MPs took a notable role was the abolition of slavery. Slavery is one of those areas of British history that seems to slip by unnoticed or unaccounted for. No previous history of Horsham has drawn attention to it so, for many, one can assume that it occurred, but occurred elsewhere. In March 1721 Rich Ingram was appointed Governor of what became Barbados: St Lucia and Dominico Islands, with their prominent slave labour. His and the family’s wealth was expected to increase through such an office, though he died before he could take it up. We know that John Baker was Solicitor General for the Leeward Island before coming to Horsham, and his diary has a large number of references to slaves. He employed a black cook at Horsham, Eudosia, but whether she was a former slave is open to question.[71] However, the overriding impact of slavery, one that influenced every strata of society, was not the wealth that enabled the large stately homes to be built, the money to buy the Chippendale furniture, or the Wedgwood pottery, or silver etc. that we associate with 18^th century culture, but sugar. Britain became addicted to sugar; something made possible by the slave trade.[72]

However, it is in the abolition of the slave trade that Horsham MPs played a significant role; one that has been forgotten. Because of that, it is recounted in the main narrative of Horsham, rather than as a mini essay at the end of the chapter.[73]

In 1789, just before the fall of the Bastille, a debate occurred in Parliament on Slavery. The debate followed the publication of a two-volume report prepared by the Privy Council on the subject. The debate was the start of a 17-year campaign that eventually led to the Abolition of slavery in law by Britain in 1807. The first debate did not go well for the abolitionists led by Wilberforce with the support of William Pitt and Edmund Burke. The anti-abolitionists were stirring in defence of the trade which they saw as fundamental to the life blood of Britain. Then the French Revolution occurred, and this helped the slave traders. As the one-time Horsham MP would state, “If any person be desirous of having an adequate idea of the mischievous effects produced in this country by the French Revolution …he should attempt some reform on humane and liberal principles …”[74]

It was against this background that the 1790 election took place. In Horsham Lady Irwin’s candidates were Lord William Gordon, her son-in law, and a James Baillie; against them for the Duke of Norfolk’s interests were Timothy Shelley and Wilson Braddyll. Baillie was a retired West Indian Merchant and a slave owner; it is likely that he had paid Lady Irwin to stand so he could defend the case for slavery in Parliament. However, due to Norfolk’s manipulation of the electoral process, it was Shelley and Braddyll who were elected. The following year, in 1791, Wilberforce introduced a motion to abolish the slave trade; it had been two years since the debate, and the arguments concerning slavery had changed from one of the beneficial affects of the trade to the impracticality and unwisdom of abolition. The vote was 88 to 163 against abolition. The movement then spread to the streets, with petitions against the slave trade; some 500 alone being received in 1792.

Interestingly, it has been argued that the abolitionists learnt their craft through the Quaker movement. “Clarkson argues that it was the Quakers, in both England and America, who provided many of the basic models for the production and use of free publications, as they provided the initial moral and intellectual impetus for abolition generally…What, then, were the Quaker’s publicity methods? In July 1783 the Quakers had the first meeting of their secretly established CFS (Committee for Sufferings) which was dedicated to publicising the abuses within slavery systems. …All their efforts went into raising awareness, whether through petitioning, targeting schools and the government with free books or infiltrating the public press.[75] In Horsham we can see this, in that as early as 1746 an address was sent by the Quakers to the King George II congratulating him on the suppression of popery.[76] Horsham had a strong and active Quaker group and so the abolitionist movement may have had their beginnings, in Horsham, at least, from within the quaker movement.

On 8 March 1792, the Norfolk candidates were de-selected and James Baillie and William Gordon were duly returned as MPs for Horsham. The following month Wilberforce tried again to carry a bill abolishing the trade. On 2 April 1792 “one of the greatest debates in the history of legislative assemblies”[77] occurred. And James Baillie, MP for Horsham, spoke for the retention of the trade.

Wilberforce started the debate with: “Africa, Africa, your sufferings have been the theme that has arrested and engages my heart. Your sufferings no tongue can express, no language impart”, before going on to discus further outrages. Then the first declaration made for the status quo was that made by James Baillie, “a Scotsman from Inverary, the agent for Grenada, who had lived both on that island and on St Kitts. He owned a plantation in Demerara and talked, in his only speech in the Commons, of the “wild, impracticable and visionary scheme of abolition “; he thought that there was brutality on innumerable ships, not just slave ships, and in innumerable European armies; and that there was more wretchedness in the parish of St Giles in London, where he had a house, than in the colonies. He also thought that the revolution in Saint –Dominique (slaves had revolted) had been directly caused by the unfortunate discussion of abolition of the slave trade”[78]. The debate continued when Dundas suggested an amendment, a compromise, that the word “gradually” be inserted. At 6.30am the following morning the vote was 230 to 85 in favour of Dundas’s motion “that the slave trade ought to be gradually abolished”.

Then, in 1793, Revolutionary War occurred; Pitt’s attention was turned elsewhere, Wilberforce lost support as he opposed the conflict, and the attack on the salve trade could be argued as an attack on ancient British institutions. It was also the year in which Horsham’s pro-slavery MP James Baillie died.

The next great impetus for abolition occurred after 1802, when Napoleon revived the French slave trade and reintroduced slavery itself into the French Empire. In 1803, the Danish enacted their agreement of 1792 to abolish the slave trade. Then in 1804 Wilberforce introduced his fourth bill to the House of Commons; it passed 49 votes to 24, mainly because of the Irish members. There was now a new opponent of the bill: the MP for Sussex County, John Fuller, a planter from Jamaica who insisted that “he had never heard the Africans deny their mental inferiority.” Although it passed the Commons, it did not pass the Lords, with Dundas, now Lord Melville, proposing a delay.

In 1806 a “Government of All the Talents” was formed following the death of William Pitt. One of the “talents” would become Horsham’s MP in 1812, but in 1806 he was the Attorney-General, Sir Arthur Pigott[79], and introduced a bill forbidding British captains to sell slaves to foreign countries. It was a stepping-stone whose language was such that few realised its importance. It passed the House of Commons 35 to 13 and the House of Lords 43 to 18. The abolitionists were over the moon. In November 1806 an election was called, and those standing for Horsham included Henry Temple, Viscount Palmerston, who would later play an important role in the worldwide abolition of the trade through the use of British Foreign policy. He would be standing for Lady Irwin’s interest, along with Fitzharris, against Norfolk’s men, Wilder and Parry Jones. The Bailiffs, rather than decide who was elected and face the problems of dissatisfied members, decided to send a double return, leaving it to Parliament to decide. So Palmerston would be elected as MP for Horsham, only to be de-selected by the House of Commons in January and Norfolk’s men returned.

On 23 February 1807 there was the last significant debate on the abolition. John Fuller MP for Sussex was strongly opposed to it, saying “We might as well say ‘Oh, we will not have our chimney swept, because it is a little troublesome to the boy’” yet despite this and other opposition the bill passed with 283 votes to 16. “The final debate was remarkable for an elegant comparison by Sir Samuel Romilly between Napoleon and Wilberforce; at the end of it, the whole house rose to give the latter unprecedented applause”[80]. Sir Samuel would become a Horsham MP in 1807; he was another proponent of abolition. The bill received royal assent on 25 March, the very last Act of the Parliament before it was dissolved, and from 1 May 1807 the trade would be illegal.

One figure who has not been mentioned in the account so far has been The Duke of Norfolk, the Duke who believed passionately in English liberty based on the Magna Charta; what was his view and impact on the debate? The Duke of Norfolk was a passionate abolitionist who worked to ensure the bill would be passed. Thomas Clarkson, the great abolitionist, who wrote a two-volume history of the struggle in 1808, records the problems the bill had in passing through Parliament, and that “on Monday, the twenty-third, the House of Lords met. Such extraordinary diligence had been used in printing the bill, that it was then ready. Lord Grenville immediately brought it forward. The Earl of Westmoreland and the Marquis of Sligo opposed it. The Duke of Norfolk and the Bishop of Landaff (Dr Watson) supported it.”[81] 

On 29 April, Parliament was dissolved and a new election was held. Those standing for Lady Irwin’s interest were Joseph Marryatt and Henry Goulbourn, and those for the Duke, Sir Samuel Romilly and Love-Parry Jones-Parry. Sir Samuel reported in his memoirs that he obtained the candidature through the offices of his abolitionist friend Pigott, the Attorney General mentioned above, but that he knew the seat, if he won the election, was likely to end up in an appeal. Romilly won the election but an appeal was made by Irwin’s men. Due to the war, the appeal was not heard for over a year and the Committee did not report until 26 February 1808, when Romilly and Parry-Jones-Parry were removed and Marryat and Goulborne were claimed to be duly elected.

Interestingly, in his account of the abolition of the slave trade, Thomas records the following: “Many ordinary petitions were also laid against this decision (to abolish the slave trade) of the legislature of the world’s largest slave trader: for example, one from Joseph Marryat, member of Parliament for Horsham, a substantial West Indies merchant and father of ‘Captain Marryat’ the novelist. But they were to no avail: 30 April 1807 was the last date when a slaver legally sailed from a British port.”[82]  The point is, Marryat was not Horsham MP at the time; he was representing himself as he did not take that position till 1808.

It is interesting to note that two of Lady Irwin’s candidates were pro-slave traders: Baillie and Marryat, whilst the Duke of Norfolk gave help to the abolitionists. Was there a deep-seated pro-slavery desire from the Viscountess Irwin, or was she doing it because they paid the most money, or did she select men to “spite” Norfolk? The latter is unlikely because she did not know of the attack on her power in 1790 election. As for the other two possibilities, James Lomax[83] of Temple Newsam, an authority on the Irwin family. said that as far as he is aware the Irwins had no slavery interests though she was friendly with a slave-owning family and merchants, so the money-making option seems the most likely reason.

There was one further election in 1807: that of the County MPs that took place at Lewes between 15 and 28 May 1807. 108 of the Horsham Freeholders voted (the voting qualifications were different for County MPs from those for Horsham MPs). The candidates were Wyndham, Fuller and Colonel Sergison. The election was fought almost entirely over one issue: slavery, as Fuller, as noted above, was greatly in favour of the trade. Pasted up around the town was the following squib:

YOUR Vote alone perhaps, may Thousands free,

Who now are chained in cruel SLAVERY

From Wife, from Children. And from all that’s dear,

They’re torn and sold as Beasts and Sheep are here;

Used cruel past Expression to relate,

And oft expire in this sad, horrid State;

Then if you’ve HUMAN feeling, and free Voice,

Let SERIGISON & WYNDHAM be your Choice.

Consider this before you go to Poll!

Your single Vote Perhaps, may free the Whole,

The stain of SLAVERY from Britain’s Isle remove.

And bring Ten Thousand Blessings from ABOVE1

                                                                  MUNGO

—————

Phillips, Printer, Horsham

Of those 108 who voted from Horsham, 101 voted for Wyndham, 22 for Fuller and 86 for Sergison (Every voter had two votes to elect two MPs) Horsham was strongly opposed to slavery, yet by Irwin’s manipulation had a pro-slavery MP.

As a postscript to the abolition movement, on 19 July 1814 a petition was sent from Horsham to the House of Commons noting that it was with “the greatest regret that in the recent treaty of peace with France no provision was made for the abolition of the slave trade.”[84]

On 20 November 1807 Lady Irwin died at Temple Newsam; the estate then passed to the Marquis of Hartford who was friendly with the Prince Regent, who in turn was friends with The Duke of Norfolk. The Duke of Norfolk could now if he so wished acquire the freehold of the burgages from the Marquis, assuming the Marquis wanted to sell. In 1809, in a survey quoted by Albery, the Duke of Norfolk had 23 burgages; the Marquis of Hartford 33.[85]  It would take four years to accomplish the sale.

In 1806 Jamerson, the Vicar of Horsham, resigned the Mastership of Collyers, asking a young Thomas Williams, who seems to have been undertaking some clerical work in the Paristo take over. As Headmaster, Williams asked for the Company to pay for some repairs to the School. This encouraged the Mercer Company to send Thomas and William Palmer to Horsham to investigate the school. In June 1807 they arrived and found that the school had no pupils. The new Master wanted to teach, but there were no pupils. The reason was the Parish copy of Richard Collyer’s will. The Vicar argued that no one knew how the pupils for the school should be selected, as the Parish copy was missing the words: “… by the Vicar and Churchwardens and two honest men of the same Parish such as the Parishioners shall think most indifferent, the said two men to  be admitted…”[86].

Interestingly, the Parish copy of the will was complete enough for Dr Hutchinson, some 50 years earlier, to argue the Company should pay for the upkeep of the parish roads from the profit on the rents (see above). The Vicar, if he wanted to, could have asked to find out the missing words, but in reality this was editing of the worst kind. The Palmers were not impressed, and through the Company suggested that the Vicar call a Parish Vestry meeting to see how the school could be reopened. In return the Company would set out new regulations “as shall appear of most public benefit”. If the Vicar and the Parish prevaricated then the Company would revert to paying the salaries as stipulated in the Will: £10 and 10 marks; as all increases had been legally “gratuities during pleasure”.

The Parish responded with a Vestry meeting on 13 August 1807. The meeting passed a number of resolutions, the intention of which was clearly to frighten the Company with the thought of additional expenditure. The Vestry argued for, amongst, other things, an increase in the salaries, and that cost should not be passed on to the parents as the school should provide free education, as “there are many families who are entirely incapable of offering the smallest expense for the education of their children”[87]. This was followed by a meeting on 26 October where the Vestry appointed a sub-committee of “9 respectable Inhabitants of the same Parish” to put forward a scheme to the Company.

The scheme included raising the Usher’s salary to £100 a year, giving the Usher the full use of the Usher’s house and the complete control of over 30 boys of the lower class. The Company debated the proposal and came back with its own: that both premises and pupils were to be under the control of the Master, and the salaries were to be £100 for the Master and £60 for the Usher; and these to be at the pleasure of the Company, not a right. Not only that; the current incumbents were to be confirmed in post and had to submit themselves to annual approbation, or review.

The Parish had to accept the new deal in full, or not get anything. In February 1808 the Vestry accepted the proposals after a heated debate: 35 for, and 29 against. The school could now re-open. In April 1808 the Company, having accepted the new code, sent a copy to the Master and the Usher to sign. Williams the Master signed, but Thornton the Usher did not; he refused to sign the agreement, resign or surrender the tenancy of the Usher’s rooms. The Company got around this by employing a temporary Usher, George Phillips, so in May 1808 the school opened. Though, according to Thornton, it was a sham: Thornton, as was the custom of the day, published an appeal for support from the town folk. This resulted in a legal case which would take years to settle; in the meantime the school ticked over.

The following year, in 1809, the same year as the turnpiking of the Horsham to Guildford Road, a cutting was made in Picts Hill, thus lowering the road and making it easier for coaches. It had been assumed that the cause of this was the death in a freak accident of Thomas Medwin’s son who rolled over on the descent from Picts Hill[89], yet the fatal accident occurred in 1806 and the road was lowered in 1809. However, it is clear from the letter of complaint (see box above) that the loss of trade through the turnpike would have made it a necessity and probably had as much to do with the cutting as the accident. The cutting can still be seen today: as you drive pass the Christ’s Hospital turn out of Horsham on the Worthing Road, you drive through a cutting.

This year also saw the nation celebrate the accession of George III some 49 years earlier. An account of how the nation celebrated was gathered together by “A Lady The wife of a Navel Officer”, as the title page of the book recording the events of 25 October 1809 stated. For Horsham, the account is as follows:

“The Jubilee was celebrated in the most joyous, loyal, and benevolent manner; the day was ushered in by the ringing of bells, which continued till noon, when the garrison, consisting of the 51^st Regiment, with part of the 23d, and 32d, fired a feu de joie on Den-Hill, which was returned by the Volunteers in the town; after which the regiments of the Garrison marched to the Market-square, and gave three hearty cheers, in which they were joined by the inhabitants with the greatest enthusiasm; at three o’clock a large party dined at the King’s Head. A subscription was raised for the poor, from which nearly 1900 received 1 lb of bread, 1 1lb. of meat each, and money in proportion to the number in family.”[90]

There was also a sermon preached in the church which was published. Unlike most of the sermons published that were preached in the town[91] this was for, and directed to, the people of Horsham. The sermon is entitled “A SERMON preached in the Parish Church of Horsham, on Wednesday, October 25, 1809, being the Anniversary of the accession of King George the Third: and the day on which his Majesty entered the Fiftieth year of his Reign. Appointed to be kept as a Jubilee. By the Reverend Thomas Williams, A.B. of Exeter College, Oxford; and Master of the Free Grammar school, Horsham. Printed by James Phillips; and sold by E. Griffith. Price, Two shillings and six-pence.” The eight-page publication then includes a dedication “to the Inhabitants of the Parish of Horsham, and particularly those who honored (sic) it with their approbation. The following Discourse, is Dedicated and Addressed, by Their obliged and humble servant, T.W.” This is then followed by more “humble pie” with a letter to the inhabitants of the town of Horsham. The sermon takes 1^st timothy, 2d.-1.2. as its text. There then follows page after page of praise for the king with the following paragraph and note: “To enjoy the GOOD of this Life for OURSELVES ALONE, is a SELFISH consideration, not, (I am proud to say) belonging to any of us here: and when we reflect, that our Prayers are this day presented to the Throne of grace, for our BELOVED and VENERABLE MONARCH, accompanied by one of the CHIEF duties of Christianity, CHARITY TO THE POOR* we may entertain a reasonable hope, that these Prayers will be heard, and that all things will be given, expedient for us.” The * goes on to state “The Sum collected throughout the Parish for the Relief of the Poor, amounted to MORE than One Hundred Pounds, and was distributed in Bread, Meat, and Money, to each indigent and industrious family. The Persons who obtained the relief, exceeded Sixteen hundred.”[92] 

The publication itself is quarto, which gives very wide margins to the thin text. This was the era of large paper copies, where large, wide margins gave a sense of luxury and quality.[93] Phillips had access to at least one ornamental font as well as various different sizes of type. The errata note at the end points out 15 mistakes, out of 16 pages of text. Obviously, the printing job was stretching the ability of J. Phillips, who up to that time had just printed the odd sale notice and auction list.

That such celebrations occurred in Horsham should not be surprising, as in May 1800 the Town had sent an address to the King congratulating him on his escape from assassination.[94]  Whilst the Parish Church was adorned with an unusual painted panel sometime between 1801 and 1815, which now hangs in Horsham Museum, the panel was bought from a secondhand dealer in Bromley in 1889, which suggests that it might have been removed from the church during its Restoration in 1864. As the label on the back states, ‘These arms must have been painted between 1801 and 1815. The Electoral Cap occurs over the shield of pretence of Hanover and the Fleurs de Lys are absent from the English shield. The Fleurs de Lys were resigned by George III by Royal Proclamation in 1801 and the Electoral Cap was dropped when Hanover was made a kingdom in 1815.’

What is remarkable about this account is not the pro-monarchy celebration, which in the time of War one might expect, but that there were 1900 people in Horsham deemed “poor”; deserving of charity. The population of Horsham in 1811 was 3,839[95], though that probably included the whole parish and some outlying areas (see above), which would suggest that around half the population were considered deserving poor. This suggests that while some were benefiting from the army barracks in the town, the wealth was not being distributed, and the idea as expressed by some Horsham historians that poverty became a problem for Horsham after the War needs to be re-assessed. The reality is that Horsham had a very large “underclass”.

However, money was continuing to flow into the economy with the war now entering its “beginning of the end”. The demands on the nation’s manpower were such that men were being encouraged to fight from all over the empire. In December 1810 the 102^nd Regiment was stationed in Horsham. The 102^nd were different from the other regiments because they had originally been called the New South Wales Corps and served in Australia. Arriving in Horsham Barracks in December, they had brought with them wives and children, the cream of the growing population of the new colony. The Parish Register for the winter of the year 1810/11, records that 77 children died due to a epidemic, possibly of measles, and of those 77 children 45 had the same surname as the men of the 102^nd. This epidemic also killed nearly all the women brought over with the troops. The effect on the development of New South Wales was such that it is recorded in the history of that state.[96]  Whilst the death of 45 children was devastating, what has not been noted is that Horsham lost 33 children of its own to the epidemic. This large number of deaths may well reflect the degree to which poverty was putting a strain on the people of Horsham; the children were malnourished and so susceptible to diseases, whereas those from New South Wales were encountering this pathogen for the first time.

Whilst all of this was going on behind the scenes, the Duke of Norfolk was entering into negotiations with the Marquis of Hartford to buy the property owned by the Ingram family. He had hoped to buy from Sir Henry Fletcher his Burgages, but the price was too high[97], so negotiations continued with the Marquis with the help of the Prince Regent. How much of these discussions was common knowledge cannot be told from the records. However, the town faced a new and pressing problem.

By 1808 the town of Lewes had spent £15,000 on a new County Hall, which emphasised how poor the Town Hall was. This led to an argument by the justices for pulling the town hall down[98] and rebuilding it. This was followed a year later by the suggestion that the quarter sessions should move elsewhere.[99]  This would have been a severe blow to the status of Horsham and to the traders who benefited by the courts coming to town. The tax base of the town was so small that the previous Town Hall had been built as a gift by the Eversfield and Ingram families (see above), and even after 80 years of growth the town could not afford to sort the problem out.

It has been argued that the Duke stepped in to help Horsham out after he had purchased the town. However, in the Arundel archives there is a plan for the new town hall on paper watermarked 1810.[100]  It might be that the plan was drawn on old paper stock, or it could indicate that the Duke’s negotiations to acquire Horsham were progressing well enough for him to invest time in designing the Town Hall.

In a letter quoted by Albery, dated 1 February 1812, the Duke of Norfolk writes, “Sir Henry’s terms put an end to all hope of a favourable negotiation between us, and I was thereby induced to listen with eagerness to a proposition made by the Marquis of Hartford in November, 1810, and to purchase his estates at a most exorbitant price”[101], which suggests that the design of the town hall was linked to the purchase of Horsham, both being planned in 1810. In fact, a document in the Norfolk archives housed in Arundel Castle states that the sale was carried out on 31 December 1810 when an “Articles of agreement for sale “ was drawn up with the price of £91,475 for “All the Horsham properties devised in the will of Charles Viscount Irwin”[102].

News of the purchase leaked to the press, and on 25 February 1811 the Sussex Advertiser announced:

---

“The Duke of Norfolk has purchased of the Marquis of Hartford his property in Horsham, by which the electioneering struggles between the two parties will be put to an end. The Ministerial influence will lose two Members and the Irwinites at Horsham will be losers annually of two good jollifications”.

The amount of legal paperwork to go through meant that it was not until June 1811 that the deal was finally completed, with the Duke handing over the remaining £31,475 on top of the “£60,000 already paid.”[103]  Horsham now belonged to the Duke.

At the time of these legal negotiations in London on 31 January 1811, the Master of the Rolls sat to hear the case concerning Collyer’s School, between Thornton and the Mercer Company. The case was brought by the Attorney General. The reason for the Crown’s involvement was that the only one entitled to evict Thornton from the School-house was the legal owner; and that was unknown. The Company may pay salaries and repair the fabric, the Parish select the pupils, but neither were the “heir-at-law of Richard Collyer”, who was unknown, so the Crown would step in, and only the Lord Chancellor could make orders for the future of the school.  

Thornton must have been well advised when he stuck struck out back in 1808. In the case, the Company asked that the School should have a constitution, a set of Trustees, and directions given to run the school as the Founder had intended. The company also set out how the school had been run since 1808; that it had taken 60 boys and given them primary education which was “consonant to the general wish of the present day”[104]. The Courts went away to think about what they had heard and Collyers carried on teaching a primary education.

In Horsham the Duke was now in full command, back to, as he would see it, the Lord Paramount owning most of Horsham’s burgage plots and with it the associated rights, duties and obligations, including the burgesses’ rights to the Common. In August he asked Medwin to place an advertisement in the papers proposing to enclose Horsham Common. The advert ran on 9 September 1811 in the Sussex Weekly Advertiser, baldly stating that:

“Notice is hereby given that application is intended to be made to Parliament in the ensuing session for an Act for dividing, allotting and enclosing Horsham Common, and the waste lands adjacent or contiguous thereto lying within the several manors of Horsham…. Dated at Horsham this fourth day of September 1811…”[105]

Having helped the Duke of Norfolk gain control of Horsham by developing strategies that would inflict maximum nuisance on the Irwin’s, Thomas Charles Medwin, the town’s solicitor overplayed his hand, believing himself to be irreplaceable. Unfortunately for him, he was not and in September Norfolk fired him.[106] Medwin had been also helping out Sir Henry Fletcher and the Duke may have thought there was a conflict of interest. Equally he may have taken umbrage in that Sir Henry had forced him to negotiate with The Marquis because he would not sell his burgages to him; Medwin may have given away confidences. Equally the sacking was over collecting manorial fees and Norfolk may have thought that he had employed Medwin to tighten up and collect monies due to him as a way of control. Now with the enclosure of the Common there was less demand for his skills. We just do not know. Medwin was now a free agent and the Medwin archive now has an anti-Norfolk spin, rather than pro-Norfolk. 

On 1 February 1812, the Duke of Norfolk wrote to Sir Henry Fletcher, second-largest burgage holder in Horsham, saying: “Whatever be the result of this proposition the enclosure of the Common appears to be an advantageous measure, and I am therefore preparing the draught of the Bill with as much speed as possible and will send it for your perusal.”[107] By 25 February 1812 Mr Hurst presented a Bill for enclosing Horsham Common which, by 20 March, had received Royal Assent.[108]  There was virtually no comment in the town. The 24-page Act goes into some detail of the mechanics of the enclosure, run by Commissioners who were “required to set out and allot unto the owner …for in lieu of the tithes of corn and grain that might yearly arise issue and renew out of the said common …parcels of the residue of the said common as…shall be equal to one eleventh part thereof in lieu and full satisfaction and compensation. [109] This meant that even the land left, after division of the Common into the respective owners’ holdings, was split amongst holders of the tithes. There were then three portions of land:

• land sold to pay for the enclosure, some 69 acres 3 roods 30 poles
• the land owned by the owner of the burgages
• land given in compensation for the tithes, the latter two totalling 662 acres 1 rood 8 poles[110]

The first tranche of Common land was sold by auction on 22 October 1812, and that was to pay for the legal expenses. The first sale raised around £100 an acre and included land from the South East Corner of New Street (then known as Pest House Lane): some 28 acres in total, whilst the sale on 14 January to pay for enclosing land in Roughey manor raised less than half that. That land was in Crawley Road, Forest Road and Comptons Lane South.[111]  Interestingly, the purchasers of the land were not outsiders but people from Horsham; those who were obviously benefiting from the Barracks, e.g. Philip Chasemore, butchers who had the contract of supplying meat to the Barracks, [112] Charles Oaks, gunsmith, two of whose guns are on display in the Museum, Duke of Norfolk, Frances Scawen Blunt, Tredcroft, John Lintott etc. The biggest purchaser of land was Robert Hurst, the Member of Parliament who had brought forward the enclosure bill.[113]

William Albery, who viewed the enclosure of the Common with distaste, sets out in his Millennium who purchased the land at the auction, who obtained the land through the enclosure, and who bought various plots of land and the prices paid. Albery shows that Norfolk acquired in total around 486 acres of land, but he sold around 172 acres; Hurst received as compensation for various tithes some 63 acres of Horsham Common, with Sir Henry Fletcher receiving around 47 acres. There then followed various sales between land owners with Robert Hurst being the principal purchaser, who spent £10,005 16s 3d on land in Horsham and Roffey[114] which came from the estate of Sarah Hurst, the diarist, who died in March 1808.[115]  Was Robert Hurst the person who gave the idea of enclosing the Common to the Duke of Norfolk? He had money to burn, after all. We do not know. However, through the purchase of this land he became one of Horsham’s most important landowners. The end result was that Norfolk had ended up with around 330 acres of the common (320 from the allocation and 10 from purchase), whilst Hurst ended up with around 213 acres (69 allotted and 144 bought)).[116] In reality, the enclosure of the Common only brought around 132 acres of new land into the domain of private ownership (the 69 sold to pay for the process and the 63 in lieu of tithes given to Hurst); the rest had already been in private ownership but with commoners’ rights.

If the enclosure of the Common was intended to recoup the cost of buying Horsham, it was a poor proportion for Norfolk. He raised £9,955 16s and 3d for sale of Horsham Manor land and a further £224 for the sale of Hawkesbourne Manor land; some £10,199. 16s 3d in total, but he spent £776 buying up land, leaving a grand profit of £9433, around 10% of the cost of the burgage plots, though he did own all the houses. This profit was only possible because he sold land, though it could be argued that selling capital assets is not really a profit at all.

The Enclosure of the Common, as well as seeing a major redistribution of land ownership in Horsham, also saw some significant developments in the makeup and layout of the Town. For centuries the Common had acted as a barrier to growth to the north, east and partly to the west. The river had stopped growth along the southerly border; Horsham was therefore restricted in areas to expand, other than the large open market waste in its centre, or through the development of the farmland owned by the burgesses. The enclosure of the Common created a large pool of land which could be developed, as the 19^th century will show. However, Horsham still had large tracts of land within the borough which were under-developed.

The other change was to the medieval roadways that crisscrossed the Common. When the land was a common, routes over the land were determined by geographical features; now, routes were determined by land ownership. This meant that some roads or tracks had to be diverted and new ones created. The enclosure commissioners foresaw this and allocated £1,393 for the making of roads, the money coming from the sale of common land.

By July 1813 Horsham common enclosure was completed. The land enclosed was poor quality with only one belt of good land and that was to be used by market gardeners later in the century.[121] The “common rights” were only those that belonged to the burgesses, they didn’t belong to the people of Horsham and whilst some undoubtedly did miss these rights the soil could only be used for grazing livestock, not intensive farming. The enclosure was in the end a good thing for Horsham, for without it the Town could not develop or expand unless there was the construction of multiple tenancy occupation units that were starting to appear on the coast in Brighton and Worthing, but a rare feature in Horsham.

In 1812/13 the Duke of Norfolk bought very little land, in fact he was the major seller. One reason could be the shortage of cash available. He had just spent out over £91,000 and then his beloved town was facing a problem that would affect more people in Horsham in the short term than the enclosure of the common. On the 23^rd March 1812 the Judges declared the Town Hall unfit for use, complaining to the Lord Chief Baron.[122] They wanted to move out of Horsham. The creation of the turnpike network meant that the poor roads through Sussex were no longer an excuse, not when thousands of travellers were yearly going from London to the growing coastal resorts. If the Assizes left Horsham so would all the trade that the Courts would bring in. The War could not go on for ever so eventually the army would leave the town and with them the £1,000 a week pumped in to the local economy. Something had to be done.      

The Duke of Norfolk stepped forward with his design sketched out perhaps two years earlier, and rebuilt the Town Hall at a cost of £8,000[123] which seems to be a lot of money for comparatively little work. It included the addition of a new north façade, decorated with coats of arms, made from Coade stone, a new staircase built at the south end and the open ground floor was permanently enclosed as a lower court room.[124] This meant that Horsham lost its market house, the open space underneath the meeting room, but gained according to a quote in Albery a building “greatly superior to any other Court of Justice in Sussex”  The Justices stayed, the town folk were grateful and Norfolk had built an unusual monument.

Very little attention has been given to the architecture of the Town Hall. The Duke in rebuilding the north façade changed it from a classical style building to a Norman style battlemented and turreted building. Why?  The answer lies in the Duke’s ideas of what is portrated by architecture. The Duke’s greatest construction was not Horsham Town Hall, but Arundel Castle. Although asking advice from the leading architects of the day the Duke project-managed the reconstruction of Arundel. As Robinson states in his book on the Norfolks, “The architectural style of the new parts of the castle was determined by the Duke’s Whig principles; it was a hybrid of Perpendicular Gothic and Norman (then called “Saxon”) which were associated in the Duke’s eyes with ancient liberty, and the whole building was in one sense intended to be a temple of liberty, a fact made clear (in Latin) on the foundation stone: ‘Charles Howard Duke of Norfolk, Earl of Arundel in the year of Christ 1806 in the sixtieth year of his age dedicated this stone to Liberty asserted by the Barons in the reign of John’ This theme was continued in the sculpture…all of which celebrated the triumph of liberty over royal tyranny. Much of the sculpture was executed in Coade stone, a modern material which the Duke, as president of the Royal society of Arts, adopted with enthusiastic relish” [125]

Another aspect of the Duke’s character was his passion for collecting for “buying back, having copied, or specially commissioning paintings and objects related to the Howard family and their history…[126]” In this light the passionate desire to regain Horsham, something which the Howards had owned, but slipped from their grasp, can be understood. Horsham as well as a politically important borough was also part of the Howard family treasures, one of the foundation estates of the family that could be traced back, as no doubt he would have done with his interest in genealogy and local history, to the 13^th century and the conflict with King John. The de Braose family as shown above were involved in getting the Magna Charta, the foundation of English liberty and something that the Duke believed in and strongly supported. (Was it from this belief that Norfolk’s abolitionist desire grew?)[127] 

In light of all these threads it is possible to see that the Town Hall was an outpost of this belief, a physical manifestation, a smaller version of Arundel Castle built in Horsham. It should not be seen as just a Town Hall, but as a monument to liberty, the liberty of Horsham from the tyranny of Tory Irwinites. Horsham was now back in the fold and what better than to destroy the classical  monument that symbolised Eversfield and Irwin interests and replace it with a true sign of English liberty, and what is more a Court House whose laws drew on the very foundation stone of English liberty. The Magna Charta. 

Perhaps the Duke sold some of the common land to raise funds to build the monument, or raised the money from the sale of the two MPs seats in the election of 1812. We do not know, what we can say is that at a time of considerable expense the Duke found the resources to spend £8,000 on a practical monument with its Coade stone plaques that are so obviously trying to tell future generations that the Town Hall is not just a building but a monument to ideas. With the Royal crest, with the Horsham crest with its dragon tails, de Braose H and the Norfolk arms.  

Whilst some in the town were concerned over the enclosure sales, the majority of the poor Horsham folk were more concerned with education. In 1812 the Rev. George Marshall, Curate of Horsham, set up a “National School” which was held in Trinity Chantry for 100 children.[128] The school was in essence a Primary school, teaching the basics known as the Bell plan. When Collyers had been re-established by the vestry in 1809, it was over-subscribed with children, so much so that only one child from each family was allowed to go.[129]  The following year, after 16 months of legal discussion, the Lord Chancellor finally gave his verdict concerning Collyer’s school and Mr Thorton’s appeal. In the intervening period the temporary Usher George Phillips had been ill for a year and eventually died in March. On 5 April 1813 the Lord Chancellor provided the school with a new constitution, something that would never have happened if Thornton had not drawn attention to the lack.

On 1 July 1813 the Company was finally able to put into operation the Lord Chancellor’s constitution.

The key aspects of the constitution that would guide the running of the school were:

1. That the school “should consist of 60 scholars, to be selected by the Vicar, Churchwardens, and Schoolwardens of Horsham, from the poor people” of the Parish and echoing the phrasing in Collyer’s will: “none should be rejected likely to learn”. There should be no charge to the parents for the children’s “learning, or for pens, ink, paper, or books, or other requisites, for admission”

2. “Scholars be admitted from the age of eight years, and be permitted to remain until the age of 14 years”.

3. The children had to have “perfect knowledge of the alphabet, but that preference be given to the best reader”.

4. The children are to be taught reading, writing and arithmetic. However, to retain the notion that Collyers was a grammar school, “any number of boys at the discretion of the Schoolwardens, he also taught the Latin language”.

The constitution then dealt with the hours the school should be open, including school holiday (a 4-week break at Christmas and Midsummer). It also stipulated that the Master and the Usher should have to be in permanent attendance during the school hours. It then goes on to the personal characteristics of the pupils:

“That the Master and usher shall send back any boy who shall not appear with clean hands and faces, and hair combed, or not decently dressed”.

Other conditions included: the rate of pay; the grant of the houses attached to the school; the school playground, called the croft, could not be leased out; the Master or Usher could teach other children if that was not to the detriment of the school[130].

At the time the new constitution was issued and acted upon, a survey of the school building was carried out. It revealed that the School-house “is very old and injudiciously constructed, with quarter–carcasing on the walls, and roofs with very heavy timbers and stone of great weight which has strained the sides out of the perpendicular and floors sunk in places twelve inches.” Some £500 was spent on rectifying the problems, followed by another £200 by 1819 when the building was declared “in good repair”.[131] 

Horsham now had two primary schools which would provide a workforce suitable for trade but not for the higher professions: law, religion etc., which was all that Horsham wanted as shown earlier.

---

1813 not only saw a new, reformed, Collyers School, a new Town Hall being built, new road layout and new owners of common land; it also saw the end of the betting sport, bull baiting. The bull was tied by the nose to a large iron ring held fast by an iron stake into the ground.[133] Occasionally pepper would be blown up the bull’s nose to make it more angry. A specially bred dog, with a flattened snout and powerful jaws known as a bull-dog, would be set on to the bull who would use its horns and legs to kick or gouge the dog away. Betting took place on the length of time the dog survived before leaving injured. After this sport, the bull was then taken to the abattoir and slaughtered, with the meat sold in Butchers Row; according to Dorothea Hurst, “the flesh was sold at a low rate “by the candle” in the Butchers Row[134], now known as Middle Street. Selling “by the candle” is the old style of auctions introduced from the Netherlands in the 17^th century. The last person bidding when the candle went out won the auction. Interestingly, tradition has it that baited bull meat sold for a premium because, according to tradition, beef from a bull that is baited tastes sweeter.

The question to ask is: why in the middle of a war, with a large army contingent who were keen to spend money, did Horsham stop this gambling sport? The late 18^th century and early 19^th century saw a change in the relationship between man and beast. There was a flurry of children’s books that anthropomorphised animals and insects, including the popular The Butterfly’s Ball. However, bull baiting was not made illegal in Britain until 1835, so why did Horsham stop baiting bulls some 22 years before it had to? (With bear and bull baiting being made illegal people went to dog fights.) The answer is that we do not know. It might be that bull baiting no longer suited the way the people viewed the Carfax after the Town Hall had been built; but it could have taken place elsewhere in the Town. The fact that it was not, might indicate that Horsham was perhaps, corporately, seeing itself differently. Horsham was on the main route down to Worthing and on a major route to Brighton. Travelling through Horsham would be ladies and gentlemen, some of whom would have watched and gambled on the sport, but many would not. Horsham had a new Town Hall, it probably had a theatre, and it had a book club that seems to have taken over from the circulating Library mentioned before. With the possibility that it could lose the justices, perhaps the town was trying to reposition itself as a model of good behaviour, so abandoning the bloody, gory and barbarous sport. There is one other possibility. Horsham had a vet, or possibly a more apt description would be a horse doctor, based on the bills held in the Medwin archive. A Mr Meginiss was recorded from February 1813 working in Horsham on Mr Medwin’s horse.[135] Perhaps the vet expressed his horror at the sport and persuaded others to stop it. The true answer is that we do not know why it happened, but it did.  

In 1813 the Sussex volume of the Beauties of England and Wales was published.[136] It is a fascinating account of the county at this time, drawing on local observation and previously published works. The key element is the term ‘beauty’, for today we would refer to beauty in terms of landscape; a notion that was widespread at that time, having been developing during the later half of the 18^th century. However, the author also refers to beauty in the terms of goodness; well run, efficient, pleasing to the economy. For that reason, the book gives a thorough review of things such as roads, canals, agriculture, as well as descriptions of each town. The following are extracts taken from the book.

The first part of the book describes the geography of the county. Under Wastes the author writes: “The tracts of land come under the description of mere wastes in Sussex are very considerable…It is not a little extraordinary that such immense tracts of land should be left in an unprofitable state, when they are every where intersected by turnpike-roads, and are only between thirty-five and forty-five miles distant from such markets as London”. Horsham Common was a prime example of what the author is referring to, and in the debate over enclosure it is worth remembering that the opinion was for enclosure of land to make it profitable. The author then goes on to describe Turnpike-roads, saying “in Sussex are general well executed. There goodness is chiefly owing to the excellence of the materials, whin-stone, and the Kentish rag, of which they are composed.” It should be remembered that Macadamed roads did not come into use until the 1820s and 30s; prior to that date the roads were, in effect, cobbled or paved. “The roads from the principal towns to the metropolis, and the great cross-road near the coast which connects them together, are excellent”.

The book was written for the metropolitan market, so the fact that the roads to the principal towns were excellent would encourage trade. After roads, the author goes on to canals and water transport, mentioning the proposed development of the Wey and Arun canal and the following proposals: “A plan has also been proposed for cutting another canal from Newbridge on the Rother to Horsham, and thence to the iron rail-way to Mersham, near Reigate, in Surrey.”  This was one of the many failed attempts to put Horsham on the canal network. As Windrum writes, “The Napoleonic Wars gave impetus to proposals for linking London and Portsmouth to avoid French warships in the Channel and Rennie suggested in 1802 a canal through Croydon, Horsham and Pulborough, and although a Bill was presented to Parliament not enough money was forthcoming…Rennie tried again in 1810 with a scheme to join the Medway to Portsmouth via Tonbridge, Crawley, Horsham and Pulborough, which would have required large reservoirs of water in St Leonard’s Forest”[137]. The scheme failed due to lack of financial support, whilst the one mentioned above failed due to engineering objections.

The authors then go on to describe the agriculture and farming practices in Sussex. This is based in the main on Arthur Young’s General View of the Agriculture of County of Sussex[138], a county-wide look at farming best practice. The book can be seen as the apogee of 18^th century agricultural revolution, intended to spread the word of best practice, not to the poor tenant but to the landlord, who could afford the book and had the capital to invest and force through new ways of working on a workforce that relied on customary practices. In Horsham, the landholding in the parish was dominated by five great estates divided into leased farms:

• Tredcroft
• Norfolk based around Roffey comprising of over 1,000 acres
• Denne including Chesworth farm
• the Fletcher estate
• the Hurst[139] 

The nearest equivalent to the book today would be those business guru manuals by authors such as Peterson that pushed through ideas of “customer care” etc. The following, though, are taken from Beauties, but give a flavour of Young’s work.[140] For example, and unfortunately not a Horsham one, under the section of fattening oxen, the following is noted: “Stalls, or sheds of flint, are frequently constructed, as at Mr. Thomas Ellman’s of Shoreham, with keelers in each stall for watering, and troughs of communication to convey the water from a pump in the farm-yard to the general trough at the outside of the building, which is again conveyed to each stall; so that all the trouble of tying, untying, and driving to water is avoided”[141].

For the Weald the author identifies “The most general course pursued on the stiffer, or strong loamy clays, may be considered as the standard of the Weald, and is as follows:-1. Fallow. 2.Wheat. 3. Oats. 4. Clover, or ray-grass, two or three years. 5. Oats, pease, or wheat. On lighter lands is practised an arrangement which can not be too much recommended:- 1. Turnips. 2 Barley. 3 Clover. 4 Wheat”[142]. Horsham Common, which could never be farmed in such a manner before enclosure, would now be converted to this style of crop rotation if it was at all suitable. As a throwaway comment, the author notes that rhubarb and opium are produced by the Earl of Egremont at Petworth for medical purposes, such is are our changing views[143]. As for Horsham, it is recorded in 1801 that more oats than wheat were grown in the parish and, even though there were two breweries in the town, only 44 acres of barley.[144] Also grown in Horsham in the late 18^th century are fodder crops for animals, including potatoes for horses in Denne Park[145].

Should the land require it, it was manured, and the author describes the following: “The manures used in Sussex besides the common dung are: Chalk, lime, marl, sleech, soap-ashes, wood-ashes, peat-ashes, coal-ashes, rags, sheep-clippings, pilchards, pairing-dust, gypsum. The first three are applied in great abundance; the rest, from their nature, but partially”. Again, until enclosure of the common, such practices would not have been carried out on the common land, though on the farmland within the town, such as the “home farms” of Hills and the estate of Denne Park, Horsham and Springfield Park, possibly.

However, a great deal of Horsham farmland was probably used for livestock, as suggested in the table above for 1801 which shows more sheep (1,500) and pigs (nearly 1,200) than cattle (857).[146] Sussex was different from most counties in having both a Sussex Cow and a Sussex Sheep which were described as “the most distinguishing feature in the husbandry of this county…The thorough-bred Sussex Cow has a deep red colour, fine hair, and the skin mellow, thin, and soft; a small head; a fine horn, thin clear and transparent, which should run out horizontally, and afterwards turn up at the tips.” .

The author here is describing features that are the by-product of the cow; the skin obviously turned into leather, which would explain the large number of leather tanneries in Horsham, whilst the horn would be converted into beakers and spoons, as well as toggles, buttons etc.[147]  He then describes the structure and shape of the cow which give an indication of its meat, before detailing its milking qualities: “the Sussex cows are not to be compared with some other breeds; but what they want in that point, they make up in quality. A good cow will give five pounds of butter a week in the height of the season…”[148]  The author then goes on to describe the South Down Sheep, a breed that was genetically engineered through selective breeding in the 1780s. By 1813 its popularity had spread across Sussex.

After describing, or rather not describing, horses and hogs, the author makes the following comment: “Rabbits, which flourish in proportion to the size of the wastes, are, therefore, productive in this county. From Horsham and Ashdown Forests considerable quantities are sent to the markets of the metropolis…The Dorking fowls, as they are called, are all raised in the Weald of Sussex, but not the five-clawed species, which, though considered in other parts of England as the prime stock, is only, a bastard breed”[149]. Horsham has been noted in a number of accounts for its poultry sales (see below), but rabbits have not been mentioned, except with regard to the dragon of St Leonard’s Forest in 1614. However, with the construction of large rabbit warrens in St Leonard’s the rabbit was an important cash livestock. Finally, the account ends with a comment on fish: “Fish is an object of some consequences in this county. The weald contains innumerable ponds…and in the mill-ponds are now raised large quantities of fish. Carp is the chief stock; but tench, perch, eels, and pike, are also bred”[150]. This foodstuff has often been forgotten in the dietary economy of the people of Horsham, but the wealth of ponds in the vicinity of the town, as well as the river, would have supplemented the diet. The mention of fish shops has led to the common assumption that it would be saltwater fish, but that may not have been the case.

Under Horsham, the author recounts an interesting derivation for the name, after discounting the Horsa origin, by saying “northing more than similarity of sound to support this conjecture”, before suggesting that as the area was wooded, then the name is a “corruption of Hurstham”; ‘Hurst’ meaning clearing in woodland. As explained above, today we believe the name is derived from Horses. The account then goes into the political representation before describing the markets: “the weekly market on Saturday, is abundantly supplied with corn and poultry; and on the last Tuesday in every month there is another for cattle. The fairs, chiefly for cattle and sheep, are held on the Monday before Whit-Sunday, on the 18^th July, and the following Saturday and on the 16^th and 27^th of November”.[151]  He then describes the church, including the spire “of lead and slate” (whereas it is wooden shingles) before mentioning that “Horsham has a good Market House and a Town Hall, in which the Summer Assizes are held alternately with Lewes. This edifice the Duke of Norfolk is now enlarging at his own expense, so as to render it more commodious for the judges and magistrates at the Assizes and quarter-sessions.

The County Gaol a new and commodious structure…A small garden extends along the front of the building, which has two spacious court-yards of about half an acre each, with gravel –walks surrounding a fine grass-plot.” He then gives information available from other sources about the gaol before describing: “Here are two Free-schools and Meeting-houses for the Quakers, Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians; southward of the town are extensive Barracks, and a magazine in which are kept 30,000 stands of arms”. The author then describes the owners of the various estates; Hills place belonged to Duke of Norfolk, Denne Park was owned by William Marwick Esq., Springfield by William Morris, Esq. and Horsham Park by Robert Hurst Esq. And St Leonard’s Forest is Cool Hurst; a seat of the Earl of Galloway.[152] 

The War against the French Empire was now going Britain and her allies’ way. On 11 August 1814 Horsham held a Peace Dinner. The survival of the ticket to the Peace Dinner was all that we had of the celebrations. However, recently, at an auction in Chichester, a contemporary account of a journey through England came up for sale and was sold above the means we had to buy the document. Fortunately, the specialist in charge of the sale, Derrick White of Rusper, had extracted as an enticement to bidders the following from the letter.

‘(Horsham) …kind of Jubilee festival in celebration of the recent peace…in a Ring beneath a temporary Orchestra the gentry were performing Country Dances, in an adjoining field was playing a Female Cricket match . . . more appropriate Celebration of the Peace than the Fetes of His Royal Highness at St James’s’.

This might be a contemporary account of the Peace Celebration of 1814, for which we have an original ticket to in the collections. Then Sue Djabri brought to my attention a printed letter that one of her ancestors[153], William Sheppard, had circulated. William seems to have been the Secretary of the organising Committee, whilst his father had supplied £93 worth of meat. The letter asks the recipient the following:

“Sir,

You are earnestly requested to assist as a CARVER for 25 persons, at the Horsham Peace Festivity Dinner and to provide two Waiters, and the following articles,

                                    Seven Yards of Table Cloth,

                                    A Carving Knife and Fork,

                                    Two Beer Mugs,

                                    Two Dishes for Joints,

                                    Three Saucers for Salt,

                                    Two Bottles for Vinegar,

Your Waiters to be punctually at the Table by 9 o’Clock with the above Articles and afterwards to be careful in the Preservation of the same.

The Dinner will be on Thursday the 11^th Instant precisely at 2 o’Clock in Mr. G. Waller’s Field.

Your Compliance with the above Request will be particularly esteem’d. Should it not be agreeable to comply therewith, your immediate answer will oblige.

          Sir

                                                          Your Respectful Servant,

                                                                             W Sheppard

Aug:8^th. 1814

By order of the Committee.

Obviously the tables were going to be “dressed”. The use of vinegar is interesting; was fish on the menu? Possibly, but more likely the vinegar was used on the meat to break down the toughness; it was not the finest joint.

The celebrations were a bit premature, for Napoleon escaped from captivity and Britain was put on a war footing again. This time the war ended in a decisive battle of Waterloo. Napoleon fled in a coach, only to be captured. Much, much later the coach which was on display in Madam Tussauds would catch fire and the only remnant left would be part of the leather spring. This was given to William Albery who would display it in his shop in West Street Horsham before giving it with the rest of his saddlery collection to the town.

Soon after the battle, on 27 and 28 July 1815, the stores at the barracks were sold at auction in Lewes, followed soon after by the buildings[154]. The Museum holds a map of the barracks: “A survey of Ye Barracks. Erected September 1796 on the Estate of Nath Tredcroft Esq., taken down September 1815 .W. Joanes Surveyor”. With a scale12500in to 1m.”[155]

The map itself might reveal something else about Horsham, something which cannot be proven but, if it was occurring, would help explain it; a growing awareness of history within the town. The renewal of Collyer’s, the Town Hall rebuild with its historic overtures, the re-appearance of the Duke of Norfolk, now reclaiming his historic title and birthright could all lead to a greater awareness of historic record. This map is a manifestation of that and, hence, its “historic” language.

The barracks themselves were not demolished but, being prefabricated, were taken apart and sold on for other uses: the barrack Guardhouse became the Providence Chapel at Charlwood, Surrey, which opened on 15 November 1816, whilst the three octagonal cookhouses became an apple store and a lodge at Leonardslee, and Old Jengers Chapel, the Non-Conformist Chapel at Billingshurst.[157] The depot, however, was not pulled down and remained a fixture in Horsham for a further 140-odd years. The stores and arms were removed by February 1819 and the Depot building was sold in April 1827.[158]

So ended the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. The influence on Horsham continued well after the events recounted above. The loss of income on the town of the removal of the barracks was substantial and was still reported on in 1839 in the Universal British Directory.[160]  What, though, was Horsham like at this point? Early in 1816 there was a major resettlement of the lands in Horsham between the 11^th Duke, Charles, to the 12^th Duke Bernard Edward. The Conveyance and settlement document contains a wealth of information that in effect provides a snapshot of the town, describing current and previous ownership. The Museum has an undated map which on internal evidence dates to around 1814-1816, and may in fact belong to this settlement document. Rather than give the details here, please see the Elaboration at the end of this chapter.

The document reveals a number of points that could not be obtained from any other source. In 1816 most properties had gardens and orchards. Gardens are commonplace today, but not in the town centre, and orchards are a rarity. However, in the 17^th century the growing of fruit and the use of the technique of grafting had religious overtones. It is likely that the orchards are a historical continuation of 17^th century household management that, through the 19^th century, died out as the ground was redeveloped. The other surprising factor is the amount of land, acres of it, that was still open and the properties that were undergoing rebuilding. This document is a snapshot of Horsham at the beginning of the 19^th century when most of the town was in the ownership of one person. The next century would see social, political and economic changes that would force a major sale 100 years later.

ELABORATIONS

1. A CASE OF “FUNNY MONEY” TWO HUNDRED YEARS LATER[161]

The story begins with the arrival in the post of a photocopy of an auction catalogue. Dr Paul Robinson, Curator at Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Museum, also known as Devizes Museum, noted that three Horsham tokens were coming up for sale and thought I might be interested. I was, but I had always been suspicious about the 18^th century tokens issued by M Pintosh and now the opportunity to acquire the tokens led me to investigate my suspicions.

A “token” background

Possibly, and at best probably, you might remember from your schooldays learning of trade tokens during the Industrial revolution. The story goes along the lines of employers paying factory hands during the industrial revolution in trade tokens which could only be spent in the shop that accepted the token, and that shop was owned by the factory owner. That unfortunately is a very simplistic and misleading tale. As usual, real history is a lot more fascinating.

There were two main periods of trade tokens: the mid 17^th century and the late 18^th and early 19^thcentury.[162] Our story concerns the late 18^th century tokens. The 18^th century was a period of rapid growth based on an expanding market; more and more items were coming to the market to buy, from mass-produced ceramics to chap books, to pewter and clothing. In addition, people were moving away from the farm and wanted payment in coin, not in goods. Shopkeepers needed coins to give as change.

The Royal mint had to make enough small change to keep the markets going (if you only had a guinea to by a twopenny item, then you could not buy it unless the retailer could give you change). To combat this shortage, counterfeiters were producing fake coins. (There were two types of fake coins: coins that tried to copy the coin of the realm, and “evasives”; that is, a coin that evaded the law of counterfeits by plainly looking like, but not being, a coin of the realm. So instead of the head of George III, it would have the head of King Alfred and say another king’s name. To a population ignorant of knowing what the king looked like, and many not being able to read, the coin was a genuine coin, though it evaded the law).

By 1775 George III stopped issuing copper coins. The reason for this was based on human nature and on greed. People saved the bright new shiny coins and spent the bad coin. This is part of what is known as “Gresham’s Law”: that is, “Bad money drives the good money out”. The counterfeiters also collected the new copper coins, melted them down and minted two or three lightweight copper coins, thus doubling their money.

The larger towns and cities with their markets attracted coins; traders as a result went to the cities to trade, taking coins with them, thus reducing the amount circulating in the smaller towns. Therefore, the shortage of coins in the provinces resulted in provincial tokens being issued.

In north west Wales lies the island of Anglesey which had huge copper reserves. In 1787 the Parys Mines Company issued its own copper coin to pay its miners and local traders. The tokens had the Druid’s head on one side and the letters PMC on the other, with a legend that stated they were payable in Regal funds by the company; in other words, guaranteed to have a worth. The tokens were not minted in Anglesey, but at their mint in Soho Birmingham, which was a growing mercantile centre and hub of a developing communications network, and led to the 250 tons of pennies and 50 tons of halfpennies circulating across Britain. Within a few years traders throughout the country were issuing tokens. The Government eventually stepped in and started issuing copper coins, calling a halt to tokens in 1797.

The token had by then developed a life of its own. As mentioned above, any trader could issue a token, but that did not mean the trader minted the token, but that the trader circulated them. These tokens did not have the trader’s mark on them. Tokens were made by manufacturers to be sold in bulk to any person who would buy and circulate them. Thomas Sharpe, in his Catalogue of the Chetwyned Collection, identifies the degree of profit and the number of tokens that could be made from a hundredweight and a ton.

Weight	Number of halfpenny tokens	Value of the tokens
1lb	46	23d
1cwt	5,152	c.£21
1 ton	103,040	£214 13s 4d

As a ton cost only £150 per ton to buy from the manufacturer, then the retailer made £64. 13s4d profit[163] Often, as they had no trader’s name on them, then the trader did not have to redeem the token.[164] Virtually as soon as a large issue of tokens was minted, forgers would issue counterfeit tokens.

Some tokens were issued with political statements intended to spread the message; today these are known as “political series”. The most notable was Thomas Spence who issued tokens to promote his radical ideas on land reform.[165]  Intended to be propaganda rather than coins, the standard was such that they functioned as coins or tokens. Other tokens were issued as advertising; they did not have a value on them, therefore they could not be easily redeemed with another trader, but the trader’s name or logo is very prominent. However, it could be argued that the size and shape of the token was such that it indicated a value, hence “halfpenny” and “penny” series.

The final type of token and the most interesting is the token issued for the collector. Why?

The token was cheap to buy – farthing, halfpenny or penny.

The token was generally well minted and decorative.

If the very wealthy were going to Europe to buy plaster intaglios of Roman and Greek intaglios why couldn’t the more humble collect tokens?

Though difficult to prove, the tokens were issued at a time of great patriotic fervour, for example, the French Revolutionary Wars, (1793-1801). Britain was seeing itself as the master of trade and manufacture; collecting tokens issued by local traders graphically portrayed this. The token represented patriotism, commercialism and a sense of identity. (It was also the era of the picturesque tour, the internal tourist ready to explore his own country as the Continent was out of bounds). Thus, tokens became collector’s items.

Interestingly, there are some contemporary comments about collecting tokens, made by the collectors who paid up to 6d for a token in June 1795 when they rose from 1d. On 9 April 1795, the collector paid Mr Spence 1s 6d for twenty halfpennies and eight farthings; on the 10^th Mr Skidmore 6d for six tokens, Mr Spence 1s 6d for twenty-four tokens and so on. On 7 May she paid 5s for one token by Hammond, another dealer, and two days later another 5s for another token by Skidmore[166]. In 1798 Charles Sheplard, or Shiplard, writing in the Gentleman’s Magazine, notes that the “most prevalent and regular” enthusiasm for collecting tokens, something we would refer to as a “mania”, occurred in the later part of 1794, though the usual date is given as 1795[167].

THE M PINTOSH TOKEN HORSHAM 1791

William Albery in his Millennium[168] records that the only 18^th century token issued in Horsham was for M Pintosh. On one side is a bust of George III looking to the right, with the legend “Long live the king”, and on the reverse an anchor and cable surrounded with the legend M PINTOSH  HORSHAM 1791. However, the Museum did not own such a token in 1988 when I arrived (For convenience this will be referred to as the “classic type”).

However, the Museum did have a Pintosh token, which is described below.

JAMES METCALF  BEDAL YORKSh  Within a laurel wreath are the letters in italic script: JOM.

M. PINTOSH HORSHAM 1791 With an anchor and cable decoration.

Edge KIDMORE  HOLBORN LONDON.

The size of the token suggested a halfpenny value, though no value was given on the piece. What is particularly interesting is that the maker’s name-stamp was badly stamped so the S is missing.

Looking through the catalogue issued by DNW, lot 93[169] is for JAMES METCALF BEDAL, but the date is 1792, not 1791, on the reverse. The reverse itself has the street scene. In fact, the Metcalf token die usually appears on a 1792 date stamp, not 1791. Which suggests that the Pintosh token may not be 1791 in date at all. The token has been on display in the Shopping in Horsham Gallery since 1993.

In 1996 the Museum was given a further two Horsham tokens that neither had the legend M Pintosh Horsham, nor any scene of Horsham on them. However, the donor had recently purchased them at Spink and Sons as Horsham tokens, and so we accepted them. These tokens are described below:

LONG LIVE THE KING Bust of George III

A street scene 1792 date

Edge SKIDMORE HOLBORN LONDON

LONG LIVE THE KING

MAY THE FRENCH EVER KNOW HOWE TO RULE THE MAIN

Edge SKIDMORE HOLBORN LONDON

We therefore had three tokens on display identified as Horsham tokens. Then in February 2006, the auction catalogue turned up with three Horsham tokens, all different from those we had.

This led to a series of questions:

Who was M Pintosh? In all the research on this period for the life and times of Shelley, on political corruption, on economic development, M Pintosh leaves behind no paper record. He or she is not recorded in land tax list, directories, subscription lists, burgage rolls etc.[170] Nothing at all. He, or she, to issue tokens would have to have had some wealth to back the value of the coin. The one thought is that perhaps he owned, or was tenant of, The Anchor Inn, but he was not listed.[171] The likelihood of a fictional character was confirmed by Peter Preston-Morley of Dix Noonan Webb, and the article by Waters, that and it was not unknown for a Skidmore token to be issued from a fictional person.

Why does the token not have a value?

From what was said before, a token without a value was generally an advertising device, EXCEPT that the prominent feature of the token was the anchor, not the legend, and in Horsham the only Anchor was the Inn, whose owner would have been known. The size of the token was a “typical” halfpenny size so may not have needed the denomination given.

The tokens were issued by Skidmore, Holborn. Who was Skidmore?

Arthur Waters describes Peter Skidmore as

“He made quite a business of supplying contemporary collectors with several hundreds of tokens, and at times he even copied a rare token… He likewise made false tokens like those of Rye, Blandford, Folkestone etc. These he sold to persons who at the time did not know that they were not issued in the towns they were named after. The factory where the tokens were made was at Coppice Row, Clerkenwell; the site is now covered by the Farringdon Road. Most of his dies were the work of a man named Jacobs, Jacobs was quite an expert at depicting buildings but where he tried his hand on portraits it was in almost every case a bad failure. About 1796 Skidmore bought up the dies used by Thomas Spence, a bookseller and coin dealer of Holborn. These dies he at once mixed with others of his own, the resulting tokens being made for sale to anyone who would buy them”.[172]

Some of the tokens had two separate dies that had no connection, as the Metcalf Pintosh token above illustrates. These tokens are known as mules and aimed specifically at collectors. As Thompson has shown[173] the term mule was first used for tokens around 1795. At the time they were described by J Hammond in The Virtuoso’s Guide in Collecting Provincial Copper Coins 1795 as “Bastards” where “some persons… by striking the reverse of one die with the obverse of another, and vice versa… have produced a great number of different coins, “[174] This practice led to at least one collector, Pye to stop collecting in 1795.[175] But if Bastards was the old term, why create a new one, perhaps because the type of token had become more prolific or more cynical. In 1798 it was recalled by Sheplard that “the drawers of the dealers and the cabinets of the curious were immediately inundated with coins of an heterogeneous nature: coins whose obverses and reverses had no relation to each other…This interchanging of the dies and multiplication of the coins almost totally changed the nature of the persuit”.[176] Sheplard went on to say “Skidmore of Holborn was one of the most reprehensible dealers that practised this imposition…”  

The Pintosh/Metcalf Token is obviously a mule and, importantly, we have no idea if it was issued in 1791, 1792 or even 1795/6.

The non Pintosh “Horsham” tokens.

In 1795 Thomas Spence issued a catalogue of tokens for collectors, identifying the variants. That was soon followed by others, including James Conder of Ipswich’s book, “An Arrangement of Provincial Coins, Tokens and Medlalets, issued in great Britain, Ireland and the Colonies within the last 20 years”, published in two volumes. This gives the tokens the American name “Condors”. This work was superseded by others, eventually resulting in the six-volume work by Richard Dalton and S H Hamer, “Provincial Token-Coinage of the 18^th Century”. This “bible” is used today to identify tokens, with each type being given a DH number. The book is scarce, but Peter Preston-Morley noted that there were six types of tokens issued by M Pintosh having the DH number 27-33.

The first one, No 27, is the “classic” noted by Albery: the Kings bust and the anchor and cable, M PINTOSH 1791. All the others have that anchor and cable M PINTOSH 1791 die, with the following variants:  

• Earl Howe
• A Street scene
• a ruined church
• a cat
• King Louis

The tokens identified by Spinks as being Horsham have the Street Scene (DH28) and Earl Howe, BUT the dies were used by other “traders” including “James Metcalf”, Yorkshire, as noted above. Therefore, these two tokens cannot be classed as “Horsham tokens”, but Skidmore.

The tokens for sale at Dix Noonan Webb sale of 16 March 2006

The three tokens for sale come from the American numismatic collector David Litrenta. They are:

Lot 50. M Pintosh Skidmore halfpenny bust of George III right, rev. anchor and cable, edge grained (DH 27)

Lot 51. M Pintosh Skidmore halfpenny, “from the same dies as previous, edge SKIDMORE HOLBORN LONDON. (DH27a)”

Lot 52. M Pintosh Skidmore halfpenny “anchor and cable rev. church in ruins, edge SKIDMORE HOLBORN LONDON (DH31)”

Lot 50 could be classed as the “classic” Horsham token. The fact that it does not have  Skidmore’s name on the edge might suggest that the token was issued for Pintosh, then at a later date Peter Skidmore acquired the dies, the anchor and cable, and used it on various other tokens. It had been suggested that the anchor and cable and the Earl Howe were dies linked to Thomas Spence, as some of his dies have been found in conjunction with them. This was refuted by Thomspon, who states: “ There is, to my knowledge, little reason to think that any of them were used by Spence, and particular reason why some should not have been…”[177] What is known from Spence’s career is that he was not issuing tokens in 1791[178], and it is therefore unlikely that the die had any connection to him.

The most likely scenario is that blanks were bought in, stamped and then sold to collectors. At a later date, perhaps when Skidmore became more successful, he had a number of blanks stamped with his mark, then stamped with the dies before being marketed to collectors. The collector would know that they were not buying actual trade tokens, but more examples of dies; in effect, replicas of trade tokens. The reverse could also be true, that Skidmore issued a token with his name on the edge, then in order to dupe the market he sold un-edged named tokens as the “real” item, or as an example of a real token to validate his “replicas”. But this is speculation.

The M Pintosh tokens were issued by Skidmore for collectors in the late 18^th century, but they were not issued for coinage. This raises a number of important issues. Horsham, as a market town, needed small change, so where did this come from? Horsham had good trading links with London merchants; perhaps Horsham was part of the circulation of coinage within the London area of influence.

---

Why did Skidmore pick the date 1791?

Why 1791; why not 1792, or 1795? What was special about the date? It could be argued, and the assumption was made by Albery and others, that 1791 was the actual date of issue. But as M Pintosh was a madeup name, a fictional character, so the date 1791 could be fictional. However, 1791 is an important date in Horsham’s financial history[179]. In 1791 John Lanham, who came to Horsham from Wiltshire, set up a grocery, cheese shop and tallow-chandler and established, with several partners, Horsham’s first Bank. The partners in the venture included Thomas Harben, who had established a bank in Lewes in 1790, and Messrs Shergold, Scutt and Rice, who were involved with establishment of the Brighton Bank in 1790. The bank itself failed in 1793, part of a wave of failures caused by unrest in France. Perhaps Skidmore knew of the date, and also knew that Collectors could not refer back to check this out.

A TOKEN NOTE

Recently, a “Horsham New Bank” note for one penny and two pence came up for sale. The notes were issued by William Stepney in 1801, who was a tenant of one of John Lanham’s properties. In 1797 the Crown issued a large quantity of copper coins known as cartwheel two pence and pennies, following in 1799 with halfpennies and farthings. Trade tokens became illegal. However, they were large, cumbersome and heavy to use so by 1811 new trade tokens were being issued. Therefore, the Stepney note may have evaded the law and was genuinely used as coinage within the locality, especially if small change was being drawn to London. Perhaps this is a genuine Horsham token, a paper, not metal, token. Equally, as Susan Djabri has pointed out, Stepney was in dispute with Lanham between 1801 and 1803 over a pew in Horsham Church, and the Horsham New Bank note was issued to annoy John Lanham.  

2. HOW THE “RED TOPS” MIGHT HAVE TOLD THE NEWS – A REVEALING LOOK AT HORSHAM 1792-1815.

For the 2000 Temporary Exhibition, Sharp’s Horsham, I went through the Museum’s catalogue of documents identifying court cases, letters etc. that contained interesting stories. These were often long-winded, so for the exhibition they were converted into short, snappy, newspaper-style accounts, as if written by a journalist. These are given below. Every one of them is based on a Horsham Museum Archive document or book. 

Beggar Blames Bad Father

Mr Ury is pleading with people to lend him £2, blaming his father for his state. In a pitiful letter to Mr Medwin, town solicitor, he pleads for the money to save him from being made to join the army.

Our social affairs correspondent writes that solicitors and people of standing are being swamped in Britain with such requests by near strangers after it was decided that those in debt could serve in the army, rather than prison.

Book Club to Meet 18 July 1801
On 18 July at 4pm Horsham Book Club are meeting at the Kings Head Inn.

Secret Negotiations to Build Arms Depot November 1804
We have heard on the highest authority that The Duke of Norfolk plans to sell one acre of Horsham Common to the Board of Ordnance to erect an Armoury. The Duke is secretly planning to keep the 100 guineas (£105.00). Thomas Medwin his steward also looks after the borough documents and was going to alter the records without announcing it to the town.

No Original Poetry in Original Poetry November 1810
By the Literary Editor
The literary magazines of London are awash with stinging reviews of the book “Original Poetry” by Victor and Cazire’. The Political Registry has said that “There is no ‘original poetry’ in this volume; there is nothing in it but downright scribble. It is really annoying to see the waste of paper”; continuing with calling the book “trash””. I have been informed by a reputable source the authors were the son and daughter of Mr and Mrs Shelley of Warnham, near Horsham.

Another Shelley Failure November 1810
By the Literary Editor
Hot on the heels of Original Poetry, comes Zastrozzi, a Romance, which we have discovered comes from the pen of Percy Bysshe Shelley, the son of Timothy Shelley and grandson of Sir Bysshe Shelley. The Critical Review says of the book, which we have not seen, “We know not when we have felt so much indignation as in the perusal of this execrable production. The rest of his nonsensical and stupid jargon, ought to save him from infamy, and his volume from the flames.” In light of the Critical Reviews comment that “such trash is only for the inmates of a brothel” we will no longer pass any comment on Shelley’s works. We wonder what his honest and Christian parents must think. Duke fights King over gun cart that killed 19 August 1802 The Duke of Norfolk, the richest man in Sussex, demands his ancient right to own the artillery cart that ran over Henry Luke at Sompting.   Henry Luke who was driving the cart, fell off and was crushed to death. The Duke of Norfolk says that an ancient law gives him the ownership of the item that accidentally killed someone. The King responded by saying the property belongs to him and as the King owned the cart the law does not apply.   Horsham to get Multi-Thousand Pound Transport Boost May 1792 After a successful campaign £15,000 has been raised to give Horsham its canal. Horsham will be part of a major transport network linking cities and markets across Southern England. The Earl of Egremont, who lives at Petworth, has pledged £2000 whilst the Duke of Norfolk pledges £1000, traders and landowners in Horsham and London, including the famous potters Wedgwood, have flocked to the scheme which will join Horsham at Farthings Bridge. A spokesperson for the Duke of Norfolk said the canal would boost local trade as well as increase land prices.
Food Poisoning Sweeps London – It’s Beer or Bread 5 February 1801 The soldiers based in London Barracks are dropping fast due to changes in bread or beer, according to theatre manager Thomas Hayment. Thomas, who himself has suffered 11 days with bowel disorders, fears that more people will die through changes to brown bread and beer than by war. Mr Hayment is hoping to bring his theatrical entertainments to Horsham.       Horsham Fight Back Begins Now November 1790 Horsham Market Traders who are sick of seeing their trade go to other towns have launched an audacious plan. They are announcing on 2 November the revival of Horsham Monthly Market to bring trade back to its rightful place.
Named and Shamed 9 January 1801 The Jupp family of Billingshurst are enemies of Horsham Market Traders. On information supplied by a reliable witness – a gentleman of some standing – we can say that Richard Jupp is buying up fowl before they go to market. His son, who lives in Horsham, kills them, then sends them on to London. This practice is destroying Horsham markets as it means all the best fowl are never seen in the market. Blow to Horsham Employment 20 March 1793 We have just been informed that the campaign to get the first Devon Regiment Headquarters at Horsham has failed. This is a severe blow to local employment and pride, as the Devon Regiment would have pumped money into the local economy. The fight will go on to make Horsham a regimental headquarters.

Government Demands We Eat Inferior Bread

December 1795

The Lord Privy Council has insisted that the bread given to the poor of Horsham should be made from inferior stuff. Bread should only have 2/3 wheat flour, the rest ‘a mixture to the amount of 1/3 part of some other article than wheat’. This they say is due to the poor harvests and war effort.
Give Us Our Daily Bread 10 July 1795
At the meeting held last night by the Bailiffs, Horsham town folk agreed to only buy small loaves of bread.This campaign would last for two months from 10 July and help solve the wheat shortage in the County. However, the town bakers said unless the law forced them they would continue making the usual loaves.

Drama in Court
1801
At the Easter Assizes held at Midhurst the court heard a drama worthy of a Theatrical production. It involved a lover, an actress and an infatuated ensign. The lover was George Stanton, a part-time actor. The actress was Mrs Leach, “a lady possessed of Youth and a Handsome person and not destitute of Dramatic Talents, but like many of her sex on the stage fickle”. Mr Stanton fell in love with Mrs Leach, though when he proposed marriage, she only wanted friendship. The ensign William Bunn, who was stationed at Horsham Barracks with the 64th Regiment, fell violently in love with Mrs Leach. This led to William Bunn attempting to murder George Stanton with a pistol in each hand, in the Carfax at around midnight of 21 December. Bunn grazed Stanton and thinking he had killed him, fled. The morning after realising he was only injured, Bunn and Mrs Leach told the magistrate Stanton had attacked him. Stanton was arrested for trial at Chichester. At Chichester neither Bunn nor Mrs Leach turned up, Stanton then filed an assault case against Bunn. Bunn was eventually captured on board a ship in Portsmouth Harbour under a hen coop. Stanton has told the court that he would not prosecute Bunn if Bunn agrees to pay his expenses. The jury realising the nature of the case declared Bunn not guilty. We have since found out that Bunn has agreed to pay Stanton’s fees.
Government Make Heavy Dough Over Bread
March 1796
The government has insisted that Horsham should make inferior bread. In a strongly worded letter to the bailiffs the Government last night wanted to know what sort of bread Horsham people ate.

The Government Unreasonable Over Bread
March 1796
The Bailiffs of Horsham have written a strongly-worded reply to the government about bread. In the reply, the full text given below, the Bailiffs say that Horsham led the field in trying to reduce wheat consumption, but failed due to lack of legal support. The millers will not produce the flour. They also point out that this year has seen the price of flour fall in local markets.

Overcrowding in Barracks to be Relieved
9 May 1813
We have just found out that the Quarter Master General of the Horse has suggested moving the 44th Regiment from Horsham to Lewes to relieve the problems of overcrowding.
Four Heroes at Barracks
23 May 1809
Four men, John Phillips, William Freeman, Henry Marsh and William Grace of 23rd Regiment of Welsh Fusiliers, were at the Battle of Copenhagen where they captured the Danish Fleet, and have arrived at Horsham Barracks. Although the soldiers were looking forward to their prize money they have asked a friend to look after it, which will probably disappoint the traders of Horsham.

Ex-Depot Guard Stole Gun
1814
At Lewes yesterday James Stamford was tried for stealing a gun, sword and scabbard from Horsham Depot to the value of 4 shillings. Stamford was an assistant guard in the Depot three years ago when the supposed theft took place. Revelations of lax security were made when the prisoner said that he had found a sword and scabbard, 2 bayonets, 1 sword, 3 suits of regimental articles and 3 foraging cases in the Jews Field. He took them all to Major Madder, the Barrack Master, who told him to take them to the Sergeant of 112th Regiment at Horsham Barracks. Other townspeople also found weapons in the field. Mr Medwin of Horsham was the solicitor for the defence.
Innkeepers tell on one of their own
15 May 1814
His Majesty’s excise Commissioners have received a petition from 9 innkeepers against the King’s Head and Anchor Inn for running illegal taps. Their argument is that the King’s Head and the Anchor are running two inns using one license.
Anchor defiant
A letter has been sent to the Collector of Excise at Lewes noting that the Anchor Inn is still running two taps against the wishes of the Board of Excise. We await developments as to the law-abiding innkeepers.
Innocent of Helping French Escape
1813
John Hughes, an Innkeeper at Rye is pleading his innocence at Horsham Assizes. He was found guilty at Lewes last year, with his accomplice James Robinson, of helping two French soldiers escape. They stood for an hour in Rye pillory within view of the French coast and were then sent to Horsham gaol for two years. Mr. Medwin, solicitor, has obtained statements from various people including James Robinson who has said that he “will swear every day that I live upon oath” that John Hughes is totally innocent of the crime. We await their lordships’ verdict.

Brewer seals major deal with Army
5 November 1796 From our business correspondent
Richard Thornton, Brewer of Horsham, has despite stiff competition secured the provision of beer to the barracks being built in Horsham. To secure this deal Thornton has entered into an arrangement with Samuel Sayers, a New Shoreham maltster. Sayers will provide on a weekly basis 10 to 15 Quarters of Malt at 2s per Quarter under the market price charged by John Jeffrey of Washington and John Sloveld of Steyning. 1 Quarter is 8 Bushels, 1 Bushel is 8 Gallons

Iron Mould Proved Soldiers Theft
2 August 1802
At Lewes Summer Assizes yesterday, William Buckley and William Marmen were found guilty of stealing cloth from John Cave’s shop in Warnham. The three iron mould stains on the cloth were the vital proof. On 28 April the two Grenadiers in the first Battalion of the 4th Regiment of Foot, William Buckley and William Marmen, smashed a hole in the wall of Mr Cave’s shop and stole around 8 shillings-worth of cloth. The alarm was raised at Horsham Barracks but unfortunately the soldiers had slipped past the guard. The Sergeant of the Guard pointed out a number of places the soldiers may have entered the barracks without the guard noticing. At one such place the door was ajar. A week later the defendants were caught. On examination both agreed they gave the goods to Margaret Harris, but Marmen said they were found in a dung mixer near the Barracks on the night of the robbery whilst Buckley said the goods were found a night or two before the regiment marched from Horsham (4 May). The following day they changed their story to say that the goods were found on 2 May, the Sunday evening, near the dung mixer. Margaret Harris came forward for the Crown and said that she was asked to sell the cloth, including calico with three iron stains. She sold the cloth to Nelly Mitchell, but Nelly had to borrow the money from Mrs Bartlott who on seeing the cloth recognised the description of theft from the handbill she had been given the day before. On hearing this Mrs Harris ran off saying “I am undone”. On her capture she said the defendants had given her the cloth.

Horsham Horrified over Assassination Attempt
22 May 1800
Horsham today showed its contempt for those that tried to assassinate Good King George. They came in their tens to the Town Hall to sign a letter congratulating the King on surviving the attempt and condemned those involved.

Good King George Pleased
29 May 1800 From our Court Correspondent
We have learnt today that the King was very pleased and touched by the sentiment expressed in the letter the townspeople of Horsham sent him.

Horsham Gives the Suppression of Wicked and Seditious Writing the Thumbs Up
9 July 1792
On Monday 9 July, the Bailiffs and good folk of Horsham agreed to send an address to the King thanking him for his last proclamation. The address, which some thought over the top, was passed unanimously. For those that could not attend the meeting a copy of the Address is given below.
“What Did you Do in the War Father?” At a time of our national emergency the good townfolk of Horsham have enthusiastically responded to the threat by setting up a Local Infantry and Cavalry Volunteer Corps. We will be employing a Military correspondent to give full details of our excellent force.

The Corps that Wasn’t 1797
From our Military Correspondent
A number of our readers have written to the paper asking what happened to Militia that met in Horsham in 1797. According to highly-placed sources there was a falling-out between Mr Isaac Ecles and the Deputy Lieutenant over Isaac Ecles’s fitness. Isaac Ecles had paid for equipping four horses, found a substitute for himself and paid for substitutes’ clothing, yet did not receive as set out in the law any recompense or allowances against the tax currently being imposed at the exorbitant rate. If anyone has further information we will be delighted to hear in complete confidence.

Disgraced MP to Lead the new Corps
May 1798 From our Military Correspondent
The new and loyal band of voluntary infantry and cavalry force has been established under the control of Mr Timothy Shelley of Warnham. Mr Shelley who served in Yorkshire in the 22nd Regiment Light Dragoons recruiting soldiers, was also recently de-selected by the House of Commons for corruption during the 1790 election.
Horsham to Copy Clapham
From our Military Correspondent
Advice has been sought from Clapham, where the authorities have recently established a new military force and regulations. A copy of their constitution has come into my hands and a fair and honest constitution it is. We await and see if Horsham follows suit.

1 May – Red Letter Day for Horsham’s Brave Folk
From our Military Correspondent
At Horsham Town Hall yesterday it was agreed to set up a Corps of Cavalry and also Infantry. The Corps will be trained twice a week and if training is missed there is a fine of 1 shilling for privates and 10s 6d for Officers. Timothy Shelley is to command the Cavalry and Edmund Smith the Infantry. The Cavalry will operate up to 10 miles away, the Infantry 5 miles, unless an invasion occurs.

Concern Over Uniform Dampens Spirit
2 May 1798 From our Military Correspondent
I have learned from an impeccable source that concern has been expressed to the highest authorities over uniform for the Infantry. It is hoped that uniform similar to the Arundel Volunteers is acceptable and thus affordable. We await their reply.

Are We Up To Scratch?
From our Military Correspondent
Timothy Shelley, the new commander in charge of the Cavalry, has expressed in a leaked letter concern over the respectability of those who have volunteered to form the Cavalry. Yet as the list shows, those that have joined are some of the most honourable traders and merchants in Horsham. Is Timothy Shelley having lost his seat due to corruption and therefore looking for another role to play in the community backing down? Our Lady Correspondent has been led to believe that his wife is due a child in August. We await developments.

Where was Shelley?
11 May 1798 From our Military Correspondent
In a leaked letter sent anonymously to me between Timothy Shelley and Mr Medwin his second in command, Mr Shelley notes that “forfeits are not rigidly adhered to” which suggests to my source that Mr Shelley hasn’t been attending training sessions – Can anyone enlighten me?

Shelley Snobbishness Defeats Cavalry
20 May 1798 From our Military Correspondent
I have received a leaked letter between Mr Shelley and the Duke of Norfolk explaining why the new Cavalry Corps will not be possible at Horsham. Mr Shelley as reported in a previous article blames the quality of persons joining. The Government required 40 people to join. Shelley writes, “As the forming of new Corps depends upon a given number of persons composed of the better classes of the community, here that number cannot be obtained”. As the Militia is no more, this will be the last report from the Military Correspondent.

Seduction by Nymph at Court Results in Bastard
1804
At the Midsummer Assizes held last week, the court heard the sad case of William Sharp. We tell this tale not through any sense of pleasure, but as a warning to all men young and old of easy liaisons with certain women. William Sharp was approached by Ann Vaus, a very loose and profligate character, at 8 o’clock in the evening of 28 March 1803. Mr Sharp had the honour to be a Javelin man to the Sheriff in the Court House in the Town Hall. The women had invited him to go outside the hall, where she had taken hold of his belt. He resisted the first attack by the nymph but a second time he gave in having been ridiculed by his companions for refusing the lady’s challenge. She says he made her pregnant and the child is his. After a lengthy hearing in which detailed medical evidence was brought forward about the formation of fingernails in the seventh, eighth and ninth month of pregnancy and the health of the baby, the court found against William Sharp. From the evidence we heard this decision was made to ensure the Parish did not have to pay for the upkeep of the child, rather than for the justice. Let this be a warning to all men.

Dispute over the Sale of the Barracks
15 June 1815 From our Business Correspondent
I have learnt that the sale of the Barracks from Horsham has developed a serious hitch. Mr Treadcroft is in dispute with the commissioners for the affairs of the Barracks over the original lease. According to the lease, materials above ground can be taken away, “except the bricks and materials under the surface of the Ground”. This and the fact that Mr Treadcroft had a good hedge to his land, which was dug up and replaced with a wooden fence. For that he wants compensation. Mr Treadcroft has expressed a willingness to leave it up to the commissioners to decide the compensation.
Riot in Horsham
30 April 1814
Last week on 29 April, a near riot took place in Horsham between soldiers and town folk. Around 250 soldiers attacked the town with clubs, staves and bayonets but were seen off by the townsfolk who came out in force. The reason for the dispute is not yet known.

Retreat from Moscow – Scoop of the Year
4 December 1812 From our Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Mr Medwin has passed on a letter he received from Mr Mayhew in which as a P.S. Mr Mayhew reports the following: “As the news may not have reached you and is not mentioned in today’s papers – I inform you that the Chancellor informed the Bar today that Bonaparte has lost 40,000 of his army – that the whole of his Bodyguard was taken – but that he himself has escaped”. We will let you know more news when we have it.

Imprisoned a Young Man
11 August 1798
Word has just reached this paper of an incident that the powers that be want hushed up. It seems that a Captain Peters imprisoned a young man. We can only speculate as to what occurred but in a letter from Captain Peters to the Solicitor acting for the young man, he admits “the impropriety of his conduct” and gives the excuse that he was drunk. The Solicitor, Mr Hart of Dorking, for the client, according to his leaked letter to this paper said that he couldn’t have been drunk as he took the reins of the Dorking Coach the very evening he imprisoned the young man. Whatever the offence was, it was serious enough for Captain Peters to pay £40 to keep the matter out of court. If we find out more we will let you know in the name of justice.

 

3. HORSHAM BARRACKS 1796 to 1815

Before the barracks were built King’s soldiers would camp on Horsham Common. With the increase in military personnel caused by the war effort, a Barracks Department was established in Whitehall. This department drew up plans for prefabricated barrack buildings. 23 barracks were built in Sussex, as the county was effectively on the frontline with France, with Horsham having one of the largest.

WHERE WERE THE BARRACKS AND WHAT WERE THEY LIKE?

The barracks took 300 men six weeks to build, at a total cost of £60,000. All the buildings were prefabricated so that they could be built quickly on site. The site of the barracks now lies under the houses of Worthing Road, and Horsham Cricket Club. Barrack Field was immediately outside the barrack and used for shooting practice.

The buildings had brick foundations, but the walls were made of 12-inch wooden planks. The roof was scorched to preserve it, whilst the walls would have been treated with pitch. 

The soldiers lived in eight barrack blocks of two storeys. The upper rooms were exposed to the rafters of the roof, with no ceiling. These rooms contained two-tier bunk beds where the soldiers slept. Each floor could take 60 men, or 960 men for the entire barrack. These blocks were located either side of a parade ground. The Officers had a separate barrack block at one end of the parade ground.

There were many other buildings on the site, including kitchens, cookhouses, bakehouses, hospital, deadhouse, guardhouse and magazine (where gunpowder was kept).

There were stables for the Calvary on the Worthing Road near Tan Bridge.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BARRACKS?

At the end of the war the barracks were taken down and the materials and buildings sold by the Board of Ordnance. The site was returned to the owner, Mr Tredcroft, who had leased it to the army. As the buildings were prefabricated, they could be rebuilt at new sites in the Horsham area.

Recent research has identified where some of the barrack buildings were rebuilt:

Guardhouse:

This was rebuilt as the Providence Chapel, Charlwood, Surrey. It is a simple weather-boarded structure with a veranda running the full length. It was opened on the new site on 1 November 1816.

Cookhouses:

The three octagonal cookhouses were all rebuilt elsewhere. Two survive today as an entrance lodge atLeonardslee, Lower Beedingand the other as a cottage at Old Park Farm, Maplehurst. The third was rebuilt in 1815 as a congregational chapel at Jengers Mead, Billingshurst. It closed in 1889 and was pulled down some time after that date.

4. HORSHAM IN 1815 – A Survey

When the 11^th Duke died, a settlement of his estates was drawn up. Part of that settlement included Horsham. In 1963 the settlement was fully calendared by West Sussex Record Office[180] and the following account is based on that. By its very nature what follows is a simplification of a fascinating document that can be read as a map of the town giving previous landowners of the various plots, thus enabling a map of landownership though the ages to be drawn up.

i) Puffesherne	Messuage, gardens and backside and the Burgage plot in West Street Part of the tenement called the Red Lyon.
ii) North Part of Holbrooks	Messusage with stable, brew house and woodhouse in Carfax with garden. Formerly occupied by Thomas Barnard bricklayer afterwards William Pobjee currier, then William Palmer and now Edward Burgess.
iii) Rye’s Garden	Tenement divided into two with barn, buildings, outhouses garden backsides called Ryes or Nyes Garden formerly Barkers in Carfax near the place the common pound formerly stood.
iv) Hursts Brewhouse	In West Street.
v) Randalls Croft	Also known as Randolfs it is now divided into two closes containing an estimated 4acres with a chapel or meeting house lately erected and the burial ground surrounded by a wall for the Society called Independent Protestant Dissenting Calvinists. Also a Barn used as a carpenters shop with a yard, stable and other buildings. Another parcel of land known as Randall’s in Scarfolks had various tenures including John Smith apothecary, John Croombridge Carpenter, Alexander Luxford fellmonger and Sarah Waller innkeeper.
vi) William Best’s Tenement in Scarfolks	About 1 acre of land with barn, stable, buildings, outhouses gardens orchards etc.
via) William Best’s Tenement and Clympinges	About 1 acre bounded by the highway from Lynde Cross to Horsham Heath containing various buildings and orchards with a close of land of around 2 acres part of which is used as a coach makers yard. Formerly owned by Theobald Michell clerk then John Smith Apothecary and now several tenures.
vii, a-b)South & North  part of Baldwyns and Apselys and plot of land
viii) South part of   Barnhouse
ix) Pollard’s Croft	Croft of land in Scarfolkes of about 3a called Pollard’s Croft or Watering Pond Field, occupied by John Wicker and now Robert Hurst. The land is boarded by Henry Waller on the E., John Lintott and Bernard Lintott on the S, Highway from Horsham to Warnham on the W, and the “heath lately enclosed called Horsham Heath or Common on the N” and is now used with or forms part of the park of the said Robert Hurst.
x) Dennes Croft	Croft in Scarfolkes called Burgage Croft or Burgess Croft or Dennes Croft of 2a. Now part of the park of Robert Hurst.
xi) Hop Garden	Field, croft or close of land in Scarfolkes, covering 3a.
xii) Gransford Meadow	Two closes of meadow in Scarfolks of 4a called Grandford now occupied by James Thornton.
xiii) West part of Gransford	Formerly known as the lamb and Shepherdess.
Xiiia) East part of Gransford	Occupied at one time by Ralf Joanes bricklayer.
xiv) Smallwells or Watertons Snellings	Consisting of two tenements, brew house, stable, erections, garden and backside commonly called Snellings sometimes Smallwells in Scarfolkes.
xv) Moores Snellings	Occupied by James Thornton.
xvi) Old Gaol and Outlett	Two messuages (one lately rebuilt) buildings, gardens,  known as part of the Old Gaol or Gaol House in Scarfolkes with part in north Street. Gaol or Gaol House near or opposite the George Inn together with a certain building called Outlett adjoining the ancient pile of stone buildings used for a Common Gaol or Ward for prisoners together with the well, one garden, one stable and part of the Gates.
xvii) Perry Place Field	Close or parcel of ground with the erection and buildings in North Street.
xviii) George Mead
xix) George inn
xx) Curtis’s part of the George	Backside, garden, orchard.
xxi) King of prussia	Messuage now in two tenements and buildings garden, orchard late known by the sign King of Prussia occupied by John Satcher, apothecary, then Thomas Nye saddler.
xxii) Borer’s Garden	A 36ft long 20ft broad with a passage to and from tenement formally occupied by Richard Curtis and the King of Prussia.
xviiia) Caffyn’s part of the Chequers	Tenement containing three low rooms, two chambers and a cellar and a new stair lately erected being part of the Chequer inn, in North Street.
xxiiib) garden plot
xxiiic) Howe’s part of the Chequers
xxiiid) Weller’s part of the Chequers	Tenement, courtyard garden formally part of the Chequer Inn in ownership of William Weller weaver.
xxiiie) Bryan’s part of the Chequers	Part of the Chequer inn late occupied by James Potter baker, and afterwards by Robert Grace junior currier.
xxiiif) Pinders part of Chequers Inn	Low room or roof of a smiths shop, part of Chequers inn in North Street the estate of John Burstow and adjoining the dwelling house formerly of Samuel Bryan dec’d and other parcel of the Chequer inn in N., highway leading from Horsham Market place to Horsham Common on the W. and to lands formerly of William Weller on S and which low room, shop and premises purchased of John Burstow.
xxiv) George Holmes House
xxv) Ashleys	Close of meadow as it was formerly enclosed (15 rods) in east St.
xxvi) Coe or Constable	Toft or site of messuage formerly consisting of a building, barn, stable and other buildings and lately three buildings, slaughterhouse, pound, garden gates and gate place, yards, backsides and close or croft used as a garden of 1a. Now owned by Samuel Rowland and Garner Angus, the buildings and slaughterhouse since pulled down and converted into a mason’s yard and a cottage in East St.
xxvii) Blakes or Bookers	Building, malt house, barn, stable, gardens and orchard formerly a croft of land.
xxviii) Hurst’s Garden	Garden plot together with a blacksmith’s shop and other buildings.
xxix) broadbridges	Formerly an orchard and part of a building, now pulled down, and garden backside and croft of land called broadbridge in East Street (the lane leading to Cobbett’s Bridge).
xxx) Potter’s Croft	2 acres.
xxxi) Bishop’s	Two fields or closes of land one 8a.
xxxii) Elliots	Croft or parcel of land 2 acres.
xxxiii) Gilhams	A building, barn, stables, garden, orchard in East street formable John Taylor carpenter.
xxxiiia)	3a of land east of Gillhams.
xxxiiib)	Barn buildings and gates said to be part of Gilhams.
xxxiv) Patchings	Croft of land and garden of 2a near Gillhams .
xxxv) Reynolds Garden
xxxvi) Holand croft	Close with buildings.
xxxvii) old star	Called Star inn with shops, brew house, stables, warehouse, buildings, outhouse, garden and backside and all other premises, tenure of Guildford Vinall mercer and bow Philip Humphreys with free use of the way leading from Friday Lane to the Star inn, for horses, carriages and otherwise to the inn.
xxxviii)	Buildings, shops, brew house, buildings, backsides and yards in the market place in several tenures.
xxxix)	Garden, orchard or enclosed ground on N. side of way leading from Friday Lane by and through the said messuages to the market place.
xl)	The uppermost house of office in the buildings on the south side of the buildings in the yard with a convenient way to the same.
xli)	Barns and stable yard or yardsway and waste places as the same formerly set out and divided by pegs of wood.
Nos xxxviii-xli formerly part ofthe Wonder or Talbot	Set out and divided by pegs of wood formerly in the occupation of Thomas Hunt and afterwards known by the sign of the White Horse inn.
xliii	Part of the garden and old orchard that used to belong to the building of Bryan Foyce, Butcher in East Street 83ft6in long.
xliii) Goodger’s Plot	Parcel of ground that was formerly enclosed by pales one time in the ownership of Nicholas Goodger and later John Chasemore.
xliv) Bell or Green Dragon	Building, tenement, garden, backside, stable, brew house sometimes Bishops and late Turners in South Street, formerly known as the Bell, afterwards the Green Dragon, since the Star, but now a privet house, formerly in the tenure of John Satcher apothecary.
xlv) Marchants or the Bell	Parcel of ground in South street on part of which stood a building known as Marchants and now the Bell.

xlvi) Kings Head	Inn known by the sign of the Kings Head in North and Easts Streets with stables, brew house, mill house, granaries, storehouse and all other buildings shops, courts, yards, backsides and other appurtenances.
xlvia)	Messuage, garden and backside with appurtenances known by the sign of Labbatt’s Head and a parcel of a tenement called the Cat, adjoining to and now poart of The Kings Head lately altred and rebuilt with free use of the well.
xlvib)	Plot of land lying on the east side of a messuage known as the Presbyterian Meetinghouse in east Street between this and the messuage formely James Burstow’s blacksmith – 64ft 4 in NtoS, 19ft 8in E to W and at the south end 19ft being a way or passage out of East Street into the stable yard belonging to the King’s Head inn.
xlvic)	Site of mesuage cottage or tenement purchased by Frances Vicountess Irwin, the late owner of the inn, taken down and laid into the highway for the purpose of widening it and rendering the avenues into the King’s Head more “commodious”.
xlvii) Bournes	Two messuages lately rebuilt now one messuage, barns and other buildings gardens orchards lands and premises in Scarfolkes.
xlviii) Parkhursts	Two messuages with stable, outhouse, buildings, gardens in South Street near the Market House.
xlix) Ockendens	Messuage, tenement, barn, schoolroom, buildings, garden, orchard etc known as Ockendens or Ockendens in Scarfolks near Bulls Place, commonly known as Gaol Green.
l) Red Lyon inn	Messuiage with garden, outhouses, backsidesbeing part of a building known as Red Lyon now occupied by Thomas Charles Medwin.
la)	Part of Red Lyon.
lb)	Shop, tenement adjoining the last property and being part of the Red Lyon in West Street, now owned by James Baker, physician.
lii) South Part of Holbrooks	Messuage in two tenements being the south side of a tenement  called Holbrooks.
lia)	Parcel of ground commonly called the Garden now or formally fenced with post pales and rails containing 20 rods with outbuildings, well and well yard.
lib)	Parcel of ground in Scarfolkes, also part of Holbrooks now forming part of the garden adjoining the dwelling house occupied by Thomas Charles Medwin holden of The Lord of the Borough by the ancient yearly rent of 2d.
lii) North part of Barnhouse	Burgage messuage now divided into two tenements.
liii)Broadbridges Toft	Site or toft of messuage mentioned before, Broadbridges in east street with backsides and garden.

liv) Hurst’s Garden	Site or toft of a mesuage in East street with garden and close of land known by the name of Grove House and croft and Hurst Garden.
lv) Palsheds	Messuage lately erected and built by Thomas Summers on the site of an ancient messuage or tenement with the houses, edifices buildings gardens backsides and cartilages known by the name Palsheds between Robert hursts house on the s. and Parkhursts on the N.
lvi) Part of Wonder or Talbot inn	Stable and loft over the same, formerly part of the Wonder or Talbot inn.
lvia	Messuage formerly another part of the Wonder or Talbot inn in South street with shop, woodhouse, buildings ways and backside in the occupation of Thomas Mann.
lvib)	Sites or tofts of messuage and barns, stables and buildings with garden, backside in South Street.
lvii	Piece of burgage ground formerly an orchard in East Street.
lviii)	Dwelling house stable, buildings, garden, orchard and croft of land called the Crown formerly occupied by Samuel Blunt then Timothy Shelley and now Peter Du Cane containing 2a being one entire burgage held of the Lord of the Borough and manor of Horsham by the rent of 1s.
lix	Piece of ground lying without the garden of the dwelling house of Nathanial Tredcroft and adjoining to the garden to messuage occupied by Peter Du Cane in length E to W 79ft and in width at the W end 3ft and ending in a point at the E.
lx)	Piece of ground between the coach-house of the said peter du cane and the barn or woodhouse of Thomas Somersett (odd shape).
lxi)	Mesuage, formerly an inn known by the sign of the Crown.
lxia	Little messuage adjoining the s side now laid to and occupied with backsides brew houses and other buildings.
lxib)	Site of a stable and loft over the same called the upper stable.
lxic)	Site of all that little necessary in the yard adjoining certain premises in the occupation of John Taylor.
lxid) Old crown or Somersetts	Piece of ground formerly part of the yard in a direct line from the s end of the stable occupied by George Marshall to the S. end of the upper stable all of which premises together called the Crown inn, but are now private dwelling houses in South Street.
lxii)	Messuage, backside and premises adjoining the last mentioned premises on the S side.
lxiii)	Messuage or tenement garden, backside and premises comprising a stable and a warehouse in West Street.
lxiv) Hadmans	Burgage, messuage, stable, buildings, backsides and garden (1/2a) in South Street late of John Pilfolds and now Charles grinstead.
lxv) Nutleys or Le Bower	Site or messuage pulled down called Le Bower with buildings, barns, stables, or sites and the backsides gardens, orchards, and 1 1/2a adjoining late Nutleys being Ravenscrofts holden of the Lord of the Borough by the ancient yearly rent of 1s6d and now occupied by Nathanial Tredcroft.
lxvi) Cootes	Messuage with backside and garden plot or parcel of ground containing 1/.2a in South Street.
lxvii Perry Place messuage	Four several messuages with gardens, yards, backsides and appurtenances in North Street now in several tenures.
lxviii) Pennycodes	Ancient burgage called Pennycodes formerly consisting of a curtilage and enclosed with pales but now forming part of the premises occupied by Richard Thornton in Scarfolks held of the Lord of the Brough by the ancient yearly rent of 2d.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

THE NAKED CHRONOLOGY

1816 Jane Austen’s Emma published.	Two banks failed, Lanham & Grinstead and the Sussex & Horsham Bank. Holden published his first Annual Directory.
1817	Petition sent to Parliament addressing national concerns from a Horsham perspective.
1818 Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein published.	Survey revealed that there were 21 day schools in Horsham teaching an estimated 765 pupils. Jacobean mansion, Hill’s Place, pulled down and its pleasure grounds turned over to agriculture. Radical, Arthur Thistlewood, gaoled in Horsham for a year for threatening a breach of the peace following duel with Lord Sidmouth. In 1820, Thistlewood attempted to kill entire Cabinet along with Cato Street conspirators.
1819	Eighteen of town’s ‘great and good’ formed a Horsham Savings Bank enabling poor to save for a pension.
1820 George III died, succeeded by George IV.	Duke of Norfolk gave clock for Horsham Town Hall; also gave Horsham its first Roman Catholic chapel and Priest House.
1821	Around 1821, Eliza Cook’s family moved to St Leonard’s Forest. It was when Eliza’s family moved to St Leonard’s Forest, when she was about eight or nine years old, that she learnt to write poetry. Her first book of poems, Lay’s of a Wild Harp, was published in 1835. She eventually published a weekly miscellany, Eliza Cook’s Journal’, in 1849, selling between 50,000 and 60,000 in the first year. The journal ran for five years. Today she is recognized as a noted lesbian author. Hugh James Rose presented with the vicarage of Horsham by the Archbishop. Hugh Rose enlarged the church accommodation for the poor and improved schooling during his time there. He saw a marked increase in church attendances and in 1828 published a form of Family Prayer for Morning and Evening for his parishioners to use. Rose later gained a reputation as an outstanding, influential theological writer and popular public preacher whose high church views reflected the public mood.
1822 Sunday Times founded.	Poet, Percy Bysshe Shelley drowned in Lerici, Italy. William Pirie, a Scot, became a Collyer’s schoolmaster aged 20. School became Primary School with no pretension to grammar school status. Parish Church underwent various alterations, including destruction of a decorated rood screen, around this time.
1823 Death penalty for over 100 crimes abolished.	William Cobbett visited Horsham, describing the town thus: “this is a very nice, solid country town.”
1824 RSPCA founded.
1826	British School built in London Road in classical style. Children paid 2½d (2.5p) per week to attend. School ran by elected committees. One of the first examples of democracy for the poor. Henry Burstow, famed for his folk songs and memories of the town, born in Bishopric.
1827 Beethoven died. John Constable paints The Cornfield	Eversfield family pushed an Act through Parliament ‘to grant leases in the Parish of Horsham’, which suggested they wanted to build on their land, showing confidence in Horsham.
1829	Horsham Mechanics Institution for ‘diffusion of knowledge’ formed. It had a library and gave talks. Founded in the British School in London Road and lasting for around 30 years. William Stephen Coleman, artist, born in 1829. Though he was born in 1829, William, one of 12 children, was not baptised until 28 August 1836. His sister, Helen Angell, was known as a flower painter. Colman, whose father was a surgeon, also trained as a surgeon, but he never practised. Instead he became interested in natural history and published a number of books, which he also illustrated. Later on he took up painting watercolour landscapes and designing Christmas cards, before painting pottery for the Copeland factory in 1869. William married Henrietta Dendy.

Horsham 1815-1830

A DEPRESSED TOWN RECOVERING AFTER THE EXCESSES

The 19^th century, some popular misconceptions

What about the history of 19^th century Horsham? Horsham has been blessed with two great narratives on the century: Henry Burstow’s Reminiscences and Henry Michell’s Diary. Both, however, are not what they initially seem. Henry Burstow was born in 1826 and although not illiterate was not well-educated. He probably compensated for his lack of education and ability to read and write beyond the basic level, through the development of a fantastic memory.

(One of the key movements in the 19^th century was the move away from an oral to a literate culture; one that relied more and more on being able to read and write, something that was spurred on by the production of cheap literature and compulsory school education, which is discussed more fully below.) Henry Burstow could recite 420 songs by heart.

By 1907, having fallen on hard times with the threat of the workhouse hanging over him, William Albery, the town saddler, amateur musician and award-winning calligrapher, decided to publish Burstow’s memories. Today we would use a minidisc recorder and, whilst portable recording devices were available (Vaughan Williams recorded the Verrells singing folk songs on one at Monks Gate in 1904, for example, see below), Albery wrote down the memories, creating an oral history. However, this oral history was edited by Albery in his first stage of making notes; it was then further edited by him in writing up the material into a structured, rather than a discursive, form.

William Albery, in his introduction to Reminiscences of Horsham, being recollections of Henry Burstow”, mentions that he had “corroborated” Burstow’s statements by using his own growing collection of documents. However, he did not just corroborate; he added substantially to it. It was not corroboration, but a creation of a new work of history. How substantially only came to light recently when John Albery, William’s son, gave the museum his father’s interleaved copy[181] in the Millennium year when Horsham Museum held the exhibition “The man who wrote the Millennium”.  

Today we would publish Burstow’s account and then write supplementary information as footnotes so the reader can assess the validity of the account. Albery, by mixing his research in with Burstow’s account, has in the end done a disservice to the cobbler, for the reader has no idea what Burstow actually remembered, has no idea what he viewed as being important, and cannot get his “take” on 19^th century history. What we have is Albery’s view of what Burstow told him as being important, and when Burstow does not mention something which Albery considered should be mentioned, Albery adds to the narrative in the same voice.

Does it matter? Yes, it does, and for a number of reasons. For a start, the chance to have a 19^th century working man’s view on how the town developed as been altered. (It might be possible to strip out all the additions Albery made, assuming that Albery recorded all his amendments). Secondly, Albery was half the age of Burstow when the account was written, and he has the mind of a generation brought up in the Victorian ethos, whereas Burstow’s view is that of a Georgian childhood and an early Victorian – there is a gulf of generations. Thirdly, Albery may have edited out material he did not consider important; either through not asking questions about it to trigger the memory, or in the editorial stages.

The difficulty is that we cannot give examples of excluded material because we have no idea if it was “excluded”. The reality is that Albery portrays a certain arrogance in his approach to Burstow by saying to Burstow that his memory, his story, is not good enough to stand on its own, and that only Albery can make it so. Though at a period when deference was a national trait, it is doubtful if Burstow saw it as arrogance, or Albery intended it to be such. The book therefore cannot be treated as an historical document in the same way as Sarah Hurst’s Diary, or John Baker’s Diary, but more a history of Horsham based on the memory of Henry Burstow. As a history it is deeply flawed in that it gives no citation as to where the information comes from, but for all that it can be seen as a great narrative; great but flawed.

The other great narrative is the “Diary of Henry Michell”, which was edited with notes by Kenneth Neale and published under the title Victorian Horsham. As Mr Neale writes, “It was to be expected that in parts the diary would be somewhat pedestrian and repetitive and thus unsuitable for publication in its original form. In parts, therefore, the editing has been severe…In the main the diary, supported by the narrative, must speak for itself…I thought it right not to edit the syntax, orthography and punctuation in the text of the diary which is printed as Henry Michell wrote it”[182] This is a more honest approach than Albery’s. However, there is one major admission from Neale’s discussion of the remarkable manuscript which was deposited at the Museum in 1931 by Guy Michell.[183]

The diary is not a diary at all, but an autobiography written chronologically. Assuming that the diary is written as a near-contemporary account then one would expect some lapses into the present tense, but throughout the book it is recorded in the past. In fact the opening lines of the “diary” actually set out the purpose of the manuscript: “I  can very well imagine that some years hence, this book may fall into the hands some member of my family who may very well ask “who was Henry Michell of Grandford House?”[184] This manuscript was written not as a history of Horsham, nor even for public consumption, unlike the ale brewed by Michell: but to place Henry Michell within the context of a family history. It was written after the events described and some time after 1874, so has the twenty-twenty vision of hindsight. It should also be remembered that when it was written the temperance movement was gaining ground in Horsham and the account of his life can be seen as a glorified apologia, in effect acknowledging how he built up his brewing business, but then identifying what he achieved with the wealth. All autobiographies have a purpose: the main one is to be read by others whilst also being highly revisionist, whereas a diary is immediate and often, though not always, deeply private (as Sarah Hurst’s was). By referring to Michell’s book as a Diary, historians are treating it differently from the way they would as an autobiography.

Horsham in the 19^th century

The year that resettlement of the Norfolk estate took place; on the death of Charles, who had no legitimate issue, and his third cousin, Bernard Edward Howard took the title[185], Horsham suffered a major financial crisis – the banks failed. The failure of Horsham’s first bank in 1793 has been explored above. That failure did not stop the partner in the bank, John Lanham, setting up with Richard Grinstead in 1802 a new bank known as Horsham Bank. John seems to have learnt from his previous adventure in banking and by tying up with the London bank of Spooner and Atwood issued its own banknotes.[186] Banknotes were like trade tokens (see mini essay above): they were worth, not the value given on the note, but the value people thought they were worth.[187]  It is all down to confidence. By tying up with the London bank their bank notes inspired confidence. Also, Lanham, who was a grocer from Wiltshire before moving to Horsham, had joined Charles Grinstead, a wealthy yeoman farmer from Five Oaks[188], and was considered a pillar of the community. Grinstead and Lanham were both bailiffs in 1812 when Horsham Common was enclosed, and tried to obtain some land in return for the bailiffs’ rights to “herbage and pannage”[189]; thus doing their civic duty, though they failed in the request.

However, no amount of confidence-building could save a bank if it over-stretched, and in 1815/16 the Bank went bankrupt, stopping payments in September 1816. What precipitated this financial crisis we cannot say for certain, though the Lanham and Grinstead bank was not the only one to fold in 1816, for the Sussex and Horsham Bank, partners Henry Blunt and William Augustus Raper, drawing on Gill and Co.[190],  also ceased payment[191] in that year. The curious thing was that Raper was also the accountant of the trustees who managed the affairs of the bankrupt Grinstead and Lanham, yet he had been declared bankrupt by July 1816 and, in December of that year, was noted on a printed proforma as the accountant. Obviously accountancy rules were more lax in those days. (See mini essay at the end of this chapter for the detailed account of the banks.) What the documents for the Grinstead and Lanham Bank show is the degree to which banks were being used by all strata of society. The Bank failures did not just affect the growing middle classes.

Henry Burstow, in his Reminiscences, makes the following bold statement: “In the first two or three decades of the 19^th century Horsham was noted for the frequency of its bank failures. No other town of its size suffered more from theirs. In this chronic state of insolvency, they were thought, I suppose by respectable burglars not worthy of attack, anyhow, I never before heard of a bank robbery in the town, but in 1840 there seemed to appear the prospect of a good haul” when  “On Thursday, the 13^th February, 1840, there was …big robbery in West Street, …at Messers Henty’s Bank”[192]. Suggesting that banks in Horsham failed. Yet Henty, the bank robbed in 1840, started in Horsham in 1809, continuing till 1896 when it merged with Capital and Counties.[193]

However, Burstow might be right in stressing that no town of its size suffered so much from the impact of the failure, but as Blunt and Rapper were paying back 18s in the pound and, as late as 1823, creditors were told that the executors of the Grinstead and Lanham bank would get 12s in the pound back, it might be seen as a misreading of events.

There are a couple of interesting points to bring out about Horsham’s finances. In the 17^th century Horsham issued 10 trade tokens, from 1653 to 1669; the third largest of any Sussex town. They became illegal tender in 1672 when the crown began to mint small change. However, by the middle of the 18^th century trade was booming and trade tokens were being minted across the country. Yet Horsham issued none[194]. Now, at a time when Horsham was booming, as noted in Evans’ Picture of Worthing as “the most considerable for trade in Sussex”, Horsham had no tokens. Was that because the poor who would use the small change for buying daily food would not have confidence in Horsham tokens? Nor would the vendor in accepting it, they but did have confidence in non-Horsham-backed business ventures, tokens issued by out of town traders. If that was the case, how did the Horsham Bank manage to issue larger notes,[195] notes that were successfully traded for 14 years? Possibly because the notes were not traded in the same way. If you were a successful trader growing wealthy on the income from the barracks, entering into contracts to supply food etc., what did you spend your money on?

The Duke of Norfolk was buying up all the Burgage property he could get his hands on at inflated prices, the house or shop buildings you lived in were rented, and there was no chance of you buying the freehold; not whilst the Norfolk and Irwin families were contesting ownership. You could invest in Government stocks and bonds; consols, which a number of Horsham people did. You could invest in the Turnpikes, as some Horsham people did. You could buy land away from the town, but that involved estate management and the sums were not that great. Or you could keep the money as cash in the form of Horsham bank notes, money guaranteed by a London bank run by local people. The Horsham Banks were seen by some as a savings bank, and as a savings bank it would not need to issue small denomination note or mint coins, for its involvement was in the larger items. When Sir Bysshe Shelley died in 1815 it was discovered that he had money secreted around his house in Horsham, including stitched into the lining of curtains.[196]  If someone of the financial acumen of Sir Bysshe, who as shown above was a money lender, did not trust the bank, then who was the bank serving?    

In 1809 half the population was considered poor enough to receive free food at the celebrations marking the 49^th reign of King George. The census return of 1811 shows that nearly one-third of the heads of families living in the town were either people of private means or unemployed.[197]  Horsham had a large underclass and a small number of wealthy families. The 1811 census revels that 257 families within the parish were involved in “trade, manufacture and handicraft”[198], whereas 349 families were involved with agriculture. The banks were serving not the very wealthy, nor the very poor, but those who had small amounts of extra cash, as the list of claimants represented by Medwin shows. Although the Horsham Bank stopped payments in 1816, it did not mean the banknotes became worthless, for they still retained a value, as the following account shows:

The importance of having a local bank in which you could save was such that three years after the joint failure of two Horsham banks, a Horsham Savings Bank was founded in 1819 and was successful well into the 20^th century.[200]

On 31 August 1819, eighteen of the town and district’s most prominent people, including Timothy Shelley, Robert Hurst, Commerell, Tredcroft and Sandham, asked the Bailiffs of the Borough of Horsham to convene “A Public Meeting of the INHABITANTS residing within the Borough and Parish of Horsham and the adjacent Parishes at the Town-Hall in Horsham on Wednesday, the 15^th day of September next, at 11 o’Clock in the Forenoon , To take into consideration the propriety of establishing a Savings Bank, for the benefit of this Town and Neighbourhood.” The Bailiffs responded by publishing this request and their agreement to hold the meeting the following day. The small poster, printed by Hunt, Printer and Stationer, was the ideal size for pasting up in windows of shops throughout the town.

The meeting was obviously successful for Charles Hunt, printer and bookseller, now printed a large, almost A2 sized poster setting out the result of the meeting and the Rules, Orders and Regulations of the now-named Horsham Savings Bank. Under the bold heading emblazoned “Horsham Provident Institution; Or, Bank for Savings”, the poster states that “It was resolved unanimously,

1. That the opinion of this Meeting the establishment of a Provident Institution, or Bank for Savings, for Horsham and its environs, will be productive of the most wholesome and happy influence on the moral habits as well as the temporal prosperity of the labouring part of the community; and therefore the individuals present promise it their strenuous encouragement, benevolent co-operation and warmest support”.

11. That a Savings Bank be established for Horsham and its vicinity

111. That this Establishment consist of, and be conducted by, a President, Vice-President, Trustees, Managers, Treasurers, and an Actuary”

The poster then went through the very long list of names that would fulfil the various roles, identifying one president, 17 Vice-Presidents, 9 Trustees, 3 Treasures, 51 managers, 13 Superintending Committee Members and one Actuary before noting:

“XII That this Meeting, deeply impressed with the importance of establishing a Savings Bank for the Town of Horsham and its Vicinity, do now enter into a Subscription for the purpose of defraying the Expenses which the formation of such an Establishment must necessarily incur” The poster then prints those subscribers with Sir T, Shelley, Sir C.M. Burrell and W Burrell subscribing £5 each , Commerell £3 and 10 others including R H Hurst, T.C. Medwin and Piper, Dewdney & Co giving £1”.

There then follows the rules of the Bank, with item 1 clearly stating:

“Establishment and Management:- That this Savings Bank be established for the purpose of affording a secure Investment to industrious Persons of the labouring classes and others, for such sums of Money as they may be able to deposit therein; and under the Management….none of whom shall derive any benefit whatsoever, directly or indirectly, from the Deposits received, or the Produce thereof, for services rendered by them to this Institution: and that one or more of the Managers attend to receive Deposits, and conduct the business when the Bank is open for that purpose.” Item 6 then explained that “Deposits of not less than One Shilling will be received; but such Deposits are not to be entitled to Interest until they amount to 12s6d Sterling, nor until such sums of 12s6d shall have remained one Calander Month; and no Interest shall be allowed on the fractional parts of 12s 6d.” Whilst Item 7 dealt with the investment of the Deposits, namely that:

“Deposits made in this Bank, not exceeding One Hundred Pounds in the first year from the date of the first Deposit, nor fifty Pounds in each succeeding year, by any one Depositor, will be invested in Government Debentures, according to Act of Parliament. Deposits from Friendly Societies legally Established, will be received, and invested in Government Debentures without any limitation as to the amount.” The poster then goes into some detail explaining all the workings for various scenarios. It then ends with the following example: “If Persons from the age of Twenty, were to lay by £1 only out of every Quarter’s Wages or Earnings, they would, at the age of Sixty, have more than £400, with which they might by an Annuity of £45. a-year, upon Government security for the rest of their Lives. Greater Savings would, of course, enable them, at an earlier period of life, to reap this advantage.”

What this and the other documents relating to Horsham Savings Bank reveal about Horsham will be discussed below, but rather than confuse the story of banking in the town, that story continues apace.

The success of the Bank is hard to determine in its early years. What is known is that there was a degree of apathy amongst the managers. For on 3 January 1821 a printed letter from Charles Hunt, Actuary, to amongst others, Thomas Charles Medwin, was distributed. The letter states that “A General Meeting of the Managers and Friends of this Institution will be held by a SECOND ADJOURNMENT (caused by the very small attendance on the two former days of meeting) at the Town hall, Horsham, on Tuesday, the 16^th day of January…” The letter also went on to explain that the institution could fail if not enough people attended. Obviously this did the trick, though in 1824 new rules were published where the minimum number of managers was set at 40, down from the 51 when the Bank was established. However, the main change related to a new Act of Parliament introduced that, amongst other things, restricted access to multiple savings; as the new rules stated, no one was to “have or hold, or be possessed of any Deposit in, or Funds in more than one Savings Bank within the United Kingdom, every such person shall forfeit and lose all right and title to any Deposit in, or to any Funds of any and every such Savings Bank…”

The Bank continued to advertise itself, and one 1820s notice proclaimed that the Bank was “open on Saturday Evenings from Six to Seven at the Town Hall, but for the convenience of Country Depositors, the Actuary (Mr C Hunt) will receive them at any time during the Week, at his House in West Street.”

The success of the Bank can be seen in the published General Statement issued each year. Whilst success is relative, and compared to other savings banks it may or may not be deemed successful, within its own terms it can be seen as providing a worthwhile enterprise. In 1829, the earliest printed statement within the Medwin archives, the Bank had £13106 12s 2d at 20 November 1828, with £2376 13s 10d received as deposits in the following year, and earned £461 11s 9d as interest on money invested with the “Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt”, making a total of £15945 0s 9d. They paid out to depositors £3116 15s 8d, some £52 13s0d in management and stationery fees; some £12366 3s 0d was held at 20 November 1829 which was invested with the Commissioners. With other monies the total balance in 1829 was £12775 12s 1d.

The statement then goes into the makeup of the £12,775, with the total amount held in each class:

No. of Depositors,		Total amount of each Class
198	Whose respective Balances on the 20th of Nov. 1829 (Including interest) did not exceed £20 each	£.s.d 1392.13.0.
113	Ditto were above £20 and not exceeding 50	3556.0.8
42	Ditto were above 50 and not exceeding 100	2930.4.5
19	Ditto were above 100 and not exceeding 150	2297.13.3
8	Ditto were above 150 and not exceeding 200	1361.17.0
1	Ditto exceeding 200	243.15.8
381	Total no of Depositors	11782.4.0
3	Charitable Societies	124.2.2
6	Friendly Societies	779.18.0

The bank continued throughout the 19^th century and, on occasion, the amount saved by depositors will be revisited as it gives an indication to the health or otherwise of the local economy. 

WHAT THE BANK DOCUMENTS REVEAL ABOUT HORSHAM SOCIETY

The documents about Horsham Savings Bank reveal a lot more about Horsham at the beginning of the 19^th century than the just the economy.

They reveal that Horsham society was developing a strong class identity. That the labouring class needed the help of the middle class in order to save money, and that the saving of money was linked to morality and spiritual wellbeing, or at least that is what the middle class thought the working class needed. It also revealed a certain self-assuredness about the town and also a certain economic naiveté.

The very first notice of the Bank shows a coming together of wealthy landowners and merchants to create a savings bank, from Sir Timothy Shelley to Thornton: 18 in all. The language used in the poster/handbill is very much deferential: “to take into consideration the propriety of establishing” – and almost self-sacrificing; “For the benefit”, not of us, but “of this Town and Neighbourhood.”

The next notice, a poster this time, far too large to be pasted up in a window[201], reveals the full extent of the social differentiation within Horsham society. Whilst there was some doubling-up in roles, it is clear that over 60 men, shopkeepers, landowners, farmers etc. would have classed themselves as above those who needed a Savings Bank. That in itself would not be so socially divisive, but the poster that promoted the scheme, and whose text is given in full above, was worded in such a patronising manner to make it clear to all those who could read that the people who set up the Bank and ran it saw themselves as better than those it was intended to help.

Then there is the use of the bank as a means of regulating and controlling the socially feckless. For a start, the Bank opened for an hour between six and seven on a Saturday at the Town Hall. Inns and pubs surrounded the Town Hall, as they do today, and rather than spend the money on drink, as the poster makes clear, they could invest it, and Horsham would have peaceful Saturday nights rather than drunken brawling. The very phrase “Labourers, especially those who are unmarried” targets the bank at the young, or those without the controlling influence of family responsibilities, though it should be said “by the time of the Napoleonic Wars, it has been estimated that a fifth of the English population lived at one time or another in common-law unions.” [202] The promotional literature for the bank also tries to regulate the poor in society by suggesting that they save for the future, rather than spend for today. This clearly shows that the Christian teaching that you live a good life today in order to get into the kingdom of heaven, a teaching which had a strong conforming role in society, was no longer that powerful, if it ever was, so the addition of financial gain helped.

The mention of “Saint Monday” is interesting as it does not occur elsewhere in the literature, yet must have been a common occurrence in Horsham[203]. It should be remembered that for most workers, work was a six-day week; Saturday was a working day. This suggests that a number of workers had a “weekend off”; not Saturday and Sunday, but Sunday and Monday, with the amount saved, two shillings “every Monday” – one shilling lost through not working and one shilling spent on drink.

As for the link to morality and Christian duty, the text is littered with religious phraseology: “flee from the Temptation” (“lead us not into temptation”, as spoken in the Lords Prayer), is the most blatant; but also the inclusion of a Proverb, whilst the text uses speech patterns more commonly found in the Bible than on the street corner: “Let him save what he has hitherto been used to spend in drinking and waste”, “It moreover receives just what a person can spare” etc. Add to that the fact that the ten Reverends were listed as Trustees or managers of the Bank. It is clear that saving money was seen as a Christian duty.

Why, though, was the bank formed now in 1819, and in Horsham? According to the statement in one, “almost every great Town in the Kingdom” was establishing a savings bank, and Horsham should be in with this crowd. In fact, the Savings Bank movement had started in 1811 in Scotland and rapidly spread.[204] There was however a political dimension to the bank.

1819 saw a great deal of civil unrest, culminating in the Peterloo Massacre, where Government troops were called upon by frightened Manchester civic authorities to quell a peaceful march. In doing so, they rode into the marchers, crushing them under hoof and causing the Warnham-born poet and radical to write his memorable poem The Masque of Anarchy, a poem so critical of the government that it was still not published years later.[205] However, the government of the day were frightened. They had trained agricultural labourers to become soldiers, either through the Volunteer or Regular army, and now they were roaming the land, unemployed. Add to that the misery caused by the financial collapse of 1815/16. There had to be some way to tie in the disaffected to the future, to make them think about the future not the present.

Then there was the problem of the Poor rates; those who were in work had to shell out money for those out of work when periods of unemployment occurred, or sickness and when they became too old to work. A rising population would lead to increasing problems. 

Into this matrix of concerns and issues came the ideas of the new breed of financial thinkers: the Economist, who could map out all the problems that could befall a country. Adam Smith’s An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations was continually in print since it was first published  in 1776,[206]  whilst the Rev. Malthus wrote An Essay on the Principle of Population, which underwent constant revision since first published in 1798;[207]  David Ricardo was writing pamphlets on Bullion and Banknotes in 1809;[208] Thomas Paine, whose radical Rights of Man sold in its thousands throughout the period as did his “Decline and Fall of the English System of Finance, selling 5,000 copies in 1819-21.[209] 

It is not surprising that the Government promoted the use of Savings Banks, and saving not in private ventures but in a state-backed scheme, backed by the rule of law, investing firstly in the Bank of England, (though a private bank), and later, the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt, thus tying the feckless into the prosperity of the state. It also helped the Parish out because, by setting up the bank, the poor would now be responsible for their own welfare; not the parish, in effect passing the duty and responsibility to look after yourself and family away from the poor relief on to the individual.

This obviously would appeal to the middle classes who set up and promoted the bank. It is even possible to see the employer suggesting the employee save money in the bank when taking the person on, and, what is even more rewarding to the middle classes in the town, those who may have taken out loans and so paying interest to the depositors. The burden of paying interest did not fall on the people borrowing money from the bank, for it was not a lending institution, but onto the state; the state guaranteed a fixed rate of return independent of the local money markets.

Therefore the town could have two sorts of banks: one that dealt with the poor whom no commercial bank wanted to deal with, and a bank for the wealthy to borrow and invest in. The fact that a law was passed in 1824 stopping people from having more than one bank account suggests that a number of the financially aware realised that the rate of return was too good to miss, so opened up accounts across the country.

The savings bank therefore made the “seen to be irresponsible”, responsible, and shifted the burden from the parish to the individual. As the poster stated, “in hard times, in a loss of work…they would not be dependent on their parish or the bounty of others for support, but could apply to the fund which their own industry, sobriety, and frugality had provided.” 

This reflected a change in the notion on poverty and the poor. For centuries the poor had been linked with religious notions. It was either a “blessing to be devoutly sought and a misfortune to be piously endured”[210]; one actively sought, the other a burden to be borne with Christian fortitude. The Church took a central role in the issue of poverty, seeking a sacred duty for charitable giving to the holy poor and to relieve the plight of the unholy poor.

However, with the growing secularisation of society, the idea of poverty and the poor changed, so that by 1750, whilst poverty was seen as a natural condition, it was society’s responsibility to alleviate it, as a sign of marking it out as being civilised. This in England meant the poor law, first introduced during Elizabethan times, and, whilst altered and transformed, the fundamental stayed the same. In some circumstances and cases the poor became a charge on the state. By the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries the poor had become a problem; a social and economic one. Whilst the Tudors had instituted vagrancy laws and had seen vagrancy, which was linked to poverty, as a problem, it was not the cause that was tackled but the end result. By the time the Horsham Savings Bank had been established there was, thanks to the writers mentioned above, and none more so than Malthus, a desire to solve the problem.

What was the problem? Poverty and the poor were a symptom, not the problem: the problem was seen as overpopulation. Malthus had argued that the rise in population grew geometrically, and food arithmetically leading to a shortage of food. It was noted at the time to be in error but, as Walter Bagehot wrote, “He advertised his notions and fixed them among the men who understood a simple and striking exaggeration far more easily than a full and secure truth. He created an entirely new feeling on the subject.”[211] Anyone, as Malthus showed, who doubted the problem, could do mathematical calculations and see that in two centuries the ratio of population to food was 256 to 9, in three centuries 4,096 to 13 and so on. This mathematical certainty, not based on actual reality, frightened and worried many. Malthus’s concern, though, was not so much about population rise, but the effect that would have on progress. He was attacking Adam Smith who, in his Wealth of Nations, argued that you need a rising population to create wealth: “the most decisive mark of the prosperity of any country is the increase in the number of inhabitants.”[212]  Malthus’s argument was that a rising population meant wealth had to be spread even wider. As Malthus argued, an “obvious truth…population must always be kept down to the level of the means of subsistence”[213]. What made the book, published in 1798, so talked-about was the way Malthus proposed reducing the population, or keeping it in check.

The book which changed the whole way society thought about the poor was not written as a riposte to Adam Smith, but as a riposte to a Warnham-born poet’s father in law. William Godwin, father of the future Mary Shelley and Percy Bysshe Shelley’s future father in law, had written Enquiry Concerning Political Justice some five years earlier in 1791-2, though published in 1793; a book so powerful that Wordsworth advised young men to “Burn your books on chemistry and read Godwin on necessity”, though the enthusiasm for his ideas burned out with the excesses of the French Revolutionary Terror. (Even Godwin had modified his ideas by the second edition published in 1796). It was, however, Godwin’s ideas that led a young Shelley to idolise him, seek him out and to eventually marry his daughter, a daughter whose mother was the radical, Mary Wollstencraft.

Godwin’s basic argument was that both the rich and poor have the same wants, and since happiness and improvements in society were dependent on satisfying these wants, why should the poor not get the rewards of their labour, rather than just the rich, he sought “a state of cultivated equality”. He also argued that all the evils of society and the defects within human nature are the result of civil institutions, and especially private property, “man is perfectible, or in other words susceptible of perpetual improvement”[214]. The only thing that might stop it was an excessive rise in population, which Godwin argued would be self-regulating, to the amount of food available, and as the globe was still largely uncultivated that would be centuries away, and in the end the utopian society would sort the problem out.

Malthus disagreed with this idealistic notion and argument, and in doing so highlighted all the ills of society, as he saw it. Malthus argued that there were two “fixed laws”,

1. “that food is necessary to the existence of man”

2. “that the passion between the sexes is necessary and will remain nearly in its present state”

The end result is that “the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.” Checks on this included starvation, sickness, war and infanticide, which all reduced the population once it had been born, whilst other checks included delay in marriage, abstinence; anything that stopped procreation. The overall effect though was “misery and vice”, and it was amongst the poor that the pressure of population was felt the most; the poor were the most likely to be susceptible to misery and vice, and here, in words that can be seen as so blatant in the reason for the creation of the Savings Bank, was Malthus, arguing that “When they received wages in excess of their present needs, they spent the surplus on “drunkenness and dissipation,” unlike tradesmen and farmers who saved it for future needs.”[215]  Whilst the middle classes were kept working and saving by the fear of falling into poverty; “If no man could hope to rise or fear to fall, in society, if industry did not bring with it its reward and idleness its punishment, the middle parts would not certainly be what they are now”[216].

The documents for the creation of the bank reek with Malthusian sentiment. The question to ask in a town dominated by the Duke of Norfolk, a town that had no electoral voice, was: what extra parliamentary group, even if loose-knit, would read and understand such modern ideas and concepts? The answer may be – only may be – because unfortunately we have no knowledge of the books owned and rented out, the Book Club. According to the most recent study on reading during this period, book clubs and subscription libraries had the following characteristics:

• “Owned by the members
• Membership almost exclusively men
• Associated with male pursuits, e.g. dining, drinking and debating
• Mainly politics, religion, war, history, travel, antiquities, plus many books of the eighteenth century Enlightenment
• Then Scot, Byron and Waverley novels
• Many pamphlets on contemporary political issues, with a few such as Burke, for more widely available than the others
• Choice of books demand-led by members
• Stocks accumulated
• A national elite conscious of their leadership role”[217]

As St Clair writes of reading societies: “The members of reading societies were the leaders of local life, a social economic and intellectual elite, The societies were a flowering of intellectual confidence, a boom in serious reading to match the boom in serious writing, the embodiment of local and civic as well as national pride, a celebration of the power of books to make mankind wiser and better…They were, to use a word coined by Coleridge, the “clerisies” who would gradually take over the intellectual, educational, and socially progressive role which in earlier centuries had been the province of the Christian churches”.[218]

It is interesting to note that the period the Book Club ran, from 1812 until 1820, also saw the sending of petitions to Parliament. The town had previously sent a petition in 1716, then nothing for 100 years. Now, on 19 July 1814, a petition regretting that in the Peace Treaty with France “no provision was made for the abolition of the slave trade” (see Slavery, above). This was followed on 5 March 1816 with a petition concerning the national finances, tax and the Civil List[219]. Interestingly, both of these petitions reflected national rather than local concerns. Then, on 24 February 1817, a meeting was held in front of the Lamb inn at the north-west corner of the Carfax. This meeting resulted in a petition being sent to Parliament, which was commented on in the Times.[220]  

The Petition can be read in full in Albery’s Parliamentary History; what makes the document remarkable, though, is that it shows a great deal of the self-confidence of Horsham, for whilst it was seeking redress for national problems, it was fixing them to Horsham and the locality. The petition also brings in Malthusian concerns: “The Land, that real source of national wealth is rapidly receding from that high state of cultivation to which it had lately attained, and no longer yielded profit to the farmer. Trade is daily declining; the strength and industrious habits of the labourer are diminished by the insufficiency of his food and from want of employment”. The very words echo the Malthusian concern identified above. The petitioners then go on to ask for relief from taxes because the burden has been “increased by the sudden depreciation in the value of every description of property, occasioned by a fluctuating paper currency”. Is this a direct statement relating to the failure of the two banks? After all, the value of the Blunt and Rapper note was 18 shillings in the pound; a depreciation of 10%, and the Lanham and Grinstead banknote by 10 shillings in the pound (a notional value given in 1823), or 50% depreciation.

They then go on to attack Royal and Government waste. The next comment on the size of the standing army is interesting, in that the town benefited greatly by having the barracks, but now they had been removed, and with them the soldiers, so they complain about the army; would they do so if the army still resided in the town? After seeking greater political franchise and increasing the frequency of elections, they temper their radicalism by saying in effect that they are not revolutionaries but they do not want any increase in State control.[221] These were concerns that had been expressed in the literature of the day; a literature which was now available for discussion through reading of the Monthly Magazine, The Critical, Edinburgh Review and the Quarterly Review. Such clubs and societies were part of a wider reading nation, no longer dependent on visits to London to discus the latest debates.[222]  

Late in 1817 William Hone issued a series of parodies on society dressed up in ecclesiastical language. He was prosecuted for blasphemy. Hone needed financial support to pay for his trial. “The list of people who contributed financially to the costs of his defence is a roll call of the liberal conscience of the nation, from the Duke of Bedford who sent a hundred guineas, to the unknown Mr Shelley of Marlow who sent £5”[223]. The list of subscribers published by Hone in 1818 in The First Trial of William Hone, on an Ex official Information at Guildhall, London 18.1817” also includes “Hone’s friends in Horsham.”[224]  A book club would be dependent on publications to survive; therefore, anything which attacked the liberty of the press would also attack the freedom of the society to read (a point that Hone graphically showed in the second edition of The Man in the Moon, published in 1820 with the figure of Britannia with hand on the printing press being attacked by Wellington wielding noose and axe, Castlereagh with dagger and Canning with chains[225]), so it is likely that members of the club were also subscribers to the fund and writers of the petition.

Of course, this is all supposition, as we do not have a members’ list, nor do we know what books and pamphlets were held by the Book Club; but the question to ask is: if not them, then which other organisation was linked to the intellectual milieu of the times? The Prosecuting Society? Unlikely. Another group of like-minded individuals would have been the church groups; not so much the Church of England, or Roman Catholics, who were still treated as second class citizens, but the nonconformist churches, the Quakers, Methodists, or perhaps the most dynamic at this time, the Independents, who were founded in 1800 and who by 1814 had outgrown their old chapel, building a new one in 1814 on a neighbouring site. Their congregation was mainly Horsham and Lower Beeding non-agricultural workers in the 1820s and 30s, which, whilst dangerous to project backward, suggests that their membership was artisan.[226]

Were these groups likely to be politically involved and seek out solutions to social problems by reading the radical press?  Possibly; after all, one only has to look at the Methodist movement in the mid to late 18^th century to see that. However, would these groups pay the high prices for radical literature? We do not know, but it can be thought unlikely, yet the Horsham Book Club was created with the intention of allowing contemporary literature to be made more affordable and available to a wide membership. They wanted to be part of the intellectual network, they would see it as part of their civic duty to be a well-read citizen. (The cost of books and the impact that had on the intellectual context of the day is explored in the mini essay at the end of this chapter.)

There was, however, one group that was established to ease the cost of buying and owning a book: The Bible Association of Horsham, which may also have been the impetus for creating the Savings Bank as clearly set out below, though not identified in the Horsham reports. As Howsam explains:

“The idea (of Bible Society) spread to middle-class people who did not have many personal dependents, but who envisioned themselves putting the books into the hands of poor people in their own communities. The vehicle for this enthusiasim was the Auxiliary Society, or Auxiliary Bible Society, a local group formed to collect subscriptions at a lower rate than the guinea per year charged by the parent society. Beginning in Reading, in 1809, and spreading very quickly over the whole of Great Britain, local societies were formed to extend the work… When the regular auxiliaries, formed by the same sort of businessmen as had organised the work in London, began to decline, they were supplanted by ‘Ladies’ Bible Associations’ which harnessed to the cause the evangelical fervour of middle-class women. Dudley who became a full time staff member in 1820 wrote An Analysis of the System of the Bible Society, which included the following

“The poor, taught by the visits of the collectors how they may acquire a Bible at a sacrifice that is scarecely felt even by the most indigent, gladly embrace the opportunity. Gratified by the regular weekly calls of their superiors, they endeavour to render their humble abodes more cleanly and attractive:-the effort is noticed with approbation, and comparative comfort and order are enjoyed. The husband and the father no longer spends his evenings from his family;- he begins to taste the pleasures of home; and to consider whether his weekly earnings may not be more profitably expended than in sensual and degrading pursuits. The expected Bible is at length obtained, – the perusal of it confirms the habits recently acquired, and they gradually attain the force of principles. He finds he is able to lay by a portion of his weekly gains; and cheerfully devotes the first-fruits of his increase to that cause which he has found to be a blessing. The visits of the collectors are consequently continued regularly, their advice is solicited, and the SAVINGS’ BANK is recommended as a secure depository for the newly-formed basis of future independence. Here is the natural progress of the system.[227]  

Founded on 29 March 1814, the Bible Association of Horsham had the clear aim of “circulating the Holy Scriptures without note or comment to the poor at reduced prices”, as expressed on the front cover of its First Report published in 1815. This was the agreed text as set out in the very first meeting of the national organisation.[228] The association was an immediate success and, in the second report, mention is made of the Ladies Committee. As well as selling Bibles at preferential rates, they also set up a financing scheme, not unlike carriages today trying to sell new cars, to enable more poor to buy the New Testament or Bible. They also arranged for Bibles to be given to those who were about to be transported. (See mini essay at end of this chapter for a full discussion of this society.)

These Bible Association reports, as well as being inherently interesting, offer a view of Horsham life that has been little-accounted for. As recounted elsewhere, Horsham had a flourishing bookshop that also lent books; it also had a Book Club, but both of those would be aiming at the aspiring middle classes or skilled artisan. Here we have for the first time an account of literary rates amongst the poor of Horsham. Although some books might have been lost, it is still notable that by 1820 around 1,300 poor people in the parish owned their own Bible or Testament. This, linked to the number of pupils attending schooling in the parish, shows that far from being a poorly-educated underbelly, Horsham had a literate population able to read, if not write.  

The first report also shows that by now class identity had become a reality. The growing awareness of social structure and order identified the poor and servants as one group. As shown, with the game of cricket played in the 1770s and 80s there was a degree of fluidity between classes with social intermixing. Now there was class identity; something that was also portrayed in the creation of the Savings Bank in Horsham. The Bible and Testament were also seen as means to enforce or obtain social control with the clear aim of reforming the sinner (the drunk, those hardened to vice, the prisoner, the pupil, the servant); the Association had formed at the very time war ended, and so there was stress and social unrest as well as concern by those who had about those who had not. The Bible Association might talk about expressions of humanity but it can also be seen as a way of indoctrinating the poor with Christian values to accept their lot. What they had not thought through was that the increased levels of literacy meant that the very poor could now read the chap books and street literature that promoted reform both social and electoral. In effect the reforming voice piggybacked on the Bible and the Testament.

Shelley was one of the great political writers of his generation. Being a Warnham-born son of a wealthy Horsham landowner, one can ask the question: Is it likely that some of Shelley’s works were read in the Horsham book club? Although it cannot be proven, it is a strong possibility. Susan Djabri has pointed out that the 1817 petition for reform sent by members of Horsham has echoes in Shelley’s poem “To the people of England in 1819”, suggesting that Shelley may have known of the petition.[229]  However, another possibility is that the writers of the petition were influenced by Shelley’s ideas which had been circulated via his publications that were obtained by the Book Club. Whilst it is dangerous to read back into the past, actions of the present-day generation, the local library service and bookshops all promote the work of local authors; would Horsham have been different 200 years ago?

There is, however, a contradiction in what Shelley believed and what Malthus believed. In fact, it was noted that many of the literary figures of the day condemned Malthus, including Byron, Hazlitt, Cobbett, and later Carlyle, Dickens and Disraeli. Their main argument of attack on Malthus was that “He had bestialised man by making him a creature of lustful passion, and had maligned God by making Him the creator not only of that degraded species but of a universe so ill devised as to produce men and women faster than He could feed them”[230]. (It should also be remembered this is the time of William Paley and the ‘blind watchmaker’ concept which ‘proved’ that there was a God with a great design. Shelley himself would attack Malthus for making the poor “to abstain from sexual intercourse, while the rich are to be permitted to add as many mouths to consume the products of the labours of the poor as they please” [231]. Yet the contradiction between Malthus’ ideas on society and Shelley’s ideas would not have caused any real problem, for neither were self-contained theories, and they probably led to debate.

Why does all the above matter in the History of Horsham? It matters because the 19^th century would be dominated by political discussion and debate as the growing sense of self, identity with a class and a group, led to pressures for a political voice. The voice was not the end in itself, but the means for society to manifest the social changes needed to reflect the economic changes which in turn led to institutional change. Europe was ravaged by revolutions in the 19^th century; Britain saw change which was revolutionary but not revolutions. It matters because what you see in the above accounts are the progenitors of that change.

Sometime around 1816 or 1817 Holden published his first Annual Directory for the years 1816 and 1817, with the intention that it should be subscribed to, as every two years an updated directory would be published. The directory has already been referred to in connection with the banks, but the information given in the directory is revealing. The Directory “contains the Merchants, Ship Owners, Bankers & co” according to the title page, which may explain why no general produce shops are recorded. What the directory does reveal is the number of sprit and brandy merchants in the town. Of the 26 merchants listed:

• 13 sold spirit, brandy, wine, or wine and spirit,
• 3 timber,
• 2 each of leather, malt,
• 1 each of coal, wool, corn, flour, rag, hay factors.

Only having one coal trader could be understandable when the Common provided a great deal of furze or firewood, but since its enclosure it might be expected that more coal would be required. However, Burstow, in his Reminisces, gives the following account of coal which explains its unpopularity: “In the living room (of his parents cottage in the Bishopric) was the down fireplace, upon which my mother would burn nothing but wood, sharing the local prejudice, which was very strong, against coal; “nasty black stuff” she used to say, “you can’t touch it for soot!” The other surprising thing, for an area noted for its agriculture and markets, is how few in number were merchants selling material raised from the land: 11 in total (malt for beer, timber, leather, wool and only one corn and one flour merchant even though the town was noted for its corn markets.) The mention of “rag” merchant may seem surprising, yet until the invention of wood pulp paper in the 1840s the paper industry consumed vast amounts of rags which had to be supplied by a network of rag merchants. 

The Directory also shows that there were coaches to the George inn in Borough, a coaching route that stretched back to the early 17^th century, (see above) and Golden Cross in Charring Cross, the other side of the river. As coaches would have taken passengers, it is not surprising that it included a coaching inn in London. Wagons, on the other hand, only travelled as far as Borough where the market was held, and is still held today. Five of the eight Innkeepers were listed as merchants, suggesting a retail side to their inns; today more akin to an “off licence”. There were also five Attorneys in the town, possibly indicating the importance of the place as an Assize town and County Gaol.

In 1818 there were 21 day schools including Collyer’s and 3 or 4 boarding schools, meaning that an estimated 765 pupils were being taught in Horsham.[232] The quality of the education could not be vouched for but it does suggest two things: that education was seen as a route out of poverty; and as an investment in the future. Whilst the pupils may have come from a wide catchment area, it still suggests that a sizeable proportion of Horsham’s children were receiving the rudiments of education. It also suggests that the future mattered; a society that could not see a future for itself would not invest in education – why educate someone if they have no hope of betterment? Therefore, the Horsham Saving Bank created a year later was also buying into this mood for they, like education, were looking to the future. Horsham may have suffered from the removal of the barracks and may have sent petitions to Parliament appealing for help, but they were not the appeals of a town that saw no hope; more, of a town that wanted help to achieve more than it had; though it is doubtful if the town at this stage could articulate those goals.

1818 also saw the end of Hills; the Jacobean house was still standing, but the pleasure gardens laid out by Capability Brown were now being parcelled up by the Duke of Norfolk and being sold off. Although this is a couple of years after the petition, it suggests that farmland was still profitable; if it was not, there would have been no market for the Hills estate, yet Norfolk found willing buyers amongst the local gentry and farmers of Horsham.[233]

Post-war Horsham and Sussex, though, was suffering from poverty and a rising amount of debt which resulted in crime. In fact, what was happening was that society, becoming fearful of crime and social behaviour problems, was criminalising more and more aspects of society, or making penalties for such crime even more draconian. This fear was promoted by the press who used strong language in describing the criminals, in part to praise the endeavours of the authorities, who were in the main the readers of the papers, in quashing the crime, thus creating a circle of exaggeration. This is clearly told in the case of the “Shipley Gang” where research by a family descendent of a “gang” member has shown the reality of the situation to be more down to earth than the exaggeration of the press would indicate. For example, the Hampshire Gazette and Sussex Chronicle reported on the arrest of the gang: “This county has lately been infested with a desperate set robbers (…) Their depredations have not been confined to houses, shops etc, but they have robbed a vast number of mills, and even the poor cottagers of their daily bread, not sparing them their tools and the implements of their labour”[234]  At the trial of the “gang” “18 counts involving burglary, theft and sheep stealing” were read out and “judging by the indictments, the Gang did not always (if ever) act en bloc but they did have a system in place for disposing of their spoils.”  For a desperate set of robbers their thefts seem quite minor; one stole in value 13s of goods: a prong, a barrel and an axe, whilst the biggest job was stealing 13 bushels of flour from millers in Rudgwick, whilst from a draper in Ashust they stole 35 yards of linen, corduroy and velveteen plus a pair of breeches; a shoemaker in Thakeham lost 19 shoes and some pieces of leather.

The gang members were going to be hanged; though in the end all those sentenced to death at the March 1818 Assizes “before the judges had left the town” had their sentences commuted to transportation.[235]

As well as criminals, the Prison also housed debtors, for going into debt was also a crime punishable by a prison sentence. In 1817 there were 41 felons and over 100 debtors.[236]  By 1818 the number of inmates had increased so that the annual whitewashing of the prison had to be cancelled. On 11 August the Quarter Sessions decided that the Gaol should be increased in size. Five days later the Committee, for increasing its size, had met at the Kings Head and 16 more cells were added at a cost of £2,540.[237] It was at this time that Horsham gaol had one of its most celebrated inmates, Arthur Thistlewood, a man who according to his own friends was changed by his year-long spell in the Prison. On his release he would lead the Cato Street gang/conspirators in the plan to assassinate the entire Cabinet.

The prison, however, by 1822 was not deemed full enough by the Gaoler to work a wind machine.

In 1820 the Town Hall was given a clock by the Duke of Norfolk.[245] The questions to ask are: why, and did it matter? It may have been an act of altruism: the finishing touches to his predecessor’s gesture. However, it is also possible to see other motives. The Savings Bank operated from the Town Hall between the hours of 6 and 7 on Saturday – was this clock installed to tell the poor who could not afford a watch (assuming they could tell the time) when the bank operated? Perhaps, but a simple bell would have done that. What other methods of telling the time were there? The Church bells did not chime on the hour, but were rung for occasions.[246]

There was a tax on clocks and watches, making them more expensive to buy: a luxury (see above). To get around this government tax, Parliamentary or Tavern clocks were installed with large faces enabling people to see the time from a distance; an example being the Mussell clock in the Museum. By having a Town Hall Clock, the need to visit an inn or Tavern to see the time was no longer a necessity, and acted as a brake on inebriation. However, the real effect of the Town Hall Clock is that it made time a public/civic/secular responsibility. Now the town could be regulated by a set time; time set not by the church, but by the civic authorities who maintained the Town Hall. It enabled Horsham to become more managed, controlled, ordered and regulated. It was a controlling influence and deliberately so. How? The clock was on one of the town’s tallest buildings: the Town Hall, whose facade was one of the highest points in the town; all other buildings were two storeys high, apart from the Causeway House, Church and Gentry houses; therefore, it could be seen from the Carfax and the bells heard across the town. The bells themselves have a public inscription:

His grace the Duke of Norfolk presented the new Town Hall

clock Anno Domini 1820. R. Hurst Esq., and J. Torne, Bailiffs:

R. Steadman, gent., Town Clerk: Sir John Aubrey, Bart., and

Robert Hurst, Esq., Members of the Borough.

                          Whose praise and fame I’ll speak and tell,

                           As long as I remain a bell,

                           And after death I hope and trust

                           They’ll all be numbered with the just.

The one group who would not have heard the new Town Clock chimes would be the girls’ department of the National School which moved, around 1820, to the new building in Denne Road at the north entrance to Denne estate. The school had, since its earliest days, accepted girls: in 1814 there were 64 boys and 43 girls. The school was financed by subscriptions and by the income from two charity sermons. The boy’s school stayed in the chantry.[247] The girls’ school building is still standing; it is the lodge at the entrance to Denne Park at the end of Denne Road.

Also in 1820, the Duke of Norfolk, who actively gave Catholic churches to communities, gave Horsham its first Roman Catholic Church.[248] The 12^th Duke “disapproved of large edifices”, preferring small chapels as being more appropriate to English Catholic worship, and gave around £7,000 a year towards buying land and building chapels He also gave land for Anglican churches on his growing Sheffield estate.[249] In Horsham the Duke converted a building in Springfield Road for use as a Roman Catholic Chapel and Priest House. This alteration in Horsham presaged new changes nationally. The same year the chapel was created, perhaps as a sign of confidence in the possibility of change, the 12^th Duke of Norfolk presented King George IV who had recently been crowned, a petition from himself and fellow Catholics for the repeal of the penal laws against Catholics. He assured the King that the Catholics had no allegiance to any foreign political power. By the end of the decade Wellington and Peel pushed through the Catholic Emancipation Act, enabling the Duke to sit in the House of Lords.[250]

In 1822 William Pirie, a twenty year old Scot who had taught for six months previously at Mr. Dunn’s Friars Walk Academy at Lewes, was elected headmaster of Collyer’s school.

According to A.N.Wilson, “The election of William Pirie in January 1822 was a turning-point in our (Collyers ) history. No spectacular change in curriculum took place during his long regime, there were no university scholars and no advanced education, but the new Headmaster knew exactly the kind of school the town wanted; he won the complete confidence of the company, was rarely at loggerheads with local Governors for long and apparently never with his Ushers.”[251]

Why should the election of a Headmaster to a school that only had sixty places in total; less than 10% of the total number in education in the town, really be of interest to Horsham’s history?  Two reasons. The first is ephemeral. Pirie built 15 cottages just off the Carfax as a commercial venture; he was a property developer in effect and, in 1991, a competition was held to name a new shopping complex on the site of the new Horsham Market that had been moved to the site out of the Carfax (see below). Frank Holmes, an ex-councillor and local historian, suggested Pirie Place, and so the shopping area was known as Pirie’s place. The centrepiece was a statue by the artist Lorne McKean, cast in bronze, of William Pirie in his donkey and cart, which was unveiled in 1993.

However, the real impact on the town was that Pirie did nothing for the pupils’ education. He may have given the town what the town wanted, as Willson argued, or rather, what the people who ran the school said the town wanted, but he did nothing to push education forward. If an institution that offered free education did not offer any hope beyond the basic, then that institution stifled potential. Henry Burstow shows through his writings that he is an intelligent man. He was a Collyerian, but he became a cobbler – he was not challenged by education to achieve more.

In the 16th and 17th centuries the school sent pupils to University; now it was content to send pupils out to become itinerant cobblers. If you wanted to achieve something for your children and could afford it, then you sent your children to other schools in the town, not Collyer’s. If Collyer’s was fee paying, how many pupils would it have had? William Pirie may have been popular; but inspirational?  Having said that, what he offered was better than had been offered in the late 18^th century. In 1826 he set up an entrance exam and school prizes, he introduced the subjects of history and geography as well as commercial subjects, training for a job,[252] but should that be the only function of a school and education? In some respects, then, the placing of a statue to Pirie in an enclosed commercial world might be more apt than the architects thought, because he did not look out beyond the confined world of small-town trade and that is a disappointment. Possibly for that reason Horsham can lay claim to few notable people in the 19^th century, and those it can, came from outside rather than from within.

Sometime around 1820 to 1825 the Parish Church underwent various alterations, including raising the altar on several steps, rearranging some pews; and possibly the most drastic work to the religious heritage of Horsham was the destruction of a richly-decorated rood screen, perhaps dating to 1522 when money was given for 12 apostles for it. Why? Perhaps because the building was suffering: the digging out of vaults within the church, the sloping site and the weight of the galleries were causing major structural problems, with the building leaning to the north by as much as 2ft. By 1749 extra tie beams were added to the church but problems were still occurring, and with the removal of the rood screen went an adjacent gallery that would have reduced the weight being carried by the wall. However, it is a shame that the screen was not removed and reused. Though it is only a suggestion that the rood screen might be that of 1522, in the description of Horsham given by John Briton, mentioned above, he describes the tombs in the Church, but does not comment on the screen, which suggests that the screen was not of note even to the antiquarian and commentator on taste, John Britton.[253]

The provision of education for the poor of Horsham continued to be an issue within the town. Around 1826, possibly 1827, a British school was built in London Road. Was this in response to the introduction by Pirie of an entrance examination to get into Collyer’s, or was it just coincidence? Whatever it was, the school was built in the classical style of five bays on the ground floor and three above.[254]

In 2001 the Museum bought a poster of The General Rules for the Management of the Horsham Royal British Schools for the education of Poor Children of All Religious Denominations.” The poster was printed, not by a Horsham printer, but by G. W. Lauder of London. The text of the poster suggests that there were two schools, whereas in reality there was only one in Horsham. This suggests that the poster was a standard template, with just the word Horsham added. The school, although set up for the poor, was not free, costing 2½d (two and a half pence) per week per child, who received instruction in “reading, writing and arithmetic, according to the royal British system, which also comprehends the use of the needle in the girls’ department.”[255] The school ran from 9-12 and 2-5pm from 1 March to 1 November, and the rest of the year 1.30-4pm.

This suggests that the school was not intended for agricultural areas, as the harvest gathering and working in the fields would be required when the school was open the longest; in those areas one would expect a reverse in opening hours. Interestingly, whilst every child had to attend a “ place of worship, which its parents or friends may prefer, and to report every Monday morning that it has done so” the “reading lessons shall be composed of extracts from the authorized version of the Holy Scriptures, but no Commentary upon, Interpretation of them”. The school was financed by pupil fees: subscribers, who paid 10s a year, and Donors who paid £5.

However, what is most remarkable about the school is not that it gave education to the poor; not the absolute poor, but those who could afford very little; but that it gave them a voice in running the school, through the elected committee members of whom they could be one. In addition, “Each subscriber shall be allowed one vote for every 10s of his or her subscription, and every donor shall have the privilege of one vote for every £5 of his or her donation, but no one shall be permitted to vote, whose subscriptions are in arrear.” This may not be the first time the poor had a say in any significant institution but, and an important but, it was probably the first national institution that used “Royal” and “British”: two key concepts in the nations identity, in its association to give the poor a say; to in effect say that the poor were not without a thought and had a right to be heard in institutions that they pay for. Some six years later, the Great Reform Act would be passed. It did not achieve what the majority hoped (see later), but it was the first step. 

The year the school opened was not financially auspicious for the nation. There was another wave of bank failures and business collapses, the most celebrated being the Constable, publishers of Walter Scott, then the most successful author of his day, which forced Scott back to writing.[256] Banks across Sussex folded but in Horsham, none failed; perhaps the bank failures previously had “cut the deadwood” or, more likely, made people in Horsham more cautious investing in more stable banks; banks that did not over-extend. It did mean that Horsham, though not an “island”, maintained a degree of financial stability and it meant that the local economy did not haemorrhage money, or confidence, due to financial mismanagement

Wm Cobbett, the famous journalist and radical, visited Horsham on one of his Rural Rides in 1823, describing it in a letter thus:

In 1827, Horsham-born surgeon, Walter Cooper Dendy, published a small book, “Sketches in Prose”: a book of comments about the area. As he wrote, “It cannot be presumed that the following sketches can offer any higher pretensions than the pencil outlines of the landscape painter”.[257] The book itself would not normally attract attention, but the copy in the museum’s collection[258] has an interesting selection of watercolour sketches by W. A. Rupert. One of the sketches refers to Hills place, and the book has a number of illustrations of the area. The story concerns Enmeline, an “orphan protégée of Lord -”. The writer then mixes fact and fantasy together, so “In the southern wing of this antique mansion was situated its gothic library. On one of her morning visits to this sanctum, a beautiful illuminated copy of the “Faery Queene” effected this charm”; whilst Hills may have had a library, no mention has ever been made of Faery Queene by Spenser in any inventory or note of the owners of the House.

Walter was born in 1794 at or near Horsham where he served an apprenticeship before he moved to London in 1811, where he “entered himself as a student at Guy’s and St Thomas’s Hospitals. He became a member of the Royal College of Surgeons in 1814 and commenced practice in Stamford Street, Blackfriers”.[259] He then moved to 6 Great Eastcheap, London. So by 1827, the account of Hills must have been more memory than reality, for by now the lands had been turned over to farming. It is, however, one of the times; if not the first time, that Horsham had been given a romantic vision; the landscape of Horsham was romanticised rather than seen in the harsh reality of the day, so graphically accounted by Cobbett only five years or so earlier.

Walter had already published at least one book, as on the title page he is noted as author of “Zone”. This was not the last of his literary efforts, for he wrote a number of works; some purely medical, some semi-spiritual, and some about childcare. In 1832 he had published “On the phenomena of Dreams”[260], the museum’s copy owned by members of his family, followed by his 1841 book “The Philosophy of Mystery”, a work that was published by Longman etc. as a medical work (the adverts in the back of the book are only for medical books); both in London and, five years later, New York. This work is substantially larger both in page size and number.[261]  

It is an important work that is widely quoted today. The work itself states that the author had previously written a book on “Practical Remarks on The diseases of the Skin…and on the Constitutional Peculiarities during Infancy and Childehood”, of which the British and Foreign Medical Quarterly review said: “Mr Dendy has drawn from his opportunities, as Surgeon to the Royal Infirmary, valuable materials for various disquisitions on the diseases of infancy.” His other book noted in the advertisement was for “The Book of the Nursery Precepts for the management of Infants”; a work of which the Literary Gazette said: “Mr Dendy has done valuable service to the rising generation”, and the Metropolitan Magazine: “All should study this book, and install it in their nurseries.”

He continued writing books and articles on geographical and medical topics, as well as being a skilled draughtsman who illustrated his own works. Although leaping ahead to the 1860s, in 1868 he read a paper to the Anthropological Society of London where he was nominated a member the year before, attacking Darwin’s theories. Dendy died in 1871 having never married; he was noted for his cultivated taste and manners and for his public speaking. Later, in the reading-room of the British Museum, he was noted for his eccentric costume.[262] He is another one of Horsham’s forgotten authors, who through his work on childhood illnesses helped save thousands of lives. Below is an extract from Sketches in Prose, which gives a flavour of his Romantic vision of Hills.

ELABORATIONS

1. HORSHAM’S BANK FAILURES IN 1816/7

BLUNT AND RAPER BANK[263]

Horsham museum holds three documents relating to this Bank, because Medwin acted as a solicitor drawing up the Trustees agreement. We know very little about the sums of money involved, but it did involve the Blunts of Chelsea and Raper of Horsham.

The bank was not in such dire straits as the agreement drawn up by Medwin shows. In the agreement Medwin states: “A statement of the Debts and credits of the above Bank being laid before the meeting (at the Kings Head Inn at Horsham on Saturday 6^th July 18160 from which it appeared that a considerable surplus would remain to Messrs Blunt and Raper after the payment of Debt provided the Assets of the Bank should be forthcoming.” The document then goes on to say all the assets and property of the Bank should be handed over to the trustees and converted into cash by all legal means “to pay the Creditors by three instalments of 6/8d, 5/4d and 8/s in the pound The First within 10 days, the second within two months and the third within fifteen months”. The agreement then goes into an interesting financial arrangement which suggested that Blunt and Raper were in effect entering into an agreement that could stave off the worse effects of bankruptcy. Blunt and Raper had to hand over “all their private Estate and effects of every description” to the Trustees, but the Trustees wouldn’t be able to sell the property for two months. If Blunt and Raper pay over the first two instalments, making 12 shillings in two months, and “Guarantee the payment of the remaining Eight Shillings in the pound”, then the deeds of the business will be cancelled; in effect wiping clean the bankruptcy, which suggests that the sale of the personal estate wouldn’t take place either.

THE GRINHAM AND LANHAM BANK FAILURE[264]

The following account is based on documents from the Medwin archive; the story they reveal is one-sided and not complete, but they do reveal something about the nature of the bank.

On 7 October 1816 Thomas Medwin responds in a letter to comments made at the General meeting of the creditors of the bank. It would appear he advised Mr Grinham, whom he met in London on his way to North Wales on Monday 23 September; “he had not previously consulted me since the stoppage”, but Mr Grinham had been advised by two friends to declare himself bankrupt, and asked what did Mr Medwin advise. Medwin’s advice was to do the same. Medwin then sought advice from a Mr Mayhew in London. In asking Mayhew for advice, Medwin sets out the case for which he wants an opinion, and it is this advice that reveals the nature of the bankruptcy

“Messers Grinstead and Lanham for many years past and until the 20^th September last, carried on the Business of Country Bankers at Horsham when they stop payment, having at that time about 1400 of their notes in Circulation, and their Debts Amounting to upwards of 38,000 and assets, as then deliv’d an account of, having a Surplus in their Favour of about 3000 But by Reason of a Supposed  new Rating of the Value of their Estates, and the Leses which it is apprehended will Arrive upon the Debts due to them, it seems pretty generally believed that there will be a Considerable Deficiency Instead of a Surplus.

Mr Grinstead who was, ? a Farmer, and had little knowledge of accounts, has since the partnership advanced in the Business by the Sale and Mortgage of his property and by other means upwards of £30,000 who has never during the partnership (which has ? about 13 years) speculated in any way whatever- living in a Frugal manner with his family, consisting of his Wife, one child, and two stewards – No account has ever been Settled between him and his partner for the whole time of their Carrying on the banking Business Altho’ he has very often and repeatedly applied to Mr Lanham for this purpose, who when urgently pressed on the Subject has said “I will give you a Thousand pounds or you shall give me the same sum for the whole Concern “a proposal which Mr Grinstead in the utter ignorance of the State of the Accounts could not Listen to, and Consequently  Declined The Books such as they are, now always Kept at the House of Mr Lanham, but it now turns out that not a Singular Account has been  Regularly Balanced and hardly any thing but the General Coast Book or Diary of Receipts and payments Existing for the whole 13 years

Mr Grinstead under these Circumstances was Advised to Commit an Act of Bankruptcy on the 23^rd Sept, after the Stoppage in order to drive his partner to do the same but this he absolutely refused to do, Remained as usual in the Shop to make loans and answer Enquiries after 4 meetings of his Creditors at the last of which it was resolved, in the presence of both the partners, that a Joint Commission  sho’d be taken out against them, Lanham appeared to acquiesse, but still hold out for some days  afterwards, in order to deny himself to a Creditor… “

Amongst the large number of documents are some that reveal the scale of money involved. One note drawn up by Wm Clark in 1817, sent to Mr Grinstead and passed on to Medwin, is for “Lands and premises purchased by his Grace the late Duke of Norfolk of Mr John Lanham.” The table below sets out the figures and is included to indicate the scale of the problem.

In the year 1812 a Tenement and Garden Land and premises on Horsham Common cost of 3a 2r 29p	£800.0s 0d
In the year 1814 Denne Farm and lets in Warnham and Ockley & Tichfold farm and Marchers in Warnham cost of 500a 1r 15p	£16011.0s 0d
Timber on the above farms	£2431.11s 0d
	£18442.11s.0d
To the valuations of underwoods taken to on the above farms by the late Duke	£378.1s.6d
Total paid by the late Duke of Norfolk and his Exec to Mr Jn Lanham or to ? Lanham’s order	£19620.12s.6d

Medwin was later asked by a number of creditors to act on their behalf in the following Court case over the bankruptcy. The document is revealing, in that it describes the jobs and status of some of those who were Creditors

Stephen Knight	Billingshurst	Maltster	Signed
Charles Weller	Horsham	Weaver	Signed
William Wells	Horsham	Yeoman	Signed
Mathew Godwin	Horsham	Captain in Royal Navy	Signed
Jane Penfold	Horsham	Widower	Mark
James Palmer	Rusper	Yeoman	Mark
James Roberts	Horsham	Cooper	Mark
William Wisdom	Horsham	Gardener	Signed
Thomas Constable	Horsham	Shopkeeper	Signed
Mary Caffyn	Horsham	Widower	Signed
Hannah Caffyn	Horsham	Spinster	Crossed out
Elizabeth Dendy	Horsham	Widower	Signed
John Stone	Rusper	Farmer	Signed
George Lindell?	Horsham	Butcher	Signed
Edward Jondon	Horsham	Labourer	Mark
Thomas Ansell	Beeding	Labourer	Mark
Joseph Smallwood	Horsham	Milkman	Signed

This clearly shows that the failure of the bank affected all levels of society, from the widower and labourer through to the shopkeeper. Whilst not part of this study, it is also interesting to note the number of Horsham people, not just the labourers, who could not write (Could they read? Reading and writing are often linked within education but there is no reason to say that someone who can read should automatically be able to write.) And yet, entering into an arrangement with a bank to look after your money must indicate a certain level of awareness of what was being offered; or were they led astray by the “silver tongue” of Mr Lanham, who seems to have had a way with words and bluster if Mr Grinstead is to be believed

The Commission met at the George Inn Henfield on 27 December 1816, where they examined the books and took statements. One, for Charles Grinstead, shows the degree to which the creditors demanded every penny. In the statement Charles Grinstead states that the Bank was started in 1802 and, as he had no knowledge of banking, he left that business to John: in effect he took the role of a sleeping partner and he never inspected the books. The papers then go into the actual amounts owed etc.

The outcome of the bankruptcy was that Richard became a gamekeeper and John Lanham is never heard of again.

2. WHY DID THE PUBLIC HAVE TO JOIN GROUPS TO BE

ABLE TO READ?

Why did the public have to join groups to be able to read? It should be remembered that the government of the period feared reading.[265] It was an era of repressive legislation: “More people were hanged, in proportion to the population, than at any other time in recent centuries [266]. In this climate, the Government wanted to limit reading, and they did this through various means. The first was through price. The reason William Godwin’s Political Justice escaped prosecution, compared to Paine Rights of Man, was that it was published as an expensive quarto: as Pitt said, “a three guinea book could never do much harm among those who had not three shillings to spare”[267]. This was an explicit policy as the Attorney general wrote to an author in 1793: “So soon as it (a reply to Burke) is published cheaply for dissemination among the populace it will be my duty to prosecute”[268].

Then there were the taxes on paper: the larger the book, the more tax paid; however, on books below a certain size, a flat rate of 3 shillings a copy was charged, the equivalent of 1/3^rd of a weekly wage of a working man. Taxing pamphlets stifled debate, making such items only available to the wealthy or to book clubs. Newspapers were taxed at a flat rate of four pence a copy, a rate that stifled growth, so that by the 1830s the United States had almost twice as many newspapers for a population of similar size.[269]

Even if you could afford to buy the book or pamphlet, you then needed light to read it by, but the window tax caused many a window to be blocked up. Dickens called it the most effective tax on knowledge. Every house was entitled to six small windows tax-free, but a tax was levied on every window of one square foot or more above this limit Between 1808 and 1823 windows were blocked up by landlords, and its effect can be seen thoughout the land and also in Horsham. “During the first half of the nineteenth century the population of Great Britain doubled but glass production scarcely increased”[270]. The taxes were enforced with rigour.

On top of the Government controls there were also societies aimed at controlling moral views; the most notable being the Society for the Suppression of Vice, a well-financed society that had the Duke of Wellington at its head. It worked by setting up a bounty fund, employing people to find out who was selling unlawful cheap publications. Sidney Smith would refer to the Society as “The Society for the Suppressing of the Vices of Persons whose Income does not Exceed £500 per anum”.[271]

3. HORSHAM BIBLE ASSOCIATION

On 29 March 1814, in the middle of the 100 days, the society known as The Bible Association of Horsham and Neighbourhood was formed, with the president being Rev George Marshall. The laws and regulations of the Association clearly set out its aims and objectives. Every person subscribing a Penny on the subscription became a member of the Society. The society was non-denominational, though with a strong emphasis on the Church of England, with thirty laymen committee members, half being established Church members. The society’s key aim was to provide Bibles and testaments to the poor of the town. The poor could subscribe to a copy at what was in effect trade price at a penny or more a week. This was open to “Children, Servants, poor Families, and Individuals”. The Society also laid out in the rules “That the ladies of this Town and Neighbourhood be requested to assist in the promotion of this object”. The following year the first report was published. Noting that within the year there were 621 subscribers of which 472 are for Bibles and Testaments; 217 persons supplied, 404 were still subscribing of which 255 are for books.

The report goes on to explain in what today would be seen as patronising terms, but in the regency times would be seen as concern for fellow man, that “In order to embrace and describe one very essential object of the Society, it will be necessary for your Committee to observe that a great and useful part of the lower class of the community consists of Servants in different capacities, to whose integrity and care the property of their employers is perhaps everyday more or less intrusted. Your Committee therefore feel it a very important part of their duty by every feeling and expression of Religious Humanity, to impress upon the minds of all Masters and Mistresses who feel any reverence for the Holy Scriptures the necessity and benefit of promoting the circulation and serious use of the same amongst their Servants, and encourage them to become possessed of that Book which so forcibly and so divinely inculcates their duty to God and Man”.

The second annual meeting took place on 5 June 1816, with a thousand copies of the report published. There, the readers would see that the Society had expanded, drawing in various local villages, establishing local Branch Committees in Wisborough Green, Shipley, Billingshurst Pulborough and Warnham, and that, by using the ladies, they could establish a wider network. From the report, it would seem that the Ladies Committee kept minutes in which they recorded human interest stories, three of which were used to add strong moral overtones to the report. For example: a poor woman who had bad eyesight bought a large print Bible using her money set aside for clothes; another who had to give up subscribing because her husband was drinking, but the Collector advanced her the Bible and she said she would read it to her husband, hoping he will “forsake the error of his way”. The report also stated that since its inception in March 1814, 1056 Bibles and testaments had been distributed by the Society. 

The third report contains an account of  the Society’s involvement with the gaol: “The county jail being situated in this Town, affords your Committee a constant and convenient opportunity of supplying those unfortunate persons confined there in…some to persons confined for debt, at reduced prices…others given gratuitously to the Convicts under sentence of Transportation”; an example of that was given in a letter received from two convicts to the Rev Geo. Marshall who was also the Chaplain to the Prison.

“On Board the Captivity,

Portsmouth harbour

Oct. 1^st 1816

Rev. and respected sir,

We humbly beg leave to acquaint you, we eight unfortunate men, tried in march 1815, for different offences, and sentenced for transportation.

We soon after the assizes, were brought here from Horsham jail, six of whom have been banished to that far distant colony, New South Wales; and we are detained here to serve out our seven years’ sentence- We have often leisure hours to instruct ourselves, and we humbly solicit a couple of bibles-For, in perusing that Holy Book, it will enable us to know good from evil, and teach us, should we be spared to be restored to Society, to know our duty to our Maker; our request being complied with, we shall ever acknowledge the favour with gratitude, and submissively subscribe ourselves,…Edward Parker, Thomas Elliott.”

The report went on to say that the Society gave 38 Bibles and testaments at reduced prices to the children who attended Horsham Sunday school. The fourth report, published in 1818, suggested that a Biblical Library be established in the town, paid for by voluntary contribution. It also reported “that at the last Assizes for this county, the Calendar presented an unusual list of offenders, a great number of whom were capitally convicted, and received the awful sentence of death, but which sentences were by royal mercy, in every instance, commuted to transportation, some for life, and others for defined periods. This circumstance induced your Committee to institute an enquiry was to what number of Bibles these unhappy persons had in their possession”. As they only had two Bibles and no Testaments, the Society gave them copies of the books for which they were thanked by a letter signed by all 22 convicts.

The Sixth report was published in 1820. The previous year had seen the death of Rev. George Marshall, its President, which was reported on with great solemnity. The Committee’s decision to attend the funeral as a body caused his son to write an effusive reply. The report also gives an insight into how the organisation operated. “By a Resolution at a Meeting of Conference, a deputation from your Committee visited the parish of West Chiltington, with the intention, if necessary, to form an additional branch to your Association, and the result of your Committee’s enquiry was such as to be satisfied that the Scriptures were in actual distribution amongst the Poor in that Parish, so as to render unnecessary the prosecution of their object”.

Whilst West Chiltington did not need Bibles or Testaments, the various Parish Workhouses did; though none was totally deficient of such books, only Shipley had enough for the inmates. To Horsham workhouse they sent seven large testaments and two large Bibles, Wisborough Green four large testaments and one large Bible. Billingshurst was an interesting case, for “the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge had an agent for the distribution of their Books in that parish”, so the Association agreed to work jointly with that Society to provide the books. In the end, the Association provided three large Testaments and two large Bibles.

In addition to the Poorhouses, the Association provided cheap books to Children of Sunday Schools: Horsham General Baptist Sunday School received 15 Bibles and 30 Testaments, Horsham Independent Sunday School 4 Bibles and 23 Testaments, Wisborough Green 15. They also gave 22 Testaments to Prisoners in Horsham Gaol under sentence of Transportation.

The reports gave the prices of the Bibles and Testaments; both cost price and reduced price.

Book	Cost  1814	Reduced  1814	C’t  1820	R’d  1820
Pocket Bible well bound	5s 2d	3s 0d	4s 9d	3s 0d
Minton Bible well bound	N/a	N/a	6s 2d	4s 0d
Middle sized well bound	7s 9d	5s 3d	7s 5d	4s 11d
Largest (fine print) well bound	12s 0d	8s 6d	11s 0d	7s 6d
Small Testament	1s 8d	1s 0d	1s 7d	11d
Large Testament	3s 6d	2s 6d	3s 4d	2s 0d

The sixth report also set out a summary of the number of books issued for each year. The list doesn’t identify Testaments from Bibles, nor the type, although the individual reports do give further information.

Parish	1st yr	2d yr	3rd yr	4th yr	5th yr	6th yr	Total
Horsham	217	490	171	150	158	161	1347
Wisborough Green		108	101	58	82	50	399
Shipley		71	103	47	28	23	272
Billingshurst		16	31	20	16	18	101
Pulborough		66	76	20	10	16	188
Warnham		9	27	–	–	–	36
Rusper		64	27	11	6	6	113
Slinfold & Itc’field		14	8	–	17	1	55
						Total	2511

These reports, as well as being inherently interesting, offer a view of Horsham life that has been little accounted for. As recounted elsewhere, Horsham had a flourishing bookshop that also lent books; it also had a Book Club, but both of those would be aiming at the aspiring middle classes or skilled artisan. Here we have for the first time an account of literary rates amongst the poor of Horsham. Although some books might have been lost, it is still notable that by 1820 around 1,300 poor people in the parish owned their own Bible or Testament. This, linked to the number of pupils attending schooling in the parish, shows that far from being a poorly-educated underbelly, Horsham had a literate population able to read, if not write. 

The first report also shows that, by now, class identity had become a reality. The growing awareness of social structure and order identified the poor and servants as one group. As shown with the game of cricket played in the 1770s and 80s, there was a degree of fluidity between classes, with social intermixing. Now there was class identity, something that was also portrayed in the creation of the Savings Bank in Horsham. The Bible and Testament were also seen as means to enforce or obtain social control with the clear aim of reforming the sinner (the drunk, those hardened to vice, the prisoner, the pupil, the servant). The Association had formed at the very time war ended, and so there was stress and social unrest as well as concern by those who had, about those who had not. The Bible Association might talk about expressions of humanity, but it can also be seen as a way of indoctrinating the poor with Christian values to accept their lot. What they hadn’t thought through was that the increased levels of literacy meant that the very poor could now read the chap books and street literature that promoted reform both social and electoral. In effect the reforming voice piggybacked on the Bible and the Testament.

3. QUEEN MAB – A SHELLEY EXAMPLE

Although not affecting the story of Horsham, the following tale involves one of Shelley’s most celebrated and radical works, Queen Mab. Queen Mab takes her readers on a ride into the heavens to reveal the world as it is and as it should be. The work consists of verses and long detailed notes explaining those verses. Radical works in poetic form were considered more dangerous than in straight prose. As Southey explained “If there be any evil connected with poetry it is that it tends to make us too little masters of ourselves, and counteracts stoicism, or necessary self- control, of which all of us must sometimes stand in need.” In effect the poem engaged the emotion, the notes the intellect. Shelley wrote the poem and published it himself in 1813, some 250 copies for private circulation. It was because some lines were blasphemous and sedition laws highly illegal. So Shelley used his name as the printer and a temporary address. Though to give the book an aura of scandal he clipped the illegal imprint page. (By the Seditious Societies Act of 1799 and 1811, all printing presses had to be registered with the authorities, printers required to keep a list of their clients and to record their imprint- there name and address – on every piece of printed work. Even if the text was entirely lawful without the imprint the printer would suffer crushing penalties and rewards were given to the public who spotted the crime.

Some printers printed imprint on free endpapers, which could be removed before binding, others so low down that when bound they were cropped off)  Who ever did print it did a very good job. However the work was ignored. Then in 1815 The Theological Inquirer or Polemical Magazine commented on it and published extensive extracts without Shelley’s permission.[272]

In 1817 the Government or rather the law courts scored an own goal. It concerned Southey’s Wat Tyler, a work written in his youth which attacked royal extravagance, oppressive taxes, cynical churchmen etc. The poem was never published and remained in manuscript. Southey, having changed his views  was later made Poet Laureate and the publisher Sherwood wanted to embarrass him, so having got hold of the manuscript he published it without Southey’s permission or knowledge. Southey went to court saying that the work was revolutionary likely to cause unrest and the attorney should prosecute the publisher.

Under civil law Southey applied for an injunction and damages for breach of copyright. The law turned round and in effect said that if the text was unlawful then there can be no copyright law protecting author’s rights. The more Southey’s lawyers claimed that the work was harmful to Southeys reputation, the more “injurious” it was the weaker the case was for copyright protection. This gave a way forward for the pirates to publish works that were in effect copyright free as they were illegal and beyond the law. The price of Wat Tyler plummeted from the normal price of 10s.6d  to one hundredth of the price under a shilling a copy, in fact only a few pence a copy and they sold in their thousands[273].

What did this have to do with Shelley? Queen Mab was used in the court case over Shelley’s request to have the children from his first marriage, but in court decided that the author of such a work was unfit to be a father. The work was circulating around the radical movement, pirated copies impossible for Shelley to protect his copyright as the law could not help him. The success of the work and its cheapness meant that in the famous sketch of the Peterloo Mascacar, it appears on a placard.

CHAPTER TWELVE

Naked Horsham Chronology

1830 Steam cars to be found on streets of London.	Assizes leave town after judges complain about state of services and cost of hotel accommodation. On 18 November, four groups of labourers marched on Parish Church concerning winter employment of the poor; about 1,000 peaceful demonstrators turned up. On 28 November troops sent up from Brighton because two rick burners were sentenced to hang and there was fear of revolt. Town remained peaceful. Free Christian Church started Book Society and library.
1831 GB population 13.9m. US population 12.8m.	New Year’s Day, Edward Bushby, age 26, hanged for rick burning. In March, survey of town reported to Parliament that borough, town and environs of Horsham had 623 houses with a population of 3,323 whilst Parish had 940 houses with a population of 5,105. National Union of Working Classes and Others established May 1831 with 700 members in Horsham.
1832 Reform Act passed. Cholera epidemic that began in India in 1826 arrived in Scotland.	Act had the effect of enlarging Horsham’s electorate from 52 and two MPs to 257 and one MP, as whole Parish now included. Wesleyan Chapel erected in Brunswick Place. Cost to Horsham of provision for poor £3,298.18.2d.
1833	Horsham British School issued monthly magazine.
1834 Poor Law Amendment Act decreed no able-bodied man in GB to receive assistance unless he entered workhouse.	No more bailiffs elected, as they were no longer involved in election process. Town therefore lost borough status. Suggestion that railway might come to Horsham led to building of a ‘railway hotel’ in Brighton Road. Plan came to nothing.

1835

Henry Michell began brewing in Horsham, becoming one of Horsham’s leading entrepreneurs and businessmen. Horsham Gas & Coke Company formed with capital of £3,000. The Lighting and Watching Acts of 1830 and 1833 adopted, enabling some sort of civic government to be formed. Act provided security and safety in town. On 15 September 12,000 people and 1,000 horses gathered in St Leonard’s Forest for a horserace.

Horsham 1830-35

RIOT REFORM RETRENCHMENT

1826 had seen major bank failures but some still felt confident enough in Horsham to seek to build new property on the outskirts of the town. The Eversfield family pushed an Act through Parliament in 1827 “to grant building leases in …the Parish of Horsham”[274]. This would have been on their estate which suggests two things: agricultural land was not as valuable as land developed for housing with leasehold and, importantly, there was still confidence in Horsham. This degree of confidence might have been encouraged by other small-scale developments around the town. Also, in 1830, “the present excellent Crawley Road was constructed, which joins the main London and Brighton Road.”.[275] By 1831 Pest House Lane had changed its name to New Road as it led to a group of buildings running along the Brighton Road that had taken the name New Town, and this stretch of houses had acquired the name East Parade. The road carried on out of the town, with a branch road leading to St Leonard’s Forest acquiring the name St Leonard’s Road; here some cottages had been built, but between the two were still open fields. To the north of Horsham along the road leading to Warnham pond there had been some house building so that by 1831 it was referred to as North Parade and could be described as a row of very good houses.[276]  Therefore, it is not surprising that Eversfield decided to build on the south side of the town. However, as we can see today, the plan came to nothing and this area still remains rural in outlook.

However, the image of Horsham stagnating is not the whole story and, whilst the next decade did see some sense of decline, it was not universal. In 1829 Horsham Savings Bank still saw £2376 13s 10d invested in it and earning £461 11s 9d interest and, whilst it paid out in interest and, to depositors, £3116 15s 8d, thus paying out some £350 more than it had earned, it still had £12,775 in the bank with 198 depositors having less than £20. The following year saw a “riot” caused by labourers who were so poor, the impression given by the history books mentioned below was of rampant poverty; yet that is not the full picture, as the accounts for the Saving Bank will show.

The next decade in Horsham’s history has been reported on in national history books more than any other decade: that is, the 1830s and the “riots” of 1830. These received coverage in the classic history book The Village Labourer by the Hammonds[277], as well as appearing in Captain Swing by Hobsbawm and Rude.[278] This was not a modern-day phenomenon, for William Cobbett writes about it in his 3^rd volume of Rural Rides. Therefore, it is only right that this history should look at the dispute if only to put it into the context of the period and of historiography.

The decade started badly for Horsham in that, in 1830, the Assizes left the town. The Assizes had been coming to Horsham because, in part, travelling to Chichester or Lewes was difficult. The improvement in roads through turnpiking had made such travel easier. Their removal had been threatened in 1811 until the Duke of Norfolk stepped in and rebuilt the town hall (see above). In 1823 an Act for Making a Turnpike Road from Horsham to Crawley[279] was passed, thus making it even easier for travel to the town from the Brighton to London Road; however, by 1830 the Assizes left the town, not because the courtroom was too poor, but because the townfolk overcharged the judges and there was a lack of good quality lodgings.[280]  Lewes, on the edge of Brighton, and Chichester, had seen investment in buildings for the tourist trade or for the “season” – Horsham, being a through town, had not and so there was no comparison in the accommodation available.

The Brighton Gazette revelled in the situation. Reporting the following[281] in late February:

“The Horsham Town Hall is not insufficient repair for the Assizes to be held there see report last October, by Messrs Abraham & Morrison”[282].

 and again on 7 April 1831

“We hear with astonishment, that some of the inhabitants of Horsham are petitioning for the Assizes to be held at Horsham notwithstanding that the surveyors say that the Town barn will not be safe. We hope the Lord Lieutenant will not allow the County to be subjected to such an imposition and hazard.

Then again on 20 October 1831

“A petition presented for the Assizes to be continued to be held at Horsham. Plans for a new hall to cost from £15,000 to £20,000 are to be presented. Besides, if a new Hall is to be built, a new Town is wanted too. The people of Horsham made monstrous charges for accommodation. Brighton tries hard to get the Assizes held there”.

And again on 7 December 1832

“The people of Horsham petition the Government for the Assizes to be held there again”.

As will be shown below, at the height of some considerable unease in the town, the town was actively arguing for the Assizes to return, such was its perceived importance. Was the Brighton Gazette right in saying that the high costs put people off and Horsham had tried to squeeze too much money from the Justices? The fact that the town was thinking of investing in a new Hall suggests that it was the accommodation of the court that caused the real problem.

This year, 1830, also saw what Albery referred to as the “mobbing winter”.[283] There were numerous accounts of the event. William Albery uses as his main source the notes of John Browne. His account was published in full for the first time by Susan Djabri in her article. Yet the account given by Browne is not contemporary, but more a commentary on the times written some years later with an obvious view to the historical record. Browne himself was a draper who came to Horsham in 1824, when he took over Mr Pollard’s drapery business in West Street which he ran till 1871 when he retired. His papers were acquired by Albery in 1914 from John Browne’s son, Flint Browne who had emigrated to California. An example of how myths are created can be seen in Browne’s own accounts of the occasion. In a letter sent to his father, James Browne, who was living at Ditchling, he wrote of the number of people in the mob as “the number is not estimated by anybody at less than a thousand.”[284] In Browne’s account to The Phoenix Fire Office on 26 July 1831 for whom he was an agent, he writes: “Last year the agricultural labourers met about fifteen hundred in number at this place”. Then in the account given in his notebook he writes that “a number met here of about 2,000”[285]. So the same person writing about the same event has doubled the number attending. This clearly shows that we have to treat any account with caution.

The story begins in the summer of 1830, when four harvesters were found dead of starvation under a hedge in Hampshire. The news of this spread, causing a series of incidents across Southern England when threshing machines and ricks were burnt, but not the corn in the fields. Letters were sent to landowners threatening retribution from a fictional Captain Swing who signed it with a drawing of a dagger.

The cause of the unrest

The poor had seen their wages depressed due to the falling income of farmers. Britain’s population was increasing: between 1811 and 1841 Horsham saw its population rise from 3839 to 5765, a 50% rise which mirrored the nation as a whole.[286] With a rising population there was more pressure on food supplies, and Britain also suffered some disastrous harvests. In post-war Britain the poor seemed to be getting poorer because of the tax situation. Income tax had been removed in 1815, but the Government needed to raise taxes, so it taxed consumable goods. As we know today, that is regressive, because it means as a proportion of their income the poor have to pay more for such essentials as soap etc., and tithes; the tax that went to the church.

The number of people farming had seen a decline in Horsham, from 349 families out of 719 in 1811 to 308 families out of 1008 in 1831. Therefore, the number of agriculturally dependent dropped and the number of poor also dropped, but they demanded more from the poor relief. This could be the reason why the Horsham Saving Bank could issue the results mentioned above for the year 1829 – the number of actual poor was dropping as Horsham moved away from farming to other commercial and manufacturing trades.

Poor relief worked on the price for a loaf of bread. When bread rose above 1 shilling a loaf relief was given to the poor to pay for it. The Corn Law introduced in 1815 as a way of helping farmers at the expense of the urban population caused even more problems. The law worked on restricting foreign imports of corn until the price was so high that it could be imported without cutting the income of the farmer. However, all the farmer had to do was demand up to just below the level at which corn was allowed in, thus forcing up the price of bread: in effect, a tax on bread, to keep farmers in business. This hit the poor hard, the loaf of bread became more expensive, and the poor, even with poor relief, could not afford the price of bread; and as the amount paid out rose, so the middle classes started to resent the poor relief. It is said that the relief rose from 4 or 5 shillings in the pound to 12 or 14 shillings in the pound as a rate on the value of the property. The farmers, knowing that there was poor relief available, cut wages; a vicious spiral of deflation on wages. According to Browne, a local farmer told labourers who demanded more wages “I cannot afford to pay you more – you must get some part of the tithe or some part of the rent off. If you can get any part of the tithe or the rent lessened we are willing to increase your wages”[287], which neatly summed up their demands and is probably apocryphal, made up by Browne to summarise the arguments. This comment, it is said, inspired labourers to protest.

The period 1830-1832 when the Great Reform Act was passed was a period of some political stress for the body politic of the nation. This is a history of Horsham, rather than of the nation, but an awareness of the events being played out in the country will give some indication of the influences on how people were thinking. France had its revolution in 1830; Britain was trying to ensure it did not have one as well. On 18 November four groups marched to the Church to listen in to the Vestry meeting where a discussion would take place concerning poor relief. This march and the events afterwards would become The Horsham Riot. However, in the story of Horsham, the event is minor and therefore, rather than break the flow of the narrative, it has been treated as a mini essay at the end of this chapter.

What is particularly interesting about the winter of 1830/31 was the degree to which Horsham was a united community. Division makes history; the story of conflict is more interesting than a story of working together (ask any journalist and news editor). In the late Twentieth Century it was argued by some that history was over as there was no great ideological divide over which debate could occur, so no driving force for change. Whether they were right or not is a debate to be held elsewhere. But without debate and dissension there is no desire for change.

When I arrived in 1988 in Horsham, I was told by many that the town is apathetic and its history shows that. What it actually shows is that the town is comfortable with itself. There is a degree of harmony within the town amongst groups from different classes. From the formation of the Savings Bank to the winter of 1830/31, large groups of like-minded people were helping other groups, creating a social cohesion. The difficulty with this is that it does lead to stagnation. It might well be why it is people from outside who force the pace of change in the town.

This social cohesion could be seen in the number of clubs and societies being formed which cut across Society. In this period most were what could be termed clubs for improvement; for example, in 1829 the Horsham Mechanics Institution for Diffusion of Useful Knowledge was formed, issuing a rule book, and six years later, along with the set of rules, a list of the books in their Library[288]. It “was founded in the British School in London Road, as an offshoot of the Society for the diffusion of Useful Knowledge, which provided cheep books”[289]. The following year, September 1830, a Lecture on Geology was held at the British School with tickets costing one shilling, and to be had from “Mr T Honeywood, Mr John Browne, or Mr R. Sheppard.”[290] All three named were tradesmen in the town; it had about 60 members and existed until 1860.[291] In 1830 Horsham FCC Book Society and Library was established, running until 1940.[292]  Some clubs were sport-related; cricket being the most obvious, having been formed in the late 18^th century. In 1833 an Archery Society was founded, though it was short-lived.[293]

There was a long tradition in Horsham of self-help societies; members paying into organisations that helped only their own members. In the 18^th century there was the Prosecuting Society mentioned above, in 1786 the Horsham Society for the Benefit of Widows was formed that ran until 1799, where the Society’s main aim was to provide in effect a pension to members’ widows, a type of insurance policy.[294]  In 1795 The Horsham Subscription Society was set up to buy stocks.[295] It is possible to see the Horsham Saving Bank as a self-help society as it held annual meetings, whilst the Royal British School with its committee meetings and structure was run very much on club and society lines. In 1828 the Free Masons opened their Masonic Lodge, having been formed in ?[296]  In 1831 the Horsham Friendly Society was formed: “In the fear of God, it is declared that this Society is established…for the purpose of relieving and maintaining those of its Members, as by Sickness, Lameness, Blindness, or other infirmity (not occasioned by his or their own fault or misconduct) shall be rendered unable to work and gain a livelihood, and of defraying the funeral expenses of deceased Members”. The Friendly Society was aimed at 18-30 year olds and included a club night once a month with a 1 shilling entrance fee and threepence for liquor, though with the chastisement that if any damage or mischief was done on club night and witnessed by two members, you were excluded from the Society.[297]

Not all the clubs or societies were based around self-help: some had a specific charitable concern. In 1815 the Horsham Maternal Society was founded “to provide poor married women of good character with assistance at the time of their confinement.” Obviously, not being able to work, the family would require help to make ends meet; an early form of Maternity pay. However, rather than give money, the Society gave clothes, groceries and coal, thus spending the money within the community that funded it. Interestingly, wives of beershop keepers were excluded.[298] Why? If it was thought to be related to drink, then why not wives of grocers who sold alcohol, or spirit sellers? It was specific to beershop keepers. Perhaps because the beershop keeper wife was thought to be less morally strict; it was after all drawn up in 1815 and the town had been full of soldiers; perhaps they were thought to be more loose and so less sure of the parentage of the children, though illegitimacy was common at this time. For whatever reason, they were excluded. 

The one type of club or society not mentioned is political parties; the Conservative, or Liberal, because they had not developed into what we would recognise as parties with grass root structure, more loose associations. However, the period 1829-32 saw a rapid growth, with working-class reform across the country demanding change on more than just the political front. Other demands included: The War on Unstamped Press (the duty on the press caused newspapers to be priced above everyday wages), the anti-slavery campaign, trade Unionism, The Co-operative movement, the Ten-hour Campaign, the campaign to repeal the Act of Union and political reform. Not all these movements found a home in Horsham but there were two groups that had connections with John Browne, mentioned above, and his papers reveal a very radical middle-class man. There is also the remarkable story of the poetry and prose of Warnham-born poet Shelley that flourished and inspired the radical movement. Both are explored below.

JOHN BROWNE – HORSHAM’S RADICAL

John Browne became a draper in West Street Horsham in 1824 when he took over Mr Pollard’s drapery business, and seems to have soon become involved in many local issues; particularly concern for his fellow man. He eventually retired in 1871. Through William Albery, Horsham Museum acquired his papers, which are catalogued HMS 806-815. Anybody interested in Horsham during these years should look at the Browne archive. In fact, in many respects, they are more important; or as important to the town’s history as Burstow, or Michell. Albery has used the documents, often without reference to them, thus giving Horsham a radical air that it may not deserve. Browne saw education as a means of improvement and worked to improve basic schooling in the town. The difficulty with some of the documents mentioned below is that they were written at a later date, but so obviously taken from the original, now lost.

Horsham Mechanics Institute

According to a page from the memorandum notebook with information dated October 1826, John Browne sets out the ideas concerning “Arrangements for the Literary Improvement of Horsham”. It then gives a list of names including “Mr Harmes, Mr Thomas Honeywood, Mr John Bury would be willing to join a Mechanics Institute”, before discussing the merits of a library linked to the Institute including the following arguments:

“A Library which did not admit of controversial Politics or Religion

Q Might not an institution partake of the nature of Horticultural Society

Q How far is private character to be taken into consideration in a public society

Q Might not it offer provision for the best written lecture of subjects

Q What objects does the Mechanics institute include at Lewes

Q In what respect does a philosophical society differ from a mechanics institute

Q Might not a Library be instituted upon such principles with power to add the other parts

Q Might not the present Library Society lend the use of there books for the first year

Q Who will be the individuals benefited by such an institution”

Q. Will my ? of individuals be injured by such an institution”

This document is fascinating, as it was obviously written in the very early days of the inception of the Mechanic by someone who has very strong concerns about the place of an individual within society and the role that such an institution should play. Unfortunately, we do not have his answers, though the phrasing of the questions is so obviously revealing. (Almost as an aside, according to authors cited above, the Horsham book club folded around 1820; either a new one was formed, or it continued until at least 1826, and perhaps incorporated itself within the Mechanics Institute. Browne’s radicalism comes across in his questioning of the decision NOT to allow political books into the Library).

Browne obviously joined the Society, for in 1831 he was sent a very democratic list, A3 in size, on coarse paper asking him what lectures he would like to hear over the forthcoming winter. He asked for “Astronomy, Heat, Chemistry, Bottany, Optics and Ornithology”. What is difficult to determine is whether Browne was expected to give the talks, for against the note “What Apparatus”, he wrote only one comment:  Plants and flowers; and that was for Botany; all the rest was blank, which suggests he was going to bring along such material.

Another document: a handbill dated, according to Albery, 1840-5, (though likely to be early 1842) is an appeal to members of the Horsham Mechanics’ Institution, by An Honorary Member. Obviously something had upset him, and other members; unfortunately, not wishing to air dirty linen in public, all he would say was: “A dispute appears to have arisen from a difference of opinion as to the manner in which business of the Institution ought to be conducted”. Fortunately, the Brighton Guardian carried the story, and it is from this account that the dispute had arisen because new members wanted “…to alter the designation of the society, the term ‘Mechanics Institution’, being by far too plebian for those aristocratic tradesmen, – to remove the society from its present place of meeting, in order that a reading room might be established for the benefit of those exclusively whose time in the day was unemployed…”[299]

The handbill goes on to say that no “sinister motive” was intended. His solution was to draw up a Legal Deed and create five trustees; the first three of whom should be the founders; namely “Messers Thos. Honywood, John Honywood and George Bax Holmes”. It then goes on to say, and this is where the driving radicalism comes out,  “That the Rules of the Institution should be carefully revised, and corrected, and four new Rules introduced: first – “That any member proposing to raise the amount of the subscriptions should have their names expunged from the list of members, and rendered for ever ill eligible for re-election”. Secondly, “That any member proposing a Committee for managing the business of the Institution shall have their names expunged from the list of members, and be for ever illegible for re-election”. He then goes on to propose that those “not rated” above £20 parish assessment shall be members with rights and privileges as operatives, and those “assessed at a greater sum than £20” will be Honorary Members with the “privilege of proposing and voting on the purchase of books, but on no occasion to interfere in the business of the Institution”.

What is remarkable about this document are the early appeals to a radicalism borne out of the late 18^th and early 19^th century. It had almost the fervour of “off with their heads” for even daring to propose a rise, and this from a businessman who ran a successful drapers shop. (How successful, see below.) Interestingly, the importance of literature was such that he, as an honourable member, wanted to maintain the right to “edit” the library as if they knew best what the common man should read. Knowledge was power and he still wanted to have a say. In 1839 the accounts of the Institution show that they had an income of £20 19s 6d, of which £19 10s 6d came from members’ subscriptions. But they spent out £26.6s 3 1/2d, of which £19 16s 4d was spent on Books and £2.13s 2d on Binding, and £1.6s on printing. The difference between expenditure and income was taken from the reserves. It might be this poor financial management that caused the handbill to be issued, and if it was, it shows an apparent “head in the sand” approach by Browne.

Browne’s involvement seems to have died down, according his surviving papers, as he became more involved with other institutions less radical in intent which will be covered later, such as the Horsham Library Society and the Horsham Literary Institution, and Horsham Literary and Scientific Institution.

The Mechanics Institute was obviously aimed at those out of school; for those in school, Browne was just as committed and just as radical but in a different way. Amongst his papers is a budget sheet drawn up for the years 1814 to 1824 for the British School in account with Robt Chalfield. This suggests that Mr Browne was seeking financial advice, perhaps before setting up the Royal British School, of whose rules he had a copy. The accounts show that in 1814 the school received £82 14s, and in 1815 £99 15s, which made £182 9s which was accounted for by payment to Mr Green, and other expenses, with cash in hand of just over £26. The report then gives yearly accounts showing a balance in hand, but total income never exceeding £167, and often below £150 a year. As mentioned above, the Royal British School started in 1827 and although not provable, it is likely that Browne was a driving force for its establishment. However, that did not stop some confusion between both establishments by James Browne and future historians.

On 4 May 1831 Mr Brown receives the following signed note:

“Sir

We the Scholars of the Boys British School wishing to acknowledge your kindness and the desire you have shown to instruct and amuse us beg you will accept our thanks for the pleasing Lecture you gave us last evening on the subject of Electricity”; thirty-six children signed it, including Thos. Honywood, who would later become Horsham’s foremost Victorian inventor (see below).

A year later, Browne is drafting a reply to a letter of thanks. In the reply he writes Horsham British, before crossing it out and writing “Royal British School”. In this letter dated 6 March 1832, he thanks the Gentlemen of the school for their resolution, “expressing your approbation of my conduct in extending the system of education practiced at the Horsham British School” (obviously he forgot the school title). He then cannot but go into explaining the changes he made and suggestions for the future running of the school, which were radical and are worth setting out below:

“The first improvement that was introduced was lineal drawing upon the plan practiced in France and I am happy to inform you that throughout the whole introduction the boys learn faster than we can procure the necessary apparatus and arrangements for them to prosecute their studies, that is, the boys are always waiting for us not us for the boys

It has long been an opinion of mine that the monitorial mode of education could be extended to other branches of learning besides the mechanical ones of reading and writing. My arrangement with Mr Philpot has given me an opportunity of making some improvements to ascertain the truth of that opinion and it has proved to my satisfaction that almost a collegial education may be given to young people, for about the ? boarding schools are charging for their day scholars

The means that I would suggest to procure this desirable end is supplying the monitors with things that would give them real mental superiority. For example the monitor of Geography with a Gazetteer, Guthery’s Grammer of Geography, Goldsmiths Grammer of Geography, some voyages & travel.

The monitor of Writing should be supplied with such books as give an account of the different modes of teaching, writing for example Longford’s Mode, Hazelwood Mode

Smith & Dollics (?) Mode, and with engraved copies of receipts, Promissory notes, Bills of exchange and Triple bills and Letters”. He goes on to describe mathematics, reading and grammar before explaining his reason. “It was the old idea that boys ought not or were incapable of learning any thing but through the schoolmaster …they are supplied with proper apparatus. If the monitor learns nothing but what they learn of the master in the presence of the boys the monitorial education can only be a dull paroting of what the master has said before, but if he has other sources of information it will probably exceed in ? even the master himself”. He then goes on to suggest that school prizes should be useful educational awards, before ending his letter hoping that the gentlemen will consider it.

This clearly shows the idea that if an individual is encouraged to take responsibility and learn, and have the opportunity, then they will. It also tries to upset the order of things with the student becoming better educated than the teacher; the analogy being the farm labourer becoming better than the master. Radical in its way.

Whilst the above relates to the Royal British School, Mr Philpots, mentioned above, printed The Horsham British School Magazine for 30 April 1833. The small, frequently published (noted not through its survival rate, but by the dates of publication mentioned in the magazine; one edition a month, talks of “Since the last number of our Magazine two lectures…9^th April …15^th April”) magazine contains a mixture of news, comment and information. Only one copy is in the Browne papers, but it contains fascinating information on the school and how it functioned. For example, under the section Mineralogy it states: “Gravel is composed of small pieces of stone or sand it is used to walk on in pleasure grounds…and our School yard is covered with it…Sand is found in St Leonard’s Forest east of the town of Horsham. Red Sand is brought from Washington about 13 miles South of Horsham on the Worthing Road. Sea sand…is used by Stone-cutters to saw their stones and cut slabs for tomb-stones. Sand is also brought from Reigate near London, it is used in casting metals such as stoves, candlesticks flat irons bells, grates &c The bricklayer also uses a great deal of Sand in the making of Mortar for Building” signed “A Scholar.” This suggests that Horsham was importing sand from across the region, and with the enclosure of the Common sand no longer was available locally, but from the Forest. The description of sand used in casting suggests a small, in terms of objects made, iron casting business in the town.

The Magazine then has a letter to the editor which describes the purchase three years previously of a set of books covering a wide range of topics. However, by now the books have been read and new books should be acquired. “And Master spoke to us of a plan to furnish ourselves with books, which was to raise a fund among the Scholars for that purpose”. About 20 Senior boys agreed to raise a subscription of 1 penny per month to buy books. The rest of the story is continued in the next issue (which we do not have). The Magazine ends with notice of two lectures that had been held on 9 April 1833 by Mr Heath on Pneumatics and 15 April by Mr Thos. Honywood on Mineralogy.

The magazine is also an interesting local example of a 19^th century phenomenon. “During the Nineteenth Century the periodical press played a crucial role in British cultural engagement with science. Medical, technological, and scientific materials permeated the fabric of general periodical literature, featuring in prose, fiction, illustrations, comic magazines, and political reports”[300] and in magazines issued by the British School. The magazine itself might be following the example of the Religious Tract Society, founded in 1799 with an evangelical zeal, but which by the 19^th century had started to publish a “Monthly Series” –“inexpensive volumes of useful knowledge in a variety of fields that were marked by a ‘Christian tone’. The magazine helped to promote science.[301] In 1833, for example, they published Popular Introduction to the Study of Quadrupeds: with a Particular Notice of Those Mentioned in Scripture. It is not surprising that in a climate of education fostered not by Collyer’s, but by the free schools, that Horsham would have a museum by the end of the century. 

However, whilst the educational and literary improvements suggest a radical approach, it is the remarkable list of toasts in the collection that shows Mr Browne’s true light, and are given in full below because of their impact. Though it should be remembered: one man does not make a hot bed of radicalism.

“List of Toasts

1. The Rights of Man
2. The People of England and, to use memorable Sentiments in the will of Alfred.” may they ever remain as free as their own thoughts”
3. The people everywhere; – may they think for themselves, and respect no Government that shrinks from Investigations
4. An effectual Reform or none
5. Permanency and Prosperity to the French republic
6. May the Armies of all Tyrants be taught the Brunswic March
7. May Reason and Philanthropy extend their Influence round the Glob, and raise Mankind to their proper Station in the Universe (note this was miss-numbered 6 and every subsequent number is out)
8. Equality of Rights
9. The party of the People No ride(?) and tie
10. A complete and speedy Abolition of Feudal Tyranny.
11. Arts and Trade
12. May the People never be fleeced for the Luxuries of the Great, but the Wool be the Property of the State
13. May the Venal, with all their shining sophistry, ever tremble with the strong sense of Paine (Paine here refers to Thomas Paine)
14. The great Engine of Public Liberty, The Press and may Learning and Genius ever be employed in the service of Freedom
15. The “Cheap Defence of Nations”, Public Zeal
16. The Virtue of Revolutions: and Revolution generates Revolution till Despotism is extinct. “    

“A List of Toasts

1. The glorious Revolution of 1688
2. May Revolution never cease while Tyranny exists
3. The memory of those patriots who have bled, and success to have heroes who are bleeding in the cause of freedom
4. The men who dare to be honest in those times.
5. May the People of this Country never forget nor forsake the present Family on the Throne unless they shall appear by their conduct to have forgotten or forsaken the principles that seated them on it
6. May the triumph of Liberty restore and perpetuate peace
7. May all Governments be those of the law, and all laws those of the People
8. The sovereignty of the People acting by an equal representation
9. The trial by Jury and may the friends of freedom be preserved from packed Juries and Gaol Fevers
10. May those who are prosecuted in the cause of liberty be protected by those who wish to be free
11. Poles for the Heads of those who have conspired against the Poles
12. When Tyrants plead state policy, may people plead their Rights
13. The cause for which Hampden bled on the Field, as Russel on the Scafold.”

These toasts, which are a mixture of strong protestant patriotism and radical liberty born out of the Enlightenment, are interesting, not only for what they express, but what they say about John Browne. Toasts are said out loud, usually in a group setting; therefore, were the toasts written down to learn and then said at meetings in Horsham, or did James attend meetings and record the toasts at a later date from memory? If so, were the meetings held in Horsham or elsewhere, or were they copied down from a list that was circulated? Browne, from his various notes, was not afraid to air his views, so if he disagreed with them, or debated on the point, one would expect some aside; if not on that page, then somewhere else, but there is nothing which suggests; if that is not too strong a word, that he approved of the sentiments. Yet this man would be a Constable and involved in education. Political tolerance was more apparent than the laws of the day would suggest.

Amongst Browne’s papers are various handbills and notes that will feature in the main story of Horsham. However, on some pages are comments that, if he had not made them, then this aspect of Horsham’s story would have been lost. One such document is an almost illegible note that suggests it was notes made at the “Anti Slavery Meeting 2^nd Dec. 1831 Horsham”, with its listing of things such as “Wilberforce”, “Chelmsford”, “Demerera”, “25 lashes”. etc. Whilst it is known that Horsham had been previously involved with the anti- slavery movement, there is no mention of it as late as ,1831.

However, there might be one group which was leading the agitation. The Nonconformists. “Some 2,600 petitions against negro slavery reached Parliament in the autumn of 1830, all but 400 of them being initiated by the Nonconformists”[302] . The Wesleyan Methodists had for a long time preferred a Tory candidate over a Papist one, though as a body they did not involve themselves with politics; but with the Catholic Emancipation this was no longer a general issue. By 1830 it had become clear that slave owners were not ameliorating the conditions of the slaves, and that the British Government was doing little about it. Even the Quarterly Review saw the obstinacy of the slave owners as a “little short of insanity.”[303] On 15 May 1830 at a packed meeting the Anti-Slavery Society overturned the approach of the Society officers and demanded a petition be sent to Parliament calling for abolition forthwith.

There was an intimate connection between reformists and abolitionists, for the Abolitionists believed that by destroying the power base of the West Indian interest you could get abolition, and that power base was the rotten boroughs. Whether true or not, the rotten boroughs were seen as a prop for the slavery movement. At that meeting on the 15 May it was mentioned that Wilberforce had been a pro-parliamentary reformer.[304]  Therefore, it might be seen that this Anti- Slavery Society meeting was promoted by the Nonconformists in Horsham and attended by those who also sought political reform

The interesting thing about all these concerns, education, anti-slavery and the toasts, are that the concerns cut across the classes. There is no true working-class revolt here and, again, it emphasises the lack of division within Horsham

Before leaving Browne there is one document that shows his keen interest in mathematics and in the study of the human, which is set out below in full because it so typifies the Victorian virtue of recording and logging data. It also reveals something; what, we cannot say, though, about Horsham in 1847. It does, however, show the strong notion of being part of a greater scientific community than just Horsham, and that in itself is worthy of recording.

It is a copy of a letter/report written to an unknown recipient dated 15 June 1847 (the actual layout of the letter has not been followed as it makes for difficult reading).

Dear Sir

I have within a few months (sold)

1212 hats – of which 478 have been sold at about 4/-

• 6/-
• 8/-
• 10/-

 27                                         16/-

               1212

Hats are measured taking both diameters and adding them together and dividing it by two. The seven inch Hats I have called  Medium

         Those less than 7in                         Small

         Those larger than 7in                      Large

The 4/- Hat on principle sold to farm labourers &c} of 478 hats: 134 Large, 126 Medium, 218 Small

The 6/- Hats are sold to a class more intellectual more educated and a little more wealth} of 373: 119 Large, 98 Medium 156 Small

The 8/-Hats are sold to Mechanic, Master, Farmers and the better cortious} of 189:64 Large, 58 Medium 67 small

The 10/- Hats are sold to Master Mechanic and Master Farmer of a superior class 145} 61 Large, 36 Medium, 48 Small

The 16/- Hats are sold to more wealthy customers of the same class} 27 11Large, 10 Medium, 6 Small

This produced to percentage stands thus

	Large	Medium	Small
100 Labour Heads or 4/- Heads	28.0	26.3	45.6
100 More intellectual 6/- Heads	31.9	26.2	41.8
100 Better customary 8/- Heads	33.3	30.6	35.4
100 Superior class 10/- Heads	42.0	14.8	33.1
100 More wealth 16 Heads	40.7	37.0	22.2

Three days later, on 18 June, John wrote again, having realised he made an error in his mathematics; namely:

“The 6/- Hats all sold to a class more intellectual more educated and a little more wealthy} of 373: 119 Large, 98 Medium, 156 Small”

Today we find the measurement of head size linked to intellectual ability strange, but it was an argument that held sway for decades and permeated many areas of knowledge, including archaeology. It led to the experimentation and mass-recording carried out during World War II by the Nazi party on racial groups. However, John should not be tarred with the excesses of the twentieth century as he represents a very common view. However, what is more interesting is the aside in the letter,

“I received the Vaccine and place some of it in the little Girl’s arm. I am very much obliged to you for the Vaccine Lymph and your prompt attention”. This refers to a previous letter when he asks:

“If you can send me by post a pair of Glass containing some vaccine matter I shall be greatly obliged to you I have a little girl 2 years old that has not had the cow-pox – and much of the matter applied by our own medical man appears to be ineffectual in protecting the individual. If I get some from you I shall be sure it is good”. This suggests that the recipient of the letter had some medical connection, Browne illustrating how in 19^th century medicine was not the preserve of medical men, but an interest of most men and women who had some education. Smallpox was still a prevalent disease even after Jenner’s cure.

The other point that is surprising; but probably, as we do not have any comparative figures and so therefore judge by our standards today, is the sheer quantity of hats sold in Horsham. Although John would have served a larger area than just Horsham and some people might buy more than one hat (though John gives no indication, in his statistics, of that) around one quarter to one fifth of the population bought new hats each year. Equally we are not sure of his methodology; did he assign etc. because of the size of head, or did he record their ability (and if he did, how did he do it?), and thus make a connection?

Before leaving 1831, there was one society which was founded that, in light of all the turmoil, is surprising. The Horsham Horticultural Society.

THE REFORM ACT of 1832

The period 1829-1832 saw a great deal of national agitation for reform. The Catholic Emancipation Act had shown that reform was possible, and the unrest mentioned showed the establishment that reform was not an “if”, but a “when”. The pressure for reform came, not from towns like Horsham that had two votes, but from the great metropolitan areas that had grown in size and economic power during the late 18^th and early 19^th century but without political representation. In these areas Political Unions sprang up which were soon mirrored across the country.

The difficulty with these groups was that they very often bundled up issues together, thus presenting a fractured front. Only when the Government proposed the Reform Act did the overriding concerns lead to an unbundling and a focusing of effort. The high peaks of the reform movement were March/April 1831 and May 1832, when the Acts were announced and when they were passed.

Horsham was politically neutered; its MPs were selected and appointed by the Duke of Norfolk, who on 4 March 1831 spoke in favour of the Reform Bill, saying “I would gladly sacrifice ten times as much as I shall be called upon to sacrifice for the sake of a measure which will form so admirable a safeguard for the liberties of the subject, and is so well calculated to promote in every way the best interests of the country.”[305] The Duke actually presented a petition for Parliamentary reform from Horsham and other places on 21 March.

The question to ask is: who in Horsham was agitating for reform, or rather who organised the petition? The fact that Norfolk presented it suggests that it may have been promoted by Norfolk as a way of backing his and the Government’s notion of reform outlined in the Reform Bill, which was considerably less radical than that proposed by the Political Unions. The Reform Bill offered nothing to the working classes, and even threatened to disenfranchise some of them in a few constituencies. As Hunt said in April 1831, the Bill “certainly was all very good, very liberal, but would it give the people something more to eat?”[306] For later the Bailiffs refused to hold a pro-Reform meeting to sign a petition, as it was organised by the only known pressure group active in Horsham: the National Union of Working Classes and Others, and not by the Duke.[307]

The National Union of Working Classes and Others is an interesting pressure group. It was established in May 1831 and according to Albery had 700 members.[308] Though Browne, in one document, talks of the Union having 200 members, as the extract below shows. Was this a misunderstanding by Albery, or did Horsham have 700 members? Either way it is the largest, and perhaps, at this time, the only politically organised group in Horsham, and as such its policies and objectives warrant examination.

Its ideology and political philosophy was based around “the doctrines of Thomas Paine…mixed with those of Robert Owen and with the ‘primitive socialist theory’ of Thomas Hodgskin”. Its origins were in the Metropolitan Trades’ Union founded in London in March 1831 and, by May, had re-constituted itself, and drew on the leaders of the London Mechanics Institute and the British Association for the Promoting of Co-operative Knowledge. These men believed that the Bill was adequate as a first step.[309] The political philosophy and organisation of the union is explained more fully in the mini essay at the end of the chapter.

In all probability Horsham had a Union branch by the Summer of 1831. In March Parliament reported that the Borough and Town of Horsham and environs had 623 houses, with a population of 3,323, whilst the Parish of Horsham had 940 houses with a population of 5,105.[310]   In the April of that year troops from Brighton had arrived in the town, based on the fear of Mr Steadman, only to be sent back to Brighton at public request. At the end of the month an election was held, 29 April, but such was the contempt for the election process that no candidate turned up. As the “ultra Tory” Brighton Gazette reported[311]:

“There was no Election, no dinner, no church bells, no anything; to the great mortification and discontent of the patriotic Electors, and so indignant were the Band that they covered their instruments with crepe and marched round the town playing the Dead March of Saul”.[312] It may well have been this act that spurred local people to form a branch of the Union when the formation of the Union was announced the following month. If the town MPs thought the town was not worth representing them, they would shake the complacency by becoming political; after all, the demands for reform would not go away because the question of reform was in the air. Everyone knew it; including  Mr Coulbourn, MP for Horsham, one of those who did not attend the election, who said in July in the House that he knew of “two gentlemen already canvassing the Borough of Horsham” and that the Duke of Norfolk “had willingly made personal sacrifices of political interest”[313].

On 7 September 1831 the first Reform Bill had its fortieth and last committee sitting, with Horsham retaining both its members. On 22 September it passed the Commons by 345 votes to 236 and sent to The Lords. The Bill did not offer what the reforming Political Unions wanted. On 5 October 1831 the National Union of the Working Classes and others sent a petition to the Lords demanding:

1. annual general election
2. universal suffrage
3. abolition of the property qualification

However, as an interim measure, the Reform Bill was acceptable. The Lords, three days later, rejected the Bill, 199 votes to 158. It is likely that the national organisation asked its branches to send forward further petitions outlining the support for the Reform Bill, which would fit in with how the organisation was structured. Part of the Constitution of the Union specifically stated that it was “To avoid all private or secret proceedings, all concealment of any of the views or objects of the Union, and to facilitate for all persons invested with the legal authority a full, free and constant access to all books, documents, regulations and proceedings of the Union”[314]. Therefore, the Horsham Branch approached the Bailiffs and asked to hold a meeting to get a petition backing the reform; probably in the Town Hall. The Bailiffs asked Mr Stedman, Magistrates Clerk and Town Clerk, who refused. Why? Perhaps because of disagreement over the proposal, though as they were technically agents for the Duke or Norfolk, who was for reform, it is unlikely. Possibly the reason was that on 8 –10 October there were riots in Derby and Nottingham. His concern may have been genuine. On 12 October The Globe Newspaper had argued that if peers were not created at once then “it will be necessary for the middle classes to take steps to protect property…Armed associations of householders must be formed. Let them be called loyal associations, national guards…some such organisation will be necessary.”[315] Some four days earlier the Poor Man’s Guardian, the pro-Union of Working Classes paper, had warned readers about a National Guard and went on to say “You too must form your millions into a guard…a ‘Popular Guard’. Keep yourselves prepared … lay by as much as possible out of your scanty earnings for the purchase of a musket and accoutrements.”[316] Whilst we cannot prove it, it is likely that Stedman had got wind of this debate, and no doubt various discussions took place behind the scenes. Eventually on 19 October 1831 a meeting was held and a petition was signed at the Crown Inn. The day before, The Times had carried an open letter by Grey promising a “not less efficient Bill”, when it was returned to the House. Reform would not go away.

20 November was the end of the financial year for Horsham’s Saving Bank, though the report was not issued till the spring of the following year. However, in the momentous year November 1830 to November 1831, there were signs in the accounts that there was an economic decline, but not as drastic as might have been imagined.

The sum received from depositors up to 20/11/1830	£2655.15s.8d
The sum paid to depositors including the interest up to 20/11/1830	£3723.15s.2d
Amount paid out over income received up to 20/11/1830	£1068. 0s. 6d
The sum received from depositors up to 20/11/1831	£1519.10s.10d
The sum paid to depositors including the interest up to 20/11/1831	£2377.11s.1d
Amount paid out over income received up to 20/11/1831	c.£858

Which shows that, whilst the amount deposited in 1831 was substantially less (£2655 compared to £1519), some £1136, the amount being drawn out, was also down on the previous year. This suggests that the depositors were not willing to draw on their deposits unless they had to, but equally they did not have spare money to invest. If you look at the overall amount of money invested with the Commission for the reduction Of National Debt by Horsham Bank, you see a year-on-year reduction, until 1834 when the economy started to pick up. By 1838 the amount held was more than that in 1829.

Year	Amount held	Amount of difference between years
November 1829	£12366
November 1830	£11921	-£445
November 1831	£11304	-£617
November 1832	£10816	-£488
November 1834	£11060	+£244
November 1838	£13125	+£2065

The balance sheets that were published also give a great deal of further statistical information that can be researched. Assuming that those who had up to £20 and £50 deposited were some of the economically poorest in the community, the following chart shows over the same period the fluctuation in numbers and the total amount they held in deposits.

Year	No. of Depositors £0 – £20	Amount	£20 to £50	Amount	Total Number of depositors
1829	198	£1392	113	£3556	381
1830	176	£1299	117	£3591	358
1831	176	£1359	109	£3350	348
1832	201	£1532	107	£3305	367
1834	186	£1374	123	£3690	369
1838	228	£1462	157	£4871	460

It also shows that, even during the period of greatest hardship, it does not seem to have been those with under £20 in savings that were hit, but those with £20-£50. One would expect a commensurate rise in the 0-£20 bracket as they reduced their savings, but that stayed static; suggesting two things:

1. A complete removal of all savings.
2. The same number in the 0 -£20 bracket also withdrew their savings.

Without the books it is impossible to say. What is clear is that Horsham suffered economic decline for four years but, by the late 1830s, was seeing a notable recovery, if the amount saved was anything to go by. Perhaps more working class people were encouraged to save.

Two days after the AGM of the Horsham Savings Bank, a proclamation was issued against all political unions that operated on military lines. This was in clear response to the riot in Bristol at the end of October and intelligence showing that a number of Political unions were thinking about arming themselves. In order to quell disquiet, the Cabinet met on 19 November and decided to recall Parliament for 6 December. The Home Secretary had been informed by a Police spy that on “21 November the NUWC leaders had told some 575 union members and sympathizers …about “the necessity of all the working classes to immediately arm themselves and form by their union a guard to themselves”, whilst William Benbow had suggested that the union should be organised into classes and that the best class leaders would be soldiers, since they could teach marching or the “use of the firelock.”[317]  The suggestion of recall of Parliament was hoped for, and this would temper the agitation. In addition, cholera that had been sweeping France was now detected in Sunderland.[318]

On 12 December Russell stood up half an hour later than proposed, at 5.30pm, and set out the New Bill for reform. He had been working on it that day and his colleagues had no idea what the compromises would be. In Horsham’s case it lost an MP. On 18 December the second reading was passed 324 to 162, but it still had to pass the Lords. Cabinet, in January, asked King William to create new peers to prevent the Bill being defeated. On 15 January the King agreed. By March the Bill had twenty sittings and passed its third reading 355 to 239 before being presented to the Lords. On 14 April it passed the second reading in the Lords, 184 to 173. Then all hell broke lose.

Unfortunately we have no account of what happened in May in Horsham, though it is unlikely to have been a quiet place. The nation as a whole was gripped by political paralysis. On 7 May the Government was defeated by 151 to 116 votes on a motion to postpone disfranchising. They had let it be known that they would seek the creation of additional peers, so the vote became one of confidence. The cabinet went to the King and asked him to honour his agreement to create 50 or 60 peers. On 9May the King refused and accepted the Cabinet’s resignation. The King had wanted to find a Government that would pass an “extensive reform bill”, but not the one on the table.

Thinking that the Tories would step in and form a Government, the King was not unduly concerned, except that both Peel and Wellington refused. They wanted to help the King and, as Wellington put it, “out of the hands of the radicals”[319], but did not want to be part of any government that promoted a bill that they had opposed.

Wellington, out of sense of duty, eventually agreed but between 11-13 May tried to find a Prime Minister. “The May crisis marked the high point in cooperation between middle-and working class reformers”[320]; they had to support the Cabinet. The Poor Man’s Guardian suggested on 12 May that the working-class should not get involved in a middle-class fight.[321] Suggestions were made for a run on the Bank of England and other legal but politically destabilising efforts. The only reason the Government stocks did not fall was due to substantial intervention by the Rothschilds.[322]  On 15 May Wellington advised the King to recall Grey and on the 18^th agreed that he would give Grey full authority to create the Peers.

On 30 May 1832, one final push for change occurred. On that day, the Union issued a manifesto. The manifesto had very little that directly connected with Horsham, other than the inclusion of the town’s name. In fact the petition refers to Boroughmongers, rather than Boroughmonger, suggesting that it was sent out to Boroughs across the land, as Horsham had only one and that was the Duke of Norfolk.[323]  On 4 June the Bill received its third and final reading, passing the Lords 106 to 22 votes. Three days later the Bill became an Act and was given Royal Assent.

 What did the Act mean for Horsham?

1. A reduction in MPs from two to one, though only those that had an income of £300 could stand
2. Everyone who had a house with an annual value greater than £10 could vote.
3. In order to make the number of houses up to that level (so many of Horsham’s houses were below that value), the whole of the Parish was included in the electoral district
4. The seven burgesses that had the right to vote kept their right
5. In total 257 electors could now vote for one MP
6. Those who had not been resident in Horsham for a year from 31 July to 31 July, or who had not paid the poor rate, or had received poor law relief, were all disqualified from voting.

And probably more importantly than all of the above, but not realised at the time, the end of the Borough of Horsham and the town having a voice, an effect still having reverberations as I write today in July 2005 as questions over the ownership of the Town Hall are raised.

It was, though, better than nothing. Three weeks later Robert Henry Hurst declared himself to be a Reform candidate. There was plenty of irony over his proposal. In his statement circulated around Horsham he picked up the various concerns of the National Union, including:

• Legal abolition of the Tithes
• Abolition of negro slavery
• Repeal of the Septennial Act
• Of the laws injurious to the diffusion of knowledge
• To, in effect, promote cost-effective administration.

The Tithe question was one of the great complaints brought up by the “rioters” in 1830, and Hurst had declared that he would reduce the amount. Now he was seeking legal abolition, not that he would return money he claimed as he farmed the tithes: in effect, he was hiding behind a legal nicety. The Septennial Act set out that the elections could be held every 7 years. Many wanted them yearly, in effect holding referendums on Governments’ actions. Hurst does not go that far, just repealing the Act holding one every 7 years. The whole address drew on the manifesto of the National Union, as if having a tick box of concerns. Two days later Mr Blount declared himself. He was the Duke of Norfolk’s auditor. Horsham was to see a genuine election, the first in many decades. 

Mr Hurst used The Crown as his base, the very Inn that the National Union had used. He adopted the colour blue; therefore the Radicals were the Blue party. Mr Blount took over the Kings Head and took pink and white as their colours. Three weeks later, on 18 July, the Union held a meeting to discuss the Reform Act and put forward a number of points, including: “That when we have obtained universal suffrage, votes by ballot, annual Parliaments, abolition of all property qualifications, then and not till then will Englishmen have obtained their rights.”[324]  These appeals were not specific to Horsham, but those of the Union at national level, and they had not changed since the inception of the movement.

Their opposition, however, did not stop the celebrations when on 1 August 1832 a party was held to mark the passing of the Act. The event is recorded by Henry Burstow in his Reminiscences in which he mentions a peal of bells in the old Church, a band playing around the town, and at 2 o’clock the people marched to the Cricket Field, then in North Parade roughly where Hurst Road is. By 3.30 nearly 3,000 people sat down at 62 tables with cold roast, boiled beef and mutton, vegetables and hot plum pudding and beer. There then followed fireworks where an estimated 4,000 people in the evening viewed the displays. In the evening there was a grand ball at the Kings Head Hotel.[325]

Whilst this account has been recounted on various occasions, no-one has looked at the event itself and the logistics involved. The Act was passed on 7 June; it took nearly 2 months for the party to be organised, and fundraising to pay for it to take place. It was a major event. For a start, where did they find 62 tables? These are not small tables for each one took 50 people, so they would have to be around 25 feet long, or 12 feet square. Who paid for the meal, the minimum 3,000 pints of beer (over 350 gallons); did the people bring their own plates and cutlery, or was it provided? This was no small undertaking: it was a major, costly event that would have involved a committee and fundraising, and for what? To celebrate what for many was a non-event, and even the most politically ignorant would have known that. Was it, in effect, a thank-you by those who actually got the vote to those who did not, but without whose support and politicisation would never have driven through a peaceful change? It might be possible to see the Kings Head ball as the real party by the real victors, and the dinner “al-fresco” and fireworks in the rain as the bread and circuses for the masses; the losers. It is interesting that in the Museum archives there are no documents relating to this event, which is surprising, and therefore it is difficult to actually critically analyse the event to determine what the motives were. For all we know it might have been organised by the Union, though unlikely for cost reasons.

After the festivities the election proper took place. The campaign for electoral reform had been very public; it had been extensively covered in the press and in meeting rooms across the country. In Horsham it had seen the creation of an organised working-class group. It, in effect, politicised the people as never before.

In previous elections only the burgage holders were concerned: now the community had an interest; not a say, though, but a keen interest, in who was going to be elected. This led to the election campaign being fought out on the streets. Previously, political notices had been produced for the election of County MPs; now you have them being produced for the town MP. Interestingly, the power of print media to get messages across had been shown with the reform newspapers.

Now Robert Henry Hurst, who stood as a Reform Candidate, decided to use the same style of print as the cheap newspaper: small type, and poor-quality paper, to promote his message. Not for him the well-printed poster that spoke of quality, but he would use well-constructed and reasoned argument to get his message across. He would also use handbills and squibs; in effect, doggerel verse, to attack his opponent. Today poetry as a means of expressing political arguments has been largely sidelined in favour of prose. But in the late 18th and early 19th century it was the way to communicate ideas and arguments: note Byron, Scott and, of course Shelley, whose Queen Mab has been discussed above and whose Masque of Anarchy would be published in December 1832 (see below).

Hurst’s opponent Mr Blount, the Duke of Norfolk-supported candidate, had to follow suit. This pattern of political debate became a feature of Horsham’s elections over the next forty years. By making the elections public, he ensured that even those who did not have the right to vote, the majority of the population, knew what was going on.

Another example of the degree to which Horsham was imbued with the anti-establishment temperament can be seen in the erection of The Wesleyan Chapel in Brunswick place, illustrated in Dudley’s The History and antiquities of Horsham.[326] At a time when Horsham was undergoing some degree of stress, the Wesleyans felt confident enough in the future to build a chapel, suggesting that the community expected long-term stability. Equally, this confidence may have been drawn from the town’s support for such issues as anti-slavery within the town.

The first post-Reform Act election took place in the autumn/winter of 1832, the same time that the Poor Law Commissioner, Mr Mclean, visited the town to draw up his report which he wrote in the December of that year. He would have talked to various people, inspected the various books, and taken soundings from those who paid Poor Rate what they thought. His report was not published, though, until 1833, so no-one had any real idea of what he would say. His report stated that there was a poorhouse that had a governor paid £30 a year, and that the inmates, some 49, cost 2s 8 0¼d a week each. There was also a medical man who charged £70 a year. Those who lived outside the poorhouse obtained some rent relief, no more than a shilling a week, though the town felt obliged to pay that to all those who asked for it. This cost the parish around £200 a year. The report then stated that in the winter of 1832 some sixty required parish work (working on a 16-acre plot of land growing “spade husbandry”, the most labour-intensive form of farming, using the spade rather than the plough, or on the roads. In effect it was what the Americans today call workfare). The cost of this was 14 shillings in the pound upon the assessment, which itself was on 2/3^rd the value of the land and 1/5 value on the houses. (If a field was valued at £100, the value would be 2/3^rd of that, or £66, and the poor rate would be 66x 14s). In 1832 the cost of the poor to Horsham was £3298 18s 2d. The town could not afford to maintain such expenditure and this was repeated across the country.

The election also brought out the interesting feature that the MP for Horsham no longer represented the town, but the Parish and the electorate in effect became more rural. The concerns of the electorate would no longer be urban, as they had been for 600 years, but now it was a semi-rural constituency with farms. Having said that, the new electorate only involved 257 people out of a population of 5,105. The Act also made it clear that Horsham had now taken the lead in central Sussex. No longer did Steyning or Bramber have the right to send MPs.

The actual election was different from any other held previously in Horsham, for the Bailiffs were no longer involved. As shown previously, the borough administration was kept in place, as it ensured that the burgesses could, and had the right to, vote. This meant that the Bailiffs were appointed, the Duke’s Steward was in place and had the ear of the Lord. By almost accident of design, Horsham had administrators at a time when they were not required to perform their function for the town. Yes: the bailiffs were required to get new bushels in 1792, but when the Town Hall needed to be rebuilt it was the Duke of Norfolk who stepped in, in 1812, not the Borough. Just as in the late 17th century, the town decided to take up the option of allowing the local Lord to pay for an MP and so lose the right to free electoral control, so they did the same with the town administrators. The officers of the town were no longer administrators for the town, but agents for the Duke for political rather than civic reasons. So when the Reform Act was passed, the appointment of returning officers shifted from the Duke to the Sheriff of the County; the “accident of design” was no longer by design, and as an accident of history was ignored by the people of Horsham. To the radicals who were capable of arguing the importance of the Civic administrators, the bailiffs would seem to be an anachronism of the Lord’s power; something that should not be mourned. To those who were seeking political power, such as Robert Henry Hurst, they were no longer important in the political equation. So who would argue for their retention? In 1834 the Duke of Norfolk held a Court Leat and the last Bailiffs were elected. 

The new Reform government knew only too well that whilst the new electorate was less open to corruption, the civic administration in the corporate bodies of the towns was corrupt and rotten to the core; corruption had spread both up and down into the body politic, so it was decided to strip it out by creating the Municipal Corporation Act. Horsham had the opportunity to become a Corporation and thus retain its Borough status. But those in the town who would or could decide such things probably could not see any advantage; only cost. For years the town had functioned as a civic and corporate body, but it was an illusion; unfortunately, an illusion in which people believed, so the town believed it could muddle through. The difficulty is that although we talk of the town, who or what was the town? In its inception it would have been the burgesses, and they were the people who issued tolls in the medieval period, who elected head boroughs, ale tasters etc.

Then, in the 18^th century, the burgesses became placemen (some being put in place came from London with no loyalty to the town, only to the Lord (or Lady). With Norfolk’s purchase of the town, they became an insignificance in the political sphere, though in the corporate and civic sphere they could still function; but they had no incentive to do so. After all, there was no Common to manage; in fact, nothing to do that other organisations or the Duke could not fulfil, be it the church, the Vestry, or the various clubs and societies identified above. If the burgesses were no longer a corporate body and had ceased to act as one in the 18^th century (even the petitions sent to Parliament, or the signing of the Market Deed, for example, did not have the full complement of the burgesses), then there was no-one else. The town did not sign up to the Corporation Act, because the town as a civic entity did not exist. It was not apathy[327], because there was literally nobody and no body to be apathetic: Horsham did not exist. 

After the Reform election in December 1832 the town was at heightened excitement. There had been a degree of politicisation that had not been seen before. An example of this can be seen in the Maclean Poor Law report. In order to make sure of the figures he had set out in the report, he probably sent a draft copy to the four overseers of the poor. He probably thought it would be checked for accuracy and returned. However, as a concluding paragraph to his report he stated that “During the winter of 1830, very serious riots took place here, the effect of which is felt up to the present time, not only in the increase of the rates, but in the disaffected and malicious conduct of the lower classes. The more respectable inhabitants live in continued dread of the destruction of their property.”[328]

This led to posters being printed and put up around the town. These posters, around A3 in size, repeated the concluding paragraph, which caused the greatest offence. This was probably posted first, before calling for a meeting to discuss his comments and a petition sent to Parliament “respecting the unfounded statement by Mr Maclean”. (A copy of the poster is held in the Browne papers). The question to ask is: why? After all, how many people will have read the report? It seems as if a mountain was made out of a molehill; especially when one considers the final comment of the petition:

“ …humbly submit to your Honourable House that a report so unfounded on fact, so highly prejudicial to the poor of the parish, and so detrimental to the inhabitants generally be not allowed to remain on the report of the Poor Law Commissioners”[329]. This sounds very exaggerated and probably, in less politicised times, would have gone unnoticed, but now the petition was signed and sent. However, the report was left unchanged in the final published copy where Horsham appears “buried” on page 75 of a small, closely-printed petition with small, heavy type on dull, poor-quality paper. Maclean, however, did make some alterations; not to the main report, but to the appendix, where you can sense that he was validating his previously-written comments whilst praising the degree of feeling that the townsfolk had.

“The anxiety of the petitioners to remove what they term an uncalled for, unmerited and unjust stigma cast upon the poor inhabitants of the town is in the highest degree creditable to their feelings and intentions; but I beg to state that nothing was more remote from my intention…”[330]

Those who signed the petition were probably concerned that having lost the court, with fears of losing the County Gaol, with police being sent to Horsham during the election, the town was getting a bad name as a town. It had shown by way of the Dinner in the Park in the August that there was a community spirit; now this report by an outsider was casting aspersions. That fact that few would read it was not important; the fact it was in print was.

Though it cannot be proven, simply because we do not have the dates, a handbill published on 18 December 1833 mentions the introduction of a scheme “last winter” for dealing with the poor.[331] This suggests that the moral indignation over the Poor Law report spurred members of the community to actually do something for the poor. It seems as if two Committees were formed: the Town Committee and the Farmers’ Committee; both would take a proportion of the poor and provide work for them. The handbill, however, also shows that there had been a breakdown in the situation because the Town Committee, explaining why it would no longer run the scheme, published it. Unfortunately, the poster is cryptic, especially over dates. Item 3, for the reasons, states “That at a General Meeting of the Inhabitants held on the 29^th day of November last, it was Resolved “to be expedient that the System (viz. of apportioning the unemployed Poor between the Farmers Committee and the Town Committee)” pursued last Winter should be continued until Lady Day next” and that Town and Country Committees were formed to carry such Resolution into effect.” 

The meeting was held on 18 December, so “November last” would be November 1833, not 1832, which suggests that the meeting held on the 29^th was a last-ditch attempt to get the Farmers Committee to take the poor, for as item 4 states: “That in compliance therewith this committee provided Employment for their apportioned Number of the unemployed Poor, and have continued until the present period so to do: but they regret to learn that the Number apportioned to the Farmers’ Committee have not been Employed by them: but on the contrary have fallen upon the Parish Officers for Employment. Although difficult to prove, what seems likely is that the Farmers Committee could take on the Unemployed Poor whilst there was a harvest to gather in, but in the winter season had no employment.

Therefore, a meeting was called in November when it was resolved to continue with the scheme, but in the following three weeks the farmers did not employ the poor, and the Town Committee under William Feist called a halt to the system, though saying they would “renew their Engagement with the Farmers Committee.”[332]

The anger and resentment of the Town Committee can be seen in the way that 300 copies of the poster were published for circulation, and that the name of the rural committee was given as Farmers and Country in the poster. This suggests that as they were known as the Town Committee, then the other group was the Country, but the blame for the failure fell not to the Country, but to farmers, as some wealthy landowners probably took the Unemployed Poor on.

In 1834 the Poor Law Amendment Act was passed, which in effect brought the law in line with the way that society was now viewing poverty, away from the church towards the state. From now on, Parliament would demand annual reports from the Poor Law Commissioners, thus making the poor a question of management, not of charity. (The old adage, what cannot be measured cannot be managed, holds true in reverse; management only takes place where measurement of statistics takes place, for the very act of recording imposes a discipline and control on the thing being measured.) So the poor would now be a problem that needed management. To make it easier they would create “Unions”; combinations of Parishes which would jointly fund, under the Poor Rate, the building of a Workhouse which provided food, shelter and work all under one roof, under the management of the Board of Guardians, who were elected.

Whilst there was still outdoor relief given to those not housed in the workhouse, the creation of this building stigmatised the poor. It created an underclass which was seen  as disease of society; so was isolated from it, never to interact with it. Sussex was one of the first to be organised into Unions, so within the coming year Horsham would see a major reorganisation in the way the town, if it thought of itself as a corporate entity, re-evaluated how it dealt with the poor under pressure from the Government which, in turn, was responding to society’s demands.

Amongst the Browne papers is a handbill protesting about the salaries of the Vestry Clerks in Horsham for the year 1834-5. Whilst some of the comparisons seem perverse, for example, Itchingfield. Ifield, Warnham, others such as Guildford, population 4200, Dorking, “near 5000” and Goldaming at 4527 seem more comparable. In those towns the Clerks were paid £30, 35 guineas, and £20 respectively;[333] at Horsham the Clerks got £50 per year. This seems to be excessive and may represent a hangover from the town’s corruption, with people being offered sinecures, or, though unlikely, having greater work to do. The fact is, though, that the Vestry would be one of the few administrative organisations within Horsham and would have to take responsibility as the town would not have any corporate body, and whilst attacking the Clerks’ salaries they could genuinely have to be earned.

In 1834 the Town rallied again, but it was to prove to be a false dawn. At the height of poverty caused by agricultural depression, the nation’s manufacturers decided not to invest in land as previous generations had done, nor in Canals or turnpikes, but in the new form of communication, the railway. Railway mania swept Britain and across the Country schemes were proposed, planned and debated. As early as 1825 F. Fortune had proposed a “London to Brighton Junction Rail Road” [334], though it was not until four years later that Stephenson had won the railway trials in Manchester. 

The first passenger-carrying steam-driven railway had opened in 1830 (George Stephenson’s ‘Rocket Trials’ at Rainhill on the Liverpool & Manchester Railway occurred in October 1829, “and the general form which public passenger railways were to take was settled when this line was opened in September 1830. The Liverpool & Manchester was the first railway to provide safe travelling at fixed rates by a regular service of steam-hauled passenger trains owned by the railway.”[335]) In an era of political unrest and turmoil, serious discussions, debates and economic capital were being invested in creating a network of railways for freight and passengers. In 1833 N. W. Cundy wrote the following report: “Inland transit: the practicability, utility and benefit of railroads: the comparative attraction and speed of steam engines on a railroad, navigation, and turnpike roads. Report of a select Committee of the House of Commons on Steam Carriages, with an abstract of the Evidence taken before Parliament on the Birmingham Railroad Bill, with the preamble; also, the plans, sections and estimates of the projected Grand Southern and Northern railroads”, printed in London in 1833 with a second edition in 1834[336]. The report suggested the railway should go “from London through Dorking, Horsham, and Shoreham, to Brighton.”[337] 

According to Burstow there was “much excitement” in the town in 1834, which suggests that the report published a year earlier had not been picked up by the local business community, but by 1834 it was seen as a possible salvation for the town. A “Railway Hotel” was built for the prospective line, though it never came to anything. (The building still stands in Brighton Road – next to the Tanner’s Arms, opposite the junction with Elm Grove.) According to Burstow the line became known as “Stephenson’s Railway”. Burstow goes on to state that “though the town supported the scheme by public meetings and favourable evidence at the Government enquiry, it fell through, chiefly, I have been told, because the price asked for the necessary land was so much higher than that of the alternative Three Bridges scheme, which was adopted.”[338] This, though, probably conflates various developments.

Horsham was not a railway destination; Brighton was. There were two basic routes: the Cundy route mentioned above, and what became known as Stephenson’s route, or so it would appear from the range of articles and pamphlets that were published concerning the Brighton route. In 1835 Robert Stephenson published a report he sent to the Committee of the London and Brighton Railway Company setting out the two routes. This was followed by some 11 reports/pamphlets etc published in 1836 setting out the various implications of the various routes and costs. Probably the most interesting is that of C Pearson who published his speech “Brighton Railroad.The substance of a speech …before the Committee of the House of Lords on the 1^st August, in opposition to Stephenson’s Railroad Bill, and in favour of a line without a tunnel: to which is appended the Evidence of…medical witnesses stating the inconvenience and danger to be apprehended by invalids and persons of delicate constitution from the sudden changes of temperature in travelling through tunnels”  Another pamphlet published in the same year by a shareholder  sets out “statements and reflections thereon particularly with reference to the proposed railroad without a tunnel and the competition for the line between London and Brighton” followed by “London, Shoreham & Brighton Railway without a Tunnel” As Ottley states “Both stress the advantages of Cundy’s line over Stephenson’s.”[339]     

This suggests that whilst Burstow may refer to the Grand Southern Railway as “Stephenson’s Railway”, the town actually wanted the Cundy proposal to succeed. The town held various meetings in support of the railway with “favourable evidence at the Government Enquiry”[340] (Just as turnpikes required Bills, so did railways.) It was at one such enquiry that the level of passenger and coach activity was recounted. In the period 1835-36 “an average108 passengers a week travelled from London to Horsham”. There were also in the 1830s “three coaches daily to London via Dorking and Epsom, as well as six weekly via Kingston …There were also at the same period daily coaches to Brighton and Worthing and coaches three times a week to Windsor or Oxford via Guildford, besides a service to Bognor”. Clearly Horsham functioned as a “hub”, and this degree of interconnectedness helped sustain the town during the economic slump. But it also shows why the businessmen in the town wanted the railways: they could see a decline if the train did not come to the town.[341]

Burstow states that the failure of the railway to go via Horsham was due to the cost of land, and so the Three Bridges Scheme was adopted. How true this is we do not know, though the cost of building a tunnel would have been considerable. However, Horsham did not give up, and pursued its interest in having a railway link vigorously, as will be shown later.

Whilst the town might have been fixated on the railways, it did not forget the roads, so when the opportunity arose the “town” adopted the 1835 General Highways Act, or rather the JPs decided to adopt the Act, which transformed the relationship between the town and its roads. The Act is still quoted today in the law courts as it prohibits cycling on pavements.

One reason for the town’s concern over the Brighton railway can be seen in the committee appointed in 1835 to inspect Horsham gaol as to its desirability for its improvement or abolition. The report came out with recommendation for neither,[342] so it was to Horsham that a young man, John Sparshott, was sent to be hanged on 22 August 1835.[343] His crime was homosexuality. William Albery, in his Millennium, mentions his hanging along with Richard Sheppard on the same day,[344] but in 1947 Sparshott’s crime could not be mentioned in his History, so whilst Richard, a burglar, is recounted in detail John is left unwritten, the assumption being that he was a burglar. By 2000, though, society’s tolerance of homosexuality had developed, as it seems to have done regularly throughout the millennia, and now we can give an account; give a voice to this 19 year old lad.

One of the developments in academia over the last years of the 20^th century has been a study of marginalised groups and gender studies; particularly the awareness of women’s role in history[345], also an increasing awareness of sexuality within history. What follows could go as a footnote to the History of Horsham; however, in terms of giving marginal groups a voice and an identity, I feel that his name and his story should not be a footnote, but take as prominent a place as Ann Whale or Sarah Pledge, who murdered for money and were hanged, whereas John fell in love with a man and was hanged by the state for it.

“John”, according to the Brighton Herald of 8 August, “Sparshott, 19, was also capitally convicted of an unnatural offence at Mid Lavant. When accused of this crime he had been told by his master that if he would leave the Country he should not be given into custody. He left Mid Laaent but returning after a short time was apprehended for the offence and committed to Horsham gaol.”  The Brighton Herald, undated in Albery’s transcript, though in late August, continued the story:

“On Saturday last Richard Sheppard and John Sparshott paid the extreme penalty of the law which was carried out in front of Horsham Gaol. Shepard (since his condemnation) conducted himself with decorum but Sparshott showed no sign of contrition. At 11o/c both prisoners attended service in the Chapel and received the sacrament. Shortly before 12o/c they were brought to the Scaffold praying fervently after the Chaplain, neither addressed the crowd of spectators, about 500. Both died together with one drop. Their bodies were delivered to their friends and placed in coffins covered with black cloth and taken away.”

However, one of the ironies of John’s story is that The Times of 25 of August recorded his punishment, not his crime. As The Times relates, “both exhibiting much fortitude and resignation…The silly custom of passing the hands of the dead men over the necks of two or three females, as supposed cure for glandular enlargements, was upon this occasion had recourse to”[346]. The Brighton Herald, quoted above, goes into further detail: “Two young women ascended the Scaffold for the purpose of having the hand of one of the dead men passed over? One of them (from Brighton) was married 24 years of age a Brighton physician had told her she was incurable but a veterinary Surgeon Wm Gilbert told her this method would cure her. The other woman was a Horshamite.”

However, a future historian of Sexuality in Georgian England, A. D. Harvey, picked up the account from The Times and published it in his book. The reporter of The Times would probably have been horrified if he thought his story about ridiculous cures would be used in a book about Georgian sexuality, but often, through such ocurrences, history can be remade. John, as Harvey points out, was the second from last person ever hanged in Britain for the offence.

ELABORATIONS

THE HORSHAM RIOT

On 18 November 1830 the “riot” took place in Horsham, with four groups marching on to the Church where a meeting was due to take place “to take into consideration the employment of the poor during the winter”. To put this event into context and understand why it may have caused alarm, only two days beforehand, on 16 November, the Prime Minister resigned and Earl Grey was summoned by the king to form a Government. The previous day the Government had been defeated on the Civil List by 29 votes. Just two days before that, the Whig MPs met and decided on the terms for a reform motion, and eleven days previously, on 2 November Wellington had declared himself against reform.[354] Wellington had won the General Election called after the death of George IV in the June of that year and whilst the election was taking place the tail end of August had seen the first destruction of a threshing machine and agricultural unrest.. All these events would have been read about in the Press “In 1813 The Times was printed at the rate of 250 sheets per hour, in 1827 at 4,000 per hour. …circulation of stamped papers nearly doubled between 1788-1811, although the stamp duties helped keep the price too high for the working man to buy. It was calculated in 1829 that each copy of a newspaper reached, on average, twenty-five people”[355]

Therefore the people of Horsham would have known of the tension in the air and that is why when Albery in his Millennium states that they were armed with “pitchforks “stick-bitters” and various other agricultural implements” one can tell it is pure fabrication. To have marched with arms would have been seen as revolution and there would have been an immediate rallying round by the pro farming lobby and middle classes opposing such a threat. In fact, in none of the accounts is any mention of the mob carrying what would have been seen as “arms”, this is embroidery by Albery. For the four groups to march in to the town as the church clock struck three (note not the Town Hall clock) to quote Browne’s letter to his father, indicates prior organisation, some one or some group of people must have circulated the farms in the area setting out how to meet and gain the greatest impact. Interestingly the day before Sir Timothy Shelley, received a letter from the fictional Captain Swing. The letter has very few specifics except one where the writer states “if you cannot find work for them we will point you out some jobs, set them making and repairing fast roads which are so needful to be done as much for your own benefit more espeiously from the Shelley Arms to Horsham be advised and bend to these proposals immediately or your house and the buildings upon every one of your farms shall be in ashes before Christmass”[356]

This raises a number of questions, the first being how did Captain Swing know of the road conditions; he could have visited the area stirring up trouble, or, he could have had informants telling him, or her, of the poor road. The minor roads were still part of Parish responsibility and so here is a clear indication that

1. the poor did not want a hand out without the dignity of work, it was not charity they were seeking, which again ties in with the ideas of Malthus and the poor that can be seen in the literature of the Savings Bank
2. the money spent on the labourers was to be invested in what today we would call “capital schemes”; improvement of the infrastructure for the benefit of all, not just a few.

This shows a degree of economic understanding that you would not expect from a mob of labourers. The letter itself also shows, apart from the spelling, a sophistication of language that suggested an educated writer; for example: “ “Go yourself and you will find with many of them a house full of children more destitute than half the paupers and then see if you can reconcile such overbearing to your conscience….in the next place read the new Testament …”[357]  Was Shelley picked out because he was the father of the radical poet and so thought to be sympathetic to the cause? The argument being that as Thomas Sanctuary, the then High Sheriff of Sussex, had said of Shelley, he was “a most excellent man and very liberal to the poor.”[358]  If Shelley was being threatened, what hope was there for the less liberal landlords; or was Shelley in on the  letter? Shelley after all was not at the meeting. Albery gives an account of Timothy being threatened in his home, but does not say where the account comes from, though the account gives the impression of an eyewitness. But Shelley did not go to the Vestry meeting – too frightened – unlikely, as he had plied the marchers with drink.

Then there is the matter of collusion between the farmers and the labourers, if Mr Browne in his account is to be believed. It might almost read as an incitement to riot as the farmer was telling the labourers to get the tithe reduced, and the money shall go to them. How true it is we cannot say as it is not a contemporary account, but one written later.

What the march does show is some degree of organisation, by whom we cannot say, though it might well be what would later be called “agent provocateurs” as they orchestrated the marchers and had toured the area beforehand, or had agents working in the area, a belief made explicit by Thomas Sanctuary in his letter to the Home Office.[359]  Fortunately for all the march on the church was peaceful, Thomas Sanctuary said “about one thousand” attended the meeting and “most of the respectable people in Horsham willingly attended and shewd every desire to redress the grievances complained of, upon which the meeting dispersed quietly”.[360]  An unnamed lady gave a different account, that was far more dramatic  “Mr Hurst held out so long that it was feared blood would be shed, the Doors were shut till the demands were granted, no lights were allowed, the iron railings and the monuments torn up and the sacred boundary between the Nave and the Alter overleapt before he would yield”.[361] Mr Hurst was put under pressure because he was the owner of the great tithes and Mr Simpson the visceral tithes.[362]  Browne himself, in the letter to his father, writes that “The meeting dispersed without any breach of the public peace except one or two small cases, even though they had been exercising sovereign authority in pressing their party all day”.

This contemporary account by Browne, who was a Constable at the time, is contradicted by his later recall when he again exaggerates by saying: “Had not Mr Hurst’s friends made very great exertions to get him out of the Church I believe there would have been much risk of his being murderd”.[363]  By the end of the meeting the labourers were promised 2s. 6d a day and a reduction in tithes; thus, the twin prong of the revolt had succeeded, farmers and labourers united in common cause.

This degree of common cause was such that Browne, in his role of Agent for the Phoenix Insurance company, could report in July 1831 that “We have had no fires in the eleven parishes over which our bench of Magistrates preside though I believe the poor to have been worse off in the Horsham Magistracy than in the Cuckfield, the Lewes or the Petworth Magistracy . This is the only Magistracy where the Middle classes unanimously refused to be called in array of battle against the labourers under the title of special constable.

Here fifty respectable individuals of the middle class not only refused publicly before the bench to be sworn as constables, but they went and drew up petitions immediately for a redress of grievances. The labourers look upon the farmers and the middle class as their friends and no act of outrage or fire has happened during the winter in our Magistracy though the neighbouring Magistracies have been visited by many, and the committing and transporting without moderation appear to have had but little effect on it”.[364] The law was neutered by the unpopularity of it and  as Browne noted, people would help the Constable in case of property being attacked they would not swear up to the Magistrates. Why? Was it that Hurst was Magistrate and holder of the Tithes the very thing being protested against?

Horsham at this time still had the County Gaol, even though the assizes had left the town. Therefore people linked to the rick burning and other disturbances would have been held in Horsham. The Horsham Magistrates therefore appealed for troops to be sent from Brighton when rumours spread that two rick burners would be sprung from Horsham Gaol. On the 19^th November Robert Henry Hurst wrote to the Home Office expressing his fear of a meeting to petition parliament for repeal of Taxes. The Government obviously felt concerned enough that by the 28^th November a detachment of Foot Guards and one of Life Guards to restore peace, had arrived. Though the area was peaceful and Robert Henry Hurst thought that the Foot Guards should be sent back.[365]

One tragedy did occur though: Thomas Godman an 18 year old and Edward Bushby were in Horsham Gaol for rick burning having been sentenced to hang at Lewes Assizes in December 1830, on the evidence of the wife of the husband who encouraged them to do the act.[366] The Times in London criticised the judges for the severity of the punishment.[367] Thomas Sanctuary went to Brighton to see King William IV and plead for clemency. Godman had his sentence reduced to transportation for life. He had plea bargained, for he said that he had been inspired to do such an act through listening to a speech by Cobbett at Battle. The Crown got what it wanted a charge on which it could prosecute Cobbett for which it did in July 1831. However as they had one charge they did not need another one, so Bushby was left to hang  which he did in front of a 1000 people at 12 o’clock on New Years Day 1831. He was 26 years old.[368]

One person who seems to have been disgruntled by the whole affair was Dewdney Stedman, local lawyer and rent collector and Clerk to the Magistrates. He wrote a stinging letter to Lord Melbourne at the Home Office on 8^th April 1831, obviously after letting the events stew in his mind, suggesting that a handbill circulating around the town was going to incite riot and mayhem. In the letter he mentions for the first time “more than 2000 Persons”[369] meeting at the Vestry, where as other contemporary accounts mention 700 to 1,000. His letter led the Home Office to send a detachment of Scots Grey’s to Horsham from Brighton. John Browne as Constable received notification of the troops coming as he had to find accommodation for them.[370] However the townspeople were annoyed by their presence and held a meeting in April at the Crown Inn demanding they leave.[371] The meeting nominated three delegates to go to Lord Melbourne and ask for the troops to be removed, which Melbourne did after hearing assurances that the town was quiet.

Interestingly the Government of the day had a very good network of spies and informers.[372] They would have had information about Horsham and its situation. If it was a hotbed of radicalism as some have suggested[373] then the government’s own informants would have identified this and advised against removal of the troops. What one can imagine to have happened was a simple breakdown in the government’s confidence in their own network of informants. Having received Stedman’s letter they probably thought it best to send out troops just in case, though the Commanding Officer would have sent reports back on their arrival saying how quiet the town was and probably reporting on the Town meeting. The Home Office, not wanting to stir up passions that combined both middle and working classes, agreed to remove the troops, but only after clearing up the apparent conflicting reports.

Also it should be remembered that at exactly the same time this was going on the Government had been defeated in Parliament by 8 votes on the question of the number of MPs the reformed house should have. On the 23^rd March the Reform Bill, set out by Russell on the 1^st March passed its second reading 302 to 301 votes on an early morning motion. On the 18^th April, 10 days after Steadman’s letter, the Government was putting forward various amendments, on one of which it failed resulting in an election being called on the 23^rd of April. Therefore the thought of serious unrest in a town that had two MPs that was a byword for corruption, even though the Duke of Norfolk was pro reform would have led to an investigation., though in reality Horsham was probably a side issue. 

One thing that is very clear from the above account was the combination of Working and Middle Classes within Horsham. It was not just a feature of Horsham and in effect the whole series of reforms that took place throughout the 19^th century occurred when the middle classes allied themselves to working class issues. If the middle and upper classes proved resistant to change, then no degree of working class pressure would or could cause change. It is also a fact that by the 1830s Britain was seeing itself as a class structured society with people identifying themselves as being part of a class identity,[374] though as the following comment makes clear it was not always seen in the most altruistic light. “The whole people of England (are) essentially aristocratic and imbued with respect for their superiors, and hatred of those neighbours raised by accident above themselves” Thomas Attwood speaking to Hobhouse, both reformers in June 1830[375]

THE NATIONAL UNION OF WORKING CLASES AND OTHERS – Horsham’s first political party

On 4^th June 1831 the Rules of the National Union of the Working Classes rules were a printed. These rules are a fascinating document that sets out the philosophy, objectives and methods to achieve those aims which in turn set out the structure of the Union and its branches. As Horsham’s first such organisation it warrants some consideration. What follows is taken from the Francis Plaice Archives[376], which seems critical of the organisation, or rather its leaders.

The Rules set out how the organisation should be run and the “Objects of the National Union”. The overriding philosophical approach to the Union was The Rights of Man whose adoption was fundamental to the organisation’s existence. As they stated in the preamble

“The members of the National Union, convinced that forgetfulness of and contempt for the Rights of Man, in a municipal state of society, are the only causes of the crimes and the misfortunes of the world, have resolved to proclaim their sacred and unalienable rights, in order that they, by comparing the acts of the government with the ends of every social institution, may never suffer themselves to be oppressed and degraded by tyranny; that the people may always have before their eyes the basis of their liberty and happiness; the magistrates the rule of their conduct and duty; and legislators the object of their appointment. They therefore acknowledge, and proclaim to the world, the following declaration of the Rights of Man…”  The Rules then give the Rights of Man, followed by further exposition. In the Archives Francis Plaice has a written addenda or series of comments about the organisation which are most revealing, for if one of the great radical organisers of the day could say this then there were obvious concerns.

The article numbered 2 under the heading of  “Objects of the National Union” (“To obtain for every working man, unrestricted by unjust and partial laws, the full value of his labour, and the free disposal of the produce of his labour”) is the base on which the association was founded, the sole inducement to its formation. Its projectors in the first instance wished to form a trades union for the purpose of raising wages and reduce the hours of working – with a view to the ultimate object,  the division of property among the working people. However the persons they called to their assistance under the circumstances of the times, and the general agitation caused by the Reform Bills, at once converted it into a Political Union, leaving the proceedings of working men’s trade unions as a secondary object, the main purpose being political, the trade portion as incidental, and the title of the society was changed from the “Metropolitan Trades Union” to the “National Union of the Working Classes and Others” Francis then mentions why “and others” was used as it covered in effect the middle classes. Before discussing why the Union was never suppressed by the Government. His comments here are very revealing:

“The 3^rd article under the same head (that is Objects of the National Union which stated ‘To support, as circumstances may determine, by all just means, every fair and rational opposition made by societies of working men (such societies being part of the Union against the combination and tyranny of masters and manufacturers; whenever the latter shall seek, unjustly, to reduce the wages of labour, or shall institute proceedings against the worker; the character of which proceedings, in the estimation of the Union, shall be deemed vexatious and oppressive”) was well adapted to the general feeling of the working people, and the two articles would have induced the working people in almost countless numbers to have become members of the Union had the leaders conducted them more rationally than they did.

Several of the leaders and principal speech-makers were ill-informed men …very narrow notions, some…utterly dishonest men whose purpose was confusion that they might plunder, and these notions scarcely disguised at all even in public…and by the alarm…prevented vast numbers joining the union. …Had the meetings been conducted in the quiet orderly manner…had they refrained from continually preaching up what was clearly understood to mean insurrection accompanied by it concomitant plunder, the extent to which the union would have spread…and the general effect it would have produced all over the country, would have induced the government to put it down, it being altogether an illegal association, conducting itself in direct opposition to the well understood enactments of two Acts of Parliament, as it was, it was of little importance to the government…(who) could not give themselves the trouble to think of the notions it was propagating among the working people throughout the Nation.”[377]

Francis was working in London and obviously knew the inner workings of the organisation; was this known about in Horsham, or was the way the organisation ran itself of more concern to the people of Horsham?   Here, Francis has nothing but praise: “The Constitution as a scheme of government for a large body of working men is well conceived and well executed, and is creditable to the talents of the men who formed the committee which prepared it. It is judiciously arranged and the style is unexceptionable…”[378] The actual organisation was well-constructed. There was to be a fund raised through subscriptions and donations; there would be branches or district divisions with committees. There would be frequent meetings “for the purpose of agitating “(From the Rules). They would also promote their aims through the press and publications. The local branches or district associations had a general committee that met weekly with a quorum of seven, whilst the members of the Union met monthly or whenever called upon by the committee. Every three months the general committee had to submit a report to the Union giving details of expenditure, correspondence, membership numbers and the result of their work. Each member of the union had to pay a halfpenny for his membership card.

To people like Browne and other middle class supporters; the “others” in the Union title, though we do not know if Browne was a member, this financial and highly-structured Society would be appealing, for without saying so directly, as such notions were not common at this time, the organisation was professionally run; in theory if not in practice.

SHELLEY, QUEEN MAB AND THE RADICAL PUBLISHERS

Whilst not part of the Horsham story itself, it is interesting to note the role that Shelley had to play in the push for political reform. Shelley, and his writings, became intimately linked in the period 1820s to 1840s with political and social reform. Shelley was probably one of the most widely-read authors of the period by the literate working class. It was one work, more than any other, that was avidly read: Queen Mab, and it is his influence on the radical and reforming culture of this period that makes Shelley such an important figure in literature and culture, worthy of Horsham town’s late commemoration in 1992 and 1997. Shelley had written Queen Mab in 1812 and had it printed in 1813 for private circulation. By Shelley’s death in 1822 it had become widely circulated around the radical movement and by 1832 it was a widely-read publication. The publishers of the work were often the very same people who were working behind the scenes in getting the Reform Bill passed. For example, Richard Carlisle printed Shelley’s work in 1822 and may have been the financier of the first pirated edition in 1821, though that printer was William Benbow. Benbow himself published his own edition of Shelley’s work, without Queen Mab in 1826.[379]  Benbow also suggested “a grand national holiday”, another term for a general strike, in support of reform, but the suggestion was impracticable. Richard Carlisle supported the Reform Bill in his paper the Prompter, along with William Cobbett in his Political Register, whilst the Spectator came up with the phrase “the Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill”. Another pro-Bill supporter was Francis Plaice, who organised the London radicals, along with his National Political Union which he formed in October 1831. Against them were the radicals who felt the Bill did not go far enough.

The founders of the National Union of the Working Classes and Others were Henry Hetherington and William Lovett. Hetherington would publish Shelley’s work as cheaply as possible, as can be seen in the Museum’s copy. In July 1831 Hetherington issued an unstamped, therefore illegal, newspaper, the Poor Man’s Guardian, in which he attacked the middle classes for being seduced by the aristocracy away from working class demands.[380] Of all the papers, it is his which covers the Union of Working Class proceedings the best. His opposition to the Bill did not translate into, nor should be seen as, the general view of working class people.[381] In 1833 James Watson was prosecuted and imprisoned for failing to pay a £20 fine for selling the paper. He argued that he had 20 other unstamped newspapers, such as The Penny Magazine and The Penny Cyclopaedia, published by educational or religious groups, but he was not prosecuted for those; only for the paper which the state or religious authorities did not like. “Since the apparatus of taxation required an official presence in every town the stamp duties provided opportunities for patronage, one of the main means by which a deeply disliked regime maintained itself in power.”[382] William Wordsworth was a distributor of Stamps in Westmoreland; therefore a discourager of reading.[383] Hetherington’s paper constantly opposed the Bill, though his Union, as mentioned above, would eventually argue that the Bill was better than nothing and would be a first step, with the middle classes enfranchising the working class in thanks for their help in securing the bill. In 1839 Hetherington published his edition of Queen Mab.[384]

In terms of the actual physicality of the various Shelley publication, all books issued between 1822 and up to 1839 were pirate copies, as Mary refused to allow them to be reprinted. The museum holds a small number of such pirated works. They graphically show, more than any other object, how Shelley’s works were being issued to appeal to the different classes. For example, the Brooks edition of Queen Mab published in 1829[385] is printed on white clean paper with strong ink impression and colour. The title page has an engraving with the figure of a female nude reclining on a couch and Ianthe’s soul rising from it. It is printed with wide margins. Compare this with Benbow’s small, cheaply-printed edition,[386] or Hetherington’s edition[387], both printed on poor-quality paper and in small type, or Daly’s 1839 edition that is only 114mm x 80mm in size, ideal for the pocket and for those with good eyesight.[388]

So who were these printer/publisher radicals? William Benbow had been a soldier and a shoemaker before turning to printing; he also worked for Cobbett. He was known for publishing pornography including Louvet’s Amours…de Faublas, a transvestite French novel with erotic plates, whilst also publishing Cobbett’s “A Grammar of the English Language”[389]. He was imprisoned several times for alleged political and publishing offences, but never charged. Richard Carlisle was “fashionable, even foppish, in his dress…Although there was no pornography for sale in either (of his two shops) , nor even novels, he sold printed advice on effective female contraception[390] a subject which was almost as scandalous.”[391] When in 1819 he was fined £1,500 and sent to prison for three years for printing ‘blasphemous libel’ (he found obscure passages in the bible such as: Moses commanded to put all conquered Palestine people to death except virgin girls),  his wife took over the business and on her imprisonment, her sister, until her imprisonment when Richard’s son took it up. As spies were everywhere their shop had an unusual device. The customer turned the hands on a dial to the title they wanted, then out of the ceiling a wrapped parcel of books would descend by rope; the customer left the money without a word being spoken.

John Ascham, who printed the first Collected Works, to be sold in a dozen monthly parts at a shilling each, was known only as a pornographer, this being his only known non-pornographic publication. 

John Brooks was a publisher working in the 1820s and 30s. He issued a number of Shelley’s works that had been remaindered. Then in 1832 he issued the first really cheap edition of Queen Mab,[392] “in 1827 a man charged with stealing books from Brooks shop was acquitted, when the court ruled that Brooks, as an avowed deist who did not fear punishment after death, could not be trusted to tell the truth”.[393] John Brooks should not be confused with Richard Brooks. The publisher of the Museum’s copy of Queen Mab, is an “unregistered name”[394]; therefore in effect anonymous.

“Whilst expensive books were sold in ones or twos through a network of respectable retail bookshops in the main towns, unrespectable books were diffused across the country through channels which nobody in authority could understand or control. Pornographers, it was said, threw books over the walls of girls’ boarding schools in order both to stimulate and to satisfy demand.”[395] In November 1829 Cambridge undergraduates debated with Oxford undergraduates whether the poems of Shelley had an immoral tendency. For that debate to take place involving, amongst others, Alfred Tennyson, they had to have read a pirated copy; that of Benbow. John Clare, Robert Browning, and Algernon Swinburne all owned and read pirated copies of Shelley’s works. Henry Vizitelly, a journalist serving his apprenticeship in Fleet Street in the 1830s, recalled that “The book that of all others had the greatest fascination …was Shelley’s Queen Mab in which ardent liberals found the expression of their aspiration” [396], whilst George Bernard Shaw remarked on seeing copies “blackened with the finger marks of many heavy handed trades”.[397]

The whole question of Queen Mab and its publication was in effect resolved by typical British fudge. Edward Moxon printed the four volumes of Shelley’s works including the full text of Queen Mab in 1839. By now Sir Timothy Shelley had relaxed his prohibition on Mary promoting his son, enabling her to earn an income. A group of authors and booksellers in 1840 brought an action of blasphemy against Moxon, in effect saying to the authorities that the law was only enforced against cheap books, not expensive ones. Moxon was found guilty but was never punished, the authorities enabling Queen Mab to circulate without prosecution.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Naked Horsham Chronology

1836	Howard Dudley published A History ofHorsham, the first history book of the town, aged 16.
1837	Horsham Labourer’s Friend Society formed. Gave some undeveloped land for allotments.
1838 Queen Victoria crowned.	Petition to Parliament for railway line to Horsham. Petition failed. The petition was promoted by corn, cattle and poultry farmers, not tradesmen, who argued it would benefit London and not the people of Horsham. Foundation Stone of New Union Workhouse in Crawley Road laid down on 19 September. Workhouse opened in 1839 and cost £4,878. On 28 June the town celebrated the Coronation of Queen Victoria. ‘Early in the morning the Church Bells began to peal. All shops were closed by 11.30am, when the children in the town – about 800 including myself – assembled in the Church Causeway, each child was provided with a knife, fork, and a mug, and a ticket on which was printed Victoria, Crowned 28th June 1838. (Henry Burstow).
1839	Around one quarter of Horsham’s population deemed poor. They had 750 children. On 7 May 1839 appeal launched for a new church at cost of £3,600. £3,100 raised locally. Act passed allowing town to employ first policeman.
1840 Queen Victoria and Prince Albert married. ‘Penny Post’ established nationwide   GB 1,131 miles of railway. US 2,816 miles of railway.	New vicarage, (in use today), built with money from sale to Parish of old vicarage site together with other grant money. Tithe map cartographers and surveyors came to Horsham. Produced first detailed map of Horsham. King’s Head opened Assembly Room in East Street. Wilfred Scawen Blunt born at Petworth House. Wilfred Scawen Blunt was the second son of Francis Scawen Blunt of Crabbet Park and Newbuildings. He was a hedonist, poet, diplomat and breeder of Arab horses. In 1869, he married Byron’s granddaughter, Lady Anne Isabella Noel King, but he still had affairs with numerous women.

1841	New Collyer’s School opened costing £2,240, all but £150 paid for by Mercer’s Company. New church opened 3 June as a Chapel of Ease. Boys’ department of National School moved from church to new school next to St Mark’s Church. A move by vicar to remove all vestiges of the poor from St Mary’s?
1842	Horsham Library Society formed. Had to be member of Church of England to be committee member. Mr Brown, draper and constable, wrote to authorities concerning Allen brothers. In 1857/58, Allen brothers fled Britain having defrauded Customs and Excise of £375,000.
1844 GB railway reached 2,236 miles. (28 in 1828).	Last ‘wife sale’ in Horsham. ‘Many people hissed and boo’d, but the majority took the matter good humouredly’. (Henry Burstow)   John Lawrence hanged for murder of Brighton’s first Chief of Police, Horsham’s last hanging. 3,000 people attended. Plans drawn up for railway from Horsham to Three Bridges.
1845   Railway ‘mania’.	Brewer, Henry Michell, bought Horsham Gaol for £2,560. Petition to Parliament to open a branch line to Horsham. Act passed. Railway had to be built within three years with a projected cost of £100,000.
1846 Railway ‘bubble’ bursts.	Corn Laws repealed. Great deal of local agitation. Horsham’s first police station and lock-up opened in Queen Street instead of using Town Hall cellars.
1847 Factory Act restricted working day for women and children aged from 13-18 to 10 hours a day. Salt Lake City founded in America.	One of the most corrupt elections ever held at Horsham. Result overturned by Parliament. Helen Cordelia Angell (née Colman) born. Helen was one of five daughters. She was a self-taught artist from six to twelve years old, after which time she received professional guidancefrom herbrother, William. Like her brother, Helen worked at the Minton Pottery Factory. She became a noted flower painter. On her death in 1884 the Times wrote of her as ‘one of the most exquisite artists of our time’.

1848 Revolutions throughout Europe, mainly by intellectuals.

New Election held. Mr Fitzgerald, the candidate from 1847, stood again. Due to corruption, result overturned. Fitzgerald spent over £80,000 trying to get elected. First train arrived in Horsham on 19 February.

Horsham 1835-1848

 NO-BODY, ANY-BODY, SOME-BODY

The Lighting and Watching Acts of 1830 and 1833 gave Horsham the opportunity to create some sort of civic governance as it had failed to maintain the Borough. The Vestry, the new Poor Law Guardians and the Highway Board provided some governance but there were still certain aspects of corporate life being ignored in the matrix of government: namely, security/safety of possessions. The old Borough had constables, but, with the borough no longer in existence, that had to be looked at, whilst the other side of Borough administration; the weights and measures etc., were being taken over by Central government with its imperial measures.

So on 4 April 1835 “thirty rate-payers of the town chiefly tradesmen, demanded of the Churchwardens in Vestry that they appoint a time and place for a meeting to be held to consider the adoption of these Acts for “that part of the Parish called the town” [398]A meeting was held on 22 April and, at a subsequent meeting, the Acts were adopted. The Acts were set up to allow parishes to provide lighting to protect people; the lighting and the watching parts respectively. They also laid a duty on the Board of inspectors to provide and maintain “fire engines with pipes and other accessories for the use of the parish”[399]. Horsham already had constables; for example, Browne was one, though the reliability of the constables was another matter, as shown in the 1830 disturbance.

The town also had a fire engine which was kept at the back of the Town Hall[400], but the lighting was another matter. Before it adopted the Act it was decided to set up a committee to examine the requirements and cost of implementation, probably one of the reasons for the delay in adopting the Act. John Browne was one of the committee members, and in his papers is a copy of possibly the final report of the “Committee appointed to inquire whether it will be desirable to adopt the Provisions of the Act of the 3^rd & 4^th Will: 4^th for lighting and watching Parishes in England and Wales within the Town of Horsham”, as Browne titled it. Unfortunately, the copy is not dated. The short report starts by saying “…a Company has been formed since the last meeting to be called the Horsham Gas and Coke Company for supplying the Town with Gas, in which several shares are already taken, and it is not doubted the remainder will be subscribed as soon as the advantages to be derived by the Proprietors are generally known

The boundary was set at “The Dog and Bacon Inn and the mansion house of Robert Hurst Esq on the North, the house of Mr Thomas Noakes Vinall on the East, the Vicarage, and the house of Mr Rob. Rowland on the South, and the house of Mr Marriott on the West.

That fifty Lamps will be required at an annual Charge not exceeding One hundred and Fifty Pounds”

The report went on to recommend that one Sergeant of the watch and four watchmen should be employed from September to April to protect the inhabitants of the limited area at a cost not exceeding £90. That there would be seven elected inspectors to oversee the operation and that a sum of 3s in the pound paid by those who pay the Poor Rate will raise the amount needed to fund it. Those whose poor rate assessment did not exceed one pound were let off.

The report then looked into the Fire Engines and “report that two Fire Engines are necessary for the use of the Parish, and that the expense of completely repairing those which have been used will not exceed fifty pounds and a small annual Sum will be sufficient to keep the engines in a proper state” It also noted that “as the inhabitants of the whole Parish are interested in having this security against Fire, the expense should be a charge on the Parish Funds”.

The Act was adopted in 1835[402]. This probably gave the Gas Company an additional boost as it had a guaranteed income and a certain “establishment” feel about it. The Board of Inspectors, known as the Horsham Inspectors, had a staff of office, a small 8 inch long trungon shaped wood with a brass crown on the end, a very crude affair compared with many Mayoral staffs in the past[403]. The adoption of the Acts is, though, an interesting reflection on the values of Horsham society at that time. The Lighting Act was introduced to provide security and safety of property against theft, but public safety through the provision of water is another matter. This mindset would remain a dominant feature in Horsham’s growing civic government for the next thirty years: the people of Horsham were willing to pay into a community chest for protection of possessions but not protection of health (Henry Michell noted in 1865 hostility to the provision of water [404]). With its adoption Horsham now thought it had enough governance to manage itself as it faced the 19^th century. It may have lost certain aspects of the Borough but they were not deemed important; it had various bodies to look after the poor, the roads, security, and miscellaneous matters.

The Committee’s report concerning fire engines is interesting, for Burstow in his Reminiscences mentions only one (Browne mentions two): as he writes, “Up to 1840 when the Fire Brigade was organised with tradesmen in pot hats as firemen Old Ike (Isaac Aldridge) was Horsham’s only fireman and had sole charge of the squirting apparatus that we boys admiringly called an engine. This was kept in an old shed, where Manor Place is now…This formidable instrument used to take old Ike about three quarters of an hour to put together and get into working order when its services were required at a fire”.[405] This suggests that by 1840 there was one, not two, engines. This would tie in with the Lighting and Watching Inspectors’ Receipts and Expenditure account for 1841, which mentions one engine with the receipt from the Churchwardens of £7 8s 9d; this suggests that the proposal for the Parish to pay for it went ahead. Whilst £5 5s was paid to Mr Sheppard for a year’s rent of the engine (singular, not plural) house[406]. So either the Parish decided they could not afford two engines or Browne’s transcript of the report contains an error. Interestingly, the accounts also show that there were only forty public lights costing 65s each: 5s more than estimated, and ten fewer than proposed.

In the same year that the adoption of the Lighting and Watching Act took place; 1835, there took place in St Leonard’s Forest one of the largest gatherings ever in Horsham’s history. On Thursday 15 September an estimated 12,000 people and one thousand horses were present by 10’oclock to attend a horse race. The first race meeting had occurred the year before with a small crowd, but this number exceeded expectations and at a time when there were no police to manage the crowds; equally, the expectation of a disturbance had not been raised, as if the perceived threat of the mob did not spread to sporting events, or was it felt that there was little property that could be damaged in the Forest?  The course itself was a mile and half circuit on the west side of New Lodge. On that day there were six races; three, possibly four, of which were not opened to thoroughbreds, one being for four horses “belonging to gentlemen who have regularly hunted with Mr Steere’s hounds”.

After the race a ball and supper were held at Kings Head Hotel. The races were held for seven years, till 1841 when the new Curate, Mr Kendrick, more of whom later, persuaded the owners to stop the meeting as it attracted ne’er-do-wells and excessive drinking. It might be as a response to the likelihood of such a complaint that the third race meeting in 1836 raised £200 at a bazaar attached to the course for the building of the Coolhurst Church[407].

In 1836 Howard Dudley, a London-born young man, published the first history of the Town. At the same time that Horsham lost its corporate identity it had its first history written, printed, and illustrated by a 16 year old Londoner. The publication of this book has developed an aura of romanticism about it that does not stand up to the cold light of history and this is explored in detail in the mini essay at the end of the chapter, as is the radical nature of the book.

Dudley’s book is an outstanding work that was quite revolutionary. It is copiously illustrated, breaking the tradition of usual history books; it uses words and quotations as illustrations to reinforce the idea of it being real history. The illustrations chosen also reinforce the text; hence some of them duplicate what is already described, as if the written word was a fabrication, and here is the proof it is not. Yet for the local reader, at whom the book was aimed, (or was the market the Horsham emigrant, or the traveller; if so, does the work enhance the image of Horsham?) such visual proof would not be necessary, unless he thought his words could not convey the right “image”. This is particularly true of the interior of the church and the street scenes, contemporary views that the Horsham reader could see. Some images are used to reinforce notions of wealth and grandeur; for example, Field Place and Warnham Court.[408]

Horsham by 1836 was starting to come out of the agricultural depression. This sense of renewal is given by Dudley, who states:

“The streets are now well lighted with gas, considering that this is the first year of their illumination. The gameter (sic) is erected at the back of Albion Terrace, another specimen of the improving state of the town[409].” He then goes on to say that the people of Horsham were annoyed by the amount of dirt that the laying of gas pipes caused. The same event is recorded in little more detail by Burstow, who states: “Horsham was first lighted by gas on Monday, Jan.25^th 1836…nor can it now be said the new illumination was very brilliant either, but it was thought to be so…On the first night of lighting up by the new was the streets were crowded with folk…At the “King’s Head Hotel” there was a large-sized star of gas jets; at the “Crown Inn” there was a large crown produced in the same way. The Town Hall decoration, consisting of a large W.R. and some jets round, compelled every-ones’ admiration. …The price of gas at first was 12s 6d per 1000ft.; in 1848 it was reduced to 10s, per 1000ft.[410]

In his book, Dudley makes the following comment: “The water around Horsham is of a very superior quality, and extremely abundant. It is intended shortly to supply each house by means of pipes”.[411]  This may have been some talked-of scheme rather than a plan, as it was another 40 years before it became a reality. However, the comment made by Dudley is interesting, for the water in Horsham was very good, but the water supply was heavily polluted as much came from shallow wells.[412] Whilst the breweries had their own water supply, the townsfolk relied on the wells, around from medieval times. Some 20 years later a report would be published that showed how disgusting Horsham water supply was (Horsham well water had 49 grains impurity per gallon compared with only two for Glasgow.[413]) Whilst the sewage system could deteriorate quickly it is likely that the wells were in a poor state when Dudley was writing. This either shows Dudley’s ignorance of the true conditions of the water supply in Horsham, or, the possibility that the water was going to be taken from, as Dudley writes “around Horsham”, the numerous hammer ponds in the forest. If that was the case it might explain why the scheme never took off, why invest in pipes and pumps etc when there were a large number of town wells to draw on. Burstow also recounts the story of Ned Hall “the waterman… Well water at Horsham, too, was very hard and most people used to save all the rain water they could for washing purposes, &c. With his pony cart and barrel old Hall could always in summer time do a good trade in water, which he used to fetch from the river, selling it at a half-penny per bucketful, and with a wooden trough, fitted behind the barrel, watering the streets, charging 1d per time for watering the road in front of a house”[414] If Horsham had wanted piped water it would have to have created a company to provide it, for the town did not have the administrative infrastructure to manage the water scheme.

Whilst Horsham did not have a fully structured local government there must have been some sort of, however loose, trading association that operated in the town. For Henry Burstow reports that  “Up to 1836 butchers, bakers, greengrocers and barbers all kept open shop on Sunday mornings till Church time: butcher’s boys on horseback, carrying baskets of meat, galloped round the town on that day as busy as, or busier than, any other day of the week”.[415] For the tradesmen to all decide to close on Sunday after 1836 suggests some concerted pressure to enforce the move, for if one broke the agreement then the others would have to follow suit. As has been shown in the 18th century Horsham town traders and town folk could work together to provide protectionism for the market (See the section relating to the Market Deed), now some similar agreement had been instituted. Was it pressure from the shop keepers, or the Church? It is doubtful if it was concerted pressure from the public not to receive services on Sunday in an era of cold larders and, if you were fortunate, ice houses, rather than refrigerators. Unfortunately, this aside by Burstow or Albery is no more than that and, as will be shown below, the traders if they were organised at all did not oppose the coming of the railway, even though it could be harmful to their trade.

By 1838 the decision to open which London to Brighton line was passed and in that year Henry Michell, according to his “diary”, “Began Brick making (Kiln Bricks) at the Three Bridges …There was every prospect of a ready for sale for them, as the Brighton railway was about to begin. The first brick of the observatory on the summit of Balcombe tunnel was laid on the same day. Queen Victoria was crowned June 28, 1838”[416] Horsham had to act fast. It had lost the argument over the alternative route via Horsham and so it had to argue for a branch line to connect Horsham to the Brighton to London Line at Horley.[417] To that end on 17 November a public meeting was held in the Town Hall agreeing to send a petition to the House of Commons asking them to pass the bill for the London to Horsham Railway. It failed.

But whilst it failed, the poster and the petition raise a number of interesting questions. Who organised it? We know that Henry Michell does not mention it in his diary, and whilst Burstow recalls it, that was down to Albery including it, rather than Burstow remembering it. The Museum has the manuscript copy of the poster and the petition itself, which were part of the Albery archive and may have been part of the Medwin papers, suggesting Pilfold Medwin, son of the former Town clerk/electoral agent/steward Thomas Charles Medwin, might have been involved. There is no mention of it in the Browne papers, suggesting either it was forgotten about or of little historical importance as the railway came some 11 years later. We know the carriage trade would have been against it, though The Swan Inn, which was a coaching inn[418],  was one of the inns in Horsham where the petition could be signed. However, reading the poster it is clear that the backers of the petition were corn, cattle and poultry farmers, not tradesmen; in effect old wealth; landed, rather than the rising middle classes. That, though, did not stop them seeing the advantages of easier travel to London.[419]

There was, though, one problem that the landowners faced: how to get people to sign a petition that would not actually, as they could see it, benefit them, only the landowners. They achieved this through a complex sentence that requires concentration to get the meaning. It is set out below, if nothing else as an example of how to obfuscate (note capitalisation is as the poster):

“Although the MARKET IS LARGE, yet, inasmuch as HORSHAM is entirely dependent upon LAND CARRIAGE to LONDON, it cannot compete with other Places; at GUILDFORD, for instance, the PRICE OF WHEAT IS HIGHER than at HORSHAM by from 20s. to 30s. a load, in consequence of the former TOWN possessing the advantage of WATER CARRIAGE to the METROPOLIS, and the GROWERS OF WHEAT in the Neighbourhood of HORSHAM, notwithstanding they produce it of excellent quality, are compelled to submit to this Disparity in Price, and they sell to Dealers who are induced by the quality of the grain to send it to London, at very great expence.” (sic)

What this is saying is that Horsham wheat is 20s to 30s cheaper than Guildford wheat because the grower is in effect carrying the cost of transport. For in London, the price of Guildford and Horsham wheat would be the same. If anyone worked this out and realised that because of this Horsham folk got cheaper wheat, the writer argues that because the wheat is so good the dealer has to send it to London. So Horsham folk would not get a look in anyhow.

In case it was suggested that the railway was only beneficial to Horsham and its neighbourhood, the writer of the petition points out that “the quantity of CORN, CATTLE, and POULTRY, that would be sent from HORSHAM to LONDON would be GREATLY INCREASED”, thus helping to alleviate one of the capital’s recurring problems: how it could feed its growing masses.

The railway was not built, but that did not stop Horsham continuing to develop and grow as it dealt with the social and economic issues of the time. In 1837 the Stocks and Pillory were officially abolished as punishment. Horsham’s stocks were last used in 1834 on Charley Price, a pieman who, together with Charlotte Venn, would get drunk,  “and then the public ear would be assailed by the most awful specimens of mutual execration”.[420] Soon after, the stocks were set alight one 5 November, so a new set was made but never used. After the abolition they were kept at the South end of the Town Hall. They were used only once and that was for a celebrated photograph by Mr Honywood, then moved to the west end of Richmond Terrace, and from there they were given to the Museum where they can be seen today. A replica set of stocks was made by the Horsham Museum Society. Although public humiliation as part of the punishment may have been diminished with the stocks’ removal, it did not stop, as offenders were put in what was known as the Black Hole, a holding cell under the Town Hall reached by steps leading down from the street; males were confined to the west side, females to the east, with prisoners being seen though the iron bars, “Occasionally they would receive some trifles given to them by the compassionate public “ as they would give to animals at a menagerie”[421]. They would stay there until being bailed or tried. Burstow’s comments seem to be backed up by the following notes made by Browne in his Commonplace book:

“20^th July 1835

Report by William Papell? Watchmen that the privy in the Black hole ought to be emptied. That there ought to be benches to sleep on in the black hole instead of the prisoners laying on the Stones” and later “the black hole is not fit to put any person in Persons that cannot obtain lodgings-What is to be done with them? (In other words the homeless) Black Hole fronting Mr Shepards for women wants opening and drying. Lock and key for each”

On a related matter Browne expresses his concern to the Duke of Richmond over the provision of local magistrates. As the copy of the letter in the commonplace book states (the letter itself, in its plea, almost mirrors present-day “zero tolerance” objectives, particularly in respect of the impact on the wellbeing of a town):

Horsham December 27^th 1839

To his Grace the Duke of Richmond

May it please your Grace to take into your consideration the situation of the town of Horsham being without a resident Magistrate. Or population is about six thousand, To R Hurst Esq and Sir Timothy Shelley (are the nearest but they/have both crossed out) retired from duty on account of age. Mr Treadcroft Esq- Rob. Aldridge Esq ??? J Nelthorpe Esq Rob Henry Hurst are all about 3 miles distant A part of the town of Horsham has taken benefit of the 3^rd and 4^th of Will $th Cap 90. Entitled an Act for lighting and watching towns in England and Wales; Now, for small offences occurring in the nights it is a long way to take a prisoner or a long way for a Magistrate to come and considering nothing contributes so much to the well being of a town as the quick and strict administration of Justice. I have though a humble individual taken this liberty of addressing your Grace.

I am your Grace’s and obedient servant John Browne”

His grace replied a week or so later:

“Goodwood Janry 9 1840

Sir,

I have the honour to acknowledge the recipt of your letter of the 28^th inst. & to thank you for your communication. I understand that Mr Hurst will shortly return to his residence in Horsham.

I have the honour to be ??? Richmond”

On 25 June 1837 the Windsor Coach brought news of the death of William IV to Horsham[423]. A year later the town would celebrate the Coronation of Queen Victoria on Thursday 28 June. The time between the death and coronation allowed the various events of the day to be planed and, importantly, paid for, as souvenirs of the day would be given to each child, as well as copious refreshments, as recorded by Burstow:

“Early in the morning the Church bells began to peal. All shops were closed by 11.30a.m., when the children in the town – about 800 including myself- assembled in the Church Causeway; each child was provided with a knife, fork, and a mug, and a ticket on which was printed “Victoria, Crowned 28^th June 1838.” Headed by the band the procession marched round the town, and then to Swan Field, so called from its connection with the “Swan Inn”, West Street. …There were several booths into which barrels and barrels of beer were rolled and quickly consumed by people anxious to prove by their drinking capacity their devotion to the Throne. There was also a temporary wooden bandstand erected upon which the old Town Band played and drank, and drank and played again ….A substantial dinner of roast beef and plum pudding was provided for the poor in the field, and also for the inmates of the County Gaol and the Workhouse at their respective institutions. Public dinners were also given at the “Anchor” and “Richmond” Hotels, and a ball at the “Kings Head”…one of the most drunken days that I remember”[424]

Horsham, like the nation, had truly entered the Victorian age, an age that would last until 1901 and, in many respects, till the Great War of 1914-18.

In 1838 Horsham Town Band played on a temporary Bandstand. This is not the first mention in Burstow’s account of the Band, which probably reflects his and Albery’s musical interest. Mention is made of the band in 1835, when Burstow notes names and musical instruments, with the band consisting of three clarionets, (sic), two key bugle, two trombone, and one each of French horn, serpent, drum and a flute and fife.[425] What is interesting is, where did the band come from and who paid for the instruments? Mention is made in the Brighton Gazette of a Band in the 1831 election[426], whilst Burstow records that in 1822, when Robert Aldridge came of age, the “Sussex Band of Musick” played the “Roast Beef of Old England” and other tunes”[427], which suggests, and no more than that, that Horsham did not have a town band in 1822 but had one nine years later. Was the town band formed as part of the growing adult education movement, or did it grow from the Church’s involvement with music? We don’t know, but the Town Band became a part of Horsham’s civic functions and social events. For example, playing at the coming of age celebrations of C.G. Eversfield of Denne Park on 7 October 1843.[428]

Eversfield was noted for his dissolute life until he had a “conversion” and then spent his time and energy in good works, including building the mission hall in Denne Road. Such was his conversion that a small booklet was printed recounting his story under the title of “Give Me the Light”. In May 2006 the son of the former butler of the Bethuen family (related to the Eversfields) came into the museum before moving to the West Country and kindly allowed the museum to photocopy it. Unfortunately, the booklet has no date, but was written by A. Hume and published by The Gospel Tract Society. It is a very good example of the religious propaganda being issued during the Victorian and Edwardian times.

It starts “Mr E— was as a young man, one of those whom the world deems fortunate. Born to wealth and position, endowed with good abilities, and with a handsome and striking personality, many would have thought- as he himself thought at that time- that there was nothing lacking to make his life happy and successful. Doubtless many envied him his life of gaiety and “pleasure”, so called; and his powerful athletic frame awakened admiration.” But as the author goes on to explain “As he (Eversfield) expressed it; “I was, until the age of twenty-three In the world and OF it. I delighted to exceed all my boon companions, and to dare what they would not dare…Thus I ran riot, seldom opening my lips without an oath serving Satan well”

He then goes on to explain that after leaving a cricket match with two or three others, they came across a ditch spanned by a plank. They decided to leap over it: one failed; he succeeded but caused a jolt to his head. The following day he woke up paralysed. For three years he went around miserable and depressed, and then one morning his cousin Mrs T, whom he would call Theo, arrived at the house after he had spent time in his workshop where he learnt to turn wood. She prayed with him. He felt miserable afterwards and spent a fortnight in such a state. She then returned and much to his annoyance wrote out a prayer and gave it to him to say. Later the next morning he having difficulty saying the prayer and exclaimed: “O God! I have heard Thy Holy Spirit is a light; give me THE LIGHT”, as he goes on to say:

“In a moment the room seemed flooded with light. The burden of sin was gone. I was full of joy, and it was so instantaneous that I could not conceive what had happened; but I shouted for joy…” Although he would spend the rest of his life paralysed, he was happy, living for forty years with the Bible his constant companion and being able to quote verses and hymns, one of which he paraphrased: Madame Guyon’s “A little Bird am I” which he changed to thus

“A shattered wreck am I

Enjoying now a chair

And full of life I sit and sing

To HIM who placed mere there-

Content a shattered wreck to be

Because my God it pleaseth THEE.”

On one occasion he put a placard on his gate saying that anyone who called before twelve o’clock the next day would have his debts paid. Only one person appeared before noon, and his debts were paid. He told others and a crowd gathered in the afternoon, but Eversfield said “Look at my placard. It says:’ Before, twelve o’clock!’”; from this he preached the gospel showing how many refuse God’s good news.

In Crawley Road, the new Union Workhouse was completed in 1839 and ready to take inmates. The foundation stone had been laid on 19 September 1838, the site having been chosen by a Committee set up in April of that year with the decision being made in July that Star Field, near Star Row in Roffey, would be bought from the Duke of Norfolk for £210, with £116.5s being paid as compensation to the tenant. The cost of building the Workhouse was £4,878[429], with the building designed to house 300 people. The old workhouse that stood in the Normandy was sold to the Rev. Jarvis Kenrick for £462.10s, it was rebuilt and turned into an alms-house; home for spinsters.[430] According to Burstow the Horsham Parish Workhouse, as it was known, was also a place where “the mad as well as the poor were kept”[431]. The poor continued to be a pressing problem for the community.

One of the issues for the Poor Law Commissioners was management and, as the old saying goes: if you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it. If there was no statistical information, how were agencies supposed to manage the problem? There was the Census but that was only every 10 years. So as part of the related issues concerning Poor law provision, an Act was passed “for the Establishment of a Registration of Births, deaths and Marriages in England”. On Wednesday 14  September 1836 a meeting was called by “The Gaurdian’ of the Poor of the Horsham Union” at the Workhouse to deal with the “Letter from the Poor Law Commission Office relating to the Duties which devolve on the Guardians under the Provision of the Act…and to divide the Union into such Districts as may be deemed most convenient and then named as “Registrars Districts” for the Registration of the Births Deaths and Marriages which may take place within them”. The letter requesting attendance at the meeting was sent out to John Browne. From now on every person born in England was recorded, as was their death. It meant that, if you were claiming relief for your children, there should be proof of them being born; if you were claiming for a wife, the same level of proof. It meant that Common-in-law wives were now of lesser status in the eyes of the law, not just the church; the state was now saying that only it could legally say if you were married. It also meant that you could no longer claim for dead people, as all deaths had to be recorded.

One side issue of this newly-formed legal status of marriage was the end of the tradition of wife sales. Wife sales are not unique to Horsham, though because Burstow mentioned them they have a particular Horsham connection. Burstow mentions the sale of a wife called Smart in 1820 for 3s 6d to a man named Steere in Billingshurst; she had two children by each man. Then Steere sold her to Greenfield for the same reason as the first sale. Another sale occurred in 1825, when a woman was sold for £2 5s, with the purchaser agreeing to take one of her three children. The final sale mentioned by Burstow was Ann Holland, who was sold for £1 10s; she entered the Market place with a halter round her neck and was sold to Johnson of Shipley who sold his watch to pay for her. She lived with him for a year and had one child. She then ran away, living happily with Jim Smith.[432]

WIFE SALES – A SOCIAL RESPONSE TO DIVORCE

The sale of wives was, in fact, a well thought out social response to failed marriages. Marriage[433] was, as has been seen throughout Horsham and the nation’s history, often an economic union as well as an emotional one. To many Elizabethan, and later, audiences the notion of Romeo and Juliet was as far removed from their life as a Farce or Greek tragedy: marriage was not about love. It was possible to get a divorce, but often by getting a private Act of Parliament to annul the marriage.

Amongst the wealthy it was easier to have mistresses and then either legitimise the illegitimate offspring, as Charles I and II did, by making them Dukes and Earls, or pay maintenance. To the poor this was not always possible. So the other hope was a quick death. Whilst this may seem heartless, the large number of children born to young wives put a severe strain on the physiology of women who were giving birth year after year from the age of 14 or so. It was not uncommon for the wife to die after 10 years of marriage and so the husband, who could be in his 30s or early 40s, could seek out a second wife, a younger woman. Or instead of waiting for death to call, or if the thought of taking a mistress or two was not practical, financially or otherwise; or murder (Anne Whale and Sarah Pledge for example),  it was possible in some societies to sell your wife.

It would appear from the records that the sale was a “done deal”. Before the day of the fair, discussions took place between the husband/vendor and husband/purchaser and the wife/chattel (after all, the Bible referred to women as chattels), the wife would walk around the fair with a halter offering herself for sale; everyone knew what was going on so the only purchaser would be the new husband, who would pay the nominal fee. This was a very public act showing that the wife now was divorced from one and remarried to a new husband. The Church would not recognise the marriage but, as Common in law wife, it did not matter. The first wedding in the Church was a Religious/public spectacle: the second wedding was a ritual/public spectacle that everyone was aware of. Now, though, with the act of Registering the marriage and the union in order to claim relief etc., the wife sales lost their status for, now, State law was involved. So after 1844 no more wife sales were recorded in Horsham.

The Horsham wife sales recollected by Burstow also recorded a shift in public response and change in the law. The sale that occurred in 1825 “caused offence to some who were present, and they reported the case to the magistrate, but the contracting parties, presumably satisfied, quickly disappeared, and I never heard any more about them”. The reason for the disquiet by the local population could well be because the wife was sold by a journeyman blacksmith, i.e. one not from within the community. As Burstow says, possibly reflecting the disquiet (though, not being born, how he would know unless told?) the Blacksmith exhibited the “greatest effrontery”. The fact that the Magistrate seems not to have punished them suggests the law kept out of such transactions. The final sale in 1844, after the law had been changed, saw a change in the publics response: now, “many people hissed and boo’d, but the majority took the matter good humouredly”[434] The community now knew that such transactions were no longer acceptable, showing contempt or disgust. The fact it was the last such “sale” shows the change in public attitudes.

The formation of the Union workhouse helped society cope, but there were also some other schemes. On Wednesday 19 April 1837, in the Town Hall, The Horsham Labourer’s Friend Society was formed; its membership consisting of 33 members who signed up to a set of rules that combined moral, spiritual and good horticultural practices. The purpose of the Society was letting out allotments to the poor of Horsham who abided by the rules and who could afford the rent. The following is based on an article by Norman Hewell[435] who had sight of some privately-owned documents concerning the Society.

Both Norman and William Albery link the formation of the Society to the long-term effect of removal of the Common by showing that the four plots of land were all situated on what used to be Horsham Common. Yet this is more historical accident than design, for ex-common land would have been the only plots of undeveloped land in Horsham near to where the poor families lived, and secondly, these families were not those “disposed” by Common enclosure some 24 years earlier, for as shown previously the disposed were burgage holders and, as far as it is possible to tell, none of the 33 members lived in burgage houses.

The formation of this Society had nothing to do with the “guilt”, if any was felt, of enclosure, but everything to do with helping people to help themselves. (In fact it has a remarkably modern feel to it, with today’s concept of foreign aid charities giving seed, help and assistance to grow crops rather than just food). If one looks at the ages of membership, five are over 60, seven are between 50 and 60, six are over 40 to 50, twelve, the largest number, are between 30 and 40 and three are between 20 and 30; there is a good age range, though most, eighteen, are over 40. When one looks at the number with children at home, i.e. mouths to feed, one would expect that as a charitable organisation it would focus on those with large families, but two had no children at all and others had between one and eight children at home.[436]

The rules of the Society stipulated that the allotment was not for livestock, for “every tenant to cultivate his allotment by the spade…No livestock to be allowed on the allotments”, that “potatoes were not to be planted without manure”, and that “not to plant more than one half with any one crop; nor to grow the same crop twice in succession on the same ground.”[437]

The Society’s rules also stipulated its key aim: “The tenant distinctly to understand that, as the objects of the Society are intended solely for his benefit, his continuing to retain his allotment will depend upon his own industry, sobriety and general good conduct…” For the allotment the tenant had to pay 12s 6d a year (5s Midsummer and 7/6 at Michaelmas) rent, which covered the church tithe as well as paying towards the upkeep of the fences. There were four allotment areas: Eastern, Dog and Bacon or North-West, Star and Shortsfield. Norman, in his article, states that “Some of the main landowners on Horsham Common gave land for this purpose…Robert Hurst, Duke of Norfolk and probably Mrs Elizabeth Bridger[438]. However, a comment by Albery: “The Balance sheet for 1850 shews that the Society paid £52 13s 0d rent for this land towards which the labourers paid £44 10s 4d. The balance of £8 2s 8d was paid from public subscriptions of £20 5s 0d”[439],  suggests that the land was not “given”; more set aside, with a rental income expected.

What is clear is that some landowners in Horsham owned unproductive land that was not being developed. They knew the land was poor quality, hence the stipulation concerning potatoes, manure and crop rotation. By setting it aside they relieved themselves of the church tithe and also received a modest income of around 34s an acre.[440]  By giving the labourers a helping hand they also relieved the possible drain on poor relief. The fact that it continued up to 1854, and possibly longer, with new members who split plots[441], shows how useful the Society was to sections of the Horsham poor.

There was in Horsham a scheme that we know about only through a stray couple of documents, but on internal evidence seems to have been a well thought out plan, that provided the very poor with flour during the winter of 1839. A manuscript report in the archives records “Horsham Subscription for the Relief of the Necesitious Poor in Flour” 1839. It goes on to state:

“The Committee have much pleasure in laying before the Subscribers the following Statement of the Distribution of the funds placed at their Disposal.

It will be recollected that the Principle of Relief at first proposed was that all the able bodied poor Persons residing in the Parish, with Families of not less than 3 Children, and not receiving Parochial Relief, should have a weekly allowance of Flour as long as the Funds might last, which it was hoped would be ‘till Lady Day, the subscriptions furnished however were so liberal that after the Distribution of this first mode of Relief during five weeks, commencing on the 1^st January, the Committee enabled on the 5^th Feby to extend relief to Families of two Children, and weekly allowances of Flour to both classes have been continued to the 16^th Inst…

The Committee are enabled to state that great good has been affected in the Period unusual Distress amongst their poorer neighbours, by the method of Relief adopted and have the further satisfaction of reporting to the subscribers that the recipients of their Bounty have, one and all, most gratefully received the allowances made to them”  In total, £199.9s 6d was subscribed, the last £11 being made up of 75 donations varying in 5s down to 6d.

The report, though, contains a remarkable set of statistics at the end: a table giving the number of families, number of children relieved and the real number relieved (children plus parents/guardians), as well as the cost of the flour from Mr William Sheppard and the total cost per week. The later two are not so interesting today as the actual number of poor people within the Parish of Horsham.

Date	No. of families	No. of children	Real numbers relieved
January 1st	28	128	184
8th	108	463	679
13th	130	551	811
22nd	141	594	876
29th	143	602	888
February 5th	181	689	1051
12th	197	727	1121
19th	202	740	1144
26th	202	740	1144
March     5th	200	734	1134
12th	200	734	1134
19th	201	738	1140
26th	202	740	1144
April      2nd	203	742	1148
9th	205	746	1156
16th	206	748	1160

The report was drawn up on 29 April 1839, and as mention is made of paying £1 for printing up 850 tickets, the relief was administered by means of tickets, and as 250 reports were published it suggests that there were around that number of subscribers.[442] 

The report does show that around one quarter of Horsham’s parish population was deemed poor, with nearly 750 poor children. It also suggests that four children per poor family was the most common family unit, though obviously some larger families would skew the results.

Not everyone was happy with the scheme: one arguing in an angry letter, which comes across by the crossings out, that the they, the poor, should have saved a “portion of their earnings in the Summer and Autumn had bn rewarded for their provident habbits by a three fold return in the Winter when their Earnings are ? and their wants greater…”  In a letter dated 1841, Pilfold Medwin declines attending a further meeting for “The Relief of the Poor”, which suggests the success of the scheme in 1839 caused it to be continued. In Medwin’s case he argued that in effect short-term relief was not the answer to the long-term issues of the poor. One such scheme was suggested: sending the poor to the North of England; internal emigration.

Possibly a more imaginative scheme to deal with the question of poverty was the promotion of emigration, not to the Colonies, which was being promoted and always seen as an escape route, but internal emigration, not to London but the growing manufacturing towns of the north of England. Unfortunately, not having seen the following publication all we can go on is its title, which sums up its purpose: “The advantages of migration to the manufacturing Districts, being the Report of Mr Charles Hunt one of the Guardians of the poor of the Horsham Union and of James Thornes of West Grinstead and William Rapley of Ifield two labourers of the Union of their Journey to Manchester”. (Albery mentions the following: “It gives an account of the adventures of two pauper families of nine members each of the Horsham Union who, ‘in their desire to rise from a state of distress and dependence to one of comfort and happiness…chose…to migrate’ details of the work and pay of six other families in the factories are given” It was published in January 1837[443]). This 8-page booklet, printed at the Horsham Press, was probably intended for the literate poor; those who wanted to make something better for themselves than stay in Horsham. By using two of “their own” to do the journey, it would have given the suggestion more credence than just the Guardians recommending it. Unfortunately we do not have any further details; for example, did the Poor Law Guardians pay for people to leave Horsham; how many took up the opportunity etc? Or if the Duke of Norfolk, who owned extensive estates in the industrialising region, was one of those encouraging the move (though his real interest was the development of his Sussex estates, with a laissez-faire attitude to his northern holdings).[444]

There is, though, an interesting follow-up to this publication. In the annual report of the Poor Law Commission published in 1835, Appendix C, number 5, is a copy of a letter from R. H. Gregg of Styal to Edwin Chadwick dated 17 September 1834. Chadwick was secretary to the Poor Law Commission and Gregg a factory owner, and whilst the extract is long it gives a flavour of the period and suggests that the publication might have been in direct response to a local person reading this account.

“I have for some time thought of addressing you on the same matter as my friend Ashworth did some time ago; namely, the propriety of opening a communication between our (strange to say) underpeople districts and the southern overpeopled one. It is at this moment a most important suggestion, and deserves to be put into immediate operation.

It must be looked upon as a happy coincidence that at the period of depriving or curtailing perhaps the facilities of gaining a livelihood to the people of one half of England, and causing a fall in their present low wages, and a scramble amongst them for employment, there should exist a difficulty in obtaining labourers at extravagant wages in these northern counties. This fortunate occurrence should be taken advantage of”

He then goes on to blame the Poor Laws for restricting movement of peoples before describing a situation that many in the south of England 150 years later could find echoes of:

“At this moment our machinery in one mill has been standing for 12 months for hands. In another mill we cannot start our new machinery for the same want. My parlours are without doors, having been sent some time since to be altered, and their progress having been stopped by a meeting of the joiners. The carpenter in the village in which I reside (12 miles from here) cannot get on with my work, having, as he says, been short of men all the year.” He would like a system set up that allowed employers to select from a list, thus providing employment for “surplus labourers of the south” rather than from Ireland. He goes on, “It must be understood at once, that we cannot do with refuse population and insubordinate sturdy paupers. We should require fair play. Hard working men, or widows with families, who preferred gaining an honest living to a workhouse, would, I am confident, be in demand”.

He ends the letter with a plea for education:

“Whilst food is cheap and wages high, the want of education (I do not merely mean the ability to read and write, which few here are without), but education which may affect manners, morals, and the proper use of their advantages, is extremely felt and to be deeply deplored. I do hope Government will not allow another session to pass without some struggle to effect this most desirable object”[445]

HORSHAM IN 1839

In 1839 Piggott and Co issued a volume of County Directories which gives a snapshot of the towns at the beginning of the Victorian era. Horsham covers just over two pages. Whilst a great deal of the information can be replicated decade after decade, it does contain some descriptions which give an idea of how Horsham was seen at the time.

“…in the centre of a fertile district, surrounded by varied and interesting scenery, with excellent turnpike roads branching in every direction. The houses are in general well built, and the streets well paved and lighted with gas. …Many good seats and mansions are in the vicinity of the town, and its inhabitants generally are of a respectable order. A very considerable local trade was some years since carried on here, which has in some degree declined since the removal of the barracks; its great thoroughfare situation, however, has hitherto ensured it a certain portion of business and consequence, and imparted an air of liveliness superior to  most other towns in the neighbourhood, but this advantage of situation will doubtless materially impaired when the railway shall be opened throughout from the metropolis to Brighton. A great quantity of poultry is reared in this vicinity, for the London market; and it contains quarries of excellent stone, which is used for flooring, paving &.c.” It then goes on to describe the courts, churches and chapels and schools, before ending up with a calendar of fairs; six in total, ending with the following: “The borough and parish of Horsham, contained in 1831, 5,105 inhabitants.” The directory then identifies various businesses under certain headings which makes for fascinating reading for family historians. Under Nobility, Gentry and Clergy some 64 men and women are identified, though some of them lived more than five miles away. The following businesses are listed with the number of establishments or practitioners identified.

Business	Number in Horsham  (number listed in Directory)	Comments
Academies and schools	7 (7)	2 boarding schools, a British School in Carfax, a National school in Church, Infants School in Backlane
Attorneys	4	One partnership, three single practice
Auctioneers & Appraisers	3	Chas Hunt was a sheriff officer also
Bakers	11	3 of whom were also confectioners
Bankers	2/3	2 banks, one local and one London Branch and the Horsham Savings Bank
Basket makers	2
Blacksmiths	7 (9)	2 were village based, one was also veterinary surgeon, three were in the Carfax
Booksellers & Printers	5	One was printer & binder, another a printer, two sisters Elizabeth and Mary Ireland ran a library as well,
Boot & Shoe Makers	19 (24)	5 are village based; only one, John Richardson, called himself a seller
Brewers & Malsters	2	Both based in the Carfax
Brick makers	2	Both on the Common
Bricklayers	5
Butchers	10 (11)	One village based, 2 in Butchers row, Carfax, East St, West St
Cabinet Makers	2
Carpenters	9	One was also a builder (Honywood Thos & Jun)
Cattle salesmen	3	All in the Carfax, none of whom were auctioneers
Chair makers & turners	3
China, glass &c., dealers	3	Including Scrace who would become noted bottle manufacturer
Chymists & Druggists	3
Coach makers	2
Coal merchants	3 (4)	One village based
Coopers	3
Corn & Flour chandlers	10	2 were also seedman, one a flour dealer
Currier and leather seller	1
Fire & Office Agent	6	Including one for Sun, another Royal Exchange, another Phoenix
Fruiterers	3	One was also a confectioner
Furniture brokers	2
Grocers &Tea Dealers	7 (9)	2 village based. One was also a cheesemonger, another a draper, whilst another also ran an Italian warehouse
Gun makers and Cutlers	2
Hair dressers	3	Mr Attree had a shop in East and West Street
Inns	5	Two were listed “and Commercial”, whilst Edward Lee of the Carfax had no named property
Ironmongers	4	One was also gunsmith
Linen Drapers	7	5 were based in West Street. 3 were “and clothes salesman and hatter”, one of whom was John Browne
Malsters	2
Millers	8 (9)	One village (Shearmark), 2 on the Common
Milliners and Dressmakers	5	One listed as a dressmaker, another as a milliner
Nursery and Seedmen	3	One listed as a gardener
Painters, plumbers and glaziers	5	3 of whom were in West St
Patten Makers	2	One was also a clog maker
Poulterers	2
Sadlers	3	Including Albery
Shopkeepers & Dealers in Groceries & Sunderies	11 (16)	5 were Warnham village based with one at Warnham court
Spirit Merchants	4	One also sold ale and porter
Stone Masons	3	One was also a statuary and builder
Straw hat makers	5
Surgeons	5	4 operated in the Carfax; one was a M.D.
Tailors and Drapers	9 (10)	One was village based, one was also a hatter
Tallow chandlers	2	Thos. Evershed was also a soapmaker
Tanner	2
Taverns & Public Houses	11 (21)	10 were village based
Tea Dealers	3	One also sold tobacco
Timber merchant	2 (3)	One in a village, one was a “lath render”
Watch & clock makers	3	One also a silversmith, another was a “clock manufacturer”
Wheelwrights	4 (5)	One village based.

Under the miscellaneous section a number of other individuals are listed: cabinet maker, paper hanger, tobacco pipe maker, upholsterer, accountant, staymaker, glover and gaiter maker, tin-plate worker and brazier, millwright, hatter and stamp distributor, 

The directory is very revealing in what it says about the social structure of Horsham. For amongst the 64 gentry listed, eight lived on the Common. What you are seeing occurring in Horsham is the colonisation of the Common. As mentioned previously, some of the unproductive Common land was turned over to the The Horsham Labourer’s Friend Society in 1837, who had strict rules on the management of the land. However, by 1839 it would seem that a number of minor gentry; those that Piggotts directory identified as “Nobility, Gentry and Clergy”, were buying up parts of the Common to build houses. This is almost counter-intuitive.

One would expect the Common to be the least sought-after social address, its history as a place where people in the 17^th and 18^th  century encroached, where part of it was called “grub hill” (18^th century London had Grub Street where mountbanks, prostitutes and journalists/hack writers lived, an area that had previously been used to discard London’s refuse – was grub hill a similar spot, on the boundary of Horsham borough where the town refuse was thrown?), where the soil was poor quality and, more importantly, a place of outsiders, those who had no political voice. This mixture of factors would suggest that the common would not be the place to live. And yet by 1839, some 25 years after enclosure, it was being given as the address of some of the top echelons of society. Why? What was happening? It was not overcrowding. Horsham borough was not crowded: there were large tracts of land available for development, i.e. Horsham Park, as well as land behind North Street and by the River, part of Hewells Manor. Perhaps the town life had lost its appeal; the directory might refer to Horsham in glowing terms, but near contemporary illustrations show it not to be the case.

Politically the status of Horsham town houses changed; after all, from 1832 you no longer needed to own a burgage house to vote, and thus a diminution in status (if it ever existed). Perhaps it was a social condition. As a rule wealthy people live higher up than the poor (Penthouse suites are on the top floor of a block of flats); the Common land was on higher ground and, all things being equal, colonisation occurred on land that was higher up; hence North Street saw the building of large houses in the 1830s, only to reverse with the coming of the railway[446]. The main advantage for the landowner, though, was the amount of land available; it was possible to build larger houses because the land was cheap. Another factor was the size of the Common, stretching for nearly one square mile the Common could be zoned into social areas. Piggott’s Directory mentions “Common” because the colonisation of the land had not developed at such a pace to give more detailed geographic identity; there were no street or road names yet. In time it would come, and then the address of “the Common” would change, becoming more narrowly defined geographically, to being seen almost as a badge of identity that other areas within the town never had [447], linked to a social group. (The nearest thing to it was Burstow describing the Bishopric/Rookery area).

Who wrote the account on Horsham is not given, though it is likely to have been drafted in 1838, or very early in 1839, as there is no mention of the new Church being proposed; nor is the rebuilding of Collyer’s mentioned below. As for the range of businesses being carried out in Horsham, they reveal a wide-ranging diversity that suggests some of the traders’ hinterland spread further than just Horsham and its immediate vicinity. For example: the provider of Italian products, or three chairmakers and 19 shoemakers, 2 coach makers, four clockmakers. What is particularly interesting in light of what has been mentioned before, is that there was only one library, run by two sisters, or mother and daughter, and that seems to be a circulating library where books could be bought outright or, in effect, “rented”: bought and sold back to the retailer at a small loss. Such circulating libraries were a common feature of the Victorian era. In a town that had a long history of book clubs and libraries this is surprising. 

It could be poor data gathering, or, the criteria used for the selection of the data meant that libraries attached to clubs, societies and other institutions were not recorded, for we know that the Mechanics Institute had a library and that is not mentioned.[448] What this might represent is in effect a free market library; one that anyone could belong to and not associated with institutions or societies. Or, and more likely at a time when books were expensive, even after the Bentley novels with their reduced price structure,[449] new books were beyond the price of most purchasers in Horsham and this offered a service.

However, in a letter in the Browne papers there is mention being made of a Literary Scientific Institution, suggesting that it existed before 1840. The letter, which is a draft/copy, raises a number of issues that will be discussed below. In many respects it gives a real flavour of Horsham at this time.

Horsham Feb 8^th 1840

“Sir

Mr Pennyfeather has called upon me today and expressed an opinion that you thought, that I as a dissenter should have some objection to your joining the Literary Scientific Institution

In this case you have mistaken my feelings on this subject; (nothing would give me greater pleasure, than having the honour of introducing you to the members (crossed out))

I should consider it an honour to (ho) introduce you to the members and nothing would give me greater pleasure than to propose you as a proper person to fill the place in the ? that has become vacant by the resignation of Mr ?

The letter then changes tack completely:

“I have offered the Society the use of, for one year a hundred volumes from my Library and to satisfy you that I have no intention of propagating any opinion in the society contrary to the church I am willing you should (have) select them-

My object in joining the society is not the ? purpose of propagating irreligious theories but of obtaining the use of works that cost more than £3 each and (getting) having ? opportunity for myself and family to attend the lectures

Works of under £1 if I want them I prefer purchasing myself and daily paper I cannot afford the time to read

I remain Sir

Your most respectably

John Bowne”

The letter suggests that the Society was more a private club with limited number of members, and membership was open only to those who were nominated. William Albery suggests that the formation of such a society led to a decline in political agitation[450], yet this is probably reading too much into its establishment; there were other reasons, far more complex than the creation of a Society, for the decline in radicalism. Also, the Society itself was not radical; whilst it was a Literary and Scientific Society, such discussions that took place could only do so within a framework of Church of England doctrine; it was conservative in outlook. One of the Society’s aims was to build up a library of the more expensive publications; those over £3, which as mentioned above was quite a common price for books.[451]  

This suggests that the Society had a room somewhere where the books were held and where members could read the daily paper(s). Browne was obviously well-known for his views, and the view had obviously been expressed that his books might be propagating dissent. It should also be noted that Browne was not excluded from the Society and that he had some status within it. This also reinforces the notion that Horsham’s radicalism had died down or mellowed by this time, or if it had existed, it was political, not social, intellectual or religious. For if there was a strong radical movement such a movement could have created its own library. With a large subscription base, membership fees would have been low enough to encourage membership and purchase of the more expensive books, as well as attract lecturers. The fact that Browne joined a Society which was obviously at variance with his views suggests that this was not available in the town.

Another incident that shows the decline of radicalism, and also the fear of it by the authorities, is told through the Brighton newspapers. On 2 May 1839 a meeting of the “Working classes and other inhabitants” took place in the Hurst Arms to meet a deputation of the Brighton Radical association in support of “A peoples Charter and National Petition”. However, the meeting was swamped with local Tories who managed to take the chair and passed a resolution:

“That it is the opinion of this meeting that the purpose for which it was originally called was to mislead the loyal inhabitants of this Town, moiré particularly the poor and working classes, and to excite them to acts of sedition, treason and insubordination; and that this meeting considers the object of the Chartists (as they cal themselves) to be wholly at variance with the peace, welfare, and good order of the community, and calculated to destroy all good feelings and loyalty among Her Majesty’s well disposed subjects”.[452]  Less than 7 years after the mass meetings calling for the vote in Horsham, the local Tories could dominate a public meeting, passing this and the following resolution:

“That this meeting does pledge itself to use all means in its power to prevent any itinerant exciters of sedition and disaffection from disseminating their various and mischievous principles in the Parish of Horsham, and to guard the poor and working and other classes from being misled and entrapped by these their worst enemies”.[453]

Horsham was not a town in which to promote Chartism: the Tories had got the upper hand, which explains why Browne’s letter is so explicit in its content; he was not a troublemaker.

Collyer’s school, mentioned along with six others in the Directory, under the watchful eye of the Mercer Company, continued to provide basic education for some of the poor children of Horsham. They attended a building that like the church nearby was in need of constant patching up. The amount of income generated in booming London by the estate owned by Collyer in the 16^th century was generating sizable returns; more than enough to pay teaching staff. When Pirie, the headmaster, and his Usher asked for a rise in 1832, the tercentenary of the Founders drafting his will, which set the school up, it was turned down. The reason was remarkable because it showed the Company had every intention to stay in Horsham. As they replied to Pirie, “The buildings are in good repair but they are very old and a fund must be built up for re-building”[454]. Some five years later the Company surveyor, Mr George Smith, noted that £1,040 was needed to repair the building (so the previous statement is unlikely to be that truthful); and he suggests a complete rebuild.

The following year, 1839, the Master of the Company and the house Warden visited Horsham and decided to rebuild the school. By now £1,700 had been saved in the fund, but the company could only expect £150 from public subscription. George Smith decided that if a new school was to be built, it should look late-Elizabethan in style and be made from red brick. The total cost would be £2,240, which would include “stone embellishments to make the building worthy of the Mercers’ Company and its architect”. On 29 May 1840 a contract was awarded to the builder James Little and Son, London. A year later the new school building opened for teaching.

A year later a further £400 had to be spent on the building. Before agreeing to the expenditure, a review of the school took place which proved satisfactory. Interestingly, the review commented on the teaching rather than the actual physical school building, and that side proved satisfactory for what was in effect an elementary school. However, the story does not end there. In the early 1990s the curator received an enquiry from an architectural historian asking about the school and if we had any pictures of it. As he explained on the phone, all the buildings designed by this architect had fallen into disrepair soon after construction; many, in fact, were pulled down within a few years as they were not worth repairing, which puts a request for a further £400 in a different light. In fact, the school building survived for over a century.

What Collyer’s school rebuilding shows is a confidence in Horsham’s poor to better themselves. If Horsham was a radical hotbed, as some would have us believe, the deeply-conservative Mercers’ Company would not seek to invest a sizeable sum in a new school: it could have just patched up the old building. After all, it had no legal obligation to provide a new school building and the Town was not coming forward with financial support. The Company obviously saw something; perhaps the quality of the education encouraged the investment, as both the 1839 report and the 1841 commented favourably on it.[455]

The rebuilding of Collyer’s may have been the encouragement needed for the National School, first opened in 1812 by Rev. George Marshall, to move out of the Church Porch[456] to a gothic-styled building in North Street next to St Mark’s Church. This was for boys only: the girls were still at the Denne Park “lodge” site. The building of St Mark’s was the most prominent public building erected in Horsham in the 19^th Century. The building could also be seen as a public response to poverty in the town for, according to comments made in 1988, the church was built for the poor of Horsham.[457] Whilst nothing was written to that effect in the church history, the fact that the church “originally contained 516 sittings, 450 of which were free and unappropriated for ever”[458] does suggest it. However, according to an account written in a letter, the building was brought about by overcrowding of St Mary’s, as Henry Michell wrote to the new Vicar Hodgson, “…when you Sir, took the charge of this Parish, you found the Parish Church crowded, and , in consequence of the want of sufficient accommodation therein for the parishioners a new Church was in the course of erection to supply the deficiency”.[459]

The appeal for the Church was launched on 7 May 1839. The site was given by Thomas Coppard, who became a churchwarden. He had bought the land, which was called The George Mead, from The Duke of Norfolk for £220. It was a large enough plot to house the future Church, St Marks school and St Mary’s School, together with the roadway that led on to Park street.[460] Along with the land, he gave £50 towards the building costs. The Museum archives hold a “West District Collection For the New Chapel” note book with a list of the four collectors and an alphabetical list of donations.

Amongst the 131 donors listed are: Mr A Bazalgette who gave £5, obviously connected to the famous civil engineer, Broadwood, of the famous piano family, who gave £100, Sir G. M. Burrell who gave £50, the Diocesan Association gave £220, Sir Henry Fletcher £100, (he would later pay for a new church at Southwater), the Incorporated Society £300, Revs. Kenrick and Simpson £100 each, Marchioness of Northampton £50. The least amount donated was 2/6, with most of the subscriptions (82) being £5 or under, clearly suggesting its status as the poor man’s church. The amount collected, £1,967, was obviously not enough, for a second subscription took place when 24 subscribers gave over £136, the lowest being 10s and the largest amount £25, by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The final page of the note book lists further names, with no details of donations, including Sir T. Shelley. This suggests that the collectors were targeting certain donors, a ploy that is common practice today by charities. As two of the names are crossed off the list they may have subscribed at a later date, whilst no-one on the list appears in the list of donations given.[461] 

The building, designed by C. Mozeley, cost £3,600, paid for by a £300 grant from the Incorporated Church Building Society, and £200 from the Chichester Diocesan Society, making £3,100 raised by local donations, and by 1841 it had been built with its Consecration service taking place on 3 June 1841.

Originally referred to as a Chapel of Ease, it consisted of a nave, aisles, and ‘sacrarium” in a “lean Gothic style”. [462] It was whilst the Chapel was being built that the Great Horsham Iguanodon was found, as recounted by George Bax Holmes in Hurst’s Horsham: Its History & Antiquities published some 19 years later: “The remains of this iguanodon were discovered behind North Street, in Horsham, in a field belonging to Sir Henry Fletcher, Bart. They were imbedded in the sandstone employed in the construction of the Chapel of Ease on the opposite side of the road. Many of the bones of this extinct herbivorous reptile were exhumed there, but in so friable a state that it was with difficulty they could be removed.” [463]

This was the largest fossil iguanodon found and some 10 years later it would be used to create the celebrated Crystal Palace dinosaurs in Sydenham Park. As Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins described in 1854: “These restorations of the iguanodon I made from the measurements of the great Horsham specimen, as the largest is called, from its having been found and carefully preserved by Mr Holmes, surgeon, at Horsham, who has bestowed much care and attention on the development of the great fossils found in his neighbourhood, among which are the largest known specimens of the bones of Iguanodon, having also the greater value of being found together, evidently belonging to one individual. These he kindly placed at my service for comparison with the better-known Maidstone specimen now in the British Museum. The bones are now part of the Brighton & Hove City council collections held at Booth Museum.

The Reverend Jarvis Kenrick, who was a curate of Horsham, instigated the setting up of the National School which later took the name St Mark’s school[464] and, according to Audrey Robinson, he paid for the building out of his own pocket.[465]  The creation of  a National school next to St Mark’s reveals something about Horsham and the treatment of the poor. Collyer’s school was built near St Mary’s and the Vicar had an intimate role to play in its administration, for good or ill, as Rev. H. J. Rose wrote in 1822 that he would “rejoice sincerely if it could be shewn that I had no concern with the school whatever”.

However, The Rev. Marshall had established a National School in the Church Porch in 1812. That school was now closed down and moved away from the main church to a new church built for the overflowing congregation. This congregation were the poor of the town; the affluent still going to St Mary’s. Collyer’s school was rebuilt with substantial investment by the Mercers, but only £150 from the town, yet the townsfolk willingly paid over £3,000 for a church. Not only was the school rebuilt, it was not increased in size allowing for more poor children to attend. There is a whiff in the air of the Church dividing, with the schools becoming used as a tool in social and civic engineering. St Mary’s and Collyer’s for the favoured few and St Mark’s and the National School for the un-favoured, for St Mark’s was never truly incorporated into the financial administration of the Church, its funding coming from  pew rents and offertory[466]  (the Church authorities never really wanted it, something that its history suggests was the case).[467]  It is interesting to note that, clearly, from the illustrations we have of St Mary’s Church at this time, the Church was in a poor state of repair, but rather than raise funds to pay for its restoration the Church authorities spent time and money on building a church for the poor of the town – good Christian charity, or a way to remove them from the congregation. It should also be remembered that the creation of the Workhouse removed the very poor from the Church’s doorstep.

The building of a new Church at St Marks was not the only ecclesiastical building going on. In 1840 the new Reverend, The Rev. J. F. Hodgson, sold the old vicarage site to the Parish, and with this and a grant from Queen Anne’s Bounty built a new one which is still in use today (2006). The vicarage site which was adjacent to the Lollard’s Tower was turned over for burials.[468] Within the space of the three or four years that the land around the Church had been transformed, there was a transformation in the geography of the poor in Horsham. No longer was the Church the physical centre of helping the poor. In 1838-9 the Workhouse was built on Crawley road and the old workhouse rebuilt as an almshouse for 15 aged widows or spinsters of the parish in 1842.[469]  Collyer’s school was rebuilt, the poor who overcrowded the Church were moved off site by 1841, the school for the poor in the Church was closed down and the vicar now had a home fit for his station. Gentrification of this area of Horsham had occurred. Was there a master plan or was it coincidence? We do not know, but what we do know is that around £12,000 was spent on these new structures (£4,878 for the workhouse, £462 for the almshouses, £3,600 on the St Mark’s church, £2,900 on Collyer’s school and the new National School); this either reflected an idea of helping the poor, or, removing the poor from public gaze. The possible rise in gentrification of Horsham, of growing expectation of the middle classes away from radicalism of the late 1820s to perceived middle class Victorian values of the 1850s and 60s might also be seen in the creation of a new journal/newspaper/ magazine. The monthly “The Horsham Record. Gratuitous Adviser and Miscellany of Literature, Science and the arts” published by William Laker of West Street, Horsham. The 8-page publication had a very short run: 13 February to October 1840; 9 issues in all. At the time of publication, the tax regime made publication of any newspaper expensive; there were taxes on adverts and on the newspaper itself, the stamp duty. (Advertising tax was removed in 1853 and newspaper tax in 1855.) The publisher therefore had to come up with a skilful tax avoidance scheme, for if not, the publication would be too expensive to buy. To avoid paying advertising tax, William Laker put the adverts in for free, but those placing the advert had to guarantee to buy a certain number which they could then retail, thus ensuring wide-scale distribution without the distribution costs. Then, to avoid paying stamp duty, there would be no news as such, though later issues did contain some news. The aim of the publication was to promote trade, but its content very much mirrors the notion of gentrification of Horsham. As the editorial statement makes clear, it was “to furnish a cheap Miscellany of what is new in science, useful in art, instructive in education, sublime and pathetic in poetry, interesting in literature, and amusing in anecdotes, narratives and miscellaneous subjects”.[470] It failed. Why? Perhaps Horsham was not as genteel as William Laker had hoped. But it does show that a businessman had read the signs in the town and assumed it was ripe for such a publication.

---

Perhaps one of the signs the businessman looked at was the accounts of the Horsham Savings Bank. For the accounts show a steady increase in the amount of savings as at 20 November.

Year	No. of depositors	0- £20*	20-50	50-100	100-150	150-200	Total saved**
1838	460	228	157	54	16	5	£12761.14s7d
1839	502	256	164	59	19	4	£13754.13s8d
1840	532	282	159	69	18	4	£14578.0s7d

* The figure given is “not exceeding” for all amounts

** Excludes Charitable and Friendly Societies

Two other tables are revealing as they show the amount of money “received of Depositors”, “Sums paid to Depositors, and the balance due”.

Year	Received of depositors	Sums paid to Depositors	Balance due at 20th Nov.
1838	£3034.6s.0d	£2451.10s.5d	£13802.4s.3d
1839	£3216.11s8d	£2395.17s.6d	£15111.19s 4d
1840	£3178.3s.0d	£3037.3s1d	£15770.15s.6d

.

The middle-class virtue of saving for the future was spreading through the town area’s working class as the Savings Bank continued to grow. Horsham was recovering from the financial problems of the early part of the decade, so setting up a magazine may not have been as rash, as seen from the very short duration.

On Monday 28 June 1841 the Horsham Provident & Friendly Institution was formed.[471] Unfortunately we know very little about the original organisation, though a copy of the new rules agreed in 1850 does survive which gives an indication as to its aims and purpose. The “mission statement” of the organisation is: “The object of this Society is to raise a fund by the contribution of the members, for the relief of such of the society, by sickness or accident, be rendered incapable of following their usual trade or occupation, subject to the following rules”. In the new rule book there were 31 rules: obviously an organisation that believed in control and discipline, rather than the honesty of fellow man. In the introduction the Society states that the reasons for the “Rules and Orders” are:

I -The charge is so small, and the advantages so great, that it must induce every member to use his utmost endeavours for its advancement and prosperity.

II – By the care that is taken for a due decorum as to the behaviour of the members,  we hope it may be the means of promoting good manners and civil conversation.

III – That when it may please God to afflict any member with sickness, &c he will here find that relief which will be a comfort to him, when perhaps neither his own circumstances, nor any friend at the time, might be able to afford him necessary relief.

LASTLY – That as it is the intention of this society to encourage sobriety, industry, morality, and civility, it is earnestly requested that none be recommended to become members who are known to be an idle or quarrelsome disposition.”

By 1850 the organisation was also known as The Dog and Bacon Society because it met there. The age of members was to be above 16, but below 40, with membership fee being 1/6d a month and 3d if in receipt of a payment. The rule book is a fascinating document because it mirrors the role that organisation and structure were playing in 19^th century society. Society was becoming more managed: work, home and civic life.

We have been looking at the poor of Horsham; what about the middle class, or those who owned land and or a property? A significant change occurred in 1836 when The Tithe Commutation Act was passed. The tithe was a tax of one-tenth paid to the church, or to whomever owned the right to the tithe. When tithes were initiated the payment was made with goods; hence the number of tithe barns, which held the tithe for the Church or tithe owner. It was, in effect, a tax on property. Part of the 1830/31 unrest was the church tithe; it was a major area of conflict.

In 1835 payment in kind changed to a rent charge on the land. This was a revolution in how land was looked on, for now you had to pay for the exact amount of land down to within one rod, pole or perch (1/160^th part of an acre) you owned, not what you approximately owned. The realisation of this led to demands for detailed surveys to be drawn up. In 1840 a team of cartographer/surveyors came to Horsham and started to draw the first detailed survey of the Parish and, importantly, Horsham. To ensure  accuracy, the survey was done on the large scale.

What impact did it have? For most people in Horsham it would be the first time their property was mapped. We take maps for granted and, whilst they have a long history, a detailed map of an area for any other purpose than producing an accurate record of what existed at the time it was surveyed is a relatively recent phenomenon: only some 160 years or so. Horsham Museum holds maps of Horsham going back to 1735,[473] but those maps drawn for a purpose do not illustrate the whole town or even part of the town: they are filters; the surveyor has filtered out the unwanted leaving only that which was required.

Even the survey of 1814/15 of Horsham produced for the Duke of Norfolk when Horsham was resettled, along with his other property, on his third cousin, Bernard Edward Howard of Glossop[474], only records in detail the land connected with the resettlement: the same goes for the Enclosure award map produced three years earlier. Whilst the map was not readily available for all and sundry to look at, copies were given to the Parish office enabling landowners/church authorities to check the drawing in case of dispute. It would be the first time that the mental map of Horsham would become a two-dimensional map.

Mental maps are where we create our own sense of a place based on our perceptions. So a distance that takes ten minutes to walk because it is uphill may well be given a longer line length than a distance that takes eight minutes to walk even though the actual distance is the same. Or an area obscured by a building will be guessed at by our reaction to the outside; we record the area by known markers. When a true map is drawn and surveyed the unknown is known and the reality of what actually exists becomes apparent. For the first time, the property owners now related to each other geographically; they could see where they related to their neighbours, and they could also see proportionately what they owned. What effect this had on the mentalities of this group of people cannot be known as it was not recorded, but if you, the reader, think back to when you looked at a detailed OS map of the area where your house is, you can then place yourself within a context.

The creation of the tithe map could have had significant impact on the psychology of those who saw it. However, the other impact was on the amount of tithe payable. As I write this the Government of the day has just cancelled a major rateable revaluation exercise. This tithe map would have been the first such exercise carried out across the Parish at the same time. It may well have caused resentment. Then in 1841 the Government Census was carried out, which now recorded place of residence, date of birth and occupation of residents. The findings from this survey, and possibly the complaints (or, possibly, perceived inaccuracies: for example, in 1840, Sussex Place in London Road was shown as a block, and in 1844 it was shown sub-divided into a number of dwellings) made about it, led to a new survey being carried out in 1844 with the associated Tithe Apportionment record. 

The 1841 census revealed that Horsham had grown. According to Haines the population in 1841 was 5,765 up from 3,240 in 1801. However, the Victoria County History gives an urban population of 1,539 in 1801, rising to 1,714 in 1810. Though VCH also notes that “the figures given for 1801-21, however, seem likely to include inhabitants of St Leonard’s Forest in Lower Beeding, as those for 1831-1841 certainly do. From 1851 Horsham Parish is recorded by itself.” [475] However, according to Piggott, cited above, the Borough and Parish of Horsham had 5,104 inhabitants, and by 1841 it had increased by around 660; the rate of increase is roughly the same for each decade, assuming the areas included in the census returns are the same.

1841, the year of the census and the opening of St Mark’s, also saw Henry Michell move his brewery from the premises in the Carfax to the West Street brewery in the spring of that year. The move cost £1,000. As Henry wrote, “the cost of removal seemed to be a very great sacrifice, but I had no alternative, as Mr. Allen was a man it was impossible to do business with on any fair terms, and in giving up these premises I also had to give up three public houses rented with them, viz, the Dog and Bacon Inn, Horsham …(two others outside Horsham)..:this with the decrease of trade consequent on the completion of the London & Brighton Railway greatly diminished the business prospects for the future. However, I was so well pleased with the new premises and the terms upon which I held them from Sir Timothy Shelley, that I was in high sprits…”[476] The memorandum book also refers to improved harvests in 1839, 40 & 41 which would have relieved some of the social pressures on society.

Whilst the railway was not to arrive in Horsham until 1848, the impact of it on the economic stability of Horsham was given by Henry in his account of his business career. In 1835 Henry became a brewer in Horsham; he also entered the coal trade with a wharf at Bines bridge, the nearest canal to Horsham, some five miles away. However, in the April of that year he visited Crawley and bought a pub, The Plough, for £700 including 12 acres of land. The following year he started to make bricks on the site. Then in 1839 with the Brighton line being built running near the inn he “made a great many for the railway …which however, turned out an unfortunate speculation, but I afterwards let it at remunerative rent and very soon was applied to sell some of the land for building.” He goes on to explain that he resumed brickmaking and made £1,000 by it. He also sold beer at the pub: this, the brickmaking and the rental income “resulted in a clear profit to us from first to last amounting to nearly £5,000”.[477] Just as today Britain benefits from profits made in foreign countries as these profits go back to British-based companies, so Horsham would have benefited by Henry Michell’s investment in Crawley, which itself benefited from the coming of the railway to Three Bridges. Although Henry kept different accounts to show the degree of profitability of each aspect of his business, there may have been cross-subsidy going on enabling him to invest in the new brewery at Horsham, though he noted that in 1839 he made a clear profit from brewing beer of £1000.[478] 

Near to the old brewery site, Richmond Terrace was built giving views across the Carfax. Obviously, Horsham was developing a middle class which would aspire to this terrace of houses with its Doric porches which dates to around 1840; in fact, may date to the time after Michell moved to West Street. The previous decade had seen some degree of fluidity in the social structure of the town. This was mirroring society itself with the establishment of a middle class. Just as the medieval borough status was destroyed in this decade, so the medieval notions of housing changed. Up to the 19^th century it was common to live next to the place of work, be it a small cottage industry or shop. Whilst that did not disappear, a notable number of people now moved away from their workplace. There was also housing built in what were once industrial areas; Denne Road had a terrace of middle class houses built in 1836, whilst Albion Terrace was also built around that time, and along London Road a number of “villas” were built.[479]

Equally, the architectural structure of the house changed. The middle classes were now expecting to have houses built with rooms for maids. The rise in population led to large pools of cheap labour being taken on in domestic service. Whilst it was common for the larger houses: Hills, Park House, and Springfield Park, to have a number of servants, it does not seem to have been the case for the non-professional class; they would rely on family members. (Sarah Hurst’s diary does not record any servants employed by her family, whereas John Baker, who lived at Park House, does). By the 1840s the expectation was that an aspiring family would have a maid living within the house complex. This enabled the rituals of home life to become more and more structured and codes of behaviour to become established; the employment of a servant living within the house created the “typical” Victorian scene.

As labour increased in supply so more servants were employed and houses developed rooms that could only function as intended with servants; without them they became an anachronism and, particularly in the 20^th century, were often knocked together, so losing their function completely – the fate of the with-drawing room. Richmond Terrace was built for families who had servants, the owners living in effect in the middle floors, with servants on the ground floor (The reason for the steps up to the porch was that cellars and basements were not practical).

The influence of the aspiring middle classes could be seen in the development at the Kings Head. The red brick extension built in East Street around 1840 contained a first-floor assembly room lit by three large, arched windows. This could be seen as a response to the railway, as the Kings Head was the major Coaching Inn of the 1830s, but now with a railway line to Brighton the trade would have diminished.[480] Equally it could reflect the growing development of clubs, societies and social functions. (By 1866 the rooms could seat c500[481]). In 1840 one such society was formed, The Horsham Literary and Scientific Institute[482], though it disappeared from the records, reappearing in 1847. In fact, a copy of a letter in the Browne papers quoted above suggests the society was formed before 1840. In the same year, Horsham Volunteer Fire Brigade was established “when the fire Brigade was organised with tradesmen in pot hats as firemen”[483], and the engine housed near the Old Town Hall with payment for the cleaning and maintenance of the Engine coming from the Lighting and Watching Inspector’s accounts. By 1842 a new Society was formed, the Horsham Library Society.

The Horsham Library Society was short-lived (1842-44), so the minutes in the bound minute book[484] fill very few pages; William Albery filled the rest with his notes on the town history. The folio-size book, with reversed leather and red stamped leather label, suggests that the members of the society thought it would be a permanent institution. It was not to be, lasting only a couple of years. The eight closely-written pages of the constitution at the front of the minute book suggest that there was some degree of nervousness on behalf of the authorities at this time, for the Constitution almost sets out in micro-management detail exactly how the Society was to be run: for example, item 15 states: “That the mode of Election of the Committee shall be by each member of the Society being supplied by the secretary with a list of the Names of all the members, from which he may select six, & send their names in a closed packet to the secretary, who shall open it, & declare before the General Annual Meeting the individuals who had a majority of votes to be elected.” It also stipulated that the President, Vice president, 12 Committee members and officers of the Society had to be “bona fide members of the Church of England”. 

Whilst Catholic emancipation had been passed in 1828, and the Toleration Acts some 200 years earlier, there was no place in this society management for anyone but Church of England. Not only that, but the President was to be the Vicar; the vice president to be the Minister of St Mark’s church and the curate. There was also “The Book Committee” consisting of three members, one of whom had to be a clergyman. Page after handwritten page it goes into details: for example, committee meetings to start at 8pm and finish before 10pm, that members, if expelled and lose the appeal, can never rejoin. Clearly there is every intention to show that the Library was not going to be a hotbed of discussion, division or dissent.

As for the actual books themselves, they had to be vetted by the Book Committee and contain no “irreligious tendency or otherwise inconsistent with the objects of this Society”, and “that any Book should have made its way into the Library decidedly at variance with the objects of the Society, the Committee may determine that the Circulation of such Book shall be suspended”. Members could borrow one book a fortnight, unless it was a large Quarto or folio, when they were given three weeks to read it. Fines were levied for late returns: 2d for the first week, 4d for the second, 1 shilling for the third, and if not returned then the actual cost of the book, or set of books, it came from. In all there were 62 rules and obligations set out before the Society was formed.

In 1843 the Society published its “First Annual Report”, a copy of which was amongst the Browne papers. Here it shows that the Library Society started on 1 October 1842 with 85 members, but the number of members fell to 57 by the fourth quarter (membership was based on quarterly subscriptions in advance); that for the first year £28 4s 0d was received in subscriptions but £47 6s 6d was also received as donations, with over £42 received in the first quarter to, it would seem, cover costs of establishment. The list of donors is interesting, with the two reverends, Hodgson and Bridges, giving £5 each along with Mr Coppard; Admiral Sir J H Whitshed gave £2 as did T. Broadwood, Mr Browne gave 10 shillings and to show that it was not an all-male society, two wives and two single ladies also gave donations.

One name that stands out though is A. Bazalgette who donated £1. Bazalgette is one of the most important names in civic engineering, as Joseph William Bazalgette became chief engineer to the Metropolitan board of works from 1855-89, sorting out London’s chronic sewage and drainage problem, constructing the Thames embankment and constructing numerous bridges. He was knighted in 1874.[485]  The connection between the two has not yet been ascertained, but with such an unusual name there must be some association.

Within the first year, the society had bought “nearly 800 Books (many of them valuable Standard Works) from the Rev J.F. Hodgson, at the comparatively trifling outlay of £30”, and had also received around 50 other volumes as donations, making around 850 volumes in total. A catalogue was printed at a cost of £2.2s by Mr Hunt, whilst Mr Clarke supplied £2 8s 6d worth of books and stationery and Mr Snelling £1 4s worth of books. The Chantry, that used to be the school that had recently been vacated, was now converted into a Library, in effect recreating the old idea of a Parish Library, at a cost of around £30; whilst the cataloguing and running of the library was carried out by a salaried Librarian at £8 a year. Within the first year, 71 members borrowed a total of 630 books. Often, though, they borrowed the books for longer than they should, as various fines were levied and with the report went a notice about late returns of books. The library society did not survive more than two years; the drop in members renewing subscriptions might suggest the reasons why. Another reason might be the falling-out of the congregation with the vicar. Horsham may have seen a decline in political radicalism, but the Church was undergoing major upheaval which was not popular with many of the congregation. As the memorandum book of Henry Michell, who was a Churchwarden at the time, goes into some detail. In a long address signed by Michell and about 40 other parishioners, he writes to John Fisher Hodgson in 1843:

“We the undersigned parishioners of Horsham being members of the protestant established Church of England feel most reluctantly constrained ….to address you in the language of complaint…in reference to the mode in which the rites and services of the Church, are at this time administered and conducted in this parish.

It is with infinite pain and regret that we have witnessed the numerous alterations and innovations which have been from time to time introduced by yourself, or with your sanction in the mode of conducting the services of the Churches in this Parish, but more especially in that of St Marks…(these changes) becomes an evil of fearful magnitude and cannot fail to excite feelings of apprehension in all who feel interested in maintaining our revered protestant Church in its integrity…We feel deeply however the innovations and changes of which we complain, are themselves of a highly objectionable character, and calculated, if acquiesced in, seriously to injure the true interests of the Church….” He goes on to blame the changes on the “views advocated in certain well known writings of a dangerous and mischievous character emanating from Oxford University, which have been publicly condemned not only by the Heads of the University but by high authority’s in the Church”. Michell points out that the views expressed seek a “closer approximation of the English Church, to the corrupted Church of Rome”. Not only that but “the principal Authors of these writings the most distinguished (whose works have been constantly quoted by yourself and recommended to members of your Flock has recently publicly abjured the Church of England and entrd the Church of Rome…” He carries on in similar vein before pointing out that:

“…one most lamentable effect has resulted from these changes; when you, Sir, took charge of this Parish, you found the Parish Church crowded… (which caused, as mentioned above, the building of St Marks Church) …Contrast this state of things with that which has existed since the Church services have been changed, and you find that the congregations have gradually decreased, until at this (?) the greatest apathy and indifference is manifested on the part of the greater number of your Flock and dissatisfaction with their clergymen universally prevails…” [486](Neale 75/6)

Interestingly, there might have been some indication of the change in direction of the Church when on 3 June 1841 Henry Edward Manning, Archdeacon of Chichester, preached a sermon at the consecration of St Marks; some 10 years later he became a Roman Catholic, eventually becoming a cardinal in 1875, one of the most celebrated conversions to Roman Catholicism in the 19^th century.[487]

The failure of the library, therefore, may have more to do with the religious conflict. If the Church had a say in which books were read, and more importantly, if 800 books had been given by the Vicar, the fear expressed about John Browne’s books indoctrinating the readers might have been felt by the Library subscribers. The Library may have simply been too Catholic for Horsham.

It is, however, worth reflecting on this conflict and comparing it with the conflict that took place in Horsham exactly 300 years earlier. As discussed above, the 17^th century dispute over the Vicar and his teachings led to the Vicar being excluded and a minister taking his place. The conflict was of importance to the whole of the community because everyone had to attend church by law. Now, after the 18^th century Enlightenment and the Romantic movement, as well as the fracturing of the Protestant groups, this dispute, although significant to the churchgoers, was not significant to the history of Horsham. And as Michell noted later in his book, the Churchwardens had no power and so the Vicar stayed in post for a further 40 years overseeing major restoration projects and enhancements.

In 1839 an Act of Parliament was passed that allowed the towns to employ Policemen.[488]  Horsham took the opportunity in October of that year, employing a Mr Gower,[489] then a Mr Tuppin, followed by the first superintendent whom Burstow recalls as “cross eyed and broken winded”, who had the nickname “Old Blowfly”; although Burstow may have disparaged the local police force, Horsham was surprisingly advanced for its time.

The 1835 Municipal Corporations Act enabled the older boroughs to establish a police force. In 1837 only 93 out of 171 boroughs had an organised one. In 1840 it was 108 out of 171, and even 8 years later 22 boroughs still had no force. Why? Why was Horsham so forward? Possibly because in 1839 the Royal Commission on Constabulary Forces suggested a national police force, with the Metropolitan police force being in charge. Such a system would cost a great deal, so establishing a local force with one policeman per 1,000 of the population was an easier option; the Act itself envisaged the formation of County forces with a Chief Constable, but by 1853 there were only 22 such  forces out of 52 counties. In fact, by 1855 there were only 12,000 policemen in England and Wales. Horsham was quite advanced.

The introduction of professional policemen clearly shows the change from the medieval notions of society where headboroughs and elected constables kept the peace. Such a society relied on family connections and everyone knowing everyone else. But Horsham had changed: it needed a professional policeman, not an amateur; someone or a group of people who year in, year out would be the guardians of the law. Initially, it would seem that the policeman acted more like what we today refer to as the community beat officers, working with volunteers. One such person was the former constable John Browne, who recorded in his notes a couple of cases and reports. They show the underbelly of Horsham.

The report for 1843 is as follows:

Report of the committee appointed by the parish to watch over and report on the manner in which the Paid constable (Police officers crossed out) appointed by the parish performed their duty from November 1842 to March 1843

During the three months they have taken

3 Prisoners for Felony

5 vagrants

3 Persons for other offences

and laid 7 informations against 1 Beershop

The cases of Felony are as follows

William Chilly and James Shoubridge were charged with stealing a sheep the property of Mr Stanford Esq. Chilly was sentenced to 10 years Transportation and Shoubridge to 1 years imprisonment and hard labour.

William Freeman charged with Burglary Breaking into and Robbing the house of Mr Henry ? Grocer North Street was committed for trial at next Lewes assizes

The other offences were

Margaret Richardson a reputed Prostitute for being drunk and disorderly at midnight was sentenced to 14 days hard labour.

George Charman with being in the counting houses of Mess John and Richard Gates for some unlawful purposes was sentenced to 14 days hard labour

? Scott for stealing a large bundle of wool the property of Mr George Lindfield committed to Petworth for 1 month”

The report then identifies various publicans for selling beer during divine service, for opening after hours and for permitting gambling, before stating:

“Your committee are of opinion that during the quarter the exertions of the officers have been such as to give the highest satisfaction and your committee congratulate the parish upon their choice and recommend the reappointment of the same persons (officers crossed out)

the whole of the prosecutions have been conducted and information laid by your senior officer Mr Gower with the exception of one case of vagrancy: your committee also believe that Mr Tupper makes a very able and valuable assistant your committee have directed the officers to continue to carry the law into action (?)  against vagrants as a considerable means of preventing theft and also to turn their attention to the Hawking without a licence contrary to the statute”[490]

Whilst the report reveals a fair degree of minor; though, by the punishment considered, major, crime, the concern of the Committee was not about selling liquor, but in effect to deal with things that reflect on trade: vagrants who are thought to commit crime, and hawkers, illegal tradesmen; a plea that resonated in Horsham for centuries.

“In 1840 15^th April the home of Mrs Bennet residing in the forest was broke into and robed of Portable Desk containing Bankers pass book cancelled checks & check book. Morning Ring marked – A Bennet aged 14  – 1804. Wedding ring and a very large ring of Indian manufactory and many other valuables from the kitchen dresser drawer 3 silver tea spoons marked LA, Four desert spoons, a rosewood knife case lined with velvet and partitioned, a mahogany work box lined with puffed velvet containing articles of value. A new metal tea pot a French time piece of Ebony inlained with brass

A man answering the description of a man that called at Mrs Bennets for relief the previous day was seen tear up some check about two miles on the road leading from Horsham to Guildford which proved to be the checks stolen”[491]

This Mrs Bennett was an Indian princess, whose story will be told later.

As with the policing today, intelligence is often the key to capturing criminals; particularly the non-opportunistic kind. This is where the Constables came in, for they were very much part of the community and could keep an eye out for anything out of the ordinary. The following account of the Allen Brothers includes one such report by John Browne, though in this case the information was not acted upon, or if it was, nothing came of it until some 16 years later.

Allen brothers –one of the biggest tax fraud cases in British history

(This fraud involved the payment of excise on beer; they had hidden barrels).

On 21 February 1842 Browne wrote to the authorities the following letter:

“Sir,

We have no paid police at Horsham at present and I am Constable and to me your letter has been sent- and my business is that of a Draper – MR Allen is a Malster and has property about him to the amount 5 or 10 thousand Pounds – and I think a person ought to go and demand the information or take him in custody. He has the manner of being the most avarious (avarice) man in the County

He married the daughter of Mr Albery saddler in West Street but she died and from what I heard I believe his extreme economy acting through her mind accelerated his death. Mr Gower our late officer  was of opinion that we had some person in this place that was so respectable as to stand above suspicion that was connected with some burgularies (burglaries) in this neighbourhood

He may be the most respectable person in the place but I think it – you should come up and investigate it in person or your agent. I am of opinion from the nature of his business that Mr Allen ought to be able to give an account where his notes come from

When you come to Horsham I will give information I can.

I remain Sir

Yours John Browne.

William Albery in his Millennium gives a full account of the Allen brothers; an account that makes no mention of being related through marriage. Albery’s account refers to the fraud as smuggling, of a “sign of wonderful, but short lived vitality”, stating that “defrauding the Revenue was successfully carried on for over ten years”, and that the brothers “were steady and keen businessmen who were able to make honest trade pay”, going on to say: “Precisely at what period of time they began cheating the Revenue is not known, but it was certainly at a time when such a practice would trouble the consciences of but very few business people”. He goes on to state that “they gave higher prices for barley and sold the malt cheaper than other malsters could: indeed some malsters were forced to discontinue competition with them and close their malthouses”[492]

Yet if you read other accounts of the Allen brothers, they do not come over in such glowing, almost Robin Hood, terms. They were habitual criminals that had been involved in fraud for at least twenty-five years. Not only did Browne not like them, but Henry Michell in his diary records that “Mr Allen was a man it was impossible to do business with on any fair terms.”[493] Amongst the Albery archive are various court papers that show the Allens were involved in fraud as far back as 1831, something which William Albery ignores. In 1831 Alfred Allen was prosecuted for “fraudulently converting beer barrels belonging to Richard Thornton, also of Horsham, beer house keeper, to his own use.”[494]This was the very brewery that Michell would rent some three years later. A year later, in 1832, both Alfred and William were prosecuted for defrauding the Excise.[495] In an era when thefts of minor amounts ended up with harsh punishments, “white collar” crime was not seen in the same light; a light that Albery accepts. As well as defrauding the Government, Alfred had an illegitimate child. However, he showed some degree of responsibility, as he set up a trust fund of £500 “to be invested on behalf of Sarah Beeching, single women, now with child by the said Alfred Allen “[496] in 1849.

The Allen empire extended across West Sussex, but it crashed around their ears when in 1857, according to Albery, an employee of theirs at Worthing who knew of their corruption tried to blackmail them into giving him enough money to “go into business at the railway hotel there.”[497] They dismissed him and he told the Excise authorities. What happens next is told in an unknown newspaper cutting in the Brown papers, headed:

“The Flight of the Allens

Within the last few months great excitement has prevailed in the western part of Sussex, in consequence of discoveries made of extensive frauds committed by Messrs. Alfred and Dennett Allen in illicit malting. The brothers had premises at Worthing, Mulsey, Horsham, and Gay Street, and from carefully constructed subterranean places had been making malt clandestinely to a serious extent. This system of fraud had, no doubt, been carried on for years, and the Allens became wealthy men. They had succeeded in monopolising much of the business of this division of the county, from being enabled to undersell all other malsters; and since the establishment of the Messrs Allen malthouses in various parts had been closed from being unable to compete with the fraudulent traders. They had turned their attention to agriculture, and the brothers occupied three farms, and were no doubt making money apace; when the suspicions of the excise officer were awakened, and after the most minute search of some eight or ten hours at Worthing, a bricked door was found in the wall, which took out bodily, and which revealed the entrance into the illicit premises. As quick as possible the other malthouses belonging to the brothers were searched, and about 4,000 quarters of malt were found altogether on the different premises.”

The paper goes on to say how the Allens had to pay the duty on the malt and then had that malt seized. They then had to stand trial at the Court of Exchequer. Before the trial they gave the malthouses to their mother and sold everything to raise the funds to pay the duties. At the trial Alfred was fined £100,000 and Dennett £10,000. The Allens, one day before the trial, fled to France, being followed by government officers, but on landing in France they immediately returned to England and then by the express train to Liverpool where they caught the steamer to America. The American authorities would not extradite them for fraud and, as the paper said, “we anticipate that no further trouble will be taken by the Excise, and the Allens will live exiled on the property they have accumulated by defrauding the revenue.”

William Albery gives some further information: the amount for which they were liable was £375,000, but the Crown accepted a fine of £110,000. Eventually the Allen brothers returned after paying a £10,000 fine, “and so restored themselves to their Country and their friends”. [498]

By 1840 the pressure for the abolition of the corn laws grew. The iniquity of it became a concern, especially as the nation as a whole was moving towards half its population living in towns and cities; a statistic it would discover in 1851 when the census returns were published. This movement also drew intellectual strength from the arguments that were growing over the issue of Free Trade. A combination of intellectual, moral, ethical and radical ideologies met and dominated the political world in the first six years of the decade.

This manifested itself in Horsham in various ways. In the museum’s collections are two embroidered watch pockets, small holders that hung near the bed for watches. The highly decorative pockets have the initials F. T. embroidered on them along with a small picture of a mill, clearly indicating a connection, in this owner’s eyes; at least a connection between free trade and corn law repeal.

There was an inherent conflict developing in Britain. Industrialisation made it possible for industrialists to make goods independent of physical limitations; therefore, the only technical limitation on growth was the ability to trade. Agriculturalists, however, did not have this freedom for their productivity was determined by the amount the land could produce. Doubling the workforce would not double the yield of crops, unlike the manufacturers. So they could see little benefit in liberalising trade and, in fact, protectionist tariffs made sense. By the 1820s Free Trade was growing as an economic and political movement amongst the industrial heartlands, particularly Manchester with its huge cotton industry. With the Reform Act of 1832 the manufacturers now had the vote and Parliament had to take account of their views.

What evidence do we have of this in Horsham, which after all was not an industrialised area, but a service town? John Browne, the radical, in his surviving correspondence, does not mention free trade at all. However, the Methodists, in 1844, established a Horsham circuit with two ministers serving 109 members[499],  which suggests that the radicalism of the 1820s and 30s was still strong within Horsham. (The exact relationship between Methodism and Radicalism has been a question of debate amongst historians for a number of years.) All that can be said definitely is that Methodism represented one of a number of nonconformist churches within the Horsham area that were flourishing. However, Henry Michell, the brewer, was a definite Church of England member, as related above. But he was also a strong Free Trader and it is through his accounts that we gain an insight into the struggle for the repeal of the Corn Laws. He writes that in 1835 “The agitation for the repeal of the corn laws began to assume a very decided form just as we came to Horsham and so far as my humble position would allow me, I entered the lists as a most decided repealer…”[500]

This suggests that Henry was a member of the repeal movement in 1835, but in fact the Anti-Corn Law Association was not formed till 1836, in London, based around the model of the Political Unions and the Catholic Association, both of whom had achieved their objectives. In 1838 or 1839 the Manchester Anti-Corn Law League Association changed its name to the Anti Corn Law League [501], which strongly suggests that Michell may have been an Association member from its inception. The League only had seven members to start with; based in Manchester, it soon spread out.

One question which cannot be resolved conclusively is: where did Michell get his pro-Free Trade ideas from? Was it born out of rational business sense, or was it influenced by writings in the press and through reports of debates in Parliament? Unfortunately Michell does not say, but what is clear is that his belief in Free Trade and Corn Law abolition was strengthened through Cobden and Bright, the two leaders of the movement; Cobden the head, Bright, the heart, for he writes: “I have always held that such men as Richard Cobden and John Bright are in reality the great conservative leaders of the party of progress not withstanding their denunciation by our county squires, political nobodies, and Lords Dundreary, as demagogues, radicals, and dangerous characters, Bright and Cobden always reply to their political opponents said that what was called the Radicalism of to-day proved the conservatism of the future, and the course of events fully proved they were right”.[502] This clearly shows that for Michell Free Trade was born out of what was best for the country, not out of a sense of reform for reform’s sake.

Henry Michell, the new brewer in Horsham, therefore, was an advocate of Free Trade and repeal of the Corn Laws. He was not the only one, as events would show that William Lintott, a distant relation of the 18^th century publishing family, would also come forward to announce his Free Trade credentials in the by-election of 1844 when the question dominated the vote, as mentioned in The Times of the day (Neale, quoting Michell’s Diary, who quotes “The ‘Times’ in speaking of this election, stated: ‘Mr Hurst was nominated by a Mr Lintott, a Free trader, and was seconded by a Mr Michell, another Free trader”).[503]

The question of the repeal of the Corn Laws, whilst affecting the whole of society, was owing to the Reform Act of 1832; a question that could only be decided upon by a small electorate; in Horsham some 250 people, who in 1844 could send a pro- or anti- MP. In 1842 the Anti-Corn Law League sent out into the countryside missionaries to promote its cause. This resulted in Agricultural Protection Societies being formed, including the Sussex Society for the Protection of Agriculture. In 1841 the Election had been fought in Horsham by Robert Campbell Scarlett and Robert Hurst.[504] Scarlett was a Conservative, who in his electoral address to Horsham stated on the Corn Law issue: “I consider a fair protection to agriculture essential to our greatness as a nation, and our internal prosperity”, whilst Hurst, who stood as a Liberal, made no mention at all of the main issue of the day. Scarlett, though a Conservative, appealed to the Independents in the town who had had enough of Hurst’s professed Liberal credentials, but whose actions made him seem reactionary. A number of the electorate offered to sell their votes, but both candidates called their bluff, and then on the Sunday before Nomination day Robert Hurst withdrew his nomination, and so Scarlett was elected.

Robert Campbell Scarlett was returned to a Parliament led by a textile manufacturer and Conservative, Robert Peel, who introduced a reforming free-trade budget which took the steam out of the League. However, in Horsham there was a by-election called in 1844 as Scarlett succeeded to a Peerage. Robert Hurst stood again for the seat; Corn Law was the issue of the day; but he was elected without opposition. He achieved this through wooing the Conservatives and the Whigs. The Conservatives agreed not to oppose him as he was a member of the Sussex Society for the Protection of Agriculture, and the Whigs because he had obtained the support of their senior members before standing for nomination. The electorate felt duped, and expressed their displeasure at a public meeting held on 18 April 1844 when they publicly stated:

“And that to prevent all mistakes on the subject of a real opinion this meeting denounces all taxes on human food and restrictions on the exercise of industry. And we hereby declare our readiness at any future Election to record our voice in favour of that candidate who will support the total and immediate repeal of the Corn Laws and Provision Laws”

The degree to which the Whigs had been “stitched-up” was apparent at the day of nomination, for Hurst was nominated by Mr W. Lintott and Henry Michell, both members of the Anti-Corn Law League, and yet they nominated a pro-Corn Law man who was a member of the Sussex Society for the Protection of Agriculture. At his post-election address, Hurst said that he was truly independent and would not pledge himself to any particular line.

Michell obviously felt hurt by this backtracking by Hurst, and a sense of his anger comes across in his biographical account where he states:

1844 Mr Robert H Hurst offered himself as a candidate and I was asked to second his nomination, and I did so…He soon, however fell into pecuniary embarrassment and very seldom appeared in the house of Commons. He, however, recorded his vote against Corn Law repeal. His agent, Mr. Padwick, and myself had several rather acrimonious discussions on this subject which I wound up by declaring that with Free trade England would be to the World what London is to England…”[505]

The question of Corn Law reform did not go away and would dominate the next two years of the Parliament. In 1844 Agricultural Protection Societies became a national organisation when under the leadership of Duke of Richmond and Duke of Buckingham, who formed a Central Agricultural Protection Society. The main purpose of the organisation was to counter the activities of the League, promote protection and lobby MPs.[506] Amongst the Museum archives are a few papers for the Sussex Society for the Protection of Agriculture, which reveal a highly-organised and resourced society which actively gathered information from Society members to counteract the Anti-Corn Law League messages.

In 1844 the Society was gathering information concerning agricultural wages, obviously in response to an allegation by the Anti-Corn Law League. (They would use such information in pamphlets to expose the contradictions in the Anti-Corn Law publications; one pamphlet in 1844 went through 12 editions.) Richard Agate replied from West Grinstead saying that they paid labourers 10s per week day rate and an average yearly rate of 12s 6d per week[507], whereas at Shipley they paid the same day rate but “the average rate of Wages including piece work, Harvesting…amounts to 13s 3d per week.”[508], whilst at Slinfold Mr Child could reply:

“I have endeavoured to ascertain as near as I could do the average Wage paid to our Agricultural labourers during the year ending Lady Day last – and I find it amounts to 11s8d per week – In making this return I have endeavour to place an equal number of what are considered first and second rate Labourers and the above appears to be as near the amot. as I can ascertain-

It ought however to be taken in consideration that the Agricultural Labourers in this Parish are not generally charged more than from 40/- to 50/- per year rents for their Cottages and gardens (each -)” [509]

The Society was organised into Districts and, in 1844, a List of Horsham District Subscribers was drawn up which identified who gave donations and how much members subscribed. Mr Agate in West Grinstead, for example paid 10s annual subscription, whilst Sir C. M. Burrell, of Knepp Castle, gave a £50 donation, Walter Burrell gave £5 donation and £5 annual subscription, and Robert Henry Hurst MP paid £5 annual subscription, but no donation. Another subscriber was Mrs Helena Bennett of Lower Beeding, who was known as the ‘black lady of the forest’ and was an Indian princess (see below). She subscribed one pound. In total, in 1844 the Horsham District subscribed £60.17s but donated £85.10s. There were 52 subscribers of which 17 came from Horsham itself, which suggests that by now the argument was being won in an area that was supposedly pro-farming.

The reality of the situation was that by now many could see the inequity of the Corn Law. As shown above, the good people of Horsham had been paying into funds to alleviate poverty and starvation amongst its population; something that the Corn Laws helped to create. Horsham was a town that was growing apart from its agricultural heartland. (Another important factor was that so many of the farms were owned by just five landlords; a point explored below.) The villages around Horsham showed far more active support as a percentage of the population: Horsham had 17 out of 5,700 residents, Cowfold 5, Rudgwick 9, Slinfold 4, Shipley 2, Lower Beeding 2, West Grinstead 3, Knepp Castle 2; whilst Nuthurst, Lyne, Shermanbury, Ashly Park, Ifield, Holmbush all had one subscriber.

As well as raising subscriptions, the Society used its members to keep a watch on what was happening in the local area, particularly regarding the Anti-Corn Law League  One such letter dated 10 March 1845 states: “Hearing that a Mr Falacy, a Lecturer of the Anti Corn Law League is travelling about the county lecturing on Free Trade, I am directed to request you to forward to this office any information you may obtain as to the numbers of Lectures, if any, given in your District, what kind of attendance, how the Lectures are received, and any information you may be able to forward…your obid servant John Pankhurst clerk”[510]. The letter was sent to H. Padwick of Horsham, who was the Honorary Secretary of the Horsham District and with whom, as Electoral Agent for Robert Hurst, Mr Michell had argued.

Another letter, dated 2 April 1845, in the collection was sent by W. W. Burrell, the Hon Sec. of the Society, to R. H. Hurst Esq MP asking for his unpaid subscription of £5 which was due on 1 January, suggesting that the subscription rate varied according to means. (Whether Mr Hurst paid, it is doubtful, as by the end of the year he had fled Horsham with chronic debts.) There was an active campaign to sign petitions opposing Sir Robert Peel’s motion, as well as providing £1000 to a sub-committee to spend however they saw fit to oppose the proposed measures.[511]

Henry Michell, in his autobiography, gives an account, though distanced by time, of the local public situation: “I remember a meting being held in the Swan field in a booth. The weather was very cold. I did not attend, as I feared I might commit myself, but the proceedings were of the most tame and uninteresting character. I went into the market room afterwards and the Farmers were loudly advocating exclusive dealing in favour of course of their supporters. Cobden and Bright were denounced as the worst characters that ever existed: they were accused of revolutionizing the country. The repeal of the corn laws, they said, must subvert the monarchy and sever church and State, and I was pointedly appealed to if such would not be the result…” [512]

Later he would write:

“I think it was in 1845 that my wife and myself attended the great Free Trade Bazaar in Convent garden theatre. This great struggle was now approaching the culminating  point when the famine in Ireland suddenly opened the eyes of many of our leading statesmen headed by sir Robert peel, who now saw that the cause of free trade as advocated by those great men, Bright and Cobden, was no other than the cause of truth and justice…” [513]

Another anecdote in the account gives an indication as to the degree that the Protection Society watched and reported on free traders. The event occurred early in 1846 when Michell “was at Steyning quiet accidentally, and there was a protectionist meeting at the White Horse in the market room. I went with the crowd and after hearing the usual amount of stuff about Free trade being the ruin of the country and that Parliament ought to be urged to throw out or set aside the measure”. Michell was the only one to declare his pro-free trade sympathies. For which he was laughed at. Later, “Sir C. Burrell-poor old simpleton – met me at Petworth a few days after and said how sorry he was for the part I had acted at the Steyning meeting; that the present was a most serious crisis in the country, and that we ought to be unanimous in support of protection to native industry”[514].

In 1846 Peel forced through the legislation and repealed the Corn Laws, splitting the Conservative party. The success of the organisation led to the Anti-Corn Law League dissolving, as did the Protectionist Societies. A graphic account of the impact of this is recorded in a matter of fact way by Michell in his diary, who also records the impact of the railway arriving in the town: “The wheat harvest began about the 8^th of August and an occasional field was cleared by about the 12^th. when it rained and I believe it did so every day till the first of September, when it cleared up and we had very fine weather, but all the wheat, or nearly all in this country was very much damaged, and the barley so much so as to be wholly unfit for malting, so that we had to depend entirely on Foreign supplies. Fortunately the corn laws had been repealed or relaxed, so we could get French barley and plenty of it at about 37s per quarter at Horsham station”[515]. One of the reasons for so few subscribers from Horsham to the Protection Society was the distribution of land holdings; a picture graphically revealed in the Tithe Map and its associated schedule. So whilst the area had a number of scattered farms representing a medieval pattern of farming, the actual ownership, rather than tenantship, was distributed within the hands of a few, a pattern of ownership that existed at the beginning of the century. The five great estates were:

---

ESTATE	FARMS	ACREAGE*	COMMENTS
Tredcroft	Hawksbourne Hewells
Norfolk	Chiefly at Roffey	1,000	5 farms over 100a in 1813
Denne	Chesworth	325a	+4 farms over 100a c. 1821
Fletcher	Southwater Place	154a	At least 4 farms between 56a and 141a
Hurst	Parsonage Park	c.300a 145a	5 other farms in 1820s (only 3 were said to be in good condition and the two largest were in need of underdraining[516]
1844 ESTATES	1844 FARMS
Tredcroft	4 farms	2 x over 200 2 x over 100
Norfolk	At Roffey	4 x over 150
Denne	Chesworth Easteds Blakes Coltstaple	282a over 100a over 100a over 100a	And other farms over 100a
Fletcher		4 over 100a
Hurst	Park Pond Parsonage Comptons Brow Moated House Pilfolds	All over 100as

The Shelley family also owned three farms in the Horsham Parish. In all there were 70 farms, over 50 acres in area.[517]  Within Horsham there were three areas of allotments leased out to the Labourers Friend Society mentioned above. By 1844 half the parish was put over to arable, with one quarter as meadow or pasture. In 1841 The Arundel and Bramber Agricultural Association held ploughing and stubble cutting competitions at Chesworth farm.[518] It should also be noted that about one-ninth of the Parish was woodland; much of it in coppices or shaws, belts of woodland between closes,[519] which made ideal cover for game; and hunting continued to be a popular pastime. It may also have provided the raw materials for broom makers who were recorded in the parish in 1784, 1812/13 and in 1862 when six out of the 23 brush and broom makers in the county lived in the parish.[520]

Around Horsham the scatted settlements were growing into hamlets: Broadbridge Heath had around 12 houses and an inn in 1844[521] whilst, closer to the town, Tower Hill comprised of around 10 houses along the northern end of the road to Marlpost and Grub Street had 12 houses in 1831 (later to be called Oakhill), whilst Doomsday Green had 3 or 4 houses at the same date. Later on in the century these hamlets would either merge into Horsham or grow in size to become sustainable settlements taking on the status of a village.[522]

The open nature of Horsham can be seen in the development of nurseries in the town. Allman’s nursery, on the corner of Park Street and East Street, was founded in 1828 and consisted of around 10 acres by 1866; it went as far as what is today Barttelot Road.[523] It grew forest trees, ornamental trees and exotics.[524] In 1844 there were two other nurseries on the corner of Brighton Road and St Leonard’s Road. Who were the buyers of their plants? Horsham did not have a railway yet so it is unlikely that Allman’s serviced the London market at its inception. By 1841, with the trains only at Three Bridges, the nurseries might have grown plants for the growing London market, delivering to the station by wagons, and what was good for London would have been copied by some of the more wealthy families in the Horsham area.

At the time the Corn Law debates dominated the political world, Horsham saw two significant developments. In 1844 John Lawrence, the murderer of Brighton’s Chief of Police, Superintendent Solomon, was hanged outside Horsham County Gaol in East Street. This was very much the last hurrah for the County Gaol, which was pulled down the following year. The story of Lawrence’s hanging is told in full in Burstow’s Reminiscences. It occurred on 6 April 1844. There had been no hanging in Horsham since the execution of Sparshott for homosexuality in 1836, partly because the following year there was a reduction in the number of crimes which warranted the death penalty, to just two: treason and murder. The hanging took place on the Teg fair day so 3,000 people attended it. Mr Kenrick, the curate, had asked the schoolmasters to take the schoolchildren out of the town on a walk to Denne Hill. Albery, in his account of the event, states that Kenrick “preached a sermon in the new Church depreciating the publicity and likely evil results of the proceedings”[525]. There is a certain historical symmetry about this preaching, for the new church was St Marks, and for centuries Assize sermons were preached, and some published, from the pulpit of St Mary’s at the start of the Assizes where the prisoners would be walked in chains to hear. Now, at the last hanging in Horsham, a sermon was preached; not condemning the judgment but the public spectacle of the punishment: a new view; a new venue for a new beginning for Horsham – a town without its hang fairs.

One question that remains is: why did Burstow spend time recounting the hanging? After all, it was not a Horsham crime; it did not involve a Horsham murderer – Lawrence came from Tunbridge Wells. Burstow spends one and a half pages on this, and only a half on the railway. The answer could lie in that Burstow had a phenomenal memory for folk songs, many of which were doggerel poetry, rhyming and put to music. The Lawrence affair resulted in at least two poems issued immediately after the hanging, one of which was supposedly his dying confession, which Burstow probably learnt or knew of. His interest in the crime, therefore, probably came from folk songs, rather than the desire to record an historical event, for very few other crimes are covered in such detail; e.g. the Allen brothers, who are not mentioned.[526]  Equally it could reflect social views, for Michell in his diary does not mention it, but does recall the Allen brothers – the hanging appealed to a “working class urban/rural poor”, not the growing middle class.

In 1844 the county magistrates decided that Horsham County gaol was no longer viable. Serious consideration was given to turning the gaol into a pauper lunatic asylum. An architect was employed and he thought an expenditure of £11,000 should fund the necessary conversion, whereas an entirely new building would cost £44,000. This attracted positive comments in the town and Mr Broadwood, of the piano-making family, who lived at Lyne near Rusper, put forward £1,000. However, it was felt by some that housing lunatics in a disused prison was not acceptable, so in 1845 the Gaol was put up for sale.[527] The story is continued in Henry Michell’s account:

“1845…This year is celebrated in my business career for having become the purchaser by tender of the County Gaol which stood in what was formerly known as the Causeway croft in east street. My tender was for £2560…as the purchaser.[528] I had every reason to believe it was a great bargain as the amount of materials was, I may say, vast; but the expense of realizing was great and arduous. After disposing of the material, I bought some other land adjoining and added to the site. They paid me £1000 for what they took, and left the rest on my hands to dispose of as I could. Some I sold for building, on a part of it I built the new Malt house, and some I sold to the Waterworks Company…I suppose from the first to last I made ten millions of bricks n the ground …with the ground still on hand, in a profit  to me of at least £5,000…I borrowed every shilling of the purchase money of my Bankers by promissory note  at 3 months paying off as much as I could every time it was renewed, and so I cleared off in about 2 years….I should here state that the site of the Gaol together with the meadow at the back and some ground on which was carried on the business of a stone mason and Builder on the West side (both of which I purchased of Mr Padwick) was all thrown together and called Park square, but as the Railway went right through it and left some on one side and some on the other, it was afterwards called Park square East and Park square west”. Michell then goes on to describe how he paid for Mr Thos. Honywood to do several sketches of the gaol for “natives yet unborn”.[529] On obtaining the gaol just before the St Leonard’s Fair, Michell threw it open for the public to see. Burstow, in his account of Lawrence, records that “when the gaol was pulled down, in 1845, the body, was exhumed and temporarily taken to the “Queen’s Head” stables, where it excited the curiosity of a good many people, who paid 2d to see it”.[530]

One of the interesting things about this account is the speculative nature of the project. Michell had access to money: a sizable sum of it, which he borrowed over two years. For Horsham as a town to expand and develop, it needed risk-takers and available money. This was at a time when the political situation was fraught, with the repeal of the Corn Laws, which meant that those who had money invested in land would have been unsure of projected income. 1845 also saw the railway mania when there was a sudden demand for money to invest in railways, in which, against his better nature, Michell was caught up, as he records in his diary:

“1846…I see one entry to the debit of the profit and loss account this year which merits a passing observation, and it is that of £63 on account of the Horsham & Rudgwick railway. During the Railway mania of 1845, among other mad schemes this was one, and I was asked to be a provisional director. I consented on the understanding that I was not to be liable to pay anything in any way, as I had no spare cash to invest in Railways. I was assured it would involve me in no pecuniary responsibility whatever. However the while thing proved a bubble which burst with the panic of 1846, and the directors, or most of them, subscribed 60 guineas each as the shortest way out of the mess. I mention this as a warning to all who may happen to read this to keep out of such rotten concerns.”[531]  (Later on, Michell would refer to the railway as Horsham & Guildford, rather than Horsham & Rudgwick.[532]) Not that Michell was opposed to the railway as such, as shown below.

To Horsham traders the demise of its Gaol must have been a blow, especially as it had seen such large crowds gather for a hanging a year previously. However, the prospect of the railway coming to the town at last must have sweetened it. Railway mania was sweeping the country, and riding on that renewed and speculative interest was a desire for a railway to Horsham, at least as far as Horsham was concerned. In reality, the railway came to Horsham not because Horsham was a thriving town, but because it would “spike the gun” of a rival railway company.

The key destinations from London at this time were Brighton and Portsmouth, with the port. The line to Brighton had opened in 1840, going as far as Shoreham, after much debate. To travel by train to Portsmouth now meant travelling down to Brighton and then along the coastal route. Obviously, a line that cut across country would be quicker, but it would reduce the traffic to Brighton. The London and South Western Railway promoted the direct Portsmouth to London line and, as far as Horsham traders were concerned, this would be the best option as it linked two expanding metropolises. The London and Brighton Railway Company proposed a branch line to Horsham. This would stop in its tracks the direct route to Portsmouth. There was also another route, the “Epsom Atmospheric Railway”, which would extend the line south of Dorking to Horsham.[533] Plans were drawn up in 1844 for the Horsham and Three Bridges Railway[534] and Parliament, before deciding the route, held a Committee of Enquiry. In May 1845, according to Michell’s diary, he “and Mr Philip Chasemore were summoned in May 1845 to give evidence before a committee in support of the bill, and most gladly did I do so and with a clear conscience”[535]. It was probably around this time that a petition for the Branch line was arranged and the 500 signatures were sent to Parliament. On 6 June 1845 a Bill was presented to Parliament and passed without opposition on 5 July, according to Burstow,[536]  but according to the Act itself it was on 21 July 1845.[537]

The Act set out the route stating that it would “terminate at or near to the Town of Horsham. It also stated that a station was to be erected in Rusper and Horsham, or just one of them. The Act went on to give what management-speak today would refer to as a “minimum service level agreement”; namely that the trains were to stop “at least twice in every Day on their Passage from the said London and Brighton railway to the said Town of Horsham, and twice on every Day from the said Town of Horsham to the said London and Brighton Railway”. It went on to say that the Railway had to be constructed within three years of the Act being passed, and then it set out the maximum charges in some detail. First-class passengers would pay 3d per mile, Second-class 2d per mile and Third-class 1 1/2d per mile. Freight was then broken down into different rates for different types of livestock and goods. The railway then had to carry out various legal obligations such as carrying Royal mail and troops. According to Albery it cost £100,000 to build the Branch line.

It was probably opportune for Horsham that the Act was passed when it did, for the following year the railway bubble burst; but construction work had started, which was fortunate for Michell as the railway was a ready purchaser of the building materials from the Gaol. In his Diary, Michell records the amount of materials that went into building the Gaol. It is not that surprising that the builder was the first person in the Gaol back in 1775 if the scale of materials is anything to go by. The gaol used: 2.5 million bricks, 15,000 square feet of Horsham paving stones, 100 iron doors, 150 iron windows.[538]  He then sold most of the iron to Palmer and Green of Brighton, whom Michell thought used it to build the railway bridge over the Ouse at Lewes; the bricks were used to build “Nearly the whole of the Railway works from Three Bridges to Horsham”, as well as building “Moadland House and Breaches parchment factory at Steyning, a house at North-lands Warnham” and many other buildings of lesser note. In addition to this he also had enough rubble to ballast about one mile of railway with it. He then had a great deal of other material which he sold at auction in 500 lots on 24 February, including “230 iron casements, sashes, and doors (of wood a few), 7 lead pumps and 140 feet of suction pipe, 3- 40 step (solid stone) winding geometrical steps…1000 lineal feet of stone causeway 14 to 18 inches wide, 80 Portland stone door jambs 5F 10in x 2.4 x 7 in…”[539]

There was, however, one unusual aspect of the sale. The town had used the prison as a place for holding prisoners before their trial at the Midsummer sessions. The Town Hall cells were in too poor a state, as described above, therefore the Justices at the Quarter sessions held the town to account. Either it built a new police lock-up and paid half the cost, or it would lose the Midsummer Quarter Session. Michell came to the town’s rescue: he would build it, providing he could use the materials from the Gaol, for £700. The Magistrates agreed that, providing it was built to a design and standard set out by their surveyor, they would pay half with the town of Horsham, and the jurors attending the Sessions would pay the rest. The lock-up in Queen Street opened for business in 1846 and is in December 2005 part of the Handyman Do It Yourself shop.[540]

Horsham was one of the most advanced towns in the country concerning the establishment of a police force. By the end of 1846 it had a Police station with a lock-up, and a couple of policemen as well as constables. Whilst the town body might be coming to terms with Victorian sympathies, the body politic had never really advanced out of the 18^th century and the election of 1847 would prove just how electorally corrupt Horsham had become. The Reform Act of 1832 had given the vote to 250 people within the Parish, but that was still a small enough number to be bribed. In 1844 Robert Hurst had further corrupted the electoral system by all but promising to vote for anti- and pro-corn law, then having been elected unopposed by the free traders voting for the Corn Laws. Then, in late 1844, owing to financial difficulties, he fled to France, though still holding his seat. The Repeal of the Corn Laws caused an implosion of the Tory party and a fracturing of the parties across the political spectrum. Michell describes the effect of this on Horsham electioneering process:

“as the free trade question was settled…there really seemed to be no great political question cropping up to which men could attach themselves by any party distinction. …though it was evident the new system of commercial legislation  just entered upon must necessitate great and sweeping changes in our whole fiscal system, it was also evident that in consequence of the course taken by Sir Robert Peel,  the leader of the Tory party, there had been such a complete disruption of parties, that it was very difficult to know what party a candidate belonged to from his address ‘to the free and independent electors’ whom he aspired to represent in parliament”.[541]

If there was no abiding principle then money would dominate. The Election of 1847 is seen, and was seen at the time, as one of Horsham’s most corrupt elections, gaining nationwide publicity and leading the Prime Minister to set up an official enquiry. Yet corruption only works if people are willing to take a bribe, for you cannot corrupt the incorruptible. So, whilst the Candidates may take the blame for offering bribes, the electorate bears equal blame for accepting them.

In 1845 Robert Hurst Jnr informed his father’s Electoral agent Mr Padwick that “you know my views upon the subject; viz., that our interests should go to nobody without consideration. We are in a position to very awkward customers to any one we choose to oppose, though we may not have the power of returning a Member single-handed. I have no notion of supporting anybody without a return. I would sooner stand myself”.[542] Robert Hurst could not manage his affairs from France as well as having to pay off creditors, so he asked Padwick to manage them for him. Padwick came up with a solution: to sell one of the estates and, with it, offer the seat of Horsham, using the Hurst influence. It was rumoured that the asking price was £1,000 on top of the purchase price of the estate, which might be true as Padwick previously had a Speakers warrant issued against him for exactly the same charge, which he avoided by going abroad. [543] The estate was sold to Seymour Fitzgerald.

It was still 1845 and no election had been declared, but Fitzgerald settled in Holbrook and integrated himself fully into local Society and charity. When the Election was called in 1847, it was Fitzgerald against Jervis. The town descended into drunken bribery, with inns and houses serving free drink to respective rosette-wearing individuals. At the election Jervis got 164 votes, Fitzgerald 155. William Albery goes into great detail concerning the drunkenness and availability of liquor in Horsham, the amount of money given as monetary bribes, buying property and, if that did not work, kidnapping of voters, before explaining how the voting habits of landlords would influence tenants.[544]  

What is clear is that, in total, 319 voted; less than 10% of Horsham’s population, so the drunken behaviour was not endemic, except with those that had the vote and chose to do so, so at one event at the “Richmond Hotel” 120 people attended, along with “the candidate, his friends, supporters, voters, non-voters and riff-raff – consumed 200 bottles of wine, 40 bowls of punch, grogs and ale at a cost of £80.”  As Albery explains, not all those that had the vote took bribes: John Seagrave, a journeyman baker, refused £50 in gold, whilst William Pannett, a part-time schoolmaster, refused £100.[545]

For those non-electors it was impossible not to avoid the election. The printing presses of Horsham were churning out squibs: doggerel verses that parodied the popular street literature of the day, or children’s stories such as The Butterfly’s Ball. These notices were flyposted around the town and in drinking houses. In addition, at least 17 inns and public houses had blue or pink flags flying outside the doors, and children of voting parents wore ribbons.

At the election Henry Burstow was a white boy; an old ritual explained by him: “Each candidate had about twenty. Each white boy was dressed in a white round frock and carried a pole about six feet long, painted red or blue, according to the colour favoured by the candidate in whose interests he was engaged. We were paid 5s each per day, and could have as much to eat and drink as we liked. Our duties were to keep the way to the hustings clear for voters, and to make ourselves otherwise generally useful. Polling ceased punctually at 4pm.”[546]

Immediately the result was called the election was called into account due to corruption, and Mr Fitzgerald was unseated.

This year, 1847, also saw the publication of one of the most important books written about Shelley. Thomas Medwin, the Horsham-born son of the former Duke of Norfolk steward and cousin of Shelley who decided, in 1846, to write a biography of the most famous son of Horsham (Warnham, actually). In 1846 Sir Timothy died and Medwin, back in England from the continent, went to Horsham to gather material and anecdotes. These he wove into a two volume, though planned to be longer, biography of Shelley that would provide future generations with the best account of Shelley’s early life and of the Shelley family.

How truthful it is, and how fabricated the stories are, is hard to determine, though recent work by Sue Djabri and others, built out of the Shelley Bicentenary exhibition held at the Museum, has led to a re-evaluation of the family background. What is known is that the Shelley family, Mary and Sir Percy Florence, were not pleased with it as, in part, it tried to redress the spin that Mary had given Shelley. The Chartist movement had promoted the radicalism, Mary the romanticism; Medwin was now showing Shelley as a multi-faceted character. Medwin himself was equally complex: a spendthrift who bankrupted his father, who wrote a European best-seller on Byron and published numerous articles, this would be his last major work. Medwin returned to Europe and Germany just in time for revolutions that spread across Europe with demands for suffrage; demands that Shelley had promoted over twenty years earlier.[547]

The following year, 1848, has gone down as a Year of Revolutions, for across Europe there were revolutions in France and the Austro-Hungarian empire, and Karl Marx published Das kapital. In Horsham there was one event that changed the fortunes of the town, and in that sense could be classed as “revolutionary”, but it was not a political revolution; which all the other events were. We will get the by-election of 1848 out of the way before dealing with the main historical event.

In Horsham the same corruption occurred as before. The election was called again after the bribery in 1847. This time Jervis did not stand, but Lord Edward Howard stood in his place against Fitzgerald. Howard was not the first choice: the first was Sir Percy Florence Shelley, the only surviving son of Mary and Percy Bysshe Shelley, but the election day fell on the same day as his marriage so he turned down the nomination. So the second son of the Duke of Norfolk was called upon; he consented only if he did not have to spend a penny beyond the minimum legal requirement.[548] This was not because he objected to bribery, but because he did not want to spend money. It was a strategy that worked well. The story is told in the diary of Rowlendson:

“1848. July 1^st …Wednesday and Thursday took place at the hustings erected on the Gaol Green the Election of a Burgess to serve in parliament for the Borough of Horsham  when the Candidates where Mr Fitzgerald and Lord Edward Howard as Sir P.F. Shelley  xxx?xx the Poll closed on Thursday when the number for Mr F 182 and for  Lord E 115 and Lord E declared he would Petition against the return .Lord E Howard never canvassed at all nor had any Committee no Bans flags or Ribbons. Mr F had a Band from Dorking and his old flags and some of his Supporters wore their tokens”. At the appeal Fitzgerald was unseated for corruption and Howard was elected as he had not spent a penny; there could be no suggestion of corruption or bribery. But he did not bother canvassing or doing anything; it was a non-event and, in many respects, Fitzgerald  would have been the more worthy candidate because he at least showed an interest in the seat; an interest that cost him dear.

According to Windrum, Fitzgerald had spent “something like £80,000 in vain”[549]. What is not known is how much Jervis spent, but it is likely to have been a smaller, but not inconsiderable, amount. Therefore, it is more than likely that over £100,000 was spent in the Horsham area to obtain a parliamentary seat. At the same time, money was being spent on the railway. So, economically, Horsham’s economy must have boomed, with large amounts of money swilling around both in capital investment (the Railway) and in actual cash (election bribery). The result was that Horsham boomed. It has been suggested that the growth of Horsham was due to the coming of the Railway, as Henry Michell records “The Horsham and Three Bridges railway was opened in February this year; the trade of the town felt an immediate impulse. Our trade instead of declining, as I supposed it would when the railway works finished, continued to increase and we were now doing more than my wildest flights of imagination led me to expect and began to speculate on some day being a rich man (i.e. comparatively) if my health and strength were continued to me”. [550] 

 “On Monday morning 19^th February 1848, the new line opened for traffic. The station terminus here was but a little plain structure standing about midway between the present station and the Railway Hotel. A great many people went up to see the departure of the first train. There was no ceremonial send –off, but there was a public dinner at the King’s Head in the afternoon at which Mr Padwick presided. I was present when the first train steamed out of the station. It was not a very long one, but as the first journey was free of expense to travellers it was very full. Some of the cars, were covered and some were open; these latte, the third class, were at once named “rubbish carts”. Henry Burstow, recounting the memorable day in his Reminiscences of Horsham.[551]

That was the truly revolutionary day in Horsham’s history.

ELABORATIONS

HOWARD DUDLEY AND THE PRINTING OF HIS HISTORY

In a reprint of the book, Cecil Cramp states that Dudley “still had the same hand printing press, (as he had used to print Juvenile Researches) and, so it seems, only the same amount of type. One can imagine him, working hard at his screw press which required each page to be positioned separately by hand and the heavy press screwed down in order to transfer the impression of the inked type to the sheet”.[552] Whilst Brian Slyfield in his article on Dudley goes on to write about the binding of the book “The book is presented in a variety of coloured embossed cloth bindings, with different pictorial motifs – an interesting touch, and one which says much about the author. For, not content with a standard binding, which would have been easy route, particularly with a low print run such as this book must have had, Dudley went to the time and trouble of adding just that little touch extra quality to the publication”. [553]

Yet nowhere in the History of Horsham does Dudley say that he printed the book one page at a time on a hand press. That story came from Dudley’s own account of how he printed his first book, Juvenile Researches (which is considerably smaller; half the physical size, though it had more pages: “126 of text embellished with rather crude woodcuts” compared to 80 pages of text for History of Horsham), where he states that his press was constructed “under his own superintendence” and that he could only print “one page at a time.” The question to ask is: what did Dudley mean by saying that he printed one page at a time? Cramp assumes that by saying that he printed one page at a time, he meant he printed 126 pages, but, as any printer knows, you actually print a sheet, which is then folded into a quire, and after folding the edges are cut, revealing printed pages.[554] He may have printed a sheet at a time, but not a page, for to do that every single leaf would have to be stitched into the binding, which it is not.

As for Dudley’s History, it does not state how the book was printed at all; in the book there is no indication that he used the same press and the book itself has at least three different sizes of type and at least two different faces: black letter and roman. He also printed the book in London. Printing presses could be transported but it is unlikely that Dudley would have done that; not impossible, just unlikely; what seems more likely is that he came to an arrangement with a printer to borrow/hire his press and type.[555] According to St Claire there were thousands of printing presses operating in central London at this time and ownership could be transferred on a handshake. As for the law, the printer had to be identified; not the owner of the press, on the first and last pages of every book,[556] so Dudley the printer records that on the colophon on the last page of the book: “Printed by Howard Dudley, Millbank St.”

As for the binding, Mr Slyfield states that the book had a low print run. There is no statement of limitation and we do not know how many copies were printed, but I suspect that a figure of more than 250 and less than 1,000 is likely, simply based on the number of copies Shelley had printed of his works,[557] and in sixteen years I have been offered eighteen copies of Dudley by booksellers, so it is not that rare. If anything, the range and diversity of cloth does not suggest exclusivity at all: it suggests that Dudley was offered the ends of binders cloth; the remainders, which he used to bind his book. Why that and not the romantic idea of exclusivity? He could have sought exclusivity, by doing what his sister did with her book, Emmett, published in the same year, 1836, and gone for subscribers. But his book did not. The argument for exclusivity does not stand up, though we may never know the real reason for using different coloured fabrics.

In his article, Brian Slyfield writes that Howard wrote “with elegance beyond his years” in his Juvenile Researches, when he writes a dedication to his mother: “To his beloved mother, this little work, the first production of his pen, is affectionately dedicated, as a trifling acknowledgement, for the continuing interest, she has taken in its procedure, by her tenderly attached son”.[558] That may be because perhaps it was written not by Howard, but by his sister, M. E. Dudley. If you read the preface to the book of poetry, Emmett, by M. E., you gain a sense of similarity: “With much diffidence and a too well founded conviction of their unworthiness…” This would also tie in with the language of the dedication: reference to “his beloved mother”, rather than “my”, which sounds as if written in the third person, i.e. his sister.

Having said that, the book itself is interesting in what it says and does not say. It is remarkable for a 16 year old. The book obviously uses Dallaway and Cartwrites History of the Western Division, Rape of Bramber published in 1832 and, as he mentions, “Horsefield’s “History of Sussex, Vol 2”[559] as the source of historical information. As mentioned previously (Under the Dragon), he had access to the Harlian Miscellany from where he took the legend of St Leonard’s forest. He also observed things around him: for example, gas coming to Horsham, yet his description of the church is very rose-tinted as contemporary illustrations show the building to be in very poor repair, but none of that comes across in Dudley’s account. As the dedication is to the Earl of Egremont it suggests that the source of the books was the library of George O’Brien Wyndham.

The book also, in smaller type, contains detailed information which is written as notes, rather than as a narrative. It includes an account of the Saurian Remains, based on the fossils owned by Mr G.B. Holmes (George Bax Holmes). Though difficult to prove, it suggests that these notes are based on lectures or classes held during the evening at the National School or at the Mechanics Institute mentioned above. Two of the illustrations: of Hills Place on page 36, and Field Place on page 42, are based on the drawing by H.S. Grimm, mentioned above. This means that Dudley had access to the British Museum where the Burrell collection had been deposited (see above). In his appendix he cites the Burrell collection, stating: “I shall therefore insert a very brief account of the nunnery, (Russper Nunnery) as given by Sir Wiliam Burrell, in his interesting MSS. Preserved in the British Museum”. For Dudley to see the manuscripts and drawings he would have to get a reader’s ticket, which would not have been given to a 16 year old; this suggests that someone must have sketched and copied them for him, or acted as a guardian when he visited the collections. Perhaps Egremont, or Burrell himself. 

Interestingly, the book mentions the poet Shelley: “Percy Bysshe Shelley, the celebrated poet and friend of Byron, was born here”. He does not disparage the poet; this at a time when Shelley’s poetry was not published except in pirated books – was this because he was mixing with the London radicals, perhaps the press men, or the middle classes who were going to be the purchasers of this book? Possibly. We do not know.

Within the context of history books, Howard’s book is very radical; a remarkable book in so many ways. The fact that it was written, drawn and printed by Dudley who was only 16 at the time has attracted most attention. Lately it is the illustrations that adorn the work that have attracted a great deal of attention, particularly as illustrative views to complement the narrative. In an era of tightening copyright law these copyright-free pictures have been mined, rather than photographs, for which fees are payable. In a sense the book has been quarried for nuggets rather than treated as a whole within the context of the time.

So, treat the book as a history book of 1836. What is remarkable is the number of illustrations. History books were not illustrated. In the 15^th and 16^th century chronicles such as Hollinshead or Nuremburg were profusely illustrated with repetitive woodcuts; because they were repetitive they functioned as reinforcing a type, rather than a pictorial representation. In the 17^th and 18^th century history books, if they were illustrated at all, had plates mounted in them that either portrayed great men and women, or portrayed images as if they were stage sets; key scenes acted out. History books were not as a rule illustrated.

So where did Dudley get the idea of providing over 34 illustrations within 80 pages? The key is in the title to the book: “The History and Antiquities” (my italics). Dudley, being trained as an artist, was not using the history book as his model, but using the antiquarian as his exemplar. The antiquarian  and the archaeologist  were using the physical remains of the past to provide a narrative, often trying to fit it within a chronological and narrative framework created by historians, and, when not succeeding, illustrating the remains as a proof or evidence of something which is unexplainable.

As Susan Stewart has observed:

“In contrast to the historian who looks for design and causality, the antiquarian searches for material evidence of the past, an internal relation between past and present which is made possible by their disruption. Hence his or her search is primarily an aesthetic one, an attempt to erase the actual past in order to create an imagined past which is available for consumption”[560]

There had been an explosion in archaeological books in the late 18^th and early 19^th century. One of the key figures in local research was Burrell, whose archive of drawings and antiquarian researches Dudley used.[561] Dudley was influenced not by the history books but by the antiquarian books. 

So if Dudley was illustrating his book to make it saleable, why were the images chosen? Those who lived in Horsham would see most of the places on a daily or weekly occurrence; why illustrate them?  For many, the assumption is made that “pictorial representations are an unmediated and direct expression of the “real” (this) has to be understood in terms of the model of knowledge as visual information projected by the Enlightenment,…”[562] Scientists since Bacon in the early 17^th century had been arguing for accurate observation in order to build theories; this way of thinking was now permeating the way knowledge and understanding were thought about. In effect, the illustrations were used as proof by Dudley. Dudley was at the forefront of using illustrations in history books, an idea that became so prevalent – Stephen Bann has described how, in nineteenth century Europe, “the visual image became part of the general movement towards rediscovering and recreating the past…The nineteenth century can be called the “age of  illustration”,… [563]

However, the historian’s training as Raphael Samuel argues: “Predisposes us to give a privileged place to the written word, to hold the visual in comparatively low esteem, and to regard imagery as a kind of trap. Books from an early age, are our bosom companions, libraries rather than museums are out natural habitat. If we use graphics at all it will be for the purpose of illustration, seldom as primary texts and it may be indicative of this that, as with material artefacts we do not even have footnote conventions for referencing them. The fetishization of archives …reinforces these biases, giving a talismanic importance to manuscripts.[564]”

In effect, the illustration is seen by the antiquarian as proof, but by the historian as just an illustration without the degree of critical awareness that should be given to them. In that case, the question still has to be asked as to why Dudley used the illustrations he did and what was their purpose. Perhaps we are asking too powerful a question of a 16 year old. Perhaps we should be looking not at history books, but at children’s books of the period. By the 1830s there had been nearly 100 years of mass-produced books for children; books that employed the crude but to today’s eyes, charming, woodcut to break up the text, to illustrate and reinforce a message. Perhaps the book should also be seen within that context.

One other aspect of the book which is remarkable is the large number of quotations from inscriptions. It is as if this is “real” history whereas the text surrounding it is not. It also can be seen as illustrative, playing a role like the illustrations.

---

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

Naked Horsham Chronology

1851   Census revealed more urban than country dwellers. Populations of GB 20.0m, USA 23m, France 33m, Germany 34m, China 430m.	Horsham Parish population 5,947. Horsham Cricket Ground laid out south of river, enlarged in 1894, bought by Horsham Cricket Club in 1920s, sold to Horsham District Council in 1989 and leased back to Cricket Club. Census of church attendance at Parish Church, morning service 784, afternoon 520. St Mark’s Church, morning 185, afternoon 140, evening 530.
1852   Charles Dickens published Bleak House. David Livingstone explored Zambezi River.	Henry Michell bought Carfax brewery. His brickworks north of East Street provided 2.5 million bricks for Crystal Palace. Wednesday cattle market opened in Bishopric. By 1853 held monthly and by 1868, fortnightly.
1857   Indian Mutiny. Financial crisis in Europe caused by speculation in US railroad shares.	Albion Road linking Carfax with Springfield Road laid out c.1857.
1858	Broadbridge Heath enclosed.
1859   Lord Palmerston, who once stood for Horsham, became Prime Minister.	Horsham to Petworth and Pulborough railway opened. New gothic-style brick railway station built opposite old wooden station, with bridge carrying North Street over tracks. Four years later extended to join the Brighton to Portsmouth line.
1860	Hurst Road constructed.
1861   Daily weather forecasts began. Prince Albert died.	Branch line from Stammerham to Shoreham opened. Much of the northern part of the Parish had become a solid block owned by the Hurst family. The domination of the large estates continued until the mid 20th century. By now the Common had turned into arable land, but the growing demand for milk pasture took over so that by 1933, there were 1,418 dairy cattle, wheat acreage dropped to 300 acres and oats to 262 acres from 1,493 and 1,040 acres respectively recorded in 1875. Town mill at Tan Bridge built. Sold in 1874 to W. Prewett, owner of Warnham Mill.
1862	Popularity of Bishopric cattle market led to removal of corn market to Wednesday with the agreement of traders from Brighton, Lewes and Petworth.
1865   End of US Civil War. Trans Atlantic cable completed.	St Mary’s Church rebuild finished – re-roofed and jacked up. New RC church in Gothic style paid for by Duchess of Norfolk and dedicated to St John the Evangelist. Rebuilt a third time between 1919 and 1923.

Horsham 1850 – 1865

FULL STEAM AHEAD BUT NO-BODY IN CHARGE

So what was mid 19^th century Horsham like? Fortunately, owing to a range of sources we have quite a good idea. Though not all exactly contemporaneous, from conflating the information a picture of Horsham halfway through the century emerges.

The most interesting is a pictorial record. In 1911 George Mann re-drew pictures that the family owned of a survey of the town drawn by his father, Thomas Mann.[565] In addition to this pictorial record the Museum also holds a few photographs taken around 1850 to 1860. Then there is the “Post Office Directory of Essex, Herts, Kent, Middlesex, Surrey and Sussex”, published by Kelly and Co., for 1855, from which the following information is taken:

“Horsham is a borough(sic)[566], Union, market town and parish…The parish constitutes the borough, and contains 10,709 acres, and a population of 5,947, in 1851 (Information from the Census) St Leonard’s Forest comprises 11,160 acres, a great portion of which is in the parish of Lower Beeding. It is not incorporated. The town is lighted with gas…The Union consists of ten parishes; the work-house for which is one mile north of the town, and contains 130 inmates, but it is calculated to hold 250. The corn market is held on Saturday, and the poultry market on Monday; fairs on 5^th April, 18^th July 17^th and 27^th November, and Monday before Whitsuntide. Here has recently been a monthly cattle market established, which is well supplied with all kinds of fat stock”.

The text then describes the various churches before moving on to schools, “The Grammar School was founded by Richard Collier in 1532, and endowed with £400 per annum. The Mercers’ Company are the trustees. Here is a Royal British, a National, and also an Infant school. The court-house is a handsome stone building, in the Gothic style, in the centre of the town…Mike Mills Race, an avenue in St Leonard’s Forest, 11/4 miles long, with 15,000 full grown trees”. It then goes into former governance of the town, noting that it has “fallen into disuse”, before mentioning “a stone quarry” and Coolhurst being rebuilt in 1831 “for the Dowager the Marchioness of Northampton, now the residence of Charles Scrase Dickens Esq”.

It then lists various places near Horsham, which were then obviously seen as having separate identities and localities, some of which today have merged into the town. Little Haven is 2 miles north-east; Grigs, 1 south-west; Farthings, 1 south-west; Tower-Hill, 2 south-west; Praters, 2 1/2 south-west; Southwater, 2 ½ south-west, Jackerells, Coldstaple, 2 south; Bull Farm and Sedgwicks (sic), 2 ½ south- east ; Monk’s Gate, 3 south-east; Amy Mill, 2 south-east; Birchen Bridge Mill, 2 south-east; Rickfold and Manning’s Heath, 2 1/2 south-east; Hole Farm, 3 south-east; Highland Farm, 1 ½ east; Doughey and New House, 3 north-east. Holbrook, Pickshill, Hawkesbourne, Cripplegate, Chesnut farm, Cootes, Fulbrook, Wimland, Warnham, Sedgwick, and Graylands, are other places.

The Directory then lists 77 people whom it defines as “Gentry” though a number, 25, are Mrs or Miss or recorded as Misses. It then records the Traders: in total 303. The trades carried out are quite revealing. What is surprising is that whilst there were 303 traders listed, many of them carried out more than one trade; for example, Alfred Agate was a Corn and coal merchant; Martha (Mrs) Aldridge was listed as a “plumber & glazier, house, sign & decorative painter, West Street & London Road”. The Directory is also revealing for it clearly shows that Victorian women were often engaged in trade and not just the expected one of dressmaker/milliner. The diversity of the trades gives a flavour of the business in Horsham and therefore may have been identified below. Again an assumption which can be made, but which may reflect more on today’s perceptions, rather than actuality: where the proprietor is a Mrs, it might be a widow who has taken over a business on the death of a spouse. But it could also be an independently-minded woman who ran the business whilst her spouse worked elsewhere.

Name	Address	Business
Aldridge Martha (Mrs)	West Street & London Rd	Plumber & glazier, house, sign & decorative painter
Chambers, Emily (Miss) Collins Jane (Miss) Eath Matilda (Miss) Loxley Frances (Mrs) McCormick Louisa (Miss)* Oakes Maria Potter Ellen (Mrs) Richardson Esther & Eliza (Misses) Richardson Emily (Mrs) Woolgar Martha (Mrs)	Carfax   West Street East St South street East Street   East Street Carfax   West Street   Carfax   Market Square	Dressmaker/milliner/straw hat maker
Collett Mildred (Mrs) Miller Harriet (Miss)	Carfax North St	Baker
Dendy Catherine & Ann (Misses	Southwater	Farmers
Etherton Elizabeth (Mrs) Pickett Sarah (Mrs)	West St   West St	Blacksmith & ironmonger   Ironmonger & pattern maker
Fairs Louisa (Mrs)   Milward Louisa (Mrs)   Scott Susannah (Mrs)	Cock Inn Southwater Black Horse & Market House West St Springfield Road	Inn/Pub       Beer – retailer
Godsmark Ann (Mrs) Oakes Sarah (Mrs)	East Parade East Street	Shopkeeper
Hollands Elizabeth & Harriet (Misses)	West St	China & glass warehouse
Ireland Ann (Miss)	West St	Fancy Repository
Jupp Susan (Mrs)	East St	Grocer
Pickett Elizabeth (Mrs)	West Street	Brush maker
Prestons Louisa (Mrs) Evershed Misses	South Street North St	Seminary Establishment for young ladies
Taylor Sarah (Mrs)	East Street	Carrier
Waybrow Catherine (Mrs)	Carfax	Tobacconist

*A John McCormick was also listed as a dyer in East Street, suggesting that the daughter made up the dyed cloth.

As well as the usual trades that one would expect in a market town, there were also some unusual ones.

Trade	Name	Address
Plumber & Preserver of birds & animals	Aldridge William	Springfield Rd
Nursery & seeds man & florist	Allman Frederick	East Street
Architect, surveyor & mapper	Burstow Edward	West Street
Artist & picture frame maker	Burstow Frederick	London Road
Tea dealer	Charman William	Middle Street
Shopkeeper & broom maker	Cheeseman Jesse	Crawley Road
Furnishing ironmonger & Toy warehouse	Curtis Edwin	Middle Street
Professor of music	Cough George	North Parade
Coach builder	Heath John	Springfield Rd
Marine store dealer	Westgate John	East Street
Boxchurn & wood turner & picture frame maker	Turner John	West Street
Ironmonger, gun maker, & whitesmith, cutler & bell hanger, patentee of the improved cinder basket, patent hydrostatic vessels manufacturer of the Improved registered kitchen range	Walker Mathias	West Street

In addition to the trades listed the Directory, working to a standard format identifies two banks and the Savings bank, 19 insurance agents, a Corn Market at the Black Horse and Swan Inn in West Street on Saturday afternoon. No Almshouses are listed though the Almshouse had been built in the Normandy. There was also a Literary & Scientific Institution and a Mechanics Institution, the latter having Stephen Collins as a librarian. The Town Crier was James Wood. The Directory lists six Places of Worship, though not identifying the Church of England churches.

Catholic Chapel	Springfield Road
Independent Chapel	Springfield Road
Quakers’ Meeting House	Worthing Road
Rehoboth Dissenting Chapel	New Street
Unitarian Baptist Chapel	Worthing Road
Wesleyan Chapel	Carfax

As well as the three public schools identified (Collier’s, National and Royal British) the Directory also notes “Infant” (for boys and girls) whilst, under traders, various private schools are listed: Robert Ashdown, academy in Albion Terrace, Miss Evershed and Miss Prestons both noted above, and George Wilkinson classical and Commercial academy in North Street.

The medical profession was listed under traders: Surgeons John Bostock Stileman, Winkworth James, Joseph Lovegrove, Thomas William Lanhand; Chemists and Druggists: Williams, Philip, Francis Snelling (who was also an agent to the ‘Sussex Express’). Whilst Thomas Mann was the proprietor of Mann’s improved cough medicine. Horsham had one veterinary surgeon, John Meginnis, which is surprising, for even if Horsham was still an arable area there was enough business in the area for three, possibly four, saddlers and eight blacksmiths as well as a cattle dealer. (Note, the 36 farmers listed may have been predominantly arable rather than dairy as only two dairyman are noted, though the farmers would still have “horse power” around the farm even in the mid 19^th century with the advent of agricultural industrialisation: threshing machines, harvesters etc.)

As for the distribution of Gentry the Directory either gives specific house names or street addresses. The most popular streets were South Street (eight), North Street (seven), Carfax (six), then West Street, North Parade, Albion Terrace, all with five gentry listed, followed by East Street with four. The Bishopric has two, which if it was such a run-down area, as suggested by Burstow, is surprising, unless the road The Bishopric stretched further out on what would be called the Guilford Road. There was only one person who gave his address as The Common, though Trafalgar Road was on Common land.

Amongst the Museum papers is an audit of the Michaelmas rents for the Denne Park estate held on 6 January 1851.[567] The Eversfields were still noted landowners in the Horsham area and, as mentioned previously, had thought of developing their estate in the 1820s though it never came to anything. What is surprising is that even though agriculture was in the doldrums, especially after the passing of the repeal of the Corn Laws, the estate was still producing valuable revenue in terms of rents. There were 20 tenants and at Michaelmas 1850 the amount of rent due was £947 5/-, with one tenant, Michael Botling, paying the most at £300 and Burtenshaw paying the least at £4. The audit set out the rental arrears for 1849 and 1850 payments. In 1849 four tenants owed a total of £145 16/10d; in 1850 £142 18/8d was due by seven tenants. The audit also notes how the rents were paid: £160 was paid in notes, £286 5/7d paid in cheques and £136 10/- was paid in gold. (I presume that the gold was gold guineas). What we do not know is how much the estate cost to run. The tenancy agreement might be for the Miss Eversfields to undertake full repair of the property, or the tenants to repair it. However, Denne Park was generating nearly £1,000 a year in rental income, which suggests other large landowners within the Horsham area were getting sizeable incomes from rents.

One prominent name not mentioned in the Directory, but who appeared in print and previous listings, was Charles Hunt who was declared bankrupt in May 1851.[568]  The reason for detailing his bankruptcy is not because it was unusual, but because it reveals so much about what real people were experiencing. It reveals whom he borrowed money from, what his home was like, his clothing etc. It is a window on a world that otherwise wouldn’t have been opened. Charles Hunt’s name was a common occurrence on documents of the preceding years as he was involved in so many different aspects of Horsham life. On his letterheaded stationery that he sent to Thomas Medwin in the 1820s he referred to himself as:

“Charles Hunt Stationer and Law Stationer. Bookseller, Printer, book binder, and auctioneers, House and Estate Agents”. His establishment also sold “Newspapers and Periodical publications” and “English & Foreign Toys. Fancy Articles of every description” By 1851 he had contracted the business, though it was still diverse, for, as the Petition for bankruptcy states:

“Charles Hunt formerly of the Carfax Horsham…having also an Office in West Street…. Auctioneer and Appraiser, House and Estate Agents, and Collector of Rents Officer to the Sheriff of Sussex Assistant Bailiff to this Honourable Court at Horsham aforesaid and Actuary to the Savings Bank at Horsham aforesaid since of West Street Horsham aforesaid carrying out the same Trades and Businesses and offices and now of Albion Terrace having also an office in West Street both in Horsham ….”

It then goes on to list the “wearing apparel” of himself, his wife and child before listing the furniture of the house. As a study in the wardrobe of a middle class Horsham family it is a fascinating document Along with the listing of the clothes it also gives a nominal value:

Mr Hunt “3 Men’s Coats 21/, 4 waistcoats 6/-, 1 over Coat 10/-, 4 pair of trousers 16/- 6 pair of Stockings 3/-. 6 Shirts 9/-, 6 neckerchiefs 1/6d, 12 Collars 1/-, 2 Hats 6/, 4 pair Boots 8/-.”

Mrs Hunt “ 4 Chemises 2/-, 4 Petticoats 6/-, 4 gowns 8/-, 2 Shawls 6/-, 1 Bonnet 6/-, 4 Handkerchiefs 1/-, 6 pair Stockings 2/-, 2 pair shoes 3/-, 2 pairs stays 3/-“

The Hunt child “ 4 Frocks 4/-, 4 shirts 2/-, 2 petticoats 1/-, 2 pair shoes 1/6, 2 Flamiels 1/-, 4 pinafores 1/-, 2 Hats 4/-, 1 cloak 1/- “

In total, Mr Hunt’s clothing came to £4 1/6d; the wife and child’s £2 6/6d.

Then it lists the furniture of the house, again giving the value to the items, which to Charles must have been ironic as part of his professional life was spent appraising goods and chattels for such proceedings:

“Furniture Bed Covers 1 iron Bedstead 10/6d one Mattress 5/-, small Bed 15/, 2 Blankets 2 sheets and a rug 5/- French Bedstead 8/-, Bed 21/- 2 Blankets 2 sheets and a Rug 8/-, dual Wash stand 3/-, dressing Table 2/6, Window Curtains 2/-, Carpet 2/-, Childs Crib 6/-, old Chest of drawers 10/- Washstand 8/- Table 5/-, piece of Carpet 2/-Cloaths Chest 5/-. Kitchen Dutch Clock 5/-, Table 12/-, coal scuttle 5/-, dresser 10/-, piece of Matting 8/-, Fender + fire irons 6/-, 6 chairs 10/-, 20 pieces of Stafford ware 3/-, 10 pieces of Glass 5/-, sundry tea Ware 2/-, Tea tray 1/-, pestle and mortar 1/6, shaving glass 2/- Wash house Boiler 3/-, 3 Saucepans 3/-, 2 Kettles 1/6 Chair 3/-, 2 pails and dish Tub 3/-, Cellar oak stollage 1/-, Parlour 2 Mahogany Chairs 10/-, round Table 30/-, Cover 5/-, piece of Carpeting 20/-, 2 chairs 3/-, Fender + fire irons 6/-, Muslin Curtain + pole 6/-”

The total comes to £13 3/ 0d.

What is surprising is how sparsely-furnished the house was. One would have expected that, as an auctioneer, he would have picked up a few things along the way, but only one item is noted as “old” and that is a chest of drawers. The Victorians were noted for the mass production of objects; the proliferation of items to undertake specific tasks. Images of Victorian homes were that they were stuffed full of items, of “bric-à-brac” which has led to an American calling the mass collection as bric-à-bracmania. The only possible answer as to why no candlesticks, no books etc., not being in the list is that he had been selling his portable goods to fund his expenditure, and what was left were the basic items.

The Petition then goes through the list of 43 firms and people to whom he owed money, identifying the nature of the debt, the amount and when the debt occurred. By including the details of Hunt in this history, it makes him out to be unusual – he was not; the details are included here because it makes for interesting reading. It shows, amongst other things, for how long credit was given to individuals, since there was no sign of interest being paid on the debts and, importantly, how much the business was carried on within Horsham. Horsham traders traded with other Horsham traders, thus circulating money within the same marketplace. Perhaps that is why no interest was charged. For Charles Hunt himself was owed money: some £73.19/5d. Where the new money came from to expand the economy is a discussion which future historians will have to identify. 

Creditor	Amount	When contracted	What for
George Albery Harness Maker	£411/11d (setoff)	1846-1849	Illegible
William Thomas Coleman, Surgeon	£4 2/6	1846	Medicines and attendances
Thomas Evershed Soap boiler	£2 2/6	1846	For Goods in his Trade
Lintott & Son grocer	£6/7/3	1846-1848	For grocery
Meginnis & Son Veterinary Surgeon	16/-	1846	For Medicines and attendances
James Webber(?) Carpenter	6/10d	1846-1848	For works and goods
Charles Knight Grocer	£10/10/0d	1847-1849	For Grocery
George Walter Locksmith	7/6d	1847	For Goods in his trade
George Sendall Butcher	£3/8/6d	1846-1849	For Meat
John Stanford Draper	£4/19/-	1848-1851	Balance of account – for Goods in his trade
Matthias Walker  Ironmonger	£2/12/8d	1846-1849	For Goods in his trade
John Smith Tailor Brighton 20 Kings Road	£12/15/-	1846-1847	For Goods in his trade
Henry Razell Harness maker	£2/17/6	1847	Balance of amount for goods in his trade
William Aldridge, Henry Aldridge & William Lintott all of Horsham Executors of William Aldridge late of Horsham Plumber	£3/11/4d	1848	For work and goods in his trade
George Arnold & Daniel Richardson both of Horsham Executors of Jeremiah Collett late of Horsham Baker	£7/10/-	1847-1849	For Bread and Flour

Ann Ireland Stationer	£1/1-	1846	For Goods in her Trade
Thomas Mann Patent medicine vendor	£1/10/-	1848	Balance of account for Horse hire
Frederick Blackiston  innkeeper, Reigate	£2/1/6d	1846	Balance of acct. for Goods in his trade
Thomas Redford Butcher	£3 about	1848	For meat
John & James Angus Draper	£4 about	1848-1850	For goods in their trade
Frederick Allman Nurseryman	£2/10/-	1849	For work and goods
G ?  B Printer and stationer	£30 about	1849-1850 1851	Balance of account for printing and stationery. He holds my ? at two months date for £20 dated on or about the 10th day of March last and which is still unpaid
John Heath Coachbuilder	£5/17/6	1846-1849	Balance of acct. for goods in his trade
Zachariah Pestectt ? Cordwainer	£3/17/-	1848 & 1849	For goods in his trade
George Rich Cabinetmaker	£1/7/6	1848 & 49	Balance for goods in his trade
George Ansell Beer retailer	£2	1848 & 49	Balance for Horse Hire
George Tugwell Paperhanger	9/-	1851	For Goods in his trade
Walter Sargeant Butcher	£2/15/7	1849 & 50	Balance for Horse Hire
Sendall & Richardson Plumbers	£2/10/9 Sett off	1849	For water goods in their trade
Samuel Mitchell Labourer	9/-	1849	For fire wood
Thomas Rufus Warner Hatter	£2	1850	For Goods in his trade
John Tolhurst Cordwainer	£2/10/ sett off	1851	For goods in his trade
Richard Wasters (?) Butcher	£2	1848	Balance of account for meet
George Russell Draper late of Horsham and now Newport Monmouthshire	£1 10/-	1850	For Drapery goods
Richard Shoubridge Martin, of Ramesgate Kent, Gentleman	£12	1847 to 1851	For Money had and received

Richard Gates Brewer	£20/15/11d about	1846 to 1851	For coals and beer (admitted set off)
James Agate & John Agate Drapers	£2	1851	For goods in their trade
Hannah Whitton Hurst	£27/10	1850	For money borrowed
Plummer and Son auctioneers and appraisers	£4 4/-	1850 & 51	For making valuations
Charles Gilbrand Tailor	£21/10/6	1846 to 1849	For goods in his trade
Edward Baxter Printer Lewes	£3 3	1850 to 1851	For advertisements
Alfred Allen Malster	£3/18/-	1850 & 51	Balance of debt and costs due to this Creditor, once judgement obtained by him at the last County Court of Horsham for £13 18.0d of which I have since paid £10 leaving this balance now unpaid and for which he has  ? execution and seized Pony ? as started in my special balance sheet.
Total:	£196/17/-

Interestingly, none of the creditors were the banks in Horsham. One individual, a female member of the Hurst family, gave him some actual money and he owed rent either for the property or, if he acted as a collector, to a gentleman in Kent. The rest of the debts were to small traders who could ill-afford outstanding debts. Some of the debts were outstanding for five years. Although he had harnesses made, he had to borrow horses; perhaps the horse fell ill, as he had a vet’s bill and he could ill-afford to buy another.

Apart from the sums of money owed, the proceedings reveal a number of facts about Charles Hunt. His house obviously had one best room, as can be seen from the value of the furniture; the best room had the most expensive table, a curtain on a curtain pole, was ,carpeted with a quality carpet and a couple of good chairs, with secondary chairs probably against the wall. There was, though, no ornamentation, no pictures or prints in the room. Perhaps it was this room that was wallpapered in 1851 by Mr Tugwell (footnote: unless the “paperhanger” doesn’t refer to this trade, but to putting up bill posters; though one would expect that trade to be identified), for this room was obviously the one for show. The other rooms in the house were more simply furnished with each bedroom having a rug on the floor. 

He had to project the image of the successful man, so his wardrobe was more expensive than his wife or child’s. The impression one gets is of a wife who rarely went out to functions, for although she had four gowns the value of them was only two shillings each, suggesting that they were no longer fashionable. (As they were valued as a lot, it is unlikely that any one of them had a higher value than the rest.) It is also clear that Charles Hunt had in the mid-1840s started to spend money on credit on items for himself. For Charles Gilbard, a Tailor in Horsham, gave him £21/10/6d over three years for clothing (46-49), and John Smith, a tailor in Brighton, gave him £12/15/- credit for two years in the same period (46-47). He obviously felt that at that time he had to project an image of a successful businessman. By the time of his bankruptcy his clothing was worth only a few pounds, which suggests that, having fitted out his wardrobe, he did not update it.

It is also interesting to note that one creditor was George Allen, Maltster. It is unlikely that Charles bought malt from him as he did not have a brew shop and his beer he bought from other retailers. It is more likely that Allen lent him money, money which he gained through illegal practices. Perhaps, along with defrauding the tax man and flaunting his wealth, he was also a “loan shark”, for there is a certain bitterness in the comment made by Hunt concerning this creditor. 

The Directory and the petition for bankruptcy give a very literal vision of the town: of small traders, or a close-knit community circulating money within; but we can also explore what the town actually looked like as we have a number of pictures of Horsham from this period. The physical appearance of the town was that most of the buildings were still two storeys high, with weatherboarding and Horsham stone roofs. Three-storey buildings, which had been notable for their absence in the 16th (Museum excepted) and 17th centuries, started to make an appearance in the 18th with the construction of the houses for the gentry (Springfield, Hewells Park House) which started to invade the townscape, but which were still exceptional rather than the norm. The three-storey buildings seem to dominate the start of the streets – The King’s Head had a central block of three storeys with a portico doorway leading out into East Street,[569] whilst at the far end of the Carfax, where Medwin Walk now joins it, is a building of three storeys which was matched in height by the very grand Richmond Arms, with its grand, temple-like entrance allowing a coach to drive through it.[570]

What is clear, though, is that Horsham was still a town of low-density housing, for next to the Richmond Arms was an entrance gate which led to some small outbuildings, a large garden with a line of washing blowing in the breeze, and then the old gaoler’s house. Each of the buildings had a front garden with picket-type fencing. The central part of the town was paved, with the paving obviously forming the demarcation between the Carfax and North Street, as the paving cuts across the roadway, rather than ending. North Street itself was tree-lined, like the Causeway, but the northern side of the Carfax had no trees.

Another set of drawings, looking towards the central island and facing east, are interesting in that they again show no tall building, but do show one property at least with a cellar, as an arched cellar door can be made out. The four drawings show only show one lamp standard, yet the town was lit by gas, so it obviously was not the Carfax area that was illuminated – perhaps the illumination from the properties was thought sufficient. Again, the paving cuts across the Carfax rather than skirting its boundary, which suggests that the problem of the Carfax being like a quagmire, mentioned by later writers, was occurring at this time and so the paving existed as causeways: raised “foot bridges”. The windows in the houses and shops were still small Georgian-style pane glass, even though larger sash windows were available.

Horsham looked very much as it had done in the Georgian period: an old town with very little building to show itself as a growing dynamic town renewing itself; a town that had given itself a facelift in the Georgian years of prosperity, but now biding its time, letting the coastal resorts boom. There may have been new buildings such as the new church and the workhouse, but they did not contribute to the appearance of a town riding on the Victorian boom.

Until now historians have had to rely on the drawn image, or the written word, to describe Horsham; but the 1850s, and possibly 1850 itself, saw the introduction of photography to the town by, it is said, Thomas Honywood.[571]  Whether he was the first or not, his photographs of the town, which were used some 50 years later as postcards, are the earliest photographic images of Horsham. They corroborate the drawings: Horsham is still essentially a medieval town with Georgian facades. It had not seen a boom in building but, equally, it was not a town in decline, for the building stock seems to be well-maintained and in good repair.

Although 1850 was mid-century, 1851 was a significant year in the country and the town. The decimal census revealed that, for the first time, more than half the population were urban dwellers; the countryside, now, for the majority of British people, would be a place to escape to and whilst it did not happen overnight, from now on the countryside and what occurred there would be alien to the population at large, divorcing the population from foodstuffs and its production. The countryside would over the next century become an image; a leisure pursuit: it would not be a place of work. 

The same year as the census, which showed a transformation in society, with more people living in cities and towns than the countryside, another one was undertaken which shook the perception by certain Victorian people as to how their society functioned. It was the Religious Census undertaken in Horsham on 30 March 1851. The shock was expressed at the time by Horace Mann, who reflected on the results some three years later in 1854:

“But while the labouring myriads of our country have been multiplying with our multiplied material prosperity, it cannot, it is feared, be stated that a corresponding increase has occurred in the attendance of this class in our religious edifices. More especially in cities and large towns it is observable how absolutely insignificant a portion of the congregation is composed of artisans. They fill, perhaps, in youth, our National, British, and Sunday Schools, and there receive the elements of a religious education, but no sooner do they mingle in the active world of labour than, subject to the constant action of opposing influences, they soon become utter strangers to religious ordinances as the people of a heathen country. …They are unconscious Secularists – engrossed by the demands, the trials, or the pleasures of the passing hour, and ignorant or careless of a future…that the classes which are most in need of the restraints and consolidations of religion are the classes which are most without them…”[572]

So what did the Census reveal about Horsham? There were eight institutions that returned information, from which the following has been edited[573]:

Name of Church (Date of Foundation)	Total capacity Free + Others = Total	Total number attending Morn. After Evng. (Total)	Additional comments
St Mary’s P.C (unknown).	500 + 800 = 1,300	Morn.784+217  (1,001) After.520 (520)	The numbers were collected by counting leavers from the Church. Sunday school children (140) went to the Chapel of Ease.
St Mark’s Chapel of Ease (1841)	510+406 = 916	Morn.185 (185) After. 140 (140) Evng. 530  (530)	Sunday Scholars go to the Parish Church. The size of the Parish (7×4 miles) and the closeness to the Mother church is given as the reason for the space available and the number attending.
Southwater Church (1850)	205 = 205	Morn 70 + 40 (110) After. 150 + 40 (190)	The Morning service is held once a month; the afternoon service numbers were counted.
Independent Chapel, Springfield Road (1814)	177 + 229 = 406	Morn. 350 + 116 (406) After.101 Evng 365 (365)	The 101 attending in the afternoon were scholars.
Rehoboth, New Street. Particular Baptist (1834)	50 + 90 (140)	Morn 88 + 19 (107) After. 30 (30) Evng 130 (130)	This return is dated 30 March.
Rehoboth No. Two return	48 + 102 (150)	Morn. 130 + 30 (160) After 40 (40) Evng.27 (150)	This return; a second is dated 8 September. Perhaps the first return was lost. No explanation is given for the evening figure.
General Baptist Chapel. Unitarian General Baptist (1720)	150 + 150 (300)	Morn 84 + 64 (148) Evng. 27 (27)
Quaker Meeting (not given)	200 (200)	Morn. 10 (10) After 9 (9)	The floor space is given as 27 x 30 = 810. As there were no seats.
Wesleyan Chapel London Rd (1832)	60 + 90 (150) Standing room 130	Morn  30 (30) Evng 40 (40)	The Chapel blame the “Puseyite influence and tyranny of the High Church party” for the poor attendance by the poor: “Many scores would gladly come, but dare not”.

Licensed providence Rooms, East St Calvanistic (not given)	120 (120) all free	No service. Morn. 120 avge
Horsham Catholic Chapel	Free About 40	Morn about 30 Aftn about 30	Morning service held 1st Sunday of the month, the afternoon service 3rd Sunday of the month.

The Census revealed some quite interesting information about Horsham. It is difficult to say with any true degree of accuracy, in that people who attend evening services might also attend the morning service; that, although unlikely, it might be that some of the attendees of the services go to one or more religious groups: for example, a wife supporting her husband but then following  her “own” religious belief. But having said that, what can be shown is that out of a population of 5,947 in the parish of Horsham there were 4289 individual acts of worship within a religious service spread over one Sunday.

If we just take the morning service as the main service of the day and exclude Sunday school attendees who had no say, we find that 2,207 people attended; over one third of the population within Horsham parish went to Church. (The figure could be higher if people travelled to churches outside the Parish). What is striking is that around half of this number did not attend Church of England churches. The actual number of spaces available for churchgoers was 4417.

However, even more revealing than the figures are the comments attached to the returns, which clearly show some degree of antagonism and concern within Horsham’s religious body. The first thing to note is the sleight of hand by St Mary’s and St Mark’s Churches. In the return for St Mary’s they state that the Sunday school children go to St Mark’s, some 140, in the afternoon. This gives St Mark’s its afternoon attendance of 140. Yet in the return for St Mark’s they state that their Sunday scholars go to the Parish Church, clearly suggesting that the 140 afternoon attendees were not Sunday school pupils. Why?

There is clearly consternation by the Church authorities that St Mark’s was failing. In 1840, as mentioned before, there had been a major campaign to build a new church for the congregation. But the congregation failed to materialise. Was the church a “white elephant”: a symbol not of Christian evangelism, but of retrenchment and failure? The degree to which it was not needed can be seen in the figures. If St Mary’s held an evening service, then the 530 who attended St Mark’s service would probably attend that. Also, St Mary’s could seat 500 free and 800 others; that means 800 seats allocated either by ownership or by rights; for example, Collier pupils. In the first morning service, out of 1,300 places just over half the church was full (784); assuming all the free seats had been taken, that meant that 284 people who had rights to a pew attended, leaving 516 empty, which is unlikely, whilst for the second service only 217 seats were taken, leaving over 1,000 seats vacant. There was plenty of spare capacity.

The extent to which concern was expressed can be seen in the rider to St Mark’s submission, noting that the Church was built as large as it was because the Parish was very large. Whereas, according to Henry Michell, and noted above, the Church was losing its support because of the Oxford movement, turning away its core supporters.[574]

It is possible to see the building of St Marks as a major outpouring of religious belief by the middle classes in Horsham, hoping that the working classes would come on board. As Rodgers has described it:

“The pressures the churches faced towards the expansion of their organization and scale of activities in a society undergoing urban growth meant that they tended to become reliant  for finance, active, voluntary, lay support and ultimately recruitment to ministry and membership on the middle and lower classes….Religion thus became moulded after the middle class fashion: religion itself became one vital facet of middle class culture in Victorian towns and cities, and although the churches constantly aimed to expand to embrace all social groups, methods by which they hoped to do so began to acquire specifically middle class forms”[575] From the Census of 1851, they did not.

The very act of fundraising by the new Vicar of Horsham, Rev Hodgson, for St Mark’s reflected the growing sense of middle class values. In the past the evangelism that sparked the desire for a new church would have been unstructured, less managed. Now, in 1839/40, a committee was established, collectors went door-to-door, the town was divided into areas and donations fully recorded. One of the key features of the radicalism of the early 19^th century was the degree to which it was structured and organised as a corporate body (Political Unions, Anti-Corn Law League etc). The middle classes, who had absorbed and developed the need for organisation, were being absorbed into the church and with them went a sense of order and management, of the corporate body.

Why was this happening? One reason was the growing “professionalisation” of the clergy. The clergy were expected to have a degree, from Oxford, Cambridge or one of the growing numbers of theological colleges springing up. The actual number of clergy was rising, from around 13,000 in 1834 to 14,614 in 1841 and 17,463[576] in 1851, of whom most had a degree (in the 1830s and 40s 80% of new ordinands attended Oxford or Cambridge). The reason for this was public expectation. In order to argue, debate and refute arguments a good understanding was needed and if people like Brown, the draper, was in the congregation such understanding was needed.

(It should also be remembered that until the Origin of the Species, biology, geology and the sciences were harnessed to religion as a means of proving the existence of God. The very subjects that the Mechanics Institute and the Schools were teaching post-1860 to debate the existence of God were, before 1860, being used to prove His existence and that needed skilful debate and reasoning. Education encouraged debate, and more and more people in Horsham were being educated). So in effect St Mark’s was a middle class response to a perceived need. And as a middle class response it had all the hallmarks of what middle classes, born out of the radical movement, did best: organisation/management. The difficulty was, the working class did not apparently want it, if the numbers attending had anything to go by.

Interestingly, although the working class did not attend St Mark’s in large numbers, it did not stop George Buckley, the minister of the Wesleyan Chapel, blaming it for his poor levels of attendance. The Chapel built in 1832 could take 150 seated and 130 standing: some 280; but now only 30 attended and the blame lay with the “Puseyite influence and tyranny of the High Church party”. The illogic of what he was saying, as high church was a direct antithesis of the Wesleyan beliefs, is explained away by saying the poor were too frightened (the tyranny) to go to his chapel. What actually happened was more complex than this simplistic notion. His chapel was built at the height of working and middle class radical solidarity; a solidarity that expressed itself in Horsham with the disturbance in 1830: the Political Union, with its members, the Reform Act demonstrations and celebratory dinner. At this time the traditional church offered little in the way of radicalism. There was no sense of change, so attendance at the non-Church of England protestant churches grew as they offered a more “radical/liberal approach”.

The Church of England, however, through the radicalism of the Oxford Movement, could now offer those radicals a radical conservative approach; one that did not necessarily agree with everyone, (Henry Michell, above). In effect it came down off the fence and started to show a sense of direction which appealed; thus taking back the radicals. It should also be remembered that in the 1820s-1850s the middle classes were not seen as a power of conservatism (with a small c), but a force of radicalism that behaved corporately. Its absorption by the Church would see the growth of committees so beloved by today’s comics.[577] So committees were formed, minutes were taken, posters were printed, halls booked, and the middle class management ethos took over the church.[578] The Weslyan church just did not appeal to this new sense of belief in the corporate organisation.

The Religious Census shocked the nation; The Great Exhibition of the same year held it in awe. Henry Michell, one of Horsham’s leading businessmen, writes in his journal an extensive account of the exhibition and associated events. He refers to the Exhibition as “one of those events which marks an epoch in one’s life, particularly with those who felt such warm interest in it as we did, as calculated to promote peace on earth and goodwill towards mankind.”[579] The account falls into two sections: the first detailing the opening day, the second the expedition with 380 children to view it. The first part of the narrative, which expresses retrospectively his pride in the event, clearly sums up the sense of confidence and purpose that typifies Victorian values, and the linking of Christian evangelism and commerce, whilst the account of the expedition clearly shows the notions of middle class  organisation.

As Michell writes: “ The Great International exhibition in Hyde Park was opened on the first of May this year and I never remember any great public event that was looked forward to with so much interest and anxiety…It was not till the day before, that is April 30^th, that it came into my mind to apply for season tickets…the price was £4 for myself and £2 for my wife, and as only season ticket holders were admitted within the great crystal palace on the opening day we were very glad to avail ourselves of so great a privilege…” He then goes on to say that their seating arrangements were very well organised, with apparently the “ladies were ranged on either side of the ails on the ground floor throughout the whole length of the building and the opening procession passed between them”.[580]

After describing the event he then adds the following reflection: “it was indeed a grand sight and a most exalting one to see our own dear Queen and her husband, the great originator of the scene with the representatives of so many foreign countries, with whom England had often been engaged in the horrors of war, uniting  to inaugurate a reign of peace, the promotion of the sciences, the expansion of commerce, and, it is hoped it would lead to the spread of the Christian religion, and as a matter of course of goodwill among men, but oh! How awfully have subsequent events proved the fallacy of this expectation.”[581] Whether the explicit degree of purpose, the linking of commerce and the spread of Christianity were made apparent at the time, or whether it developed reflectively over the 30 years between the event and recording his thoughts, is not known; it may be anachronistic, or it might be a genuine belief at the time. I suspect the latter, as he took on an almost missionary zeal in encouraging others to see it. As he would write later: “We did not go on any tour this year but made a point of devoting all the time and money we could spare in visiting the crystal palace and studying its contents with our children and all our servants and dependents at the Brewery, Farm and Brickyards.”[582] Thus combining evangelism, devotion, sacrifice and pilgrimage; along with a “temple-like” building to commerce and education.

Henry Michell was Chairman of the Gas Company (and had been since 1846 when he suggested reducing the price of gas, thus promoting its success)[583], and John Philpot, master of the British School, was also on the board. At a board meeting Mr Philpot, probably after Henry had espoused the Great Exhibitions virtues, said that his boys would like to see it. Henry immediately offered to subsidize the trip if every pupil came forward with a shilling. His missionary zeal then took over, and “Thus encouraged I invited the co-operation of several friends in the town…the Vicar, Mr Hodgson, gave the movement his support, but he did not take an active practical part.” Thus a “committee was formed who met every evening at the Town Hall and I was unanimously chosen President”. 

The Victorian passion for committees; creating corporate bodies with their democratic processes, manifested itself with a body set up to organize a visit to the Great Exhibition. Along with the account, Henry gives detailed financial records identifying good commercial practice and probity. As he would write about the accounts, “Of the financial arrangements I felt so warm in the cause that I took upon myself the office of whole and sole guarantor (notions of sacrifice) but the subscriptions flowed in so liberally that I was not left much on the wrong side.”[584]

Thus, on 24 September 1851, “we went with all the school children in the parish to the number of 380…all those of 7 years of age and upwards in the Colleges, British and parish schools and those in the Union house and certainly these poor children formed one of the most interesting groups of the whole party”.[585]  In his account he lists the various schools and the number of pupils and masters which is given below:

School	Number of pupils
Mr Medwin, warden and Mr W Pirie, master of the colleges, Grammar School with the scholars	60
Mr John Tugwell and the National school boys	47
Mr Penfold D Southwater boys	18
Mr John Philpot and British school boys	130
Miss Bull and Denne school girls	70
Miss Figg and Miss Warner and British school girls	28
Union House, schoolmaster and boys	11
Union House, schoolmaster and girls	8

What is particularly striking about the figure is how small it is. According to Michell it was all the children in the Parish above 7 years of age. Yet in 1818,  as noted above, there were an estimated 765 pupils attending the 21 day schools and the three or four boarding schools in the Parish[586]  The population had grown (in 1811 it was 1,714; in 1851, 5,947), so the number of children would have increased. This clearly indicates a contraction in the number of children attending schools. Why? We don’t know; it could be that the expedition was only open to those from “public” schools, not private ones, though I doubt if Michell would have excluded those pupils joining his troop if they had wanted to, and would have clearly set his exclusion out in his account of the visit, but he specifically states: “all the school children in the parish”.

It would appear that at a time when there was agricultural depression and post-war strife, the number of pupils attending schools in Horsham was double that some thirty-three years later. This must have had an effect on Horsham’s ability to move forward as the pool of educated labour diminished. One possibility is that just as in previous decades, the middle classes were sending their children away from Horsham to be educated. Henry Michell was one such person, who sent his son and daughter to board: the son to Steyning Grammar school, the daughter to Miss Summers’ at Dorking.[587]  What was left in Horsham were working and lower middle class children receiving their rudimentary education.

Henry’s account, though, does not pass comment on the number of pupils receiving education; instead, it focuses on the organisation and management. The account makes for fascinating reading when you compare it with the organisation involved in arranging a visit today to London to see the Victoria and Albert Museum; a museum which is the progeny of the exhibition. There are a great many similarities and differences: “Every child was to wear a rosette of pink, white and blue and which were provided by the Ladies and a little tin mug to every 6 or 8 with some eatables for each, each separate school was under the direction of the teachers and I was chosen general Superintendent. We went from here by special train and by steam boat (engaged for the occasion) from London Bridge to Westminster Bridge (there was no embankment or circle line then) whence we marched in procession to a large tree just outside the palace and every child was instructed to come again to the same tree by 4 ‘o’clock p.m. The police were acquainted with our arrangements at the time and place appointed every child made his appearance when a penny bun was given to each and we returned home in the same order as we went out and I believe it was a day of great pleasure to every one concerned”.[588]

They left Horsham at 6am, and returned just before 10 pm, obtaining a special rate for the train: 2/6 for every child over 10 and 1/6 for under-10s. Apart from the teachers mentioned and Mr Michell they only had 20 attendants: 32 adults in total. The cost of the day came to £63 16s 2d, which could not be met by the 1 shilling charge to the pupils, so funds were raised by public subscriptions which raised £42 9s 6d; with Henry paying out £3 13s 8d. The fact that over £42 was raised through subscriptions shows the degree to which the Great Exhibition had caught the public imagination; the degree to which the people of Horsham wanted their children to see the event. Henry Michell said that he would cover the cost, and the townsfolk could have let him bear the cost alone; but they didn’t, as they viewed it as a “good thing”. Exhibitions were entering into the psyche of the British public as a worthwhile thing to see; something which carries over to Museums today.

Mentioned in the account are the 19 schoolchildren from the Union House. The census return for the same year shows that there were 52 children in the workhouse, which suggests that 33 children were under 7 years old, or not all the children attending the two newly-built school rooms, that opened four years earlier in 1847, were allowed to go to see the exhibition. In 1840 Collyer’s School was rebuilt at a cost of £2,240, plus a further £400 to finish the job, making a total of £2,640. That was to provide schoolrooms for 60 poor pupils. In 1847 the two schoolrooms with dormitories above cost just £584 to build. The accommodation must have been very basic. In his account Michell refers to the union workhouse pupils thus: “these poor children formed one of the most interesting groups of the whole party.”[589] 

Technically, Collyer’s children were poor; hence, they attended Collyer’s, so it is doubtful that Michell was referring to ‘poor’ in that sense. The sense of the term ‘poor’ suggests he means “unfortunate”: a patronising tone which sentimentalises poor children; a feature prominent in Victorian print and literary culture. Unfortunately he doesn’t expand beyond this comment, so the comment on “one of the most interesting groups” begs the question: interesting to whom? Those who watched the procession where these children were placed last, the fellow pupils; or were they interesting because they wore different clothing? The 1841 census showed that 107 out of the 153 inmates at the workhouse were children; 71 of them without parents. Whilst a number of them were no doubt bastards where there were groups, such as 5 Farleys, 4 Hulls, 3 Jupps, which suggests some tragedy left them without parents or guardians. Were these children marching in the procession interesting because they had an interesting social background, reflecting the “self help” ideology that was developing in the mid 19^th century?

Between 1841 and 1851 the number of inmates in the workhouse had dropped from 153 to 130. The most significant decrease was in the number of children, from 107 down to 52. The children, as soon as they were old enough, were apprenticed out. This suggests that before the Workhouse was opened extended families looked after the children, then once opened the children were put into care until old enough to get work. Over the next ten years the number of children dropped, not reflecting changing morality or sexual promiscuity, but just getting back to the normal equilibrium. In 1851 there were 47 men and women of working age (though four were classified as “idiots”) and there were 31 old people, compared to 21 and 25 respectively in 1841. Old age was defined as being older than 60. The 1851 Census identifies the occupations of those of working age, and here it becomes apparent that it was unemployment rather than absolute poverty that led them to reside in the workhouse. For 26 were agricultural labourers, 16 house servants, 4 stay makers, 2 brick makers, 2 sailors and 2 rail labourers and their families. And one broom-maker, ostler, road labourer, tailor, wheelwright, waggoner and soldier. Four were listed as paupers; probably unskilled, or the “idiots”.[590]

This year also saw the laying-out of the Cricket Ground, as the extract from the Morning Herald for 26 August 1851 recounts:

The Gentlemen of Surrey v The Gentlemen of Sussex

“This was the return match between the gentlemen of the above great cricketing counties and was commenced at Horsham yesterday upon a piece of ground which was laid down and made, as we were given to understand, by Mr E Tredcroft…for the use of  the Horsham cricketers. Notwithstanding the gentleman has a beautiful cricket-ground in his own park, Mr Tredcroft, with a view to the greater encouragement of the game, expressed a wish that the present contest should be fought on what may be termed the borough or town ground, as therefore the inhabitants would have a smaller distance to go to witness the “doings”. It then goes on to relate how the tenant of the land also offered some money to help the Horsham Club lay the ground which was carried out by Mr Tredcroft. On the opening day “the inhabitants flocked to the ground in large numbers to gaze upon the proceedings”. The journalist left the ground to catch the 6.30 train the score being Gentlemen of Sussex 73, of Surrey 81.[591]

The census as a whole revealed the division between Rural and Urban; however, in Horsham the connection between town and its rural hinterland was strengthened during this decade, not weakened. In 1852 a cattle market was established in the Bishopric, to be held every Wednesday[592]. Why? Cattle markets had been established in Horsham before, only to fail (c.f. Wicker and other accounts of 18^th century markets). The town had a strong corn market held on a Saturday, a popular poultry market on a Monday, and now a cattle market held not in the Carfax itself, but in the old marketplace established by the Archbishop of Canterbury all those years ago in 1449: the Bishopric. The answer lay in booming London. London needed huge amounts of foodstuffs to feed itself; it was drawing in fresh food, sucking in the agricultural goods produced in the south east. But why the Bishopric? The Carfax was probably out of discussion as the area had developed since the 18^th century when the town pound was just north of the area and animals were known to escape. But if the livestock was to be transported to London, why not place it next to the railway station?

But the area around the railway station today was not the scene of 1852. In 1852 North Street leading up to the station was a street of more expensive homes, including Horsham Park, with the area being described in 1837, some 15 years earlier, as a most pleasant and healthy part of the town. [593] The impact of the railway had not been felt. The other probable reason was that the rights to hold a market in that place already existed. They may have ceased to operate, but the rights had not been removed. There is, however, one other factor: the Bishopric was a run-down area, as Burstow describes it thus: “In my young days the Bishopric was the roughest quarter in the Town”[594], before describing an important feature of the area: “The Bishopric was also known as lower West Street and had an open ditch or sewer running down the south side of it with here and there a rough stone bridge over to give access to the old cottages laying back on that side of the road.”[595] Horsham did not at this time, and would not for over twenty more years, have a proper sewage system. Therefore, the excrement and waste the cattle would produce could be swept into the open ditch sewer next to the homes of the powerless. Whereas the Carfax and North Street were the homes of the powerful, who as will be shown later did not want to invest in proper drainage for the town anyhow.

The market initially was not that successful for within a year it had become a monthly affair[596]; though that may have been a temporary measure. However, one of the stimuli to the market was the Horsham Stock Market Annual Christmas Show where prizes, both cash and cups/rosettes, were given out. Started in 1853, it ran until 1967.[597]  (See mini essay at the end for an account of the shows in 1858/9.)

The Great Exhibition proved to be a phenomenal success both commercially and in propaganda terms. But the question was raised of what to do with the exhibition hall: the building known as Crystal Palace. It was decided that when the exhibition closed in 1852 it would be removed and re-erected at Sydenham. It had to stand on a brick foundation. Sydenham lay beside the railway line that went to Horsham. In the summer of 1850 Henry Michell decided to make some bricks on a meadow that backed onto the old gaol site. “supposing I should sell some of the land for building and then it would be a great mutual advantage, as I should get a good profit on the bricks and the builder would be advantaged by having them close at hand”.[598]  That was his plan, but as he wrote, “But to my surprise, I had no sooner made a quantity than parties came by rail and cleared them off as fast as we could make them, and this continued for several successive years.” In 1852 some half a million bricks were sent to Sydenham for the Crystal Palace. 

With his undoubted passion for the Great Exhibition, he must have felt some satisfaction in this order, though he does not express it in his account. This is not the only connection Horsham has with Crystal Palace. Prince Albert directed that the ground around the Palace should be landscaped and populated by full-size prehistoric creatures. And, as described, previously they used the Horsham Iguanodon as the model

In the same year that Michell sold his bricks, he took advantage of the failure of the Gates brewery business known as the Fountain Brewery, the failure of which Michell put down to them “having a practical knowledge of their business and no business habits about them.” [599] The business world was changing. In the past businesses could survive through a knowledge of their craft or trade but now, with increasing levels of sophistication including marketing, risk management, and budget control, such skills were not enough. Michell proved that because he was of this new breed of men (and women), his brewery succeeded whilst Gates’s failed, yet the trade was the same. As he explains, without going into detail; “For some years they had been tottering to their fall and it was evident to the initiated that every step they took to improve their position only hastened their final doom”.

He then describes his purchase of the business from the trustees: “I think they suspended business in 1851, their public house property was sold this year (1852) and the brewery with these premises then known (in conjunction with what is now the Literary institution) as the Richmond Hotel in 1853. The fountain Brewery was carried on the premises next to this house on the West side”. It would appear that Gates owed money to a Mr Marshall of Godalming who sold to Michell for between £5,000 and £6,000 “the Kings Head Inn’, Billingshurst the Queen’s Head Inn, Itchingfield, the Wheat Sheaf Inn, Kingsfold, the Lamb Inn, Horsham, and the Parrot Inn, Abinger, and also the Fountain Brewery and these premises as before stated”.[600]  Michell goes on to explain how, with the new inns and the stoppage of the Gates brewery, he had to produce more ale. He also needed a larger malt house, so he approached Sir Percy Florence Shelley, who owned the West Street Brewery site, and agreed to its enlargement. Michell would build a new malt house for £1,000 and pay Sir Percy Florence an additional £60 rent per year. The works were to be supervised by John Honeywood. It, Michell wrote, “enabled me to carry on the Malting business under my own eye, and I of course at once gave up the old wretched Malthouse I had for many years in Billingshurst Street and also the house situated opposite the barrack fields in the Worthing road.” [601]

The following year Michell records, in his account: “I bought the Fountains Brewery this year and then I bought a great part of the plant of Gate’s trustees and Mr Taunton, who was then using the Brewery and all this I had to convert into cash, and I got a little more than I gave for it….My next step was to convert the premises into their present form or something very near it, in order to make a rent of it, and let it to Mr Sadler, Solicitor…I was also very much engaged in carrying out the new arched cellars with the Malthouses over them alluded to in … last year’s narrative. I had to make the bricks (which I did on the ground lately occupied by the Gaol) and build the place ready for use by the commencement of the malting season”[602]. As he was so busy with the brewing trade he gave up the coal trade. The following year the Crimean War started and an additional duty of 10s per quarter was immediately put on malt which, with the cost of setting up his malt houses and cellars, affected his profits that year.

The year that saw the Great Exhibition close, saw the opening in Horsham of Denne Road Cemetery. The corollary of an expanding population was also a larger number of people to bury. In 1840 the demolition of the old vicarage had released some land around the church, but by 1849 the cemetery was full. The cholera epidemic that swept the nation in 1848 had not helped matters. So the church authorities bought back land that they had previously owned in Denne Road and opened it as a new site. The following year the Vestry decided to erect a lych gate.[603]

However, all was not well, and it would seem that there was some resistance to using the new cemetery as the following letter from Whitehall, addressed to the Church Wardens of Horsham and dated 19 June 1856, stopped most burials in Horsham Churchyard; for, as the letter states:

                                     ‘… that for the protection of the Public Health, no new Burial Ground shall be opened in Horsham, in the County of Sussex without the previous approval of one of such Secretaries of State, and that Burials be discontinued forthwith in the Parish Church of Horsham, and in the General Baptist Chapel, also in the Burial Ground of the General Baptist and Friends

Chapel, within three yards of all dwelling houses; and in the Old Parish Churchyard except in now existing Vaults and brick Graves, which can be opened without disturbing soil that has been already buried in, and in which each Coffin shall be embedded in a layer of powdered charcoal four inches thick and be

separately entombed in brick or stone work properly cemented.’

This would explain how the Indian princess, Helena Bennett, was buried in St Mary’s Churchyard in 1854, even though the Denne Road site had opened. However, what it does not explain is why the gravestone faces a different way. It is said that it faces Mecca.

What is surprising is how little Horsham had been built up. The population had increased in line with the country but the town within its boundaries still had land under-developed close to its centre. For example, on 27 August 1857 thirty building blocks were sold in Swan Field for development; ten became an extension of Albion Terrace and twenty became Albion Road[604]. In 1856 the Horsham Building Society was founded[605] (or to give its full name, The Horsham Permanent Benefit Building Society, of whom Henry Michell was Chairman in 1864[606]), obviously to meet a growing need, but unfortunately we have no papers at hand dealing with this important institution, but its creation did allow Horsham folk to access money for mortgages to pay for the new homes being built throughout the area. Without it, money would have to have been borrowed from the banks or individuals like Henry Padwick, who lent money readily to the profligate, especially those who had landed estates, then foreclosed on the loan, forcing bankruptcy and the chance to acquire the assets at “fire sale” prices.[607]

The same can be said of the cricket ground; land that would have been ripe for growth in other towns was available for a new cricket ground to be laid out in 1851. Although it was in the ownership of Mr Tredcroft he could have developed it; but he didn’t. This more than anything else shows the degree to which Horsham was slipping behind. Horsham was not stagnating, but it was not expanding as fast as other towns, particularly those along the coast of Sussex. Horsham was, in the mid 19^th century, under-developed.

In the autumn of 1856 the General Baptist Chapel of Horsham held a series of “Discourses, illustrative of the principles of Unitarian Christians”. The seven discourses were held on Sunday evenings with attendance at the service expected. In the survey of 1851 27 people attended the evening meeting, so how many attended meetings which discussed such issues as “A comparison of Unitarian and Trinitarian Views of God, Christ and human Nature (October 19^th 1856) or “The Signs of the Times favourable to the Reception of Unitarianism” (2^nd November), “Human Depravity and Human Dignity (23^rd November) is debatable. The notice of the talks has never been commented on before, but whilst the talks may seem esoteric and of marginal influence in the town’s history, it is through such meetings that the townsfolk were learning about and developing a knowledge of their fellow man. Such meetings were providing a spiritual and sociological basis to economic and scientific developments.

So who were the General Baptists? “In 1832 a revised constitution for the Union (which had formed as a Society in 1813) was adopted which widened its declared theological basis to encompass all “Baptists ministers and churches who agree in the sentiments usually denominated evangelical”.[608] It thus enabled Baptists that had been dividing into groups to reform, to increase in number. The Unitarians were also divided, into those “who shared a biblical-based orthodoxy with other Protestants, except for their conviction that the doctrine of the Trinity was unscriptural, and those who were heirs of the radicalism and deism of the Enlightenment. In the latter form especially it was cerebral and essentially middle class in its appeal”.[609]  The titles of the discourses strongly suggest that it was this element that the General Baptists in Horsham were discoursing with.

What is particularly interesting is what effect this cerebral, rational brand of Unitarianism had on 19^th century civic life, for it “nurtured and sustained a tradition of provincial politicians, mayors and leaders of provincial civic life whose reforming contributions to Victorian society gave Unitarianism an importance out of all proportion to its actual size”[610]. Unfortunately we do not know who attended these meetings, but we do know that the Church of England did not have a monopoly on the “great and good of Horsham”. The Unitarians had “ strong social and humanitarian impulses”, as well as in some areas a working class following,[611] so whilst we do not know exactly what was said at these discourses an assumption can be made that a raising of the critical awareness of social issues and how Christians should respond to them was on the agenda. As Hylson-Smith goes on to state, “The liberalism of its theology, if not the detail of its arguments, had become the property of almost all the major denominations”  by the end of the century.

An example of the Christian response to the ills of society can be seen in the Warnham Clothing Club, founded in 1857 with the express aim stated as follows: “This Club affords an excellent medium to those benevolent persons whose circumstances enable them to relieve the necessities of their poorer neighbours”. The purpose of the club was to provide a means to save to buy clothes or shoes, with the Club providing a bonus of 25% at the year end. It had an air of Victorian paternalism in that subscribers had to be recommended by an Honorary subscriber, and “On the First Monday in December annually, Tickets will be issued (note not cash, just in case it was spent on other items) authorising the holder to have Shoes or Clothing to the amount of their Subscriptions and bonus, at such Tradesmen’s as they may prefer, and what ever is purchased must be brought to a Committee of Honorary  Members at the School, for their approval, on the following Saturday, at 10 o’clock.”

So not only were the poor not trusted with money, but they were not trusted to make the sensible decision over what to purchase; though they did have the choice of retailer. Horsham had a “Parochial Clothing Club” that added 5s to each 10s subscribed, which ran along similar lines. In 1869 there was also a Shoe Club.[612]

On 10 August 1857 an Act was presented to Parliament for the extension of the London and Brighton South Coast Railway from Horsham to Pulborough.[613] The Act makes it clear that, although the new railway company set up to implement the scheme was to be called “The Mid-Sussex Railway Company”, it was to be its own corporate body, to have powers to buy and hold lands acquired for the purpose of the railway; it was, in fact, an extension of The London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company, for the company had the right to maintain, manage, set fees, run rolling stock on, and build, the line. The Mid-Sussex might have seven Directors who had to hold a minimum of 50 shares (i.e. pay £500) who could be elected at Stockholders meetings; two directors could not be deselected for seven years, including Walter Barttelot Barttelot[614], and the quorum for the meeting of Directors was three. It was in effect a company run and managed by the London, Brighton and South Coast railway, but given a separate legal entity just in case it should fold, therefore limiting the liabilities on the parent company. The cost of the railway was £160,000 (Albery quotes a figure of £90,000[615], but the Act makes clear that “the estimated Expense of making such Part of the said Railway as will lie between Horsham, Billingshurst and Pulborough is Ninty-nine thousand Pounds, and the estimated Expense of making the said Branch-Railway between Pulborough and Coultershaw Mill is Fifty-one thousand Pounds: Therefore the Capital of the said Company shall be One hundred and sixty thousand Pounds”[616].

There were to be 16,000 £10 shares, with the money called upon in stages: £2 being the most asked for at any one time, with a maximum of £6 in any year and a minimum of two-months’ interval between calls. The company itself could borrow £50,000 as a mortgage providing the total number of shares had been signed up and at least half had actually been paid.[617]  In effect, the company could borrow £50,000 providing £80,000 had been paid by shareholders and the entire amount had been subscribed to. The Act also explicitly stated the money raised could only be used for the purpose it was intended. This meant that the total cost of the scheme could be up to £210,000.

The Act then sets out a number of very specific features which affected the topography of the town:

• The new line started 130 feet north-east of the current passenger platform.
• That the Crawley and Horsham Turnpiked road, New Street Road and Station Road were altered to make way for the railway.
• The railway, instead of a level crossing on the Horsham and Brighton Turnpiked road, could build a bridge by raising “the Levels of the said Railway Nine Feet, and to lower the said Horsham and Brighton Turnpiked Road Eight Feet, and to construct a Bridge over the said Turnpiked Road with a Span not less than Thirty-five Feet, and with a clear Headway of not less than Fifteen Feet throughout the Span and the Inclination of the approaches to be not less than One in Thirty”(1935).
• They also specifically agreed to build and maintain forever a 9ft-wide bridge over the railway that runs through the “Kitchen Garden” of Robert Henry Hurst. The approach to the bridge to be not steeper than one in twenty.

Other expenses incurred by the railway included having manned level crossings.

The Act then sets out in detail the maximum charges that the railway company could impose. As the railway was a monopoly it was clear that Parliament wanted to make sure the new infrastructure could be used by people (see mini essay at the end).

The company had two years in which it could make compulsory purchases and four years in which it could build the railway, before the provisions of the Act ceased. The railway was completed by, and opened on, 10 October 1859. “Twelve days later a locomotive without a crew left Petworth station, crashed through various gates travelling for 17 miles, before climbing into Horsham where the gradient slowed it down enabling an engine cleaner to climb on board and stop it. For that he received a gratuity of £3 and promotion to fireman”.[618] The building of the railway was not plain sailing, as a comment by Henry Michell makes clear:

“I have this year (1858) to record the treaty with the Mid Sussex Railway Company for the ground they took from me in Park square, for which they paid me £1,000, and very lucky I was to get it as many of those who gave up their land without the money had a great deal of trouble and some of them lost it through the bankruptcy of the Solicitor and contractor”[619]. Michell also faced some controversy within the Sussex press when he supported the moving of the railway station to East Street. The feeling being that this was for financial self-interest, rather than good business sense. The old wooden railway station closed and a new brick-built station was built on the other side of the Horsham to Crawley Turnpiked road.[620]  The station was a rather grand affair, with its two chimneys, two storeys high, mimicking the medieval aisled houses with two wings, between which was a canopy. The windows were arched in a gothic style popular at the time. Horsham station was a destination: you arrived and left in style in of the largest buildings built in Horsham.

At the time this Act was presented to Parliament, another plan was put forward: The Shoreham, Horsham, and Dorking Railway. The prospectus was for 17,500 shares at £20 a share, realizing £350,000 in capital. The proposal was for constructing a 30-mile railway linking Shoreham, by Horsham, to Dorking. “The Works on almost the whole length of the Line are light, and the whole may be completed as a single Line in the first instance at a cost of about £10,000 a mile”. The prospectus then sets out the economic advantages of the line, including connecting Steyning, Henfield, West Grinstead, Cowfold, Capel, Ockley, Newdigate “and a large tract of country abounding in gentlemen’s residences”,  before going on to say that Shoreham harbour “is of great extant and capacity” and the railway will open up its hinterland.

In addition to making the transport of agricultural produce to the market easier and cheaper, the line will link with a new line recently authorised by Parliament (in July 1857 and 56) to link Wimbledon and Dorking and Epsom and Leatherhead Railways respectively, and a proposed line between Leatherhead to Dorking, some 4 or 5 miles, has just been proposed. If all goes to plan “a through line of communication from Shoreham to the Waterloo Station London 51 miles in length, will be established.”  The prospectus is not dated, but on internal evidence a date of late 1857 is suggested, as the prospectus states: “The necessary preliminary steps have been taken for obtaining in the Session of 1858 an Act of Parliament for authorising the construction of the Line”  Except it did not happen until ten years later: 1868.[621] 

On 6 August 1860 the Horsham and Guilford Direct Railway Act was passed, that set out building a railway from a double or fork junction with the mid-Sussex Railway in the parish of Itchingfield (Stammerham) to Guildford. The railway was estimated to cost £160,000 with the possibility to draw on a £50,000 mortgage if necessary, suggesting a budget of £210,000. Interestingly, one of the first directors was the trader William Lintot. The Act stipulated that the railway had to be built within four years of the passing of the Act; in fact, it did not open till 1865[622] (Windrum 193).

This was followed on 17 July 1862 with the passing of the Horsham to Dorking and Leatherhead Act, which set out to build a railway at a cost of £120,000, with the possibility to borrow £40,000 mortgage; thus, £160,000. One of the directors was Sir Percy Florence Shelley; even though he was living in Boscomb by this time, he obviously still had interests in the area. The railway opened in 1867, five years after the Act had passed. The following year the line to Shoreham opened.[623]

The sense of pride in the town and the idea that Horsham was now being connected to a wider rail network, rather than a “dead end”, a terminus, possibly encouraged the publication in 1858 of “Ten views in and around Horsham with a short descriptive sketch”, which would be republished 11 years later as The Strangers Guide.[624] Books of these small steel engravings were being produced across Sussex, with Brighton having 50 such illustrations in their guide book. 

The opening of the new railway station led to the laying out of Hurst Road around 1860. This road lay on the boundary of Horsham Park and what was formerly Horsham Common. Prior to the enclosure of the common in 1813 there had been a track that swept in over the common from what was Warnham pond.[625]  That roadway had been closed, but with little reason to join this side of Horsham to the station area of Horsham, no replacement track was laid. The development of North Parade and the Trafalgar Farm and House area might have encouraged the idea of a track, but now, with the new station being built and expanded railway, it became an important route, unless this area of Horsham and Warnham were to be isolated from the benefits of the railway. On 6 August of the same year, 1860, the Horsham and Guildford Direct Railway Act was passed that set out the building of a railway from a double or fork junction with the mid-Sussex Railway in the parish of Itchingfield (Stammerham) to Guildford. The railway was estimated to cost £160,000 with the possibility to draw on a £50,000 mortgage if necessary, suggesting a budget of £210,000. Interestingly, one of the first directors was the trader William Lintot. The Act stipulated that the railway had to be built within four years from the passing of the Act. In fact, it did not open till 1865.[626]

By the 1860s there had been a number of developments concerning agriculture within Horsham. The Hurst family had managed by 1861 to own a large swathe of land in North Horsham,[627] made up for the most part of the old Horsham Common. This land had by and large been turned over to arable,[628] though corn was not necessarily the dominant voice within the local area. In 1862 the corn market that had been held on a Saturday moved its day to Wednesday, to tie in with the Fat Stock market in the Bishopric. According to the poster the Fat Stock market that had in 1853 been made monthly had now become a weekly occurrence, and “There is no doubt that when the several Railways are completed, of which Horsham will be the centre, that a great increase in the Markets will take place, and a general extension of trade in the Town”.[629] The market opened at 2 o’clock, allowing the fat stock to complete their business. In all, 109 buyers and sellers from as far afield as Brighton, Lewes and Petworth, as well as local traders, allowed their names to be published on the poster informing people of the change. The Museum holds four copies of the poster, which suggests that either it was over-printed, not widely distributed, or seen as very important, so copies were retained. The notice was issued on 9 July to take effect from 23 July 1862. 

A year earlier, along Worthing Road, a new mill was erected, according to the date stone, known as the Worthing Road Mill to separate it from the Town Mill. The miller was Henry Albery. It would later be known as Prewett’s Mill. The late 19^th century saw a number of the Horsham windmills closing down, with steam power, rather than wind, becoming the dominant force. This was possibly because the railway could deliver large quantities of cheap coal, as coal, rather than charcoal, had been growing in usage from the late 18^th century. The gasworks that opened in Horsham in 1836 used coal to produce the gas and, whilst wagon loads could deliver the supply, as Horsham did not have easy access to canal-borne trade its production would be limited. With the arrival of the railway, coal and steam power rather than water and wind became the power of Horsham (see mini essay at the end of this chapter).

Between 1851 and 1861 the population of Horsham rose by 800 souls exactly, to 6,747. In 1841 it had been 5,765. Horsham still had no real form of government or organisational body. In 1862 another fire engine was required so, rather than draw the money from the Lighting and Watching Board, the fire brigade fund-raised. There were 548 subscribers on the Subscription Roll[630] and there were 60 volunteer firemen.[631] 

St Mark’s Church had, as can be seen in the census of 1851, never been as popular as expected. It was recorded in the census that 140 scholars attended the Sunday school there. When it was built in 1840, St Mark’s boys’ school opened next door and land was purchased on the other side for the erection of a Sunday school and a school for adults.[632] Though Miss Hurst writes, “The site was the joint gift of a charitable lady, and the Rev. A.H. Bridges, the latter making the proviso with the gift, that the building should be architecturally in keeping with the adjoining church and school for boys.”[633]  However, the lack of popularity of St Mark’s meant that the Sunday school could be accommodated within the body of the church in the afternoon as afternoon services were not held there. This enabled the land to be used for the girls’ school that had moved to Denne Park in 1820, from whence it got its name: Denne School.[634] 

In 1833 there were 80 pupils; in 1846-7, 125, besides 28 who attended Sunday school.[635] The new school was designed by the architect S. S. Teulon. The move would have been approved by those who petitioned against the original move, arguing that by the “lowlands of the riverside it cannot be regarded as salubrious”[636], though Dudley called it a “delightful situation”. The school was built by voluntary subscriptions aided with a grant of £90 from the Privy Council and a grant of £24 from the “National Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor in the Principles of the established Church”. The total cost was a little over £700.[637]  The schoolroom was 40ft by 18, with a classroom at the east end on the south side, providing “according to government scale” room for 120 girls. Along with the move went a change in the name, from Denne to St Mary’s, reflecting the origin of the National School in St Mary’s church porch, part of the Trinity Chantry in 1812

This may well have been a way for the church authorities to see how the architect worked, for on 25 February 1864 a public meeting was held to decide what was to be done to restore St Mary’s. The building had deteriorated and suffered a dramatic lean. However, it did have a sufficient status for the Bishop of Chichester, on 15 September 1862, to hold an ordination service for two deacons. The last time such a service was held in 1404 and 5.[638] Teulon, a leading church architect, suggested a radical but successful solution. According to Dorothea Hurst he had prepared the plans “a few years before”.[639] Work started in April 1864.[640] Ms Hurst described the work program in nine points:

1. “The entire reconstruction of the nave.
2. The rebuilding of the south aisle.
3. The removal of all galleries, and the reseating of the entire church with convenient and uniform seats.
4. The addition of a wing to the south aisle.
5. The restoration of the two chantry chapels, and the throwing them into the church.
6. The re-adjustment and general strengthening of the roof.
7. The throwing open the noble entrance, through the belfry and spacious tower-arch, into the church.
8. A due provision for warmth, light, and ventilation.
9. The efficient repair of the entire fabric”.

The roof was to be removed, the walls taken down to the string course below the windows and the building jacked up, pushing the walls back to perpendicular, correcting the two foot lean in under two hours on 17 October 1864. As the reporter in the Horsham Advertiser stated, “Thus three great steps have been gained this week towards the complete renovation of our ancient church. First. This wall has been set upright. Second. The clumsy column, heretofore dividing and disfiguring the fifth arch, has disappeared. Third. The unsightly trussed girders, wholly destroying the beautiful perspective of the interior, have been removed.”[641] The arcade on the north side was dealt with in the same manner; after that, they could rebuild the clerestory, restore the roof timbers and reinstate the roof. Other building works included the replacement of the poor-quality east window that had been built in 1839 after the 15th century window had blown in on 7 July 1839.[642]  Teulon managed to re-create the 15^th century window by using the original fragments that had been found during the building works as they had been built into the east wall. This, and other works, took a year to complete[643] and finished in November 1865.[644]

However, not everyone was pleased, according to the following verse composed, according to Burstow[645], on completion of the rebuild:

“About two years ago our Parson declared-

The Church is in danger and must be repaired:

A committee was formed and the money got in

With pence from the poor, which I think was a sin.

 London builders were asked to send tenders down,

Not a man was invited of our ancient town;

One was selected – a great city swell,-

And how he sold townsmen I’ll very son tell.

The time flew away, near twelvemonth went round,

Since this clever builder to Horsham came down;

He was courted by tradesmen, the great and the small,

And to keep in their graces he dealt with them all:

This one for paint, for glass, and for lead,

That one for meat and another for bread;

The grocer, the draper, the trader in gin,

And the dealer in game, cunning Jack, were let in.

The snob and the tailor for boots and for clothes,

The Parsons for cash, the amount no one knows.

The man at the bank when too late, alas found,

He had given too much credit by eleven-hundred pound.

Those who supplied him with timber and rope,

Alike all were duped: for their cash they’ve no hope.

Other victims in Horsham this builder had many,

For now he’s a bankrupt, and won’t pay a penny”

We do not know who wrote this, though it would appear to be contemporary with the events it describes. However, assuming that what it versifies is true, it reveals a number of facts about the rebuilding of the church.

The poor were asked to contribute to the rebuild, as revealed in the poem and in the collection book below. Yet St Mark’s had been established for the poor of the Parish, with the poor not being particularly welcome in St Mary’s. In fact, seating was guarded with some degree of legal possession. There was one celebrated occurrence, known as the Horsham Pew Case, that lasted five years from 1851 to 1856, all because John Turner Rawlinson had been prevented from occupying a pew he wanted. The churchwardens had argued that a pew was attached to certain houses and could therefore be bought and sold.[646]  So the poor were not exactly welcome in the Church.

The Committee approached London builders rather than local ones to carry out the work. As Teulon was the architect this is not surprising. Perhaps he had experienced local builders in erecting St Mary’s school. Equally, the work was specialist in nature. The next line suggests that the criticism may not have been of the builder but the architect, a great city swell, for Teulon was patronised by royalty, though the fact the builder went bankrupt suggests it was the builder, not the architect, being criticised. It would then seem that over the next twelve months the builder or Teulon was fêted by local traders. This criticism seems harsh; after all, it shows that wherever he could he used local suppliers for the materials and work. The next line concerning the Parson is obviously a criticism of the Vicar. The suggestion is that the Parson paid out of his own pocket money to the builder, but no record was made.

The next section of the verse is the crux of the criticism. The bank lent the builder £1,100 in credit, as well as all the credit given by various suppliers for items, and then the builder declared bankrupt.

This raises a number of points. Was the building executed for a fixed sum, rather than piecemeal? Probably it was, as the Church only had a limited amount of subscription money. If the builder was a city of London builder one would have thought he would have been able to draw from his other building work. If that was the case – after all, the bank lent him £1100 – then perhaps the failure came not through rebuilding the church, but being overstretched elsewhere. The actual rebuilding cost £8,000,[647]though according to Hurst, “The cost of these works, (listed in the nine points above) was originally estimated approximately at £5,000, which was subsequently found to be less than two-thirds of the sum really required”.[648]  In reality, according to this verse the sum was greater – a lot greater – well over £9,100, and it was the tradesmen in Horsham who had to carry the overspend, as they had to deal with the bankruptcy.

This, though, is not the end of the story for the poem above, printed in Burstow’s book, was copied by Albery. However, in the notebook owned by Burstow in Burstow’s own hand is another version, the original one, and it shows that Albery made substantive changes to the poem which spun the story:

Verses

About the restoration of the Old Church

About two years ago the parson declaired (sic)

That the church was out of order and must be repaired

So a committee* was formed and the money got in

With pence from the poor which I think was a sin

London builders were requested tenders to send down

As none could do the job in our ancient town.

One was selected, a great city swell

And how he sold them, I will soon tell.

How time flew away, near a twelve month gone round,

Since this clever builder, to our Parish came down

He was courted by the Tradesmen both great and small

And to keep in their graces he dealt with them all.

To Richardson for paint, for glass and for lead,

Sendall for meat and Collet for bread

Loxley for grocery. Browner for gin

And that cunning Jack Stavell for game he let in

Agate for timber and I make no doubt

And over his amounts he will put his eyes out

J Moon for nails Collins for cloths

To the parson for money the amount no one knows

The great Mr Hoare all the bank he did known

And there he soon drew out about 11 hundred pounds

And a great many more I do not know who

But he failed and I am told he wont pay a sue”

The changes are considerable, not only in content but also in tone. In the printed version it reads as if the Church did not want local builders to do the work, yet in the original the tone is of the lack of skill by the builders, for “none could do the job”. Burstow’s original version identifies some of the traders who sold materials to the builder, including Jack Stavell, who was given the epithet “cunning”. Why? was he a poacher, or was he disliked within the town? Albery’s version ends with an expanded attack on the builder implying that he was crooked, with tradesmen being “duped”. Yet Burstow’s version just states that he failed or went bankrupt. The implication in Albery is clearly one of city versus country; city slicker against honest country traders. Yet Burstow’s is far more reasoned and has an air of accuracy.

The Museum archives also has “Subscription account book for the church restoration, 1864-6”, a record of donations/subscriptions for the rebuilding of the church[649]: the amounts given were remarkably small. Most of the sums donated were in the £1 to £10 amounts with many at £5, for example, William Albery gave £5, £1 given every six months. There were some larger contributors, but they are the exception, J. Bostock gave £150, Major Aldridge £100.00, the Rev. Bridges £200, Scrase Dickens £100 (The Dickens family gave £200 in total,) whilst £125 was received from the Diocesan Association, Vezey Fitzgerald gave £200, Sir Henry Fletcher gave £10; his wife, Lady Fletcher, only gave £1. Other fundraising initiatives included a concert which raised £61 11 7d (It raised £95 17 9d but expenses were £34.6.2d)

There was then a second run of donations: “Fund for the expense of East Windows or second general subscription”, followed by a third donation and the sale of “old lead” which raised £25 10/-. Unfortunately, the accounts are not written up in a neat way so there is a great deal of conflicting information, deliberate or otherwise. For example, under the second donation the amount totalled was £490.5/-, but under the column for first payment a total of £554.5/- is given and then under the column for total payment £140.0.0. The Third donation round is simpler, as fewer gave money and it is listed showing that in total £364. 14/- was given.

On 14 November 1865 an offertory was collected raising £275 14 5d in the morning and £20. 18s 9d in the evening service. There then follows “A List of Contributions by Mr Padwick Esq per Rev J Hodgson”; the list is of 20 names, starting with senior gentry of the land. Interestingly, they seem to have little connection with Horsham and might in fact represent Padwick putting pressure on the young landed gentry to whom he had lent money, for no female name is listed. The list starts with The Duke of Newcastle who gave £50, Marquise of Haisting £50, Earl of Westmoreland £50, Sir Robt Peel Brt £25, down to T. C. Perry £5. In total the 20 names contributed £460, of which £20 was spent on the expenses of the opening, £300 went to the General Fund and £100 was spent on decoration of the West Wall (the repainting?)

It would also seem that the Reverend Hodgson had signed a promissory note for £600 with the London and County Bank which was to be paid back through his own generosity, partly from the offertory and £50 from the Bishop of Chichester. The difficulty in paying for the Church is apparent when a year later another collection was held at the anniversary gathering of the opening of the church, which raised £100.

What is remarkable about the accounts is the difficulty they had in raising the funds. compared with the fundraising for St Marks. The impression is given that St Mary’s was not that popular, especially amongst those who one would have expected to have funded its rebuilding.

The church’s refurbishment included the redecoration of the church interior, a contemporary account is given by Dorothea Hurst: “…the whole roof was richly decorated with colour, in the same style as that of which traces were discovered. On the west wall are represented “The Last Supper”, a subject which originally occupied this position; and below this “The Annunciation,” so arranged as to fill the unequal space on either side of the arch. The diaper, and other ornaments which enclose these designs, are chiefly copied from those discovered in the church. The whole of the work, as well as the colouring of the roof, was entrusted to Messrs. Heaton, Butler, and Bayne. Though not executed till some time after the opening of the church, it may be well to mention here the decoration of the east end by O’Connor: the moulding round the window is slightly coloured, and on either side are the Commandments, on a blue ground; below the sill, the space immediately behind the alter is painted as an arcade in blue, with a pattern of tiles; the rest of the wall is filled in with a diaper of grey. The Lord’s Prayer and the Creed being introduced on either side”.[650]

Why was the church re-decorated? The interesting thing is that St Mark’s was decorated for the first time two years earlier to a detailed design. “In 1863 the sacrarium was decorated throughout in a polychromatic arrangement, by Messrs Harland and Fisher of London. The ceiling is now studded with gold stars on a blue ground, and the instruments of our Lord’s Passion painted on the corbels. The jambs of the window have a rich design of passion-flowers. The east wall is treated in diaper work of murrey colour, surmounted by a graceful pattern of vine leaves and fruit in corresponding tints of a lighter shade. The splay of the arch which divides the chancel from the sacrarium is painted in cold grey. Round this arch is introduced the text. “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty”; and on the wall paintings of the “Agnus Dei” and “The Pelican in her Piety”…In 1866 colour was also introduced on the walls of the nave. From the floor to the springing of the arches, the piers are painted with a pattern of masonry work. The splays are coloured in grey, and a crocket pattern carried round their arches themselves in a rich shade of chocolate. Beneath the wall-plate on the north is the text, “Surely the Lord is in this place; this is none other but the gate of heaven”; on the south: I have hallowed this house to put my name there for ever, and my eyes and my heart shall be there perpetually”. The colouring of the church now harmonizes throughout, and presents a happy contrast to the former bareness of whitewashed walls”.[651].

One of the notable design features of the Victorian era, particularly of the 1860s onwards, was the strong use of colour. It was as if children had discovered the candy box as colours were used in profusion, often in combinations that later generations would shudder at, but in the Victorian era, worked. One area that took full advantage of this was in book illustration and the technique of chromolithography[652]  and the Baxter print, invented by Lewes-based printer and artist George Baxter who licensed it to others in 1850s. One of the many publishing areas to exploit this colour printing was religious publishing, and the growth in medieval studies, particularly calligraphy and illuminations.

Thus, by 1863 there had been at least 15 years of books published that used strong colours, calligraphy, religious iconography and blended them together to produce very popular, but quite expensive, books. Now such masterpieces of the book art were being painted on a larger canvas: the interior of the church, a church whose gothic architecture mimicked the medieval architecture, just as the Victorian colour-printed calligraphy book with its religious themes mimicked the medieval illuminated manuscripts and books of hours. In many respects it should not have been surprising that St Mark’s drew its inspiration from that. What is surprising, though, is that St Mary’s followed suit. However, in St Mary’s case it might have been the rediscovery of original paintings that encouraged the redecoration of the church or, as the painting was carried out after the completion of the building work but before 1868 when Dorothea Hurst’s book was published, the comparison of St Mark’s’ brightly-coloured interior and the plain austerity of St Mary’s. Either way, both churches, now brightly-coloured, provided the only “public” art in the town.

---

ELABORATIONS

HORSHAM FAT STOCK CHRISTMAS SHOW

A flavour of the event and its importance can be found in the following documents which date from its early years.[653] Those who subscribed could be entered into the competition with the subscription being 5/- in 1858. One person who entered was William Sadler of the Swan Inn who sent his two 10-month old pigs in 1859; though he was not the breeder. (There was an award given to the best bred and fed pigs, see below.) In 1858 the Horsham Stock Market, the Christmas Show of Fat Stock, Corn, Poultry, and Roots was held on Wednesday 15 December, with a dinner held at the Black Horse Inn, at 2pm afterwards prizes were presented. The printed list of subscribers was impressive with over 120, including W.R.S. Fitzgerald who gave £10 and a silver cup, Earl March £5, Sir C. M. Burrell £2, London and County Bank £2. The prizes or, as they termed them, premiums, were equally impressive, with six classes for beasts with 13 awards covering ox, steer, cow, and heifer.

In addition, a silver cup was awarded by the Tradesmen of Horsham for the Best Beast Shown, with a silver cup given by Fitzgerald for the Best Beast Shown of Pure Sussex Breed, then the same awards for the Best Breed Bred and Fed by an Exhibitor. The other livestock awards, for sheep and pigs, were far fewer, suggesting the status that beef had within the farming and town community (the town traders did not award any prizes for any other product), sheep (three classes, with 5 awards), pigs (2 classes and three awards). There then followed awards for corn (white and brown wheat, malting barley, oats) poultry, (cock and two hens, goose and gander, drake and two ducks), followed by roots (mangle wurzel, swede turnips, white turnips, white carrots, cabbages.)

In 1859 there must have been some discussion about awarding prizes for root crops, possibly because there was no specific market, unlike the corn, poultry and beef. In a letter sent by Hurst he states:

“Dear Sir,

I am quite sure no man can farm profitably without roots, therefore we must encourage their growth. I accord of course with your rules. By our description of the gilt cup is very good as to its purpose the inspectors of the roots will take which they like & both one worthy of a cup that will be a reason another year for giving to each let us see how it takes. Yours truly J Hurst Thakeham April 19^th 1859”

There was no award of a cup or plate in 1858, but by 1869 the following award is noted under extra prizes:

“Roots

A Piece of plate of the value of £5, the gift of the Rev. John Hurst, to the exhibitor of the Best 5 Acers of Mangold Wurzel grown within 8 miles of the Town Hall of Horsham.” 

The same printed list of prizes and awards also notes some extra awards, including the one noted above. Others include:

“A Piece of Plate of the value of £5 5s., the gift of R H Hurst Esq., M.P. to a Tenant Farmer using not more than 200 acres of land and having no other occupation, who shall exhibit the best Fat Steer or Heifer under three years of age, having been fed and bred by the Exhibitor”

And

“Six Silver Tea-spoons, the gift of C.S.S. Dickens, Esq. Will be given to the Dairy Maid or person in charge of the dairy, for the Best 8lb of Butter, produced within 8 miles of the Town Hall of Horsham”  

Which must have been of little use to the farmers.

THE RAILWAY DUTIES AND CHARGES: AN EXAMPLE OF GOVERNMENT PRICE CONTROL

The Railway Acts, when passed, stipulated the maximum charges the companies could pass on to their customers. This enabled the companies to work out their profit margins and for investors to see if it was a worthwhile investment. The following is taken from the line to Pulborough in 1857.

Clause 39 identifies five classes of goods with an appendix identifying what is in each class. So that First-class goods were conveyed at one penny per mile per ton if conveyed in their own carriages with an additional half penny per mile per ton if carried in the company carriages. First class goods included bulk items, from guano to potatoes, cement to nitrate of soda. Second-class was charged at One penny halfpenny with an additional charge of one penny. These goods included ale and porter in casks to rice, vinegar, wool, and so on. Third-class goods two pence half penny and one penny respectively. Goods in this class included canvas, herrings, dried, iron castings liable to damage, snuff, paper, floor cloth, fruit etc. Fourth-class Three pence Halfpenny and one penny with the goods being amongst others; agricultural implements, drugs, fish, haberdashery, sugar refined, meat, tinned ware. The fifth and last class was charged at Four pence Halfpenny with one penny Halfpenny if carried in the companies carriages. Included in this class of goods were bonnets, feathers, musical instruments, pictures and light Articles per Agreement and of interest to Horsham, Poultry alive.

The idea of on-off railway carriages for taking cars is not a new idea, for the Act made it clear that vehicles/carriages having more two wheels were charged at 4d per mile, and more than 2 wheels 5d, with an additional penny charge if carried on company carriages. It then goes into the charges for passengers and animals in the same degree of detail. The maximum charge per mile for a horse was five pence, ox cow, bull one and a halfpence, calf, pig or sheep ¾ of a penny. And if you thought airlines were restrictive regarding passenger luggage, the railways thought of that 100 years before. First class passengers could take 112lb, second class 100lb, third class 60lb in luggage. First class passengers could not be charged more than two pence and two fifths part of a penny, per mile, second class one penny and four fifths part of a penny with third class paying one penny and one fifth part of a penny (1937-1943).

HORSHAM CORN MILLS – The 19^th Century[654]

The 18^th century history of the mills has been covered previously. Here I intend to give a brief outline of the Corn Mills in the 19^th century Horsham, based on Comber.

The Town Mill

According to Albery[655], the Shipley gang targeted Horsham Town Mill, causing damage; however, this is disputed by Claire Wickens who can find no evidence for Albery’s comments[656], as Stringer Sheppard, the then tenant, was not listed in the indictments at their trial. In 1844 William Sheppard, the eldest son, sold the mill to Thomas Lee of Horsham for £2410, but then leased it back at £144 a year for 50 years, or his lifetime, whichever was the shorter. On 1 January 1855 the mill seems to have changed hands as Henry Albery was noted as the tenant. When on 31 March 1860 it came up for sale it was described as having “an Overshot and two Flood Wheels and an 8 hp. Steam Engine, five pairs of stones, flour dresser and bolter, Millers Cottage, two van sheds, Piggeries, Stabling for three horses and Car House with Granary over”.[657]

It seems as if Henry, instead of renting the mill, now bought it, and in doing so started to invest in it with some of the burrstones dated Hughes 1859. A photograph of 1849[658] shows the mill site consisting of low buildings with a very tall chimney for the steam engine, as does an oil painting by Gregory dating to 1884. But a photograph of 1890 shows a two-storey building with the roof space being used attached to a very low cottage, suggesting the mill was redeveloped in the intervening 6 years. (Comber suggests the development might have occurred in the 1860s as cast iron stations in the mill state W. Cooper Millwright Henfield 1867; though they could have been reused.) In 1883 an advert in the local paper announced the auction of the mill, describing it as “A most desirable Freehold, very substantially built mill, fitted with all new machinery for water and steam power, together with the goodwill of the business, Miller’s Dwelling House, excellent stabling, detached cottage, fine plots of elmy rich meadow land, with the confluences and principal tributary in the parish of the River Arun… most compact with frontage to the main and private roads…” Around 1890 William Prewett bought the Mill from C. & J. Sharp. The mill would be run in conjunction with the Worthing Road Mill.

Worthing Road Steam Mill a.ka. Prewett’s Mill

Henry Albery bought the mill on 27 March 1855 and then invested in modernising it, for the present building has an 1861 date stone. Albery was also a director of the Horsham Corn Exchange Company in which he had ten £10 shares. By late 1872, or early 1873, William Prewett, who served his apprenticeship with George Sharp at Warnham Mill, owned the mill. George had left Warnham Mill, leaving it to Prewett to run, and moved to the Town Mill in 1871, so it would seem that his apprentice William took over the next door mill as soon as the opportunity arose and they worked the mills together, especially as both had become steam mills. When in 1883 the Town Mill came up for sale William bought it and so now owned both mills.

The Arun Steam Mill

This was a new mill that was built for John Thorp around 1850 on land purchased from Robert Henry Hurst. Soon after it was built the church opened Denne Road Cemetery next door to it. In 1853 Thorp’s son Henry was operating the mill and some 13 years later it was Henry who invested in the Horsham Corn Exchange, owning three £10 shares. In 1885 the Thorps advertised the mill for sale in the Horsham Advertiser, describing it as having four pairs of stones, as well as three stall stable, chaise house with a large loft, piggeries, smith’s shop etc. However, it couldn’t have sold, for on 22 May 1889 it was advertised for sale again, this time in the West Sussex County Times, by the executors of John Thorp. In the intervening period the Thorps had bought new machinery; however, after the sale it would seem as if milling ceased, for the premises became an engineering works run by Florence and Mills Engineers, Agricultural Merchants and Iron and Brass Founders.

The most noted item of the mill was the weathervane of an early railway engine which, when the site was redeveloped in 1935, was given to Horsham Museum.

Wimblehurst Mill

The mill had various owners until ending up in the hands of the Hurst family. On 10 June 1844 Robert Henry Hurst used the mill and other Horsham properties to secure a mortgage from Henry Padwick, the lawyer and money lender, but within a year he had fled the country and his creditors. In March 1850 William Streater, who ran the mill in 1837, returned and took the lease from the Receiver of the estates of the now-bankrupt Robert Henry Hurst. A year later tragedy struck when, according to the Sussex Advertiser, “a boy named Streater, about 5 years of age, got into the mill used by his father and was caught in the machinery and was killed”. Later in that year the mill is recorded as being empty, but in 1852 and 3 William Streater is still recorded as being miller. The following year Streater seems to have left. In 1862 the mill is described in Kelly’s Directory of Sussex as “the Dog & Bacon Mill”. Some seven years later, a notice in the Sussex Advertiser announced: “To be sold by auction, to be pulled down and removed by 25^th June next, the Capital Post Mill near the Dog and Bacon Inn…” By 1874 the mill was no more; it may even have blown down, according to H. E. S. Simmons.

Champions Mill

The Champions leased the mill on the common, but owned the shop in the Carfax. Then in 1805 Robert Hurst, who had recently purchased the land from the Duke of Norfolk, sold the freehold to Charles Champion. On his death in 1830 both mill and shop passed to his nephew John Champion Waller who, in August 1838, sold both properties to his brother James, who three years later tried to sell both properties. It was not until December 1842 that the properties were sold to Robert Henry Hurst, who rented the mill and neighbouring cottage back to Waller for £42 a year. In effect, Waller raised some cash by selling the freehold. Hurst, however, needed some money so in 1844 he sold the mill and other properties to Benjamin and Jonas Hopkinson. The bakehouse in the Carfax was also mortgaged, though by now it was occupied by Jeremiah Collett, from where the name Colletts Alley derives.

The next 10 years saw numerous attempts to sell the remaining lease on the mill and find tenants. By 1854 the “sale of effects at Browning Mill” took place as William Browning had decided to quit following the death of John Browning, his co-occupier of the mill. The next tenant was Peter Dale, who was killed when the mill blew down in 1860. One of his sons, Peter, sustained a broken back in the accident. At the inquest it was reported that just a few days earlier John Honeywood, the surveyor, examined the mill and noted a fracture in the wooden sill, and advised the mill was not safe to use. John had gone to a blacksmiths to order the iron supports. Following the verdict of accidental death an appeal was launched to help Mrs Dale and her seven children.

The Smock Mill, Comptons Lane

In 1814 James Nash sold the mill to Elijah Prior for £800. For that he received the mill, 1½ acres of ground and a cottage that was older than the mill. However, he may have paid over the odds as in 1815 he was declared bankrupt and the mill was sold to John Lintott for £410, though the money for the purchase was lent by the bankers Lanham and Grinstead, who were also the assignees of Prior’s estate. When in October 1816 Lanham and Grinstead were themselves declared bankrupt, it took three years to sort out the financial problems, but it resulted in the mill being sold at the Crown Inn, Horsham to James Jupp, corn chandler, for £220. However, in 1825 he was declared bankrupt. By 1829 it was in the possession of John Lovegrove, farmer and landowner, who leased the mill out. In 1840 it seems to be part of the Hurst estate, though by 1847 a Peter Weller is recorded as owner of the mill and house at Compton Brow. It is not known when, or what happened to the mill. The mill cottage, which was known as “Old Stones Cottage”, was pulled down around 1900.

The Star Windmill

A new smock windmill that was built sometime in the 1820s, as it is recorded on the 1831 Reform Bill map. It was built for Charles Champion who was recorded as the owner in 1829, and is the last windmill built in Horsham. On his death in 1830 it passed to his nephew John Champion Waller (see Champions Mill above), who sold it the same year to Robert Henry Hurst. In March 1844 it was offered for sale but, as bids only reached £500, it was withdrawn and in the December of that year Hurst used it along with other properties as security on a mortgage. In 1847 it was sold to W. R. S. V. Fitzgerald of Holbrook Park, who also bought the 28 acre Mill Farm. The farm occupied the area bound by Crawley Road, Rusper Road and Littlehaven Lane. Potter, the tenant, gave up the tenancy in 1849 with the incoming tenant being Henry Holland, who also ran the Star Inn and is recorded in the Kelly’s Directories for 1852 and 62. On 23 July 1866 the mill and farm were sold at auction for £2,500 to John Thorp, with Holland still being the tenant.

In 1873 tragedy struck when 21 month old George Lane walked into the turning sails. Thomas Gifford was at the mill from 1874 or 5 until his suicide in 1881, when he was found hanging from a beam. It took 8 months to find new tenants, but in 1882 Thorp leased it to two brothers, Edward and Walter Weston. In 1887 they converted an outhouse of a house and shop they rented in Crawley Road into a bakery. The following year a millstone fell and crushed Edward Weston’s leg resulting in a mutual dissolving of the partnership with Walter running the mill and bakery alone. Then in 1889 Edward died of his injuries and in the same year a new annual lease was entered into with Henry Philip Thorp, the son of John Thorp. By 1992 the mill was getting very shaky so Walter moved to the Star Steam Mill in Crawley Road. In 1895 Horsham millwrights Steele and Dodson pulled down the mill.

The Star Steam Mill

When Henry Holland left the Star Windmill in 1874 he probably had this mill built, though he was also a coal merchant and licensee of the Star Inn, Crawley Road. In 1992 he sold the steam mill to Walter Weston with Henry moving the coal yard to Littlehaven Lane. It seems as if little milling went on, as taste in flour had changed, with wholemeal flour going out of favour. The mill mainly milled peas and maize for animal feed and oatmeal, with the ground floor being used as a bakery and store rooms.

Warnham Mill

By 1805 the Mill had become part of the Shelley estates as Timothy Shelley consolidated his holdings around Field Place. They leased it out to Benjamin Potter until he died in 1847 at the age of 74, though his son, who operated the Star Windmill at Roffey, may have taken it over. He remained at Warnham until 1866 and when he died in 1875 his tombstone described him as “late of Warnham Mill”. By 1867 George Sharp was leasing the mill, followed by his apprentice William Prewett in 1871 before Prewett left to run the Worthing Road steam mill. In 1871 the Mill was offered for sale with the mill house. The pond was described as “an ornamental Lake of about 35 Acres being the Reservoir to the Mill” and the farm of 124 acres. The purchaser was Charles Thomas Lucas of Warnham Court, who also bought the adjoining 35 acre Miles Farm for £17,000. In 1875 it was reported that Lucas was going to do away with the mill and make improvements to the pond. However, instead, he refurbished the mill and rented it out.

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

Naked Horsham Chronology

1865   End of US Civil War. Trans Atlantic cable completed.	St Mary’s Church rebuild finished – re-roofed and jacked up. New RC church in Gothic style paid for by Duchess of Norfolk and dedicated to St John the Evangelist. Rebuilt a third time between 1919 and 1923.
1866   Dr Thomas Barnardo opened first home.	Much of Horsham town centre rebuilt or re-fronted, a number of grand buildings erected and Corn Exchange built next door to Black Horse Hotel. Horsham Cricket Club formed.
1867	Dorking Line, an alternative route to London, opened. Duke of Norfolk trustees leased the Town Hall for 99 years to ratepayers of Horsham. Lease taken over by local Board of Health nine years later. Financial journalist, Sir George Paish, born at Morth Gardens on 7 November,   Sir George Paish was the tenth son of Robert Paish, a coachman, and his wife Jane Smith, a domestic servant. Through his life he had three careers. The first career was as a journalist with a special gift for compiling and analysing quantitative information, making him a leading statistical journalist. He then developed skills in dealing with statistics for the British and American railways using the ton-mile freight figures. Paish’s third career was as special advisor to David Lloyd George. Later, he returned to journalism and wrote various books. He died in 1957.
1868	Infirmary with 65 beds built at the Union Workhouse.

Horsham 1865-1870

A TOWN DESPERATE FOR ANY-BODY

The re-ordering and restoration of the Parish Church can be seen as a seal on the re-invigoration of Horsham. Horsham could have tinkered with the rebuild, doing just enough to get by; it could have let the church fall into disuse and move to St Mark’s, but it in the end decided to invest in the past and restore the church; not conserve it, but restore it and adapt it for present and future generations. This growing awareness and pride in Horsham manifests itself over the next 10 to 20 years in surprising ways which will be explored in greater depth below but include a legal campaign to resurrect the borough, investment in markets, a town history, rebuilding of the town hall and the creation of public services as well as extensive new building. On the social side the town sees the creation of sporting clubs, the start of a permanent local newspaper, the end of petitioned elections and a host of civic public events.

Another restoration took place in 1865; one that was to have a significant effect on Horsham. On 6 July Parliament was dissolved and a General Election was called. On 11 July the election was held and Robert Henry Hurst Jnr won by five votes, defeating Mr Fitzgerald.[659] The son of Horsham’s former MP who had to flee his creditors as a bankrupt had restored the family name and in doing so regained the Hurst family tradition, established by his grandfather, of being MP for Horsham.

The election contest was remarkable in that the level of bribery was minimal as neither candidate could afford treats or extravagances. Mr Fitzgerald was at the time of the election being hounded by creditors. Having arrived in Horsham all those years ago a man of independent wealthy means, he had spent such a vast sum to be elected in 1847 that his finances never fully recovered. Robert had spent the past few years trying to pay off his father’s debts;  the Hursts were asset-rich, cash-poor, due to their grandfathers’ will, for although the family had large landholdings, the estate was entailed. Robert’s grandfather Robert Hurst had built up the landholdings during enclosure in 1813, but by entailing the estate his son and grandson had no access to the capital invested in the land. It was not until Robert Henry Hurst’s eldest son came of age in 1886[660] that they could break the entail and sell some of the property.

So how did Robert get elected? According to Albery there was not much to choose between the two candidates as both stood for similar beliefs[661]. However, there is a telling remark at the end of the election address given by Mr Hurst:

“I need scarcely allude to your local interests for they are so completely identified with my own, that were I actuated by no higher motive than self interest I should never lose any opportunity of advancing the prosperity and promoting the improvement of our town and neighbourhood”[662];  whereas Fitzgerald’s address makes no mention of local issues. When neither candidate had funds to grant largesse at the electorate, Fitzgerald relied on his charisma and reflected glory, for when Fitzgerald lost his seat the national press covered it, with The Globe writing: “ The great loss of the conservative party is Mr Fitzgerald, one of the most promising though not the most modest, of the party”, The Standard spoke of him as a “statesman of eminence”, amongst others.[663] Following his defeat Fitzgerald appealed over the question of whether the voters were genuine tenants of the property or the payers of the rates. In the end three of Mr Hurst’s votes were declared bad, but Hurst won by two votes. Hurst had shown, unlike Fitzgerald, that it was possible to win seats by what today we would call grass roots politics. In many ways Hurst was the very model of how politics in Britain would evolve, with MPs becoming selected and elected based on a reputation built up from local council work. However, we are dealing in Horsham with a town without a Council or corporate structure, but from as early as 1858 Robert Henry Hurst Junior, a lawyer by training, was creating a quasi-local government network, a power base on which to launch his political career.

As for Fitzgerald, the Government looked after him, making him Governor of Bombay. In February 1867 he was presented with an oil painting subscribed for by the people of Horsham and his friends “in their appreciation of his worthiness of the honour of his high office”. Later in the same year he would be made Privy Councillor and a Member of the Grand Cross of the Order of the Star of India, and the following year he was knighted.[664] He was probably the most highly-acknowledged MP Horsham has ever had.

In 1858 the Local Government Act was passed. The following year Robert Henry Hurst junior tried to persuade the town to adopt the Act at a meeting on 2 November, but the vote was 160 to six against.[665]  Then in 1862 scarlet fever struck and through the Literary and Scientific Institution, Robert Henry Hurst made it known how much worse off Horsham was in its death rate than neighbouring Sussex towns. He formed an action committee which issued a broadsheet headed “health of Horsham”[666] which showed that the drains were defective, the cellars were infested with rats and sewage, that the wells were between 14 and 24 feet deep; thus susceptible to polluted water. The water was so bad that when it was heated a greasy film lay on top like scum and it smelt appallingly, Horsham’s well water had 49 grains of impurity per gallon compared with only two for Glasgow. Total deaths per thousand were 25 for Horsham, 16 in the rural districts and 24 in the country as a whole. The solution was deep main sewers and a pure water supply. What was even more shocking was that, during the outbreak of Scarlet Fever, Horsham’s death rate was 15%: 15 out of every 100 inhabitants; nationally 10% was considered high.[667]  Nothing apparently happened. But it had: Robert had made his mark; he was seen as someone who wanted progress in the town. According to Albery Mr Hurst “had won the high esteem of the town by engaging and succeeding in noble efforts to repair his family fortunes”.[668] Though, as the family papers show, the real restitution of family affairs came with the breaking of the entail; in all probability Hurst’s rise in status was more due to his campaigning efforts for infrastructural reform.

There was, however, one surprising area where medical health was far in advance of the country: the Workhouse hospital. The Medical Officers had recommended the construction of a separate infirmary should be built on completion of the fever wards. It might have been the memory of the scarlet fever, or that the Guardians were influenced by the Horsham Literary and Scientific Institution with its broadsheet, or a general discussion of health within Horsham, but they agreed, and so it was that a 65-bed hospital was to be built for £2,315. By 1866 it was completed and Horsham became one of the first Unions in England to have a separate workhouse hospital.[669] In 1873 it was reported that the hospital covered an area of 7,680 feet, had accommodation for 70 patients, and an apartment for the nurse. In 1868 the hospital was made available to non-pauper paying patients providing there was space, but this unofficial arrangement was not officially recognised until 1883 and it took another nine years before Horsham had its own hospital.[670] At the site the Hospital and the Workhouse operated separately with the Hospital under the jurisdiction of Dr Mathews and his staff, who treated the sick poor as patients rather than as paupers who were ill; medical care rather than discipline, which would later cause friction amongst staff.

The failure of quasi-local government committees to get things established possibly encouraged Robert Hurst to go down the route of private companies investing in the town infrastructure and reaping the benefits. Hurst would have seen its appeal through the Railway companies and Turnpike trusts which were providing core infrastructure improvements for financial return. In 1865/6 two significant private/public infrastructure developments occurred: the building of the Corn Exchange and the setting up of Horsham Water Company.

Horsham’s Corn market was of great importance to the town. In the 18^th century the town corporately had invested in buying brass bushel measures to regulate the trade; in doing so it gained status and authority. Now there were no bailiffs, no stewards, no market authorities to undertake the maintenance of the corn market.[671] Therefore Horsham, though it never existed as a corporate body, turned to individuals who, by their very status within the town, would have been typical councillors. On 10 June 1865 a Memorandum of Association was drawn up for a Horsham Corn Exchange Company. The seven members included Robert Henry Hurst, barrister, Henry Padwick Junior, John S. Bostock, Surgeon, as well as four others closely-connected with the corn trade. The purpose as explained in the Memorandum was “To provide proper and convenient buildings and premises in the Borough of Horsham, to be used as an Exchange for the sale of Corn, Grain, and other Agricultural produce, and also for assemblies, Concerts, lectures, public and other Meetings…” The proposed cost was £7,000.[672] The following month Hurst was elected.

The campaign to raise funds for the Corn Exchange and the sums involved may have encouraged the Trustees of the Duke of Norfolk to make public, through the Duke’s Agent Captain Mostyn, that he “has got an offer to rent the hall so that it would be available for all public purposes”[673]. Albery goes on to state that this spurred Robert to stop this, without saying how. Albery’s suggestion was that this move by the Duke of Norfolk was somehow wrong. In the Kelly’s Directory of 1866 the Town hall, or as they refer to it “the Court House”, is described as “ a handsome stone building, in the Gothic style, in the centre of the town”[674]. It was in fact a near-derelict building that “Through continued lack of maintenance the upper floor had become so dangerous by 1866 that the quarter sessions too temporarily abandoned the town”.[675]  By 1865 it was assumed that the Duke of Norfolk owned the Town Hall; after all, he had rebuilt it previously and now it was being offered to an outside body. Perhaps the Duke’s Trustees thought the Corn Exchange Company would take it on.

The following month, on 31 August 1865, The First Ordinary General Meeting of the Horsham Waterworks Company was held at the Literary Institution. The meeting was highly structured with Mr Hurst MP Chairman, five directors, and thirteen shareholders, including Rev. Hodgson. At the end of the meeting nine Directors were appointed. Clearly moves had been made before this meeting; unfortunately, the documents are not dated, so it can only be obtained from internal evidence. But the Prospectus for “Horsham Water-Works Company Limited, which identified eight Directors including Mr Hurst, was issued before the first meeting as Mr Hurst is not recorded as MP and the Directors had changed. The prospectus was issued to raise £5,000 on the basis that “an experimental Well has been sunk upon Land in Park Terrace East, Horsham, belonging to Mr Michell, with a view of testing the supply…This experiment has proved to be eminently successful; and arrangements have been made upon which the Well, and the necessary land adjoining, may be purchased upon very advantageous terms. The water is of an exceedingly good quality, and has been freely used by the Inhabitants residing near the site of the Well …The abundance of the supply, obtained at a depth of only 75 feet, has exceeded the most sanguine anticipation of the promoters of the Experimental Well, and has been secured at a comparatively trifling cost”; it goes on to state that “the water from the main  spring enters the Well at a rate exceeding 60,000 gallons a day. It has also been ascertained that, notwithstanding the heavy rain-fall of the recent winter, no land springs have found their way into the Well [676]

In the same year Henry Michell records in his diary/autobiography: “This year I invested £1,500 in the Horsham Waterworks. I have taken a great interest in this matter as I think it is very much wanted and I have no doubt but in the end it will pay very well”, before bemoaning the degree to which he met hostility to the scheme, though that did not stop him investing a further £1,000 the next year in Horsham Waterworks.

There was therefore a call on the town citizens for £13,000 to be spent on two services which had been part of the function of the old Borough authorities, provision of water and maintenance and development of the market. It was not therefore surprising that in the same year a decision was made, by whom we do not know; possibly by the Lighting and Watching Committee to see if the Borough could be reincorporated. Albery clearly sees the desire by the Trustees of the Duke of Norfolk to offload the Town Hall onto the town as the impetus for seeking the re-establishment of the Borough.[677] Yet if you look through the legal opinion[678] and the questions raised there is a lot more at stake than the simple question of running the Town Hall, for the solution that they eventually came up with to run the Town Hall could have been adopted without seeking legal opinion on resurrecting the Borough. In all probability it was to see if the Borough could be restored, so that it might take on the expense of the corn market, Water Company and Town Hall, rather than rely solely on private shares and subscription. Windrum states that Robert Henry Hurst “thought it not worthwhile obtaining a new charter for incorporation, and without his support there was insufficient interest in the matter to do anything about it”[679]; the implication being that Hurst was against the creation of the Borough. In reality Hurst, being a Lawyer, knew the difficulty and he may have sought legal opinion confirming his suspicions, rather than be against local government per se.

Whilst the legal opinion was in fact a death knell for the towns Borough status; for after it was sought, the town could never hold out the hope that it might reinvent itself, it did provide a fascinating historical record, in its way as important as the borough survey of 1614. For that survey clearly explained why the borough existed, whilst this document shows why by 1866 it did not. It also clearly shows how the town got into such a state. Whilst it cannot be proven, the document is a clear exposition of the civic history of the town and may have been used by Dorothea Hurst for her History, as she would have had access to it through her brother.

The solicitor acting on behalf of the enquirer was J. Rawlinson, who sought advice from Mr Mainety QC in conjunction with Mr Lumley Smith; the consultation cost two guineas for each. The case was well-researched by someone who had access to parliamentary legal papers dating back to investigation into the status of the borough carried out in 1614, a copy of which was included with the papers[680],  though the commentary starts as early as 1295. The report refers to Frazer’s Contraverted Elections published in 1792 which was the most public account of Horsham’s electoral practices as it dissected the 1790 election.

What the case papers clearly show is the link between borough status and electoral voting.

Interestingly, the document draws attention to the status of town clerk; Horsham in 1865 did not have such a post, but here refers to the Duke of Norfolk’s steward “ who was also the Steward and Clerk of the Bailiffs and Burgesses and called himself and acted as Town Clerk of the Borough”, implying that the role could be recreated as it existed beforehand.

The document then goes on to discuss what they saw as a great expense for the Duke, the Bailiffs Feast held on the day that the Court Leet or View of Frankpledge was held, before stating: “The annual Court Leet and Dinner thus eventually became, with occasional exceptions almost the only Public recognition of the existence of the Borough”; the exception being the Elections and the occasional Portmoot court for recovery of small debts. It goes on to say pointedly, “It is not too much to say, however that in all these matters the Bailiffs and Burgesses had become mere Puppets in the hands of the Stewards, who, though nominally Steward and Clerk to them was in fact essentially master over them in his Character of Steward of the “Lord Paramount (as he was called)”. It then goes into the crux of the question.

The Bailiffs had acted as returning officer at the election, “but in the year 1835 the Steward of the Duke of Norfolk (or rather of the Lord, his Trustees) neglected (doubtless advisedly) to hold a Court Leet or to provide the usual Bailiffs Feast and has discontinued holding the Court ever since. No election of Bailiffs therefore took place after the year 1834 and from that time the functions (trifling as they had become) of the Corporation have been wholly suspended & at the time of their discontinuance little was missed by the Inhabitants but the Bailiffs Feast”.

The case then noted that from the 1837 election the Bailiffs no longer acted as returning officer, the post given to the Sheriff or his deputy, thus making a legal entity of the decline of the post. 

The document then gives an interesting aside as to the question of official documents, as it states: “When the Courts ceased to be held and the corporation thus became in abeyance, the Court Rolls of the Manor & Borough and the other Munuiments and records and the Common Seal of the Borough remained in the hands of the Gentleman who acted (as before stated) both as Steward and Clerk to the bailiffs and Burgesses (in fact as Town Clerk, and was so called) and Steward to the Superior Lord and who is now dead; and upon his death the Common Seal and all the Records and Documents held by him, were handed to the Duke of Norfolk or his agents and although applications have been made to his Graces Steward for their production, they have not been produced.” The Barristers go on to state that without access to the records they cannot know what state the borough was in at the last time it sat. There is an aside to state that an “ancient book entitled” Burgus Maresiusm (Manerium) exists, but does not give any answers.

The barristers then look at other aspects of the borough system, noting that the office of Beadle of the Borough and Crier of the Court and Town Crier was given a salary, and since the last court was held in 1834 the same person and his son continued to collect the salary which was drawn from the tolls for the fairs. The Beadle was also the caretaker of the Town Hall, a role given by default rather than actually set out. He received money for opening and locking up the hall and providing “fires, candles, pens and ink” The fair was held on 7 July, and due to change in the calendar, now 18 July, on Gaol Green which was not Common land. It goes on to explain that “This land lying open and waste and being subject to no legal control is becoming a great ? and nuisance to the inhabitants but might with care and good management and under efficient control be made highly ornamental and beneficial to the Town” (Which is an unusual statement as their concern regarded the legal status of the borough, not what might happen to the waste land; unless they were encouraged to promote the fact the town needed management to deal with the problem).

They then look at the town hall and explore its usage and history. The barristers go on to make the following point: “During the last few years, a disposition has been shown on the part of the Duke of Norfolk (probably from a miss apprehension of his rights and of the privileges of the Town) to ignore the corporate rights of the Burgesses and to deal not only with the Town Hall, but the open grounds of the Town as his own and negotiations have been opened with individuals in the Town to take leases from the Duke (or his Trustees) as well of the Town Hall as of the open waste grounds for the purpose of enclosing the latter and putting the former into repair for the Duke but they have all been given up, their being apparently some obstacle to carrying them into effect.” The case continues by reporting that the Town Hall had been mainly repaired by the Duke, but also by subscription principally among the magistrates.

There then follows a discussion on the view that some people in the town held; namely, they could force, by legal means, the Duke of Norfolk to hold a Court Leet, appoint the Bailiffs and the Officers, and “that thereupon the Corporation would ipso facto resume its functions and privileges. After debating over the number of burgesses required to form a jury for the court to function (it had been stated only two were required and in recent times only three or four were present), the solicitors note that the corporation was not listed in the schedule  to the Municipal Corporations Act (1835), so even if the borough was reformed it would only have rights and privileges that existed if the Act had never been passed. The document then explains that “those representing the Town” had been in discussion with the Duke of Norfolk (or his trustees), who said they would not oppose the election of Bailiffs.

There then follow 14 questions which require answers; most of them deal with the nature of the court, burgesses, and if the election of Bailiffs will fit in with current legislation. Only one: question 13, deals with the town hall and waste land: “supposing the Court to be held and the bailiffs appointed what rights will they acquire in the Town Hall and the Gaol Green and waste lands generally”. This belies the suggestion given by Albery and Windrum that the offer of the Town Hall to the town raised the question; for the question asked is not if they, the borough, could take over the Town Hall, but what rights they had, acknowledging ownership belonged to another body.

The answers they gave to the questions posed were couched in suppositions and assumptions ending with the comment – on the possibility of burgesses being in a position to force the Duke to hold a court for the purpose of electing  bailiffs –  “Even then the application will be an experiment.” As for the question of the Town Hall and waste lands, the burgesses would have “prima facie rights to the wastes and the buildings built upon them”, but owing to the length of time the Corporation “have been out of possession and during which the repairs have been done and the property has been used and enjoyed by other persons upon the facts stated it would be very difficult to establish the claim of the corporation”. They ended their Opinion with the comment that the desired results should be achieved through “amicable negotiations within the Lord of the manor” and the document is dated 8 November 1866.

This result all but put paid to any hope of resurrecting the Borough. Horsham had, in order to function, to create some new governance or rely on an ad-hoc formation of Companies to manage assets not owned by the town, but clearly desirable to the town, such as the Town Hall. The Corn Exchange being built by a private company was clearly intended to function as a Town Hall should the Town Hall collapse, as was threatened, hence the prospectus identifying its use as a meeting place when not in use for its primary purpose, whilst the Water Company was formed to provide fresh water to those that wanted it. In the end the power of trade was more desirable than the desire for fresh water as the Water Company, while not technically going bankrupt spent the next seven years limping along. The Corn Exchange, on the other hand, went from strength to strength. The problem with that for the town was simple: in the past the tolls from the markets gave the town a  revenue; now the profits from the fees (or tolls by another name) charged were going to shareholders.

It is not far-fetched to suggest that the discussions taking place within the Hurst household, with Robert being elected MP and being party to, or knowing of, the submission of the case to the barristers to comment on, inspired Robert’s sister Dorothea Hurst to put pen to paper and write “Horsham: its History and Antiquities”, published by William Macintosh of 24 Paternoster Row, London, 1868. The book deserves some study as an historical object in its own right, and in what it says, or does not say, about Horsham at this time. It should be noted though, at a time of stress within Horsham, a history book appears that puts the town into a context, just as Dudley’s book did in 1836 and Albery’s book did in 1947. The history of the town enabled the town to see a perspective of it and thus collectively map out its future. 

The book as an object, a historical document

The book is some 255 pages long (Viii & 247), plus the tipped-in pictures or plates, as well as a fold-out map printed on India paper. Octavo in size, it is bound in a green cloth with a gilt line decoration and at the centre of the front cover is an embossed stamp of Burgus Horsham with the lion rampant, a motif that is replicated on the title page. As the stamp is embossed, the covers are therefore thick and stiff, popular with books of that period, for the book was written at the time when decorative stamped pictorial covers were all the rage. The book is well-printed with wide margins, a simple header line, and at the start of each chapter an ornamental letter. What, however, sets the book apart are the illustrations, some of which were printed by the Anastatic Etching method[681] by Cowells Anastatic press of Ipswich. 

According to the unsigned preface dated 1868, the illustrations “have been kindly executed by several amateur artists from original sketches”. So who were the artists?

Although she did not give her name as authoress, D. E. H., or later D. E. Hurst,  Dorothea Hurst, did initial two of the sketches, H. S. Syms drew 15,  J. E. Padwick, two and GGML five. The dates of the sketches range from 1863 (Padwick’s view of the Southside of Horsham Church) through to 1867 (Syms’ view of Coolhurst). This suggests that either Dorothea was working on the book some five years before its publication or, more likely, she called on her friends to submit drawings from which she could pick the best. This in turn suggests that at some informal groupings local amateur artists got together to show friends their artwork and Dorothea circulated within such groupings. For how else would she know that Padwick had a drawing of the church, or that Symms had one of Coolhurst?

This in turn raises the question: why did Dorothea write the book anonymously. As an artist she let her work be known by the initial on the drawings; but as an authoress she did not. Another aspect of this invisibility is that all the people she thanks in her preface are men; no lady is thanked at all. This in part is the notion that history is written by men, but by this period there were many authoresses writing books about travel, exploration etc. It might be a matter of timing; the book coming out in the year when her brother faced re-election. But then if anonymity were that important why did she identify herself as an artist? We may never know the absolute reason, but the anonymity was probably down to social convention and perception: history was not written by women.  

As for the illustrations themselves they are, like Dudley’s drawings, mainly contemporary scenes of old buildings.[682] So, for example, the Town Hall is illustrated with a view of it in 1866, rather than 1812 when it was rebuilt. There is no attempt at reconstruction of historical views, or using pictures less than five years old. It could be argued that unlike its documented history, Horsham did not have a pictorial archive on which to draw. However, that is far from the truth: the Grimm drawings in the Burrell archive at the British Museum, those drawn by Dudley in his book some thirty years previously, as well as the drawn survey of the town executed by Mann in 1850. Would Dorothea know of these drawings? Almost certainly: she in fact quotes from Burrell manuscripts (p81) and later states that for the drawing of Rusper Nunnery she has used the Grimm drawing (172), so why use contemporary views? Possibly because the book was not intended to function as a true history book: more a validation of Horsham’s worth.

It is important to note that on the front cover and the title page is a “seal” for the Borough of Horsham. Yet the report written two years previously states that Horsham’s seal has been lost. It might have been found, but at no point does Dorothea state that the illustration is a copy of Horsham’s seal. The illustrations show what Horsham was like on the day it was published, its text with the emphasis on the church, civic status, famous royal connections (it was after all written at a time when the respect for Queen Victoria had not diminished through her obsessive grief for the loss of Albert; Royalty was admired), famous people and places all parade Horsham’s importance. It is as if, having officially lost its Borough status, the town is saying “we are still important”. Dorothea even mentions the Borough with a very short five lines. She in fact spends longer describing the mythical seal than describing how local borough government worked.

“Horsham was governed by a steward and two bailiffs chosen annually at the court-leet of the lord of the manor, at which constables and other officers were appointed. Of late this has fallen into abeyance, but it is not unlikely to be revived”[683]. This double-negative is deliberately written to confuse or obfuscate the situation, which clearly Dorothea knew only too well.

For the historian of today, because Dorothea describes Horsham’s recent history, validating the town of the day, it is a gold mine of useful information, just as Dudley’s book written thirty years previously. It is only later, with Albery’s History, that we have such a contemporary account of the town. What follows are comments drawn from the book describing Horsham in the 1860s. By their very nature they are quite diverse but fascinating insights that might not have been recovered from other accounts.

“Many ancient customs still linger amongst us, such as the observance of May-day with garlands and flowers; the strewing flowers before a bride and bridegroom on their leaving the church. “Gooding” on St Thomas’ day is still kept up though to a much less extent than formerly. The curfew is regularly tolled at 8’o’clock in the evening from Michaelmas to Lady- day; and it is also the custom, derived from olden times, to toll a bell at the conclusion of the sermons on Sundays, and the practice of ringing the old year out and the new year in, is invariably observed, a full peal of eight bells being rung with various changes for nearly an hour at midnight”[684].

“The paving of the town is in most parts still some-what primitive in its style, the stones not being cut into squares, but fitted into each other in all sorts of irregular shapes. They come principally from the quarries of Stammerham, Sedgewick, and Tower Hill….much of the stone in present use is extremely uneven in surface….There is a considerable variety in the water of the springs in this parish, which ranges from very hard to very soft; some few have a brackish taste, others are more or less impregnated with iron…In general, however, the quality of the water is considered good, and some of the wells are remarkably pure and unfailing. This observation particularly applies to an ancient well, called…”The Normandy Well”….The Normandy  Well is open and runs partly under one of the houses; it is only

about four feet in depth, and yet in the longest drought the water always stands up sufficiently high to allow a pail to be dipped into it. It has been the custom to use the water from this well for the baptisms in the church”[685].

Amongst the account on the Normandy Well, Dorothea describes a discovery made in The Priest House: “about twenty years ago a beautiful carved figure, in very bold relief on an oak panel was taken from the walls of one of the rooms, and is now in the museum of Mr John Honeywood. This figure, which has a cross in one hand and a chalice in the other, represents probably St John. It is about a foot and a half in height, and at the time it was found was thickly coated with red paint”[686]. Unfortunately, when the Honeywood museum was sold in the 1930s, the statue was not bought by the Museum Society, assuming that it was still in Honeywood’s possession.

Dorothea then goes on to discuss the new water supply, which puts a different perspective on the comments made by her brother. For, apparently, the reason for a new water company being established was not the poor-quality water, the contaminants etc, but because of a couple of dry seasons. “Most of the old wells are from ten to fifty feet in depth, twenty-five being perhaps the average; but the recent dry seasons, especially those of 1864 and 1865, have proved that the supply at this depth is not sufficient for the existing needs of the town. To remedy this defect a company has sunk a well of seventy-five feet, and a large reservoir has been formed a quarter of a mile on the eastern side of the town….”  Dorothea, having previously stated how good the town springs were, could not then back-track and say that the water was of so poor a quality that a new supply had to be found. Yet her brother and other senior people in the town argued that was the case. Dorothea was not ignorant of this, so why did she give a different spin on the reasons? Perhaps by admitting that the wells were fetid, contaminated, producing putrid sewage-laden water, she would have painted a picture of a decaying, corrupt town; after all, “cleanliness is next to godliness”. Of course, spinning the story away from water purity to one of scarcity ran the risk of people not subscribing to the Water Company’s well; something which happened. If the sister of the Water Company director and MP said the well water in Horsham was alright, then it could not be otherwise.

Dorothea spends a large portion of the book describing the Church and its rebuilding and redecoration, before describing its grand reopening on 14 November 1865, which has been covered above. She then describes various monuments and memorials that were removed to the tower before describing two that were destroyed during the rebuilding; going on to praise the Parish Clerk: “There is at present no monument to Richard Collins, who died the 24^th of May, 1866, aged 75. Subscriptions have been raised to erect some fitting memorial to this worthy man, who for above sixty years performed the duties of parish clerk in an exemplary manner. He was but little more than twelve years of age when he first officiated in the church on behalf of his mother, who was made the responsible person on the death of her husband, the former clerk”[687]. This comment portrays a strong desire in Dorothea to praise the underdog. For a memorial to the lowly Parish clerk: not the town clerk, or the various vicars who served the Church. It is interesting how this person should feature in the book rather than other loyal servants to the town such as the beadle.[688]

Miss Hurst then devotes two pages to going through the town’s charities, pointing out the amount they were endowed with and what they provided. One charity seems to have been a cause for concern in 1867/8: the one founded by Henry Pilfold in 1585, as no payout had been made from it for 50 years and the last time an application was made, some 25 years ago, it was unsuccessful. It was worth about 20s to Horsham parish. As Dorothea states, “ Enquiry respecting it is now being made by the Charitry Commission”[689]; unfortunately, we do not know by whom, nor do we know if the enquiry was brought about by Dorothea’s research. Today, with the welfare state, the importance of such charities gets lost, especially as these were for providing foodstuffs rather than medical aid, but in 1867, apart from the workhouse and poor relief, there was little extra support and these charities played an important function for those on the margins of society; the importance of recording such charitable relief in this book again forms part of the promotion of civic Horsham; looking after its poor.

Being Church of England, the other religious groups are barely mentioned; the Quakers and Baptists are covered in some depth during the 17^th century but in terms of contemporary coverage they are cursory; dealt with in a couple of lines. To highlight the disparity of coverage, the rebuilding of St Mary’s covers nine pages, whilst the new Roman Catholic chapel is covered in twelve lines.

“A new Roman Catholic Chapel, dedicated to St John the Evangelist, and opened on 27^th December, 1865, was erected in the Springfield Road by the present Duchess of Norfolk, at a cost of nearly £2,000. The building is designed in the pointed style of the twelfth century. As may be occasionally seen in foreign churches, the alter is placed at the west end. The interior is simple, with neat benches; the roof being open, with curved braces and tie-beams. A bell turret, covered with shingles, crowns the gable nearest the street. The former chapel, now converted into a schoolroom, stands at the back of the new building”[690]. There is in the description a tone of superiority of how the church apes foreigners rather than follow the English way of positioning the altar. It probably wasn’t intentional, but it never occurred to her not to see the Roman Catholic church as anything but of marginal, foreign, interest.

“The Broadbridge Heath school was erected in 1853, by public subscription, aided by a grant of 325 from the National Society…..In 1867 the school was enlarged, and is now 30 feet by 15. Divine Service is held in this room on one evening in the week during the winter months.”[691]

After dealing with the origins of St Mary’s Hospital in the Normandy she goes on to describe the following:

“Through the kindness of charitable persons, the inmates enjoy several privileges and gifts, the latter being generally distributed on the saint’s days in a large room, remarkable for its old carved chairs and oaken table, the latter being made of a single plank, which at one time blocked up the two peculiarly beautiful windows which opened into the church on the south side of the Trinity Chapel or Chantry, previous to its restoration”[692].

“The Town Hall….Measures are being taken to repair the building, and it is hoped that sufficient money may be collected to make it both useful and ornamental[693]  …a handsome corn Exchange has recently been erected in the West Street for the convenience of farmers frequenting the Horsham market. This building was opened on November 21^st 1866….Rather more than a mile to the north of the town, is an open and healthy situation, stands a large Union workhouse, built to accommodate 255 inmates. A new infirmary has lately been added, at a cost of £2,500 for the building and £700 for furnishing, which is capable of receiving 65 persons”[694]. (115)

The next section of the book deals with private residences, starting with Chesworth. Rather than reiterate the history of the various places mentioned, the following extracts deal with the “contemporary” account of the residences. Chesworth: there is an extensive account of its history, noting that “during the tenancy of Mr Brooks, a considerable number of human bones were discovered”[695] when the moat was cleaned out some years ago. She then deals with myths and legends of the place:

“It is not surprising that traditions of the ancient importance of this old house, contrasting strongly with its present condition, should have invested the locality with various fanciful and superstitious tales; telling of the inmates being disturbed by supernatural sounds; of bells rung by invisible hands; of distant and unhallowed shrieks; of bloodstains on the stones which could never be effaced, so that the stones were obliged to be removed in consequence; and without,-in the fitful darkness of the midnight gloom,- of warriors on horseback seen rushing like a torrent down the neighbouring hill. Similar stories are current of most old places- in fact seem to be a sort of birthright belonging to them; but in this prosaic age they are every-where fast dying out, and probably will soon be entirely forgotten in conjunction with Chesworth”[696].

Dorothea was more right than she knew, for the legends linked to the place had been forgotten, just as the childhood of Catherine Howard spent there was forgotten. If it were not for the comment made by Dorothea, no ghostly tales would have been linked to the house today.

Denne House is covered next, and here she mentions, “The brow of this hill was in old times converted into a terrace and kept rolled and mowed, forming a beautiful promenade much frequented by the inhabitants of the town in the summer evenings; but this for many years has not been kept up”[697].

For North Chapel Miss Hurst makes the following comment:

“This is one of those gabled houses formerly so common in Horsham, built with a framework of timber filled up with plaster, well worth the study of the artist and the architect. It is a fine specimen of a class which is gradually being swept away from this neighbourhood, and replaced by the less picturesque modern architecture[698]”  A feature of which she must have been aware, as much of Horsham town centre was being rebuilt or re-fronted: a number of grand buildings erected; three in a classical style on the west side of the Carfax, the Corn Exchange built next door to the Black Horse Hotel. Wimblehurst House, built in a “pure Italian style”, before this year.

Horsham Park, which she must have known well, she describes as follows: “the grounds contain some fine timber, and in the front of the house there is a tulip tree, remarkable for its height and size, and known to be one of the finest in England”[699]. Whilst the grounds of Springfield are said to “contain several fine specimens of the cedar of Lebanon”.

For Coolhurst, Dorothea explains how the Dowager Marchioness of Northampton’s daughter, Lady Elizabeth Compton, married Charles Dickens Esq. who now owns the property. “The house, which has been greatly added to of late years, is now a fine modern specimen of the Tudor style of architecture; around the top of the house, as a frieze is introduced in bold old English characters, the 1^st verse of the 127^th psalm – Nisi Dominus, etc.” [700](145)

The concentration by Dorothea on the larger houses is understandable, as they were prominent features in the town and also a significant part of the audience for the book and the social circle. However, one of the social consequences of this concentration of wealth and land in fewer hands was the scattering of farms. Instead of many small holdings, large-scale landownership patterns meant that some labourers had to travel three or four miles to work. This was reported upon in a national survey of children and women in agriculture published a year before the book came out.[701] Whilst today we would comment on such social indicators, and Dorothea, who through her work with the teaching of poor children in Rusper would have seen the effects of landownership, it is unlikely that she made the causal connection, for she was writing at a time when poverty in children equated with innocence and charity.

Dorothea then describes a walk to Southwater over Tower Hill and then St Leonard’s Forest, which is particularly interesting as it shows the extent to which reforestation that occurred in the 19^th century was successful in turning what was scrubland into a “natural” scene. “The scenery of the forest, though greatly impaired by the encroachments of cultivation, is still romantic and beautiful ; the abundance of scotch fir and wide expanses covered with heather and bracken, varied with fine sheets of water, may remind the sportsman of Scotland; the glades and dingles are rich in subjects for the pencil, and in the floral treasures…. There are also magnificent beech trees and fine oaks still remaining….Many years ago there was an avenue of firs called “Mick” (or Nick) Mills’ Race,” about three quarters of a mile in length …was unfortunately nearly destroyed by a hurricane of almost unprecedented violence, which passed over this part of Sussex on the 29^th November, 1836; and about six years since a fire occurred, which did still further damage; so that now  the avenue has disappeared, and its site is only marked by a large number of seedling fir trees…In an old publication called “The Mirror” there is the following notice …”Mike Mills’ Race, a beautiful avenue a mile and a quarter long, containing 15,000 full grown trees”[702]  This romanticised vision of the forest is at variance with the history mentioned previously. Dorothea was writing at a time when the Highlands of Scotland were being romanticised: first by the ever-popular writings of Scott, and then by the visits to Balmoral by Queen Victoria, whose own notes on her visit proved to be very popular. The work concludes with a brief account of the parliamentary history, and then notes on the geology by Aldridge and Bax Holmes, and natural history. The comments on the geology have been noted above concerning the Great Horsham Dinosaur, with its discovery and the Bax Holmes story.

---

In 1867 the Government eventually relented and passed the second great Reform Bill, as momentous as the first, but often forgotten except by parliamentary historians. The Representations of the Peoples Act extended the right to vote. The £10 household qualification was abolished, and the vote given to every Borough householder (even though Horsham did not have a borough) who had paid all rates and did not receive Parish relief. The vote was also given to tenants who paid more than £10 per year. (Today’s owner-occupancy rate being as high as it is, it is easy to forget that during the Victorian  period the vast majority of householders were tenants, not owners, so £10 tenancy, whilst high, was an important extension of the vote in principle, though as the following shows, very few could take advantage of it). In addition, both tenant and house owner had to be resident in the area for a year. In the 1865 election there were 385, and one burgess. In 1868 there were 874 householders, five lodgers and one burgess. Oh – and no women had the right to vote. What the figures also reveal is that around 500 householders had property valued at less than £10 rateable value, which indicates the quality of housing stock and also gives some indication of social mix within the town.

In October 1868 Horsham Total Abstinence Society was formed, to, as its rules state: “put a stop to Intemperance by removing the practices and causes thereof; for which purpose it shall hold Public Meetings, employ Lecturers, advocate Total Abstinence from all intoxicating drinks, by personal; practice and recommendation; circulate Temperance Literature, and adopt such other means as may be found necessary or expedient”. [704] Members of the Society had to be above 15, Total Abstainers, and sign the pledge. The Pledge being: “By Divine assistance I hereby agree to abstain from all intoxicating drinks as beverages, and in all suitable ways to discountenance their use throughout the community”. In November they had a severe test of resolve when a general election was held. Though whether the calling of the election encouraged the setting-up of the Society is hard to determine without having detailed accounts of its formation.

With its formation it might be apt to look at the state of brewing in Horsham at this time. There were breweries operating at the following addresses at this time. East Street had two breweries: one, The East Street Brewery at 58, now 70, East Street, was run by Joseph Dempster at this time, while the other was run by Daniel Underhill who in 1873-7 also had 1 Denne Road. The Fountain (and Cock) Brewery at 15 Carfax was run by W. Holden, a wine & spirit merchant, having been bought from Richard Gates and Co. in 1852. Down by the west side of the town there was The North Brewery, the  Brewery in the Bishopric run by Satchel & King and, later, King & Son. They also owned The North Brewery in North Parade, not to be confused with The North Street Brewery run by James Thornton. Worthing Road was the home of the West Street Brewery owned by Henry Michell.[705]

Following the passing of the Act, an election was called and held in 1868. The Act of 1867 had altered the procedure of electoral appeals: now, instead of a Select Committee of the House of Commons, a Judge of the High Court would sit in the borough in question. In times gone by the electors had visited London; a day out: now, instead of the pomp and circumstance of the House of Commons, they had the decrepit Horsham Town Hall. This would not have been necessary if the election of ‘68 had been held correctly but, this being Horsham, that was not going to happen, as Albery recounts in his book Parliamentary History. The key points being that corruption, bribery, harassment and drunkenness had taken place on the hustings. That Southwater had its own polling station and, whilst Robert Hurst won Horsham, the Southwater vote went to Aldridge, making it a tie, so a double return was declared, enabling both Hurst and Aldridge to sit in Parliament, though neither could vote. At the time of the petition it had been rumoured that Robert Hurst would get a Government office and thus take the post and relinquish his seat, enabling Major Aldridge to step forward and take it; thus, both Liberals and Conservatives were to be satisfied. So Major Aldridge withdrew from the petition and Hurst took his seat. However, the Government post did not come about and Hurst sat until the next election in 1874.[707]

The hustings took place in front of the Town Hall. This prominent building had the year before been offered to the town by the Duke of Norfolk, though its exact legal status was open to question (Was it really his to give? The land it stood on was owned by the defunct Borough; the building had been rebuilt by his ancestor as mentioned previously). However, in 1867, rather than actually deal with such questions, the building began a new legal entity as it was held in trust for 99 years with the lease of £1 a year. As the town authority did not exist, it was given to three trustees who took on the responsibility of fundraising to repair the building. Through public subscription and a mortgage with the Horsham Building Society for £288 15s 0d the building underwent emergency repair.[708] The hall was used for the County Midsummer Sessions, the fortnightly meeting of the magistrates, the County Court, the Revising Barristers Court and the Savings Bank which had started using the building way back in 1819; 50 years previously, as well as other public business.[709]

In April of 1869 The Stranger’s Guide to Horsham with Historical Notes and Notices of Public Buildings and Local Celebrities was published targeting, as its name suggests, tourists to the town. The author of the work is unknown, though it draws extensively on Dorothea Hurst’s book and admits as much in the preface, as well as using Murray’s Handbook of Sussex. The booklet contains accounts of various churches, Town Hall, Collyer’s School and Corn Exchange, before describing a view from Denne Hill and an account of Denne House with a long section on its place name that has nothing to do with Horsham. The question to ask is: what did the booklet really say about Horsham? That it was devoutly religious with a wide range of churches, only one school of note, brief accounts of local famous people based on Dorothea’s work; but it does not sell the town. The fact that it took about ten years for a guide to be republished,[710] more than anything else, clearly indicates a lack of demand. Travellers going to the Coast would not be inspired to come to Horsham (the booklet gives no information on travel arrangements even if they were tempted). In some respects, it produces a cheap version for the populace at large, of Dorothea’s book, re-using many of the plates previously published. For all that, though, it does show confidence in the town.

This sense of confidence in the town is also reflected in the growing but unstable market for a local newspaper. We take newspapers for granted, yet the decision to publish one was a major gamble. The proprietor had to gamble that the literacy rate was high enough for a viable readership, that there were enough businesses in the town to support the press through advertising, that the social networks within the community were fragmented enough so that not everyone knew what was going on before the news was published; this could happen if the town had a large enough population or the target audience was disparate enough not to find out the news. The other key ingredient: there had to be news to publish, or a readership willing to buy the newspaper when news was thin on the ground and could be padded with generic articles. From an investment point of view the presses had to be bought or rented, reporters and editors paid, a distribution network established, and a profit margin after the shopkeeper took his/her cut. All these and no doubt other factors could explain why the newspaper market in Horsham was so unstable. It was under these conditions that M. & R. Albery issued “Albery’s Horsham Journal and Monthly Review. The Journal started on 1^st March 1869. Horsham Museum Society has a bound volume of the first eight issues, unfortunately shorn of their non-local news, including adverts. However, the Museum archive does have one issue that is complete: the fifth.

What follows is in effect eight months in Horsham’s life in 1869. It is an edited version of the news as selected originally by the editor of the Journal. Although filling nine pages of each issue, it does give a very rich flavour of the town. Such an exercise would be virtually impossible for later years as the amount of information available dramatically increases with the arrival of the local press, but the monthly digest already filtered out the inconsequential even though, as the extracts below show, a number of minor events did get covered. Some of the extracts stand on their own, some have been left without comment enabling the readers to draw their own conclusions, whilst others do receive a commentary highlighting the importance or otherwise. So, over the next few pages, read what mattered to Horsham folk in 1869.

WHAT MATTERED TO HORSHAM IN 1869

The Museum has one complete copy, and before reporting on the news the following account refers to this copy. The Journal cost 2d and emblazoned on its front cover, of reddish/orange paper, is the town crest taken from the Town Hall. It was printed by William Hawkins Albery for M. & J. Albery in North Street (though, as later revealed, most of the earlier issues were printed in London).

The Journal is the first true length publication printed in Horsham with a range of advertising blocks and display fonts. The earlier issues which contain illustrations for various stories, not news items, were printed in London. The type throughout is inferior, uniform and very dull with little sense of good printing, consisting in the main of double column with a simple header. The first three pages are adverts which reveal a great deal about Horsham. The major advert was taken up by the Horsham Permanent Benefit Building Society established in 1836. The advert is obviously intended for the financially aware and literate, aiming both to appeal to investors and to explain to borrowers why there is a difference between the rate paid by borrowers and given to investors.

One feature that stands out, clearly showing Horsham was developing, is the statistic that “ the average of the advances for the last three years exceeds £10,000 per Annum.”. The adverts for the various businesses show a great deal of diversification with, for example, R. Gilburd of the Hurst Arms Inn in North Sreet offering accommodation, “Harmonic every Saturday evening”, as well as being a coal merchant and Agent for Fire Insurance and Railway Passengers Accidental Insurance Company.” Whilst others like J. & E Heath followed a single trade: that of coach builders, with a “Factory” in Springfield Road and showrooms in North Street. They offered a wide range of coaches and carts. 

On 1 March the proprietor/editor wrote a one-page editorial setting out why the journal was being published. “Horsham is admittedly in a flourishing condition. It is essentially a business town. …with its well-established Stock Market and improving Corn market, its model Fire Brigade and Rifle Volunteers, one of the finest cricket grounds in the county,[711] and a delightful summer retreat and rural walks beyond it in the Park[712]–  its population and general importance cannot well do other than increase. If we add to the above circumstances the fact that an extensive estate in the eastern part of the town has been recently purchased, set out, and re-sold for building purposes by Mr E. BURSTOW (their caps), Architect &c., we think we may safely look forward to a considerable extension in trade and be excused arriving at the conclusion that some additional communication between the trading and professional classes and the private residents of the town is required, as well as some regular and reliable source from which the public may learn what is transpiring in the locality”.

The editor ends the account with “The Editorship of the JOURNAL will be entrusted to Mr. R.J.ALBERY, and the Typographical department will be under the management of one who has had considerable practical experience in this country and in America.” Concluding with the couplet “Be to our faults a little blind, And to our merits very kind”.

With the publication of a Horsham-based newspaper or magazine the amount of information available to a historian, and a local historian at that, increases 10-fold. Every issue has stories to tell and through the lens of the past we see them as fascinating; definitely more so than did the readers at the time of publication, in part because on reading them for the first time they provide a corrective to the image built up from disparate accounts. Now, instead of having a patchy account of the town; snapshots, we have a fuller picture painted by the editor of the newspaper. This makes the job of the historian even more difficult in being selective, especially if he or she is writing a general history of the town. For example, 100 years ago, in the 1770s, Horsham had theatrical performances and owing to the survival of some letters in the Medwin archive we know something about them, and because of their rarity they have featured in the account of 18^th century Horsham. Now, with the publication of the Journal, we know that every month performances were available in the town. Should we spend valuable space elaborating on the performances to the degree that we did in the 18^th century? We do not, because of other interesting stories. What follows below is a snapshot of the panorama of Horsham as told through the pages of the Albery Journal from March to October 1869.

In March the Journal reprints an article first published in the West Sussex Gazette of a series of lectures given by the Vicar, The Rev. Mr Hodgson, who argues that the education provided at Collyer’s is a “disgrace and a dishonour to the place”, saying that the £550 currently spent, “if it were judiciously applied the advantages to be derived from it might at least be made six times greater than they had been of late”. He went on to argue that there was a need in Horsham for a good sound middle class education; “that instead of these schools, as a rule, improving in the quality of the education imparted to the scholars, commensurately with the means at their disposal, they operated in an exactly inverse ratio”, before citing Rye, which spent £90 a year compared with Horsham’s £500, yet Rye gave as good an education as Horsham. The lecture then sets out his reading of Collyer’s intentions: “was by no means to help the poor man to get a mere elementary education for his child, such as the national schools now provide, but to advance the interests of high learning and induce both poor and rich to cultivate it”. The editor then sets out the proposal that Mr Hodgson and his friends set out “ three years since” on how to improve the school, before concluding that “in the absence of any other proposal, they may safely be pronounced …worthy of adoption”.

There then follows an account of the recent election and county news, before a section marked Borough Notes. Here the Journal notes that another local Magazine was being published in Horsham: Horsham Parish Magazine, which sets out matters relating to the Church.

The Albery Journal supported the fire brigade, recounting a fire that broke out around 11pm on New Year’s Day in the conservatory of Messrs. Lintott & Son’s gardens in the Carfax, before commenting on a new Salvage Corps van built by Mr J. Betchley, East-Street, which the Editor thought too expensive for the purpose. The Crawley and Horsham Hunt Ball took place on Thursday 14 January at the King’s Head Hotel. “The splendid room was neatly and appropriately decorated with the heads of foxes and dogs, and some exceeding rare and choice exotic plants from Allman’s East-street Nurseries”

The Editor noted the 17^th Anniversary of the Horsham Stock Market with the following, after commenting on its 17^th anniversary: “there is another fact which does not please us much, viz., that during this time we have not only turned the top stave of, but have been gradually descending, the ladder of life into the scar and yellow leaf, until we have been induced to count up the number of remaining staves that the fair average of human existence will give us to reach the bottom, which we, like all others, must ultimately find. Enough of ourselves however.” After recounting the annual dinner it was noted that “all were gratified to hear from the Chairman that the accounts for the past year showed a trifling balance on the right side.” Which, following on from the previous comment, was quite critical of the market.

“HORSHAM AMATEUR MUSICAL SOCIETY- This society …gave a grand and very pleasing entertainment at the Music Hall, King’s Head Hotel, on Monday, February 8^th. There was a numerous and fashionable audience, and the selections from Handel’s grand oratorio, “Judas Maccabaeus”, which was performed with great success, gave entire satisfaction. The band and chorus numbered about seventy persons (the principal instrumentalists from London)”

“BOROUGH ELLECTION EXPENSES.- …Major John Aldridge’s account £439 11s 3d; and on that of Robert Henry Hurst Esq., £346 14s 8d…”

“THE ORIGINAL AND INIMITABLE MACKNEY- On Thursday evening, March 4^th, an entertainment will be given at the Music Hall, King’s Head Hotel, by Mr Mackney, assisted by other eminent and talented artists.-Vide Advertisement on Time Table sheet.”

MILDNESS OF THE SEASON.- So mild has the weather been during the whole of the months of January and February that we have had butterflies and primroses almost as plentiful as blackberries in September. In February some fine mushrooms were picked from a garden in the Bishoprick under the management of J.G. Stepney”

There then follows an account of Coursing in St Leonard’s Forest with permission of the three main owners, Major Aldridge, M.P., Scrase-Dickens and Mr Hubbard. After the meet a “capital party dined together” at the Dunn Horse Inn and “Mr Albert Agate, Warnham, acted as judge on the coursing ground, and joined the party at dinner” (Clearly an honour for trade to join the capital party; no mention is given of the dog breeders joining the meal).

The Journal goes on to reprint an account under the heading “SIR SEYMOUR VESEY FITZGERALD AT BOMBAY:” of the first annual dinner of the Bombay Trade’s Association from the Bombay Gazette January 16^th which “we feel that it will be read with interest, not only by those who are politically the friends of Sir Seymour, but also by a vast Majority of those who were always at an election fight for this borough, his determined opponents….”      

In April a person known as Simon the Wanderer wrote to the paper complaining that “on Sunday morning last, when, walking through our streets, I observed a certain shop (in the windows of which I could just perceive the tops of some large glass bottles containing liquids of various hues) where there were not only no shutters up, as is customary in the Christian land, but instead thereof was a large piece of old rag, “all tattered and torn” which the wind was causing to fly and flap …it appeared to me, at a distance, to be some kind of blue striped canvass, such as is sometimes used for covering mattresses and things of that kind…”

In March the magistrates sent Ann Smith, a tramp, to Petworth gaol for a month for stealing a head and shoulders of a cod worth 1s 6d from Mr Ireland’s shop in West Street. In the same month a fundraising dramatic entertainment took place at the Music Hall to raise funds for the Boy’s National School. “The tickets were speedily disposed of, and a more fashionable, a more fashionable more influential, nay, a more beautiful audience never graced the Music Hall than that by which it was filled last night. The front seats were occupied by a perfect bevy of fascinating ladies, the natural attractiveness of whose charms was augmented by the pleasing variety of their fashionable though tasteful attire. We are unable to present our readers with the names of those members of the fair sex on whom so many eyes were directed…” The raised about £40 in receipts (according to the June edition it raised £19 10s 6d for the school).

In May under BOROUGH NOTES it was announced that “The Soup Kitchen closed for the winter on March 9^th. The Spring Fair, April 5^th, was largely supplied with sheep, horses, &c, but business was dull. There were Floral Decorations in the Horsham churches at Easter as usual”. The journal then reprinted a piece from the Parish Magazine concerning the Church Bread Charities and the difficulty due to the death of the trustees. The charity gave out bread at the church and bread every New Year’s Day at the Town Hall.

“The Morning Star states that in the ensuing summer a new coach is to run between Brighton and London, via Merton and Horsham. If this be so, there will, indeed, be a return of “old familiar scenes”

“Our attention has been called by a resident to the want of some public baths in this town, where the river Arun affords such an excellent opportunity for their establishment; but unfortunately in Horsham there is no public body in existence to take the initiative in such matters, and, as in the case of the Waterworks, it must be left to the enterprising spirit of private individuals. We commend the subject to the consideration of those interested in the prosperity of Horsham. …One other thing is wanting, namely, a more perfect system of drainage; that obtained, Horsham will not only be a pretty and healthy little town …but will stand in the first rank of the many model townships of the county of Sussex can boast.”

Another announcement was for the meeting of the Teetotallers of Horsham on 27 April, where the Editor made the following comment: “We cannot help feeling that had the organisers of the meeting announced in their hand-bills the fact that ladies would take part in the entertainment, and, too, that they would render pretty pieces with such suggestive titles (Rock me to sleep, dear, Little Mary’s Request, The lip that toucheth wine shall ne’er touch mine) they would have drawn no end of listeners, and who shall tell how many may have been won over by the gentle influence of the fair ones, from wine-bibbing to teetotalism”.

In June the Journal published a six-verse poem entitled “Bath and Bathos”; a doggerel verse for public baths

“Oh! Who will not for bathing vote,

and cheerfully advance his groat

To raise a fitting shrine

At which, on hot and sultry day,

He can his “deep” devotion pay,

To *Lara the divine

Reformers, who nor rest nor sleep

At thoughts of making a “clean sweep”,

Will revel in the plan;

And gentlefolk of every set

Will hail the thought of a “bank-wet”

With welcome to a man!

The tradesman, too, will all rejoice

Without e’en one distant voice,

There cannot be a doubt

Butchers, with “meet” encouragement

Will aid a scheme they’re all content

To make “no bones” about

The bakers too, will laud the deed

Of raising that which all must “need”;

And from the grocers’ lips

Will flow a never-ceasing stream

(For sure ‘tis a congenial theme)

Of highest praise to “dips.”

That printers will the project speed

At least by word+ if not by deed,

We want no further “proof;”

In fact, helped on by cheering “note,”

There is no doubt the spec will “float”

From which none stand aloof

At once, then, a subscription start;

Each man is sure to bear his part,

Nor will donations cease,

Till on the list all names are stuck

Of those who, liking well a “duck”

Are also fond of “peace”

BARNACLESSIMO

* one of the Naiads, divine because her tongue was cut out by order of Jupiter

+ See Borough Notes in “Horsham Journal” for May

Under Borough Notes mention is made that “The May Fair was held in the Bishoprick, on Monday, May 10^th; the supply and demand were below the average of the fortnightly stock market”. Although the Fair was not as successful, there was significant improvement in the quality of commercial properties, reflecting increasing prosperity.

“Middle-Street has just undergone considerable improvement, new offices having been erected on the site of the grocer’s shop formerly occupied by Mr Lintott, and a handsome new glass-plate front having been placed in the shop of Messrs. Dendy, milliners, on whose premises it will be remembered that Mr W.D. Baker, jeweller, and Mr R Laker, Printer, formerly carried on business”.

The Journal then recounts the formation by the Liberal Party in Horsham of a Registration Society “similar to those existing in most boroughs and in that which has been already formed by the Conservatives.” Henry Michell, the local leader of the Liberal Party, was President. Subscription was 1s and members had to be voted on by a 2/3^rd majority of those present at the meeting. The press was not invited to the meeting in the Black Horse Inn.

The Journal also included a note about the shooting near Denne Park by the head keeper of Denne estate, Mr Britt, of a Golden Oriole. The bird was given to Mr D. Richardson, bird and animal preserver, for preservation. The bird was a scarce sight.

The Journal reprints part of Dorothea Hurst’s account on Shelley. The first edition of the book gives no indication to who the author was, yet in the Journal the editor praises the “authoress” for the work; obviously an open secret.

The editor goes on to ask the question: “Why is there no Flower Show at Horsham?” He then goes on to point out that Brighton, “we believe”, has two a year, the “antiquated old place” Lewes has a two-day Flower Show, Henfield, Petworth, Pulborough, Lower Beeding, Slinfold also have shows, “whilst in this rising, important, influential, central town, of Horsham the modern and fashionable institution known as a Flower Show is unthought of; it would almost seem as if none of our leading residents had the public spirit to move on the matter…A good Flower Show…would lead rich and poor alike to take more care of their gardens and to turn plants and soil to the best advantage; it would be sure to bring visitors to the town, and thus benefit trade. Will not somebody move in the matter?”

The editor obviously had strong religious views for he recounts the tale of former Horsham residents who caused trouble when they moved to Market Harborough. About a year ago the young ladies who had opened, under the auspices of the Church of England, an orphanage, converted to Roman Catholicism along with the orphanage. They had no need for the protestant bibles so they burnt them in the furnace, causing the chimney to catch alight. The editorial ends: “We sincerely hope that the Church of England in this neighbourhood will not supply any more perverts to the Romish Church; the fact that these Bible-burning nuns are said to have been prepared for the Pope’s service at our own parish church is, we confess, a fact which suggests serious and unpleasant reflections”. While obviously expressing a dislike for Roman Catholics, the editor was in favour of the Baptist church, for the “148^th anniversary of the building of the General Baptist and Free Christian Church, Worthing Road, was celebrated, as customary on Whitsunday, by special services”, with the account of the services receiving many column inches.

The journal also records the financial affairs of the Girls and Boys school. St Mary’s National School for Girls was £2 17s 8.1/2d in debt having spent out £55 19s 51/2d on the girls’ education. This compared with a debt of £3 1s 6d for the Boys National School. The Schools’ fundraising had included “donations, sermons, amateur readings, Theatrical entertainment and a grant from the Committee of Council on Education.” Which raised in total £124 10s 2d. The previous year’s debt stood at £12 0s 0d and, as the Journal went on to state, “We should be please to find the school entirely freed from debt by a little further liberality on the part of the public”.

The July Fair was noted in scathing terms in the August Issue: “The great nuisance and anachronism the July pleasure air(sic fair) has come round and gone once more. Most sensible people fail to see the good that the fair does, or the purpose which it serves; and probably nine-tenths of the money spent at the fair might be expended with more advantage at other times or other places. Possibly, however, the public may not be subjected to the nuisance many years longer”. Further on, the Journal published the following letter: “Sir- Respecting the late July fair, might I enquire through your columns as to whether any person has the right to take toll from parties who pitch stalls &c., in the fair, and if so, from whence does such person derive his authority? Yours obediently, A.M. Horsham, 27^th July.” Thus raising a contentious issue. Later, as we shall see, the right to raise charges was vested in the Local Board, but at this time it was one of doubt, with the Duke, as shown earlier, trying to claim the tolls.

The Journal in the same issue gave a more factual account of the fair (in some respects reflecting a split personality of the town and the Journal): “The July pleasure fair, which is always looked forward to with intense longing by a large portion of the humbler classes in Horsham and the neighbourhood, was held on Saturday, July 24^th. There appeared to be a larger number of gipsy carts, shows, &c., than have attended previously of late years, and there seemed no diminution of the country folks and others who visit the fair. Most of the shows and fancy stalls seemed to be well patronised, as were also the Rifle Galleries and a round-about propelled by steam at a rate almost rapid enough to make the people who ride on it sick. We hear of several robberies being committed during the day, and on the afternoon before the fair there was almost a free fight among some of the fair- people in consequence of a dispute as to the right of some of them to certain standing room for their stalls, &c”

There then follows an announcement that would alter St Mark’s church forever: “Those of our readers who remember the ministry of the Rev. A.H. Bridges, formerly of St Mark’s Church will be pained to hear of the recent death of his only daughter, at the early age of 18”. The Rev. Bridges transformed St Mark’s as a memorial to his daughter. Later in the Journal it would report the death of Mary Ann, occurring on 16 July, of gastric fever.

On 6 July the thirtieth anniversary of the Horsham Volunteer Fire Brigade was celebrated. A procession through the town to the Horsham Park “by the kind permission of Mr R H Hurst M.P” took place, consisting of: “Horsham (no1), Brighton, Lewes (Cliffe), Redhill, Croydon, Reigate, Lewes (Borough), and Horsham (No.2) engines, the Horsham fire escape, salvage van, and a portion of the members of the several corps….At three o’clock the company, numbering about 260, assembled in two or three large tents to dine…The dinner was provided by Mr R. Gilbard, of the Hurst Arms Inn. ..Mr W. L. Thomas proposed the health of Captain Honywood.- (loud cheers) – and said they were met to do honor….and for whose untiring exertions and indomitable perseverance the members and supporters of the Horsham Fire Brigade, who numbered altogether about 350, had delegated him to present to the Captain a work of art of great merit – a portrait of himself, admirably executed(Applause) the portrait, which had been fixed directly over the head of the Captain, was thereupon unveiled, and this was the signal for a renewed burst of applause. At the bottom of the picture was inscribed the following:

“Testimonial to Mr. T. HONYWOOD

Capt. Of the H.V.F.B.

For his noble services to the town and neighbourhood of Horsham. July. 1869”

“… the close of the dinner the Fire Brigade Band was engaged in finding music for those who came for a dance on the greensward, and various other amusements were provided for the public, who attended in large force, the weather fortunately proving fine”

 The Journal in the same issue reprinted a criticism of the band at the July Fair:

“A respected correspondent has drawn our attention to the fact that during the recent July fair the Volunteer Fire Brigade Band (in uniform) performed at a travelling “Theatre” which our correspondent think they would not have done had they manifested a due regard for their own respectability, or for the known wishes of some of their kindest patrons Upon that matter we do not desire to express an opinion, but it may be remarked by the way that the true old saying, “You may know a man by the company he keeps, “ applies as fully and as forcibly to Volunteer Fire Brigade Bands as it does to private individuals.” Perhaps in response to this barbed comment, in September the Journal recounted the excursion of the Sussex Archaeological Society to West Grinstead, Knepp Castle and Steyning when the Reverends of Horsham (Hodgson), Shipley (Cooper) and Slinfold (Sutton) attended along with Mr Honywood and Mr T. Mann Jnr. They had a dinner for 5s at the Black Horse Inn and “the Horsham Band performed on the occasion; they were not attired in the Fire Brigade uniform”.

A week later on 13 July, another Tuesday, Horsham Park saw The Horsham Foresters celebrate their anniversary in Horsham Park with a Gala, having had a dinner at the Crown Inn. Here the Fire Brigade band played, though without comment by the paper.

“The July Sheep and Lamb Fair was held on 18^th. There were about 12,000 penned, but trade was not very brisk”.

The Journal carried two adverts at the bottom of the page, one for “POWELL, FOOTTIT, AND CLARKE’S GREAT ALLIED CIRCUS” which was touring the region visiting Horsham on Saturday 7 August at the Queen’s Head Meadow: “their Mammoth Establishment consisting of FIFTY TRAINED HORSES, and Twenty of the Smallest Ponies in the World, and a COMPANY OF FIFTY ARTISTES , each Stars in their several lines, the whole forming the Greatest and most Talented Troupe of Equestrians ever seen….GRAND PROCESSION THROUGH THE TOWN EACH DAY, AT ONE O’CLOCK. Prices of Admission:- To Reserved seats 3s; Boxes 2s; Promenade, 1s, Gallery (seated), 6d, TWO PERFORMANCES EACH DAY, at 2.30 and 7,30pm….” The other, for the sale of drapery business by S. Walder, Carfax House who was disposing of his business and leaving Horsham.

The Journal also includes a Trade Directory  which probably only included those who paid for advertising or listing as there was only one newsagent and stationer, M. and R.J. Albery, who was also the only Tobacconist, whose shop was in North Street opposite Gaol Green. There was also only one Brewer (J. Dempster) in East Street, even though Henry Michell was actively brewing at this time. So as the list is not representative of the trade in Horsham, only a couple of trades will be noted: that of “Waiter, J.O’Connor, No.2, Park Terrace West. Attends public or private parties”, and

“Second-hand Clothes dealer, W, Dench, 27, West-street”

There was also a professional photographer, Mr T. C. Bayfield.

For 1 September the Editor of the Journal gives an interesting account of how the Journal has developed since its institution:

“We live, it is said, in an age of revolutions. Whether this be so or not, it I certain that this Journal, in its little world, has just undergone what may be termed a revolution. Hitherto, like our little contemporary, the Horsham Parish Magazine, we have been partly printed in London, and all but a few pages of local matter has necessarily been selected and edited by an utter stranger. Many of our kind readers expressed a desire to see more of our space devoted to home news, and ourselves coinciding in their views, have, after careful consideration, decided henceforth to print the whole of the Journal ourselves…The advantages or disadvantages of the new arrangement may be perceived in the present number. ..Firstly, whatever of merit or of defect may now appear in our columns we alone are responsible for…Secondly for the advantages which we secure to ourselves and our readers under the new arrangement we, and not our readers, have to pay rather dearly, the expense of production being now more by some pounds than hitherto…”

This explains why the actual local news is a lot more extensive with longer reports of events, including the following:

FORTHCOMMING CONSERVATIVE DINNER

“We have much pleasure in calling attention to the advertisement in another page announcing that on 21^st inst, a festive gathering of our Conservative friends will take place at Horsham  the Liberal party, after the election petitions had been disposed of lost no time in arranging a “Banquet” and indulging in the self-glorification which was natural. The Conservatives, in their turn intend having what they modestly term a “dinner”, but which may possibly be found to possess more the real character of a banquet…The dinner is to take place in Edington’s monster booth, in Springfield meadow….There is to be a tea for the ladies and others, – indeed, we need hardly add that the whole arrangements will be carried out in the complete and liberal manner which always characterises the Conservative party in matters of this kind.”

The September issue also contains the following comment, which in light of the issue of water quality makes interesting reading: “in the month of July last seven persons, whose respective ages were as follows, were buried in the Church cemetery: 87,45,77,4, 93, 67, and one infant. These facts, as speaking for the healthiness of our parish, are more eloquent than words”[713]

“HORSHAM PERMINANT BENEFITT BUILDING SOCIETY.- The thirteenth annual Report of the Directors of this society has been issued”. The account gives various addresses as well as the actual financial statement. Remarkably, 1868 was a very good year compared to previous years, as the table shows:

Members Enrolled	Average of the past 12 years 47	The past (13th year) 67
Shares taken	146	246
Subscriptions on Original Shares	£1599 2s 2d	£3608 19s 0d
Do. On Advanced Shares	£1393 9s 9d	£4313 4s 8d
Total Subscriptions	£2992 11s 10d	£7922 3s 8d
Advanced on Mortgage	£4318 17s 0d	£8533 17s 5d

The annual Report goes on to say that “During the past year sixty-seven new members have joined…There are at present 1,348 shares…held by 398 members. Since the formation of the society, members have received advances to the extent of £60,860 1s 7d.”

“Velocipedes, bicycles, and tricycles, are very popular in this neighbourhood just now. They are, we understand, being tested by the rural post messengers, with a view to their ultimate introduction for the benefit of those hard-worked and poorly paid servants of the Queen. A large number of boys and young men are constantly practicing in the neighbourhood of North-street and Carfax on these new-fangled riding machines, which are let out to them by the hour by enterprising tradesmen. The movements of these would-be velocipedists are watched by many spectators, who, as is natural, find amusement in the accidents and over-turnings which, it seems, are the penalty all beginners have to pay….no fault can surely be found with them for choosing to spend their money this way, especially as they afford so much innocent amusement to lookers-on.” The editor then goes on to hope that the young men would show such “pluck and perseverance” in face of “rebuffs, difficulties, and ridicule, in the attaining of other objects equally worthy and not less profitable”.

“The new traffic-manager of the Brighton Railway Company, Mr KNIGHT, has given the inhabitants of Horsham…the opportunity of making some very cheap excursion trips. In addition to the usual cheap trains to Brighton and the Crystal Palace, there have been “cheap pleasure trips” round the Isle of Wight every Wednesday the third class return fare from Horsham being only five shillings! And on August 21^st, an excursion was commenced extending over three or four days across the Channel to Dieppe and back, for the sum of ten shillings.”

“By notices on the Church-doors we see that Mr W BELCHAMBER, of park-Street, beershop-keeper, and Mr W. MURRELL, beershop-keeper, of the Horse and Groom, East Street, intend applying to the magistrates on licensing day, September 4^th, for spirit-licences- with what result remains  to be seen” 

A large number of column inches was devoted to the report of THE LITERARY AND SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTION whose AGM was held on 24 of August. The Committee had decided not to invest in expensive lectures but concentrate on making the Reading Room pleasant and well-stocked with newspapers and periodicals. The “subscription to the Library Company has provided many volumes for the use of the members during the year”; the state of funds, though, meant no new books could be purchased, and the recommendation of a published catalogue of books passed at last year’s AGM had not been carried out due to the expense. There were only three lectures, two of which related to the issue of Collyer’s School (mentioned above), whilst the ninepenny readings proved very popular. The Institution also made arrangements to accommodate the popularity of chess. The local proposal of a Workmen’s Reading Room was disparaged as the Institute formed such a function. At the AGM there were only eight members, six of whom were officers. The society itself only had 108 members, seven down from the previous year.

Following the report, the members present discussed the issue of the Workingmen’s Reading Room. Here in the reported discussions is the clear evidence of how fragmented and class-riven Horsham had become. Scarcely half a dozen “persons had ever taken advantage of the rule by which mechanics and artisans are admitted to all the privileges of second class members (who pay 3s per quarter) for 1s 6d per quarter”. There then followed a discussion as to why: “one reason was that there was a distinction made as to charges and privileges between the upper and lower classes, and another was that a certain clique of members got the reading-room and the affairs of the Institute generally into their hands and “frowned down” a poorly-clad person or any one who did not suit them.” Mr Baxter and others disagreed with the comment whilst Mr Price argued that “there was no prospect of making the Institute pay its way if the distinction of caste was got rid off; if there was he should heartily support such a movement. Mr STEELE said if they did away with the caste and reduced the rates of subscription they would have a larger number, but would not be so select as they were now.”  It was agreed that a meeting should take place with the promoters of the Workmen’s Hall to see if they could work together, “united and the Institution strengthened, instead of those forces being divided and injuring each other”. The conclusion of the meeting was that “the Echo and Buildernewspapers be in the future regularly laid upon the reading-room table”.

The Editor had in his column set out his thoughts on the question, noting that out of a population of 7,000-8,000, only 108 were members. The Editor notes that it “possesses a good library of useful, instructive, and historical works, and has a comfortable reading-room well supplied with current literature”. He then argues that the rules and the management need to change in order to move forward; that “If the Institute is to gain the support of the working-class, all distinction of caste must be abolished, in the Institute all must be treated as equal, and a uniform rate of subscription, as low as possible, should be decided upon.” By doing this, the editor argues, “the number of members would largely increase and in all probability the support of the promoters of the Workmen’s Hall and of the members of the Temperance Society would be obtained.”  He goes on to argue that a larger reading room would be needed, so the lecture room should be used and the current reading room be turned in to a committee room and hired out for private meetings. Also, “More amusements, and classes for instruction, might be introduced, more lectures obtained, and the library be opened at least every evening instead of, as now, only twice a week.” The Editor concludes his long piece arguing that, whilst there is nothing wrong in having an Institute solely for Working classes and one for upper and middle classes, the town of Horsham is not large enough to support both.

“On Monday and Tuesday, August 23^rd and 24^th two troops of the 4^th Dragoons Guards passed through this town, on their way from the Cavalry Barracks at Brighton to Weedon and Northamptonshire respectively, and in the same week two squadrons of the 10^th Hussars (Prince of Wales Own) passed through Horsham on their way from Aldershot to Brighton. All the troops stayed at Horsham for one night”.

The Journal also contains a short obituary notice of Captain Medwin, author, classical scholar and confidante of Lord Byron and Shelley. He died on 2 August aged 82.

Although not Horsham, the Journal contains a fascinating account of the new sporting craze – bicycling. The event took place at Crawley, in a meadow at the bottom of the town, on 31 August. An estimated 3,000 to 5,000 spectators watched the main event of the day, a walking race. The novelty event was a two-mile velocipede race: six on bicycles, one on a tricycle, which broke soon after it started. Prudames, from Horsham, was third right to the end, when he “capsized” enabling his business partner to take the 3^rd place.

The novelty of the sport was such that they had no terminology for accidents, so adopted terminology from other disciplines such as boating was used. What concerned the paper though was not the race but the bad management of the railways when the Horsham train arrived half an hour late which led to a crush on the train with disregard for 1^st or 2^nd class passengers.

On 1 October the editor wrote: “We beg our readers to take notice that this is the last issue of our Journal in its present form. In future it will be brought out as a weekly newspaper, under the sole proprietorship and editorship of Mr. R.J. Albery …We hope everybody who has a penny to spare will buy the first number and try it”; the Editor then goes on to suggest that the eight monthly issues should be kept and bound together, then the 52 weekly newspapers should be kept, and bound, to form an “Annual Register” of Horsham  Unfortunately the final issue contained little of any note, with extensive coverage of the Vicar’s daughter’s wedding, suggesting that “If marriages are a sign of local popularity, Horsham may rejoice”.

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

Naked Horsham Chronology

1870   Franco-Prussian War. New Education Act provided education for children up to age 14.	Horsham Football Club constituted. St Mark’s Church virtually rebuilt with tower and spire added at expense of the former priest. Sir Cecil Hurst, international judge and respected legal mind, born at Horsham Park. Sir Cecil Hurst was appointed Assistant Legal Advisor to the Foreign Office at the League of Nations. He suggested a Permanent Court of International Justice and as a member of the Paris Peace Conference played an important part in drafting the peace treaties. It was said of him, ‘It is owing to him more than to anyone else that there is a treaty of any kind to present to the Germans’. He carried on with legal work, eventually becoming first President of the War Crimes Commission in 1943-45. He died at South Grove, Brighton Road, Horsham.
1871   Lewis Carroll published Through the Looking Glass. Bank Holidays introduced in England and Wales.	Horsham Advertiser first published. Horsham Athletics Club founded.
1873	Henry Michell’s public swimming baths opened on west side of Worthing Road.
1874   H. Solomon (US) introduced pressure cooking method for canning foods.	July Fair ceased and Whitsun Fair described as worn out. It stopped soon after. July Fair, which had lasted for up to eight days, reduced to one due to local agitation.Medical officer of health appointed.
1875	Local Government Act adopted, first promoted in 1859. Local Board of Health established with 15 members.
1876   Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone.	Station Road existed. Land also offered for building in North Parade and Trafalgar Road. The stone quarry at Tower Hill, which had opened by 1830, closed. Brickworks at Lambsbottom had expanded, operating for at least four years, but closed soon after 1896. Charles Stewart Orwin, agriculturalist and historian, born 26 September. Charles Stewart Orwin was born into a medical family with a strong streak of radical thinking, but Charles himself had always wanted to be a farmer. He worked out a system of cost accounting, which enabled the same degree of cost control in agriculture as industrialists had over their factories. In 1913, he became the first director of the University of Oxford Research Institute of Agricultural Economics. By the time he retired, virtually every British university had a Department of Agricultural Economics. As a historian, his outstanding work was Open Fields. He died in 1955.
1877   First Wimbledon Tennis Tournament. Thomas Edison (US) invented phonograph. First time frozen meat shipped to Europe from Argentina.	Turnpike (1792) from Horsham via Manning’s Heath to Crabtree Road removed.
1879	Mains drainage completed, biggest project of Local Board. Holy Trinity Church’s iron-built mission room opened. Douglas Clifton Brown born 16 August. Became Speaker of the House of Commons in 1943. Alfred Shrubb born at Slinfold. Runner and world recordholder, he broke seven world records in one night in 1904.

Horsham 1870-1880

HORSHAM HAS SOME-BODY WITH A FUTURE

The period of the late 1860s and 1870s saw a shakeup in the social order of Horsham, reflecting changes that were occurring on the national stage. On their own the various changes that took place seem minor; almost unimportant to mention, unless one has a particular interest in that area, but together they signify one of the most dramatic and long-lasting effects: the creation of a highly-ordered society where middle class values and ideas, morals and customs dominated the political, social and spiritual agenda of the working classes.

Throughout this period Societies with rules, and semi-military organisations, were being constructed to manage, control and regulate the people’s leisure time, whilst the factory, train and shop hours dominated the working day. In people’s own domestic sphere, Victorian society was being dominated by social conventions, the creation of dress codes, behaviour codes (morning, afternoon and evening dress, how to receive guests, the carte-de-visite, the creation of manners, of speech patterns, correct pronunciation, etc.), and so on. The Victorian liked the body beautiful, including nude statues of both male and female; though both asexual, the musclemen performing at fairs and shows, military-style costume and uniforms, the corsets, the regulation of bodily functions with set meal times, mastication and bowel movements.[715]

It is interesting to note that in the Albery Journal quoted above the editor does not refer to “class”, but to the term “caste”. Why? Caste is a term that is used to define the social structure of the Indian peoples, a structure that is rigid and inflexible, allowing little or no movement between the various castes.[716] Within Britain, although there was some degree of rigidity to the class system, it was possible for a man to move between working and middle class and middle to upper class by creating enough wealth to buy a peerage, or to send a son to the right school. Such movement was not possible with caste.

So why did the editor use it; a term so obviously connected with India? At the time he was writing, Vessey-Fitzgerald had become Governor of Bombay; his speech and welcome had been reported on in the paper. Perhaps the editor was “showing off”; misappropriating a term, or perhaps he was using it knowing full well its implications, in effect telling his middle class readers that there was an immutability. That even with education offered through the Horsham Literary and Scientific Institution, the working caste (class) will never achieve a middle class (caste) status.

What becomes clear through the Horsham Journal is the degree to which stereotypical middle class issues are being played out, from cleanliness (public baths), education (Collyer’s school and the Literary Institution), social issues (temperance, public fair, flower shows) and trade. The next ten years or so would see many of these issues resolved with the domination of middle class norms.

The issue of football and the founding of the football club in Horsham is a useful paradigm for exploring Horsham growth of middle class values. Football has since medieval times or earlier been a popular sport. However, in Horsham’s history it gets little mention until 1870/71 and even then the mention is one of confusion. On 23 February 1871 the West Sussex Gazette records that the Football Club was first constituted in 1870 and played in Springfield Park.[717] Windrum elaborates on this by saying that it was started by the church “and the rules were largely those of Rugby Football invented nearly 50 years earlier. “Rule 18, No hacking allowed…Rule 20. No one wearing projecting nails, iron plates, or gutta-percha on the soles or heels of his boots shall be allowed to play.[718]” If we look at the national scene we can see the Horsham football club fitting very well into a framework of the sports development.

Football had been a riotous affair, recorded in graphic detail as far back as 1583 when Philip Stubbs wrote “as concerning football playing I protest unto you that it may rather be called a bloody and murthering practice than a fellowlye sport.[719] It had not improved much by the 18^th century. However, one unforeseen side effect of the common enclosure acts that took place across the country was the control of football. There was not the space available in the growing urban centres for large-scale matches. Although Horsham’s Common had been enclosed in 1812, the town did not really develop this area until the 1860s. (Horsham New Town had started the colonisation of the Common in the 1830s but the vast area of the Common still gave plenty of space.)

Throughout the 19^th century the English public schools were developing variants on the game of football, each establishing separate rules and regulations. Linked in with this was the notion of “healthy body, healthy mind” and muscular Christianity; notions expounded by Dr Thomas Arnold and Rugby, and Edward Thring at Uppingham School, who set out some simple rules for playing football. (But each public school had its own set of rules, so half-time grew out of the notion that each half of the game would be played to the different rules.) On 26 October 1863 at The Freemasons’ Tavern, Lincoln’s Inn Fields in London, thirteen rules were established by the Football Association that was formed that Monday night. (It is from ‘Association’ that soccer gets its name.) By 8 December the Association agreed that the ball could not be carried, and Association Football was born; soon after, Rugby Football was created. So Horsham’s Football club was formed some seven years after the formation of the Association. Yet Association only had 13 rules, increased by 1869 to 16 rules; the 10^th rule being “Neither tripping nor hacking shall be allowed, and no player shall use his hands to hold or push his adversary”, and the 13^th rule “No player shall be allowed to wear projecting nails, iron plates, or gutta percha on the soles or heels of his boots”, which were Horsham’s rules numbers 18 and 20, quoted above.

The question to ask is, why did Horsham not adopt the Association Rules? The answer might lie in who formed the Football Club, and how. The Football Association was originally dominated by the public schools, with ex-pupils going out into the industrialised areas and creating the clubs for the working men. “The Victorian preoccupation with the healthy (and beautiful) body….and more served to draw attention to the wretched physical condition of millions of people. To public school men, obsessed with fitness and athleticism, it seemed clear enough that what working people needed was exposure to the benefits of the sporting culture from which they themselves had benefited”. [720]

In the north of England textile workers had been given Saturday afternoon off; some were given Wednesday afternoon (hence the club Sheffield Wednesday). Horsham, though, could not be described as heavily-industrialised and in fact most of its industry was the service sector; the retail trade. Here Horsham had seen a reduction in working hours in 1845 when, according to Burstow, “Up to 1845 all shops kept open till 9’0clock pm in summer, and 8 0’clock pm in winter. After that year, by general agreement, they closed at 8pm in summer and 7pm in winter. Up to 1836 butchers, bakers, greengrocers and barbers all kept open shop on Sunday mornings till church time…”  Later, on 6 March 1873, a public notice was circulated by ten bakers in Horsham that “We the undersigned, being MASTER BAKERS residing in the Town of Horsham, are desirous of having the same privileges accorded to us as to other Tradesmen, viz: that of closing their Establishments on the Sunday, have therefore after due consideration resolved to DISCONTINUE SUNDAY BAKINGS after Sunday, the 16^th day of March next….”[721] So gradually there was the reduction in working hours, though it was not plain sailing as an undated, printed appeal from the shop assistants shows: “TO THE INHABITANTS OF HORSHAM AND ITS VICINITY. In consequence of the recent determination of Messers Agate and Stepney, Thorpe, and Angus, to keep their Shops open until nine 0’clock during the Summer Months, the Assistants have again ventured to appeal to the good sense, and right feeling of the Public. The Linen Drapers of Horsham having before shown themselves anxious to promote the health and recreation of their young men, it is evident the only motive for this alteration., is the supposed accommodation of the Public….” Leisure time was increasing.

Therefore, why did Horsham not follow the FA rules? Probably because Horsham did not appeal to the public school-educated gentlemen. Horsham had a very small number of upper class families and, whilst the surrounding neighbourhood might attract the hunting shooting fraternity, that would be later, and those wealthy families that did settle were generally self-made men rather than the public school sons of wealthy gentlemen. Horsham therefore had to rely on the middle classes and the Church: the muscular Christianity. However, before reading too much into it, in 1871 there were only 50 clubs affiliated to the Football Association[722], but it is not the affiliation which is the main point: it is that the new Club could have adopted the rules, but chose instead to create its own set.

What is remarkable about Horsham is how little is mentioned in the press, or the records of sport and football in particular. Cricket, as has been recounted, dominated the sporting fixtures as it combined both servant and master. The Horsham Journal recounts in some detail the various cricketing clubs and their scores; it also draws attention to the new craze of cycling and an athletics meeting at Crawley, but no mention at all of football. Even in the account of the Fair there is no mention of the sport. It is as if it did not occur. There is a demand from the Journal’s editor for Flower shows, accounts of temperance meetings, but nothing at all on football.

When the football club was formed, it was by the Vicar, who pushed for the club’s formation and, as a pupil of Oxford, he drew on his experiences and those of fellow Church men. The following year the Church founded the Horsham Athletic Club.[723]  Both clubs appealed to the working classes; both instituted discipline and control. Importantly, both involved spectators, with supporters of individuals and later clubs, watching with the power of being on show, on display, influencing codes of behaviour, just as eating had done in the 18^th century. 

The football match was not being played in Horsham Park, nor near the Cricket Ground and Denne Park, both popular venues for public entertainment; but in Springfield Park. This also reveals that the Common was no longer available, nor land within the centre of the Town, but on its margins. What you clearly see is that working class space, both to express freedom of action, and space to play out their ancient competitive games, was being limited, constrained and marginalised. Cricket was played within sight of St Mary’s Church; football was out of sight of that Church, but within sight of the poor man’s church, St Mark’s. Coincidence or plan? The following year, 1871 saw Horsham athletic club founded.

In the dying embers of the decade, on 12 December 1879, the greatest athlete Horsham has ever seen was born at Slinfold: Alfred Shrubb. He came to prominence running for the Horsham Blue Star club, and later, on 5 November 1904 in Glasgow, he would break seven world records. His story, though, is told later in the history of Horsham. Prior to his achievements, the athlete that was remembered in Horsham was a Mr Verrell.

As Henry Burstow recounts: “The most important sporting event at Horsham….that I ever heard of, took place in 1823, when a man named Verrall, called the “Lad” undertook to walk 1000 miles in 20 consecutive days for a wager of £30. Verrell, 43 years of age, married, with 11 children, a pig jobber by trade…decided to try the sporting instincts of the Town as a means of improving his fortunes. His walk was from the “Swan Inn” to the “Dog and Bacon Inn” and back again, a distance of exactly a mile each way, twenty-five times daily, fifty miles a day. He started on Tuesday, Nov. 4^th, 1823, at 4.30 a.m., and finished his first day’s work just after 9p.m. ….He had had no previous training…He finished on the night of Sunday, Nov. 24^th, the old Band playing him in at the finish, thus winning his wager and making altogether in winnings and presents £300.”[724] When Shrubb was running the notions of “amateur” and “professional” were hotly debated, with Shrubb falling foul of middle class and upper class hypocrisy,[725] in effect excluding the working class from many of the competitions.   

Another sport that was receiving some controlling influence was swimming. For centuries the people of Horsham, if they went swimming for pleasure, had used the local rivers or ponds including the mill pond (Cecil Cramp remembers before Horsham Swimming Pool was built in 1933 using the mill pond as a swimming pool with Collyer’s School taking children there and coming out with leeches. In 1874 the idea of swimming as a recreation, a healthy activity, became a possibility with the creation of Horsham’s first public swimming baths on the east side of Worthing Road. 

Sport and reporting of sporting fixtures would be one of the mainstays of the press, from national down to village. Even the Parish Magazine would give extensive coverage of the cricket matches, with a list of players, runs made etc. as well as a brief overview of the match, with the reports being reprinted in the Horsham Journal. The growth of sporting clubs and their fixtures led to more and more space being devoted to it in the press, filling the pages, much to the delight of sport historians today. One of the key aspects of publishing the sporting results was to build up what in today’s marketing-speak is known as “brand loyalty”. In effect, the results page was free advertising and it encouraged non-supporters to get involved in following local clubs. It also meant that players became of interest to readers, and in fact often the player rather than the team was the reason people became spectators.[727]

As mentioned above the Horsham Journal was the first truly local newspaper, with others covering larger remits; for example, the Horsham, Petworth, Midhurst and Steyning Express was first published in 1863, running till 1902, but it was mainly a local edition of the Lewes-based Sussex Express. In 1871 the Horsham Advertiser started life on 21 October and still exists under the title West Sussex County Times, which it took in 1893 having seen two other experiments in its title: the first in 1888 when it was called West Sussex Times, Horsham Advertiser Mid Sussex News, Crawley Gazette, Pulborough Star, Petworth Herald,  Arundel Express, Chichester Standard, Bognor and Littlehampton News and County Record and then in 1891 the shorter-titled West Sussex Times and Sussex Standard.[728] The length of the 1888 title clearly shows how precarious early newspapers were and how big their market had to be to attract a readership. It was not that there was no news to print, but what consisted of news and of interest to their readers was experimental.   

If the creation of sporting clubs could help control the working classes, how about educating the young? As the Journal quoted above shows, this period saw a great deal of public discussion about children’s education. William Pirie, the headmaster of Collyer’s, who as mentioned previously had created a school that barely serviced the needs of the town, died in November 1868. The following year a damning report was published on the school. It was carried out by Mr Giffard of the Mercer’s Company who had visited Horsham to discuss the future of the school “with the principle inhabitants”. The report commented that arithmetic and writing were very good, New Testament was fair, “But beyond this all else is meagre: many National Schools do beter. Some boys know the difference between a verb and a noun but few can distinguish between a subject and an object…much time is given to an ornamental penmanship and a kind of sign-board painting in coloured letters….Most boys are sons of labourers; occasionally a tradesman gets his son elected but the admission of a boy whose father can pay for his education is looked on as an intrusion. The Grammar School is preferred to The National School because it is free and because it has prestige but teaching is of the same kind as in National Schools and is jealously kept down to meet the wants of the same class”[729]. (Grammar Schools would later become a talisman of middle class values, particularly when some 100 years later comprehensive education was introduced). This situation would change with the introduction of the Education Act and Board Schools, as discussed below.

In effect, the report said that the school was not providing the middle classes of Horsham with the education they should be expecting. If anything, because it was free, the school had been dominated by the demands of working class pupils, and the National Schools that do charge are providing a better education. As the Vicar noted above in his public talks, with the amount of funding the school received from the Mercer’s Company, it should provide a better education as was apparent at Rye. However, at no time was anyone suggesting that there should be no education, and the fund-raising that was reported in the Horsham Journal shows how the middle class of the town rallied round to help the National School out. Why? Again, it is a question of control: uneducated illiterate youth were a drain on society, and they were economically unproductive. Educating the children in scripture, reading and writing made them controllable (they could read the public notices, they would know right from wrong, they knew their place). Since the earliest days the Church had been used to create order and status, using the Bible to reinforce the message. That had not changed. The more educated the individual, the more integrated they are within society (they getter better jobs, homes, status, are less likely to rock the boat, overturn norms etc.). Although the changes would not occur until twenty years later, Collyer’s School was put on notice that the education it provided did not match middle class aspirations. In 1881 it was even suggested by the Horsham School Board that St Mark’s be made “a better class school”, by raising the weekly charge to attract “middle-class” parents.[730]

The whole question of free education would be highlighted with the passing in 1870 of the Education Act. School provision at the time in the town included a school in Roffey Street, that opened in 1856 in a building which in 1870 had 50 attendees and was owned by the author Miss Hurst. In 1871 a new building was put up on the north side of Crawley Road thanks to a grant from the National Society. In 1863 St John’s Roman Catholic school opened in the former chapel; by 1869 it had around 34 pupils including infants. In 1873 a separate infants school opened in a cottage, having 21 attendees. The British School had seen its numbers drop to 80 or 100 by 1867 and by 1869 it was a single-sex boys’ school. The National Infants School which, in 1846-7, served both 70 boys and 70 girls, had seen attendance fall to just 70 in 1870. A National School existed at Southwater and at Broadbridge Heath.[731] This was in addition to the schools around St Mark’s, mentioned above, and Collyer’s.

By 1871 Horsham had 18 elementary schools with an estimated attendance of around 700 pupils. Interestingly, this compares with 1818 when there were 20 day schools besides Collyer’s, and three or four boarding schools with a total pupil population estimated at around 765.[732] But Horsham’s population had more than doubled, so whilst on the surface Horsham seemed to have a number of schools able to provide education, it was a significantly lower percentage of the population. Why? A suggestion – and that is all that can be offered – is that with a growing economy, rather than a shrinking one, parents of young children decided that the best form of education was life, rather than learning by rote. However, the 1870 Education Act would change that for good, because it provided free compulsory elementary education, though not universally free at point of delivery until 1891. This would obviously have an impact on those schools that charged as shown below with the British School

It took time for the provisions of the Act to be introduced across the country: Horsham did not set up its School Board until 1873, and that was done through compulsion. In that year Holy Trinity Church of England School opened in a building belonging to J. S. Bostock and had around 35 pupils; but it disappeared from the records and is assumed to have been absorbed into the Trafalgar Road Board School. However, one school that opened in the same year and survived is East Parade Board, later Council School. It was a substantial affair with separate departments for boys, girls and infants, as if it wanted to show the town a model of good practice, thus getting people to attend.[733]  The Education Board did not take over the voluntary schools; merely worked alongside them, supplementing the provision. There were obviously some disagreements within the town with the British School, for the Committee refused to transfer its responsibilities to the School Board, resulting in the school closing soon afterwards.[734] This again represents growing development of managerial, middle class involvement, with the provision of education being a corporate state responsibility, rather than one of voluntary agreement. From now on education would be a state matter.

The main forms of public entertainment were the fairs and, in particular, the July Fair. With the removal of public executions, the fairground attractions became the main reason for coming to Horsham. Burstow in his Reminiscences describes the July Pleasure Fair, one that lasted from 3 days to 8 days depending on when it fell. (It began on 18 July and if that was a Saturday, or any day up to and including the Thursday, it ran till the following Saturday. If, however, the 18^th was a Friday it ran until the following week’s Saturday).

“On these days the country people flocked into the town by hundreds and thousands. The Carfax, from north street right down to the Town Hall, from London Road to South Street, and from East Street to West street, the whole available space was covered with all sorts of booths, shows, cheapjacks, roundabouts (chiefly worked with a winch by hand), and shooting galleries; boxing and acrobatic performances; fat women and living skeleton shows; drinking booths, pickled salmon tents, whelk and fruit stalls, all doing brisk business with crowds of people all day long. The proprietors of these shows and stalls, their families and assistants, used to live in their caravans and tents in the Carfax during the fair; their crude sanitary arrangements being a source of much annoyance and sometimes of disease to the permanent residents there”[735]. It was the last comment that was echoed by the church authorities, who “in February 1870 complained that the gypsy encampments ‘were very prejudicial to the Town in a sanitary point of view.” [736] Even the editor of the Horsham Journal was not sure about the fair, condemning it and then giving a full account of it.

Another sign of this desire to regulate can be seen in Burstow’s Reminiscences. After discussing a proclamation issued in 1779 he records that from “about this time right up to 1845, when the magistrates again interfered, Horsham never went without a regularly arranged bonfire on Nov. 5^th.” Burstow goes on to describe that there were three bonfires and parties, the Carfax, Bishopric and Collyer’s School Croft, and that he made home-made fireworks as there were no factory ones available. He goes on: “Several parties used to parade the town during the day, each with a guy seated in a chair, those in charge singing the old doggerel “Remember, remember, the 5^th November,” &c”. Unfortunately, Burstow does not say why it stopped in 1845. What he does go on to record is: “In 1870 “The Horsham Bonfire Boys” Society was formed, and by it the affair was organised into a splendid celebration, in which nearly the whole of the population seemed to join. Scores of people were disguised and dressed up in all kinds of fancy costumes; huge guys, 10 and 12 feet high, were made and paraded round the town in a long procession, with bands, trees of fire, and various performers in vans, on horseback, and on foot. On the Carfax a bonfire was made so large in later years that it scorched the paint on some of the surrounding houses.”[737]

The importance of 5 November was such that it is unlikely that no celebrations occurred between 1845 and 1870, but it probably was not structured. Then in 1870 the event “was organised”, controlled, regulated and managed. Everyone enjoyed the event, but it was no longer ‘of the people’, but more ‘for the people’ and as such, the people became more passive and receptive.

If though the attacks on the fair are looked at in the light of the other controls being put on working class life, it is possible to see these attacks as a way that Horsham middle classes were having their say. As early as 1842 The Times could report that “The Poor have been dispossessed of their games, the amusements and their mirth”.[738] Some thirty years later, it is clear what The Times was illustrating. It is as if the development of urban living squeezed out, or developed controls on, what had previously been seen as working class rights: to have wild riotous times. In 1874 the Home Secretary was asked to limit the July Fair to one day.[739]

The poor themselves had to be regulated. Not the very poor, who were dealt with by the workhouse, but those who were above that very level who sought charity. The seventh annual report of the “Horsham association for Organising charitable relief and repressing Mendicity”, published in 1880, clearly set out its aims and purpose but disguised it under a veneer of humanity. Its purpose was to manage and control the giving of charity. As it says, “Previous to the formation of this Society, the inhabitants of Horsham were victimised by one of the greatest and most mischievous of our social nuisances – the abuse of Charity, the effect of which, it has been well remarked, is to sap independence, to check industry, to degrade the recipients of alms, to befool and defraud the benevolent, and to rob the really necessitous of the just sympathy of the charitably disposed.” It goes on to say that rather than give out charity, which in “nine cases out of ten finds its way immediately to the public house”, the donors should “avail themselves of the agency of the Society by giving to the applicant one of the Society’s printed tickets, which will at all times ensure immediate attention and lead to impartial and thorough investigation of the case”. It not only gave out tickets, but also loans, so those “who may be sick or unfortunate, from being forced into the workhouse”. In the seventh year they gave out £46 15s in loans, up from £20 17s during the previous year. The society appealed to the people of Horsham to help them as they ensured the money went “to the right people”.

However, all was not well, as the report recorded, “It is not pecuniary support which the Committee lament the want of, but the absence of personal interest. Whatever may be the cause of this, a remedy is necessary.” The authors of the report suggest that sermons be preached to their congregations promoting the wants and objects of the Society. In addition, they also asked for district visitors to find those who were unwilling to ask for help. The Society also gave out help to vagrants: “337 as against 172 last year. In each case one pound of bread has been given to be eaten on the premises of the Agent”, and the response to it had to be managed in a structured and organised way, reflecting changes that were occurring elsewhere in Horsham and nationally.

Why, though, was all this introduced during such a short period of time; what was it that spurred the Church and the middle classes to seek social control and order from a class of people they had little-feared before and whose help they had sought some 40 years earlier in order to obtain political reform? There was, after all, no sign of any riot in Horsham, no sense of mass disturbances.

The answer might lie some 50 miles away to the south east. Europe and France. By chance we have the views of what occurred, through the pen of Henry Michell who records the Franco-Prussian War and its aftermath in some detail, or rather how he recalls his thoughts. In 1868 he and his family visited Paris and viewed the tomb of Napoleon in the “Hotel des Invalides”, which he viewed as “a withering memento upon the folly of our Forefathers in meddling with the political and Dynastic quarrels of other nations”. In the year 1870 he records that on 15 July France declared War against Prussia: “I was convinced that France was no match for Prussia and stated my conviction in the presence of several people in our reading room…On the 4^th of September Napoleon 3^rd surrendered to the King of Prussia at Sedan. Eugenia fled ignominiously from Paris and both subsequently found asylum in England”.[740] He  then goes on to denounce Napoleon for his folly and to question the sympathy that he and his wife were accorded. However, it is in 1871 when he records the following: “After the fall of Napoleon at Sedan, the French declared for a Republican government who refused the terms of peace offered by the King of Prussia. Then came the Siege[741] of Paris with all its horrors, which terminated about February this year, the French being completely conquered…” 

It was this siege and how the Commune was illustrated in Britain that spread fear of the unruly masses. “The Illustrated London News published engravings which showed “quiet and respectable” Parisians desperately trying to escape from the city, and there were images of unkempt, ragged and ruffianly communards. ‘Order, law, trade and even religion have been trampled on by the canille,’ declared the journal, which singled out the savagery of ‘abominable and unsexed women’. Could it happen in Britain? The pessimistic Saturday Review detected parallels between the French mob and the British, although the latter was just a ‘tumultuous gathering of useless, obnoxious people’ with no purpose save to fight the police. By contrast, the French mob was driven by socialism, which must have been of little comfort to the magazine’s middle-class readers.”[742]  

It would not be the first time that the revolutions in France had led to concerns about the working class masses. From the 1789 Revolution that saw the introduction of repressive laws, internal spying, the 1830 revolution that caused increased concern with the agricultural distress, and now the Commune in Paris. What should also be remembered is that in Sussex and elsewhere the “émigrés” from the Revolutions were settling down, Napoleon III was a frequent visitor, whilst at Cowfold and Bramber monasteries were being built to house those who fled or were evicted from France as the Third Republic took control.

It is very easy with any history to read more into coincidences than in fact what they are: to use a popular phrase of today, “stuff happens”. One of the great controlling influences of the people is religion; Marx noted it with his now classic phrase: “Religion is the opium of the people”. Therefore the “in effect” rebuilding of St Mark’s church by the Rev. Canon A.H.Bridges in 1870 can be seen as a powerful statement of control. St Mark’s had been a large Chapel of Ease, imposing but not dominating. As recounted above, it had been built to serve the poor of the town. Now the Canon, as an act of remembrance of his only daughter, whose death was reported in the Horsham Journal, employed Habershon and Brock[743] who “added the west tower, spire, new side aisles, granite columns, transept organ chamber and choir vestry, and all this at more than the original cost of the church. The only part of the building left undisturbed was the small sacrarium”[744]. A brass tablet in the church records the work as being carried out in 1871. Yet the work was not carried out with the intention to control the people, but more as an act of building a suitable monument to a daughter who had been baptised in the church. Having said that undoubtedly the creation of the spire meant that the church dominated northern Horsham’s skyline, that the church was no longer inferior to the recently reconstructed St Mary’s, that the poor had no excuse not to be “saved”.

Another sign of control, of management, was the formation and continuing popularity of the Rifle Volunteer Corp, whose actions were reported on in the Journal. Founded in 1860 they were known as the “7^th Sussex Company”, later the “2^nd Volunteer Battalion Royal Sussex Regiment”.[745] What is remarkable is that at a time of genuine threat and alarm, the 1790s Horsham could not muster a volunteer militia, and during the Napoleonic war could barely form one, as told above. But now with the growing sense of management, control and discipline that is a hallmark of this era it flourishes in Horsham and is seen as a credit to the town, as does the Fire Brigade with its uniforms and livery buttons. The Brigade Band would be chastised by the paper for appearing at the wrong sort of function in uniform. The culture had changed. No longer were soldiers, voluntary or otherwise, seen as a threat to liberty, the militia were there to offer assurance and order. In 1873 a Drill Hall was built in Park Street with its own club room and reading room,[746] a permanent military presence in the town.

By now Horsham had developed smaller hamlets or pockets of houses around its core. The 1870s and 80s would see this continue. For example, Horsham New Town along Brighton Road, along Springfield Road, around Trafalgar House, further afield at Southwater, along the Crawley Road at Star Row, named after an inn that used to exist there.[747] The key to the future development of these areas, though, was interconnections. North Parade, along Springfield Road, was isolated from the railway station, (travellers?) having to walk into the Carfax and up North Street, rather than straight across the land owned by the Hurst family. Horsham New Town and the developments along Brighton Road were isolated from the railway station even though the track ran nearby. It was with the growing demand for lower middle class homes that the issues were resolved with the creation of new roads. Some of the roads could be tied specifically to developers, in effect, to use modern-day jargon, “planning gain”, whilst others were apparently more altruistic. According to William Albery, Hurst Road was laid out in 1870[748], whilst Hudson argues the 1860s[749], basing his evidence on the Hurst Estate map of 1861.

What is more likely is that by 1861 Hurst Road existed as a common footpath/roadway, not officially sanctioned but existing from 12 years of usage. In 1868 sales particulars were issued that advertised a plot of land “opposite road to Horsham Railway Station”.[750] In 1870 the road was formally laid out and made a proper road. Interestingly, though, the road did not attract extensive development; as photographs show, it remained largely undeveloped for twenty or thirty years with the occasional building plot being offered as in 1874,[751]  which suggests that the road was laid out not for economic gain, but to regulate that which was originally unregulated. 

The early 1870s also saw the development of land around the station. This led to the creation of Station Road which joined New Street and thence on to the developing and expanding Horsham New Town with its mix of villas, terraced housing and corner shops.[752] In 1874 some 28 plots of land were auctioned off in Station Road.[753] Horsham was expanding but there were still large areas of the town that were open and suitable for development. 

With the town developing a number of clubs and societies, social structures and institutions to regulate and control it, it is not surprising that moves were afoot to regulate and control the town itself. The town had no-body, now society realised that it needed some-body to manage it, any-body was not an option; it had to be one with legal powers.

The following account of how the town obtained this body is taken not from the history books, nor from the actual reports of the day, but from the pages of the West Sussex County Times and Standard for Friday 8December 1939. On that day the paper sets out the story under the heading “Horsham’s Fight for Freedom and a Mayor”. Why? Because as the paper noted, “After two months’ by an Emergency Committee the full Council, with its numerous hard-working committees, has again assumed control of the destinies of the town”.

The unnamed author culled the story from the pages of the Horsham Advertiser. Setting out how the town obtained its early status and then lost it, and the attempt in 1862 to acquire local government, it starts the account with: “on  6^th July 1874, a meeting  was held at the Town Hall under the Chairmanship of Mr R. H. Hurst. It was proposed to define the boundaries of the town and to elect officers for the administration of the area.” It went on to say that the meeting agreed it had to define the boundary of the town. “The next day the promoters of the scheme called a public meeting to test the feeling of the townspeople. Even before it commenced a petition bearing 500 signatures protesting against the plan was presented to the Chairman.” The tone of the meeting could be gauged by the concluding comments of Mr John Roberts, who said that “all the townspeople would have to go to work as hard as they could to keep the officers, which the Board would necessarily have to appoint, in cigars and sherry”

The reporter then makes the following point: “Reading the accounts of the numerous similar meetings which followed, one is forcibly struck by the trivial-mindedness of some sections of the community. If one signature was omitted from the poster calling  the meeting, or if there was any small irregularity in the way the business was conducted, an officious, legal-minded group of people would inevitably make a protest, refuse to recognise the meetings validity, and demand an adjournment, which was usually granted at the expense of the other townspeople’s time and temper”. The Reporter also went on to condemn the way the Horsham Advertiser treated the whole issue of whether the Borough should seek incorporation: “here is their comment upon the week of fiery meetings that followed the origin of the scheme:-

“Our usually dull and somewhat prosaic little town has within the last few days experienced something of a ‘storm in a teacup.’ A body of gentlemen met one morning at the Anchor to try the merits of some pork pies, and in a jocular way some mention was made of ‘a Mayor, Alderman and Corporation.’ One of the company expressed the wish, so we are informed, that nothing should be said lest the ‘molehill’ of some half-a-dozen gentlemen eating pork pies should be magnified into a mountain. Nevertheless a report was written by one of those present.”

The article caries on:

“The next thing was the calling of a ‘committee’ meeting at the King’s Head hotel at which, it is said, four attended. These of course, like the Tooley-street tailors, were at once ‘We the people’ and proceeded to pass resolutions. Bills were at once circulated signed ‘W.H.Worth, Hon. Secretary (Pro.Tem); in which it was announced that a public meeting would be held at the Town Hall on November 27: ‘To take into consideration what course shall be adopted to make the Town a Corporate Borough…” The extract proceeds to explain how that meeting ended up framing the proposition to be put to another meeting a week later, and that publishing the names of those supposedly on the Committee for securing the incorporation of the Borough led to further trouble, as many of those names opposed such a move. As a result the Friday meeting was a shambles. In the end Mr Hurst spoke up to say that incorporation would cost a lot of money and it would be difficult to get candidates to fill the role of Mayor and Aldermen. It was agreed to let things rest. Unfortunately, this state of affairs led to a poster war and another meeting. “The meeting accomplished nothing, and as it disappeared the ambitious plan to make Horsham a Municipal Borough disappeared for ever.”

In the meantime, the promoters of the Local Government Act of 1858 had been working behind the scenes and had defined the boundaries of the town. “In March of 1875 the Board of Guardians received from the Local Government Board…an order approving of the definition of the boundaries and appointing Richard Bourn to convene a public meeting for the adoption or otherwise of the Act. Two months later a ballot was organised and by a large majority Horsham voted for Local Government, and 15 men were appointed to constitute the Local Board.”

The account is revealing in a number of ways. The paper in 1939 criticises the nit- picking nature and legal-minded attitude of some of the residents. But in an era when regulation and order were being introduced into a vacuum, then that is the only safety net people had. It was not as if there were years of custom to go by, so it is not surprising that people questioned everything and, when they saw an error, called it to people’s attention.

However, this is not the complete story: the demand for local government was not led by the interest in governance per se, but in order to rectify the problem of sewage and drainage; in other words, public health. Mr Worth had proposed the creation of a Borough that would have increased the level of governance in the town; what Mr Hurst was wanting resolved was not town governance, but the issue of sanitation. It is for that reason that Mr Hurst poured scorn on Mr Worth’s grand ambitions. It is as if Mr Worth tried to hijack the campaign by Hurst and others to get a Local Board of Health in order to create power for himself. Mr Hurst saw through this and so, using his skill as a barrister, cut to the quick, mentioned that it would be expensive to get the Borough incorporated, and so killed any notion; thus enabling him to get back to the serious question. William Albery in his Millennium praises Mr Worth, but this is probably more due to Albery’s wish to see a Borough than a dispassionate look. In fact, letters between Mr Pilfold, Medwin and Worth held in the museum archives show that Worth was a man of straw, a con-man or chancer who borrowed from others, fleeing the town when his debts became too great.[754]

It is through the examination of the campaign for better sanitation that we see Horsham creating a system of local government very specific to itself; but at least the town had some-body.

Horsham may have tried to bury its head in its own cesspit, hoping that the drainage issue would go away, but gradually government realised that it had to get involved to create a healthy population, able to make the wealth on which it depended and a force fit to fight any enemy. In 1872 the Public Health Act was passed which set up Sanitary Areas in urban and rural districts each with its own Medical Officer and Inspector of Nuisances.[755] Dr Charles Kelly was appointed Medical Officer to the area that included Horsham. The Medical Officer, however, could not stop the causes of infection; just identify them and report it to the local authority. Which in Horsham’s case was virtually non-existent.

In 1874 Dr Kelly issued his first report. The Report paints a picture of Horsham that is a strong antidote to the rosy picture portrayed by Dorothea Hurst and other proponents of the town. The mortality rate was 50% higher than the surrounding area and 25% higher than comparable towns, the drains were defective, sewage entered the river in raw state, and there was a mild epidemic of scarlet fever which affected 150 people with 10 dying. He also noted that the medical men did not inform the authorities or report the fever: the only way he found out was from the poor themselves. The report spurred on Robert Hurst, who called for adoption of the 1858 Act and the construction of mains sewage. On 11 July 1874 the West Surrey Times carried an extensive report of the meeting held on Tuesday at the Town Hall by Major Hector Tulloch, one of the Inspectors of the Local Government Board, to open an inquiry which should guide the Department in the formation of a Local Board District for the Borough of Horsham. Although filling nearly one full page of the newspaper it contains a great deal of useful and important information about how and why the Local Board should be created.

THE CUT AND THRUST OF SANITATION

Major Tulloch had been sent to the town to hold the meeting because of a petition by one-tenth of the ratepayers for the adoption of the Local Government Act. “The petition set forth that the borough was not a corporate town, and that it had no authority for carrying out the sanitary measures necessary for the well-being of the town….His duty that day was to settle the boundaries of a district over which the Act should exercise control”. He then heard statements in favour and those against. The assistant-overseer, Mr R. Bourne, said: “in answer to the inspector, that the rateable value of the parish was £16,000 the number of inhabited houses was 1,100, and the population 5500”, and there were no liabilities: the parish had borrowed no money. Mr Carter then presented the memorial against the adoption of the Act signed by 500 ratepayers. Mr Carter went on to say: “the memoralists opposed the adoption …because at the present time the roads were in good state of repair. The pavements had been recently re-laid at the expense of £500, and a drain 14 feet in depth had been constructed for a distance of over 1000 yards. The memoralists were perfectly satisfied with the powers exercised by the highway Board”.

Mr Hurst had various arguments prepared for the adoption of the Act. These included that a town the size of Horsham should adopt the Act, that by electing a Local Board, at least elected people would have a say over expenditure rather than un-elected people (the Guardians); the Highway Board had no power to make drains or do sanitary work; the Board of Guardians would have all the power, that the parish is ten miles long; let those in the town deal with their problems and those outside deal with theirs; it was wrong for those outside the town to pay for the pavements inside the town; that yes, a Clerk to the Board would have to be appointed, but the present surveyor and medical man would be retained.

There then followed a discussion on how the signatures opposing the adoption were obtained, followed by the Rev. S Ballard asking for clarification from the Inspector: would the Board be able to force householders to connect their drains to the main drain. The Inspector replied that the Board would have greater powers than the Rural Sanitary Authority, which had no control over buildings: “in the case of new roads, the surface and the sewers would have to be made by the owners of property on each side to the satisfaction of the Board. In public highways the sewers would be made at the cost of the district. If not a public highway, the sewers would have to be made by the owners of the abutting property.” The Reverend then asked if the road around the Bedford Hotel was a public highway. Remarkably, Robert Hurst knew the answer: yes, it was because it had been made by an Act of Parliament when the railway was laid out.

The Inspector then asked for medical opinion: Mr Bostock, Surgeon, reported that he and his father had worked in North Street and knew of cases where diphtheria had occurred, through broken drains, resulting in death of children. Mr W. L. Thomas, a district medical officer for thirty years, reported that about seventy-five years ago Warnham was ravaged with typhoid fever, English fever, cholera, dysentery, and diarrhoea, all of which could be traced back to the poor drains. Since the drains were repaired, diseases in that place were unknown. Mr J. H. Ashburner, another medical man, said that he came into contact with the poorer areas of the town, “and their condition for the most part he must denominate as simply beastly. In some places, such as Springfield-Road, he looked constantly for typhoid fever. The amount which was expended by the parish in meat, wine, and nursing, in consequence of these fevers, was enormous. In one case he had known the parish to expend between £70 and £80. …In New-street the cesspools were only some eight or ten feet from the wells. …” His statement was refuted by Mr Bannett, speaking as a builder and cheered on by the audience in the hall.

The inspector then asked for opponents of the adoption to speak. Mr Carter said that every place that adopted the Act saw rates rise. “He had been informed that in Worthing a house which let for £18 per year had to pay £8 per year in taxes.” Before going on to say that, because of this, rents had been reduced and a number of houses had been left empty. The Inspector, Major Tulloch, informed the hall that he had recently held an inquiry at Worthing with a view to extending the area of the Act, and that “There was no opposition to the extension, and, in fact, the owners of property appeared to be most anxious to be brought in….He must say that £8 a year taxes on an £18 house seemed to him somewhat exceptional.” Mr Potter then spoke of Croydon and Guildford, where he said a £100 house had to pay £50 taxes and that in Croydon there were a lot of empty houses. The Inspector reposted by saying that only the other day he saw “an advertisement of 900 houses to let in South Kensington. Would they blame the Metropolitan Board for that? Whilst a member of the audience shouted out that it was “difficult to get a house there (in Croydon) at all”.

Mr Carter then disagreed with the statements of the medical men: “Horsham was one of the healthiest towns in England, and it was unjust to say that fevers were bred there. They were imported into the town, and were not produced there”, The Reverenced reiterated his case whilst the Inspector noted the comments of the doctors, saying “These gentlemen spoke from experience, and said that fever was almost endemic in the town.- Mr Ashburner: In the New-road five or six children have recently died from typhoid fever. They died like rotten sheep. Some small-pox cases were taken out of private houses and isolated so as to prevent the spread of diseases.” Having lost that argument they then complained about how the petition was drawn up and that no public meeting had been raised about it. The Inspector retorted “From the records I have here I see that a public meeting was held two years ago. I look upon this petition as part of those proceedings.”  The meeting then became personal with an attack on Mr Hurst, who replied that he had not connected his drains to the main one because “had he done so, he should have created a greater nuisance than existed now.”

There then followed a mêlée of comments, about the Gas Works being a nuisance, about Dr Dendy’s family attack of fever in 1827 with fatal consequences and the illness of the station-master’s wife. Mr Robberts said his family had never had the fever and that “I have lived in a pigsty all my life, and have never been ill”. The day ended with an agreement that a further meeting would be held on Monday afternoon week to allow people to look at the map of the boundary drawn up by Mr Hurst: the purpose of the meeting.

What is remarkable about the account in the newspaper is that the death in 1827 of the Dendys was still current knowledge, and still obviously shocked the people; the middle class people of Horsham. In addition, the middle classes of Horsham in the end agreed to set up the board and spend money on those who could not help themselves: Christian duty, the good Samaritan, writ large for the whole of the town. As the report shows, the doctors of the town knew there was a problem, but it needed a forceful character and an inspector who had no truck with “lies, dammed lies and statistics”, and those who spread rumours without any proof.

It may cause some surprise that the area of Horsham had to be defined, but Horsham as a geographical entity; one of a locale; ceased to exist when the Borough ceased to exist. Horsham as a Parish had its defined borders; defined by the other parishes, if nothing else. But the town had no boundaries, so in the 1830s Horsham New Town was created, and other areas of the town were creating their own identities: it is as if the town were disintegrating, having no power of place or identity to make the areas want to belong to Horsham; hence the hamlet of Southwater seceded from Horsham in the 1850s, creating a separate parish. So Hurst had to define the boundaries and thus create a new town of Horsham. The boundaries chosen were obviously selected on certain criteria, and that selection process caused dispute, as one side of the road, you were in, and the other you were an outsider, yet you may have viewed yourself as being a Horshamite.

So what was “Horsham” in 1874? According to the newspaper article, the area Mr Hurst said the Local Board would serve as “beginning at a point on the Dorking road near the Dog and Bacon Inn, the line ran so as to include the whole of the grounds on the south side of Chestnut Lodge, the Hurst-road, and the yard of Mr Agate. It then crossed the Crawley-road, near  the Tan-yard, and ran south to the Depot-road. It athen followed the stream to the St Leonard’s-road, and afterwards the natural boundary of the Brighton-road, down the line of the brook by the Tan-yard. It then ran along the river, and, including the Jews meadow and Trafalgar-road, terminated at the point from which it had started, the Dog and Bacon”. Horsham now consisted of 790 acres.[756]

On 12 April 1875 a public meeting was held with a resolution to adopt the Local Government Act. The Public Health Act of 1875 forced the issue, leaving little room for manoeuvre. In May a poll was held to confirm this decision and 518 voted for it, 222 against. That September, elections were held for members of the board; 35 candidates stood, with Mr Hurst topping the poll with 648 votes, being duly elected Chairman. Work could now begin.

In 1876 Dr Kelly issued his Horsham Rural District Sanitary Report: the second; it covered the year 1875. The report recorded 14 deaths caused by diphtheria, six of whom lived within the town. Dr Kelly set out instructions for how to deal with the infection “wash rooms with lime and soak clothes in chloride of lime solution and Condy’s fluid. Sulphur burned in infected houses is a most effectual disinfectant and …it is worthy of note that the spread of scarlet fever or diphtheria among the poor seemed in almost every case to be at once limited when disinfectectants cause and death is rapid”. He also reported that cases of such infections occurred in both clean and dirty houses. In August Dr Kelly reported that four children had died from diarrhoea. He did not report, but could have done, as the letter writer to the Horsham Advertiser in 1875 did, that a butcher in Horsham had wrapped up some pork chops in two smallpox certificates. The writer wondered if that might spread the contagion?[757]

The following year the 1877 Report stated that the drainage system was in a state of transition. The Sanitary Authority, the organising body before the Local Board, had prepared plans to ensure the town was drained and the sewers were well-constructed and ventilated. “The effluent sewage will pass over land prepared for irrigation and purified in this manner it will eventually flow into the river”. The Local Board issued “Instructions for Tenders for a Scheme of Drainage of District and Disposal of Sewage”. Dated to around 1876 – though as it says replies should be sent to the clerk, it probably dates to 1877 – the tender makes a number of statements and asks a number of questions. Statements include: the scheme had to cover the whole of the District, that the population is about 5120, and the number of houses 1144. “The drain down West Street and a portion of the Carfax …made available as part of the scheme. It is made of glazed Earthenware pipes 2ft 3in  x 1ft 6in internal measurement …The scheme must provide for the proper flushing and Ventilation of the sewers and must show whether storm waters are to be allowed to go into the sewers”.

Interestingly, the tender document was treated more as an “academic” exercise, as the Board had no land on which to build a sewage works. Also, and more importantly, the tender document states that the best submission will receive £100, the second £50, and the plans, drawings and specifications will be the property of the Local Board, “who do not bind themselves to employ the person taking the premium in carrying out the scheme”. In fact, in a previous paragraph the document states: “The Scheme and all the works connected with it must be described and shewn with sufficient accuracy and detail and with all necessary drawings and plans to enable a competent practical man to carry it out” (my italics) This is not that surprising. For a start the Local Board had no “track record” of managing civil engineering works; they had no local comparator[760] to base costs against. The previous major construction project, the rebuilding of St Mary’s, had gone over budget, and it is doubtful whether anyone actually knew what was involved, though the laying of West Street sewer may have given them a clue, perhaps in effect telling them that they did not have the expertise on hand. The Local Board knew what they wanted, they knew the outcome, but not the processes involved to get it, so they asked for as much information as possible, offering the two prizes, or, as they described them, “premiums”, to avoid feeling guilt about poaching the best of each plan.

Now that the Local Board had been formed, Horsham had some governance. Whilst it could not go ahead with the drainage and sewage issue, it could deal with other matters: the issuing of by-laws. In 1877 it issued draft by-laws for regulating “Common Lodging Houses” which were signed and authorised on 7 September 1877. It would only have force within the boundaries of the Local Board, but it ensured that Lodging Houses were kept to a certain standard, which today make for enlightening reading. It shows officialdom spreading its wings, implementing more control and management of those who could not afford to own or become tenants of property, or by the nature of their work travelled. It could be seen as a good thing, ensuring a quality of accommodation and good housekeeping and enforcing best practice, but it can also be seen as restriction of liberty and freedom for both the owner of the home and the occupant. It also raises the question of who checked or monitored this mass of legislation, written out in a neat secretarial hand (see elaborations at the end, for the laws).

It is remarkable that these by-laws should have been passed when Horsham had no effectual drainage system in place, though it clearly showed the standard that the Local Board was aiming for. In March 1878, after extensive negotiation, the Local Board agreed to pay a non-local landowner £350 per acre for the land for a sewage outfall (which lay east of Hill’s farm to the east of the Arun).[763] According to Albery the owner had paid £80 an acre, was offered £120 by the Board, but insisted on £350. The Board threatened compulsory purchase, but the vendor held his nerve and it was the Board that gave way, much to the town’s annoyance. The Board bought 10.5 acres at a cost of £3,775 and now the drainage scheme could be completed, for the Board had started work even though the issue had not been resolved. Even though the Board questioned this price it had, the year before, in 1877, bought a narrow strip of land running from what is now Norfolk Road to East Street to widen the road, paying £1,800 an acre.[764]  

Other signs of growing political and local governance: on 25 March 1876 the Local Board took over the lease of the Town Hall from the Trustees,[765] thus clearly indicating to the town of Horsham that there was now a body willing to take corporate responsibility, rather than rely on ad hoc arrangements concocted to meet one-off developments. An example of this was the decision by the Local Board to ask the Duke of Norfolk, and his trustees, for he had not reached maturity, for Gaol Green and the tolls from the July Fair. Interestingly, if the Local Board had looked at the history of the town and the Borough survey carried out in 1611, it would have seen that the land and the tolls were owned by the “Corporacione” of Horsham; a point made great play of by Albery[766]. However, as the Corporation and Borough had ceased to exist in 1835,  and the tolls that were collected were paid to the last borough beadle (as noted in the Case for the Opinion produced by Mr Lumley Smith in 1866), on his death the Duke claimed them and the land as the successor to the lord of the borough. Something he was legally entitled to do. They were Norfolk’s to do what he liked with and he wanted to give them to the Local Board “in order that they may (subject to any subsisting rights in others) lay out and improve the said land for the purpose of being used as public walks or pleasure grounds or for any other purpose”, as the indenture states.[767]

The question to ask is, why did the Local Board want the land and the tolls when they did not do anything with it once they had it? The Carfax area was notoriously bad, in fact a steam roller fell into a hole in the Carfax some 20 years later[768] and the Bandstand was only built by public subscription. The reason was one of control and management. By taking ownership of the land it could now drive the fairs out of the town when it suited it. By now, the fairs had changed. The pleasure fair held on 25 July and established by 1832 had ceased by 1874, whilst the pre-Whitsun fair was described as worn out and soon after ceased to exist, and as mentioned before the main July Fair was limited to one day due to local pressure. The other fairs, those that had an agricultural purpose rather than pleasure, carried on[769]; which clearly shows where the Local Board’s priorities lay.

As for the Duke of Norfolk, why did he willingly give up tolls? It could be that they were administratively too expensive to collect for the sums involved. If that was the case why did the Local Board want them, unless it was to increase them, to make them viable?  Equally as the indenture states, the Duke claims the rights, gives them to the Local Board, “but subject and without prejudice to all subsisting rights and interests there in of any other body or bodies or person or persons whomsoever…” – in other words the Duke claims them all and grants them, though he is not certain they are his anyhow. Rather than fight a court case over the rights he is happy to give them up. Another possibility is that the Duke’s trustees could see that by giving power to the Local Board they will invest in the town, which in return will see property values increase, and as the holder of substantial assets in the town his property portfolio will increase in value at a time when returns on agricultural investment were declining. Money was to be made in urban, not rural, areas.  

The story of Horsham’s development in the latter half of the 18^th century was the growth in the road system through the creation of turnpike trusts. Turnpike trusts had to be set up by Parliament and needed Acts of Parliament to disturnpike them. By now Turnpikes were being seen as a restriction on trade, as every few miles tolls had to be paid at tollgates, whereas the railway allowed non-stop travel with one fee. One of the first roads to be disturnpiked had been one of the last to be turnpiked: a branch road from Southwater to Shipley and Marehill in Pulborough, in 1867, having been turnpiked in 1824. This was followed by the two main roads connecting Horsham to its neighbours: the Horsham to Crawley road via Roffey and the Horsham to Guildford road; both in 1873. Other disturnpiked roads include the Broadbridge Heath to Billingshurst road (which gave easier access to Arundel and Petworth) in 1876, the Horsham to Crabtree in Lower Beeding via Mannings Heath (one of the main routes to Brighton) in 1877, and the Horsham-Steyning road in 1885.

William Albery in his Millennium gives an account of the last tollgate keeper, Mrs Jane Hill, who looked after the Picts Hill tollgate. The Act abolishing it was passed in 1882, though it did not cease until November 1885. It was the last tollgate in Horsham Parish. Albery recounts how her blind husband used to look after the tollgate at Bines Green, near Partridge Green railway station. Jane would on occasion, if the cattle drover told her one figure and she would count another, catch the Horsham to Partridge Green Station train, arrive before the cattle drover and check the number of cattle going through, to make sure her husband was not misled by the drover.[770] Whilst an interesting rural anecdote, what it clearly shows is the inefficiency of road compared with rail at this time, for the farmer could have used the train to carry the livestock and the disturnpiking of the roads would not have affected this fact. What it did do, though, was make road a lot cheaper than rail, for roads were now seen as free, though obviously paid for through rates and taxation: instead of ‘the user pays’ – now, everyone did.

What was gradually happening was the growing belief that certain aspects of society were everyone’s responsibility, not just the user of the service. The 18^th and early 19^th century had seen a number of infrastructures being developed through direct payment, from schools to roads, canals to trains, even clean tap water. Certain things had always been seen as a national/local, rather than individual, responsibility: defence of the realm, punishment of criminals, the poor (Horsham Prison was paid for by the County, the army and navy by taxation etc.) Yet within some 10 to 15 years, in the 1860s and 70s, a change had occurred: services that were seen as individual responsibility were now seen as needing to be treated the same way as the army/navy, etc.; this included the roads, sanitation/public health and education. In order to manage it either Government stepped in, or local government was created to run it. The next century would see an expansion of state involvement in more and more services and thus an expansion of local government to manage it.

The Local Board had by 1878 taken over the interests of the parish highways board (including paving and lighting) within its area. It also started work on laying mains drainage; it had acquired the Town Hall from the trustees, acquired the Duke of Norfolk’s interest in the July Fair, and had purchased the Horsham Waterworks company for £7,000.[771] To manage this the Local Board employed a Clerk, Surveyor, Inspector  and Medical Officer. (The salaries for the staff were costed at half-year, and here the Clerk received £50, the surveyor £35, Inspector £25 and the medical officer £7 10s). The accounts published for the year show that for general drainage (interest and instalment of loan) they paid £102 18s 4d, for the Waterworks (interest and instalment of the loan) £143 14s 0d, but that included £72 19s 4d income; so over £216 in total. However, this figure was dwarfed by the highways which cost £496 6s 6d with an additional £80 spent on lighting. The acquisition of the Town Hall led to a charge of £15 a year with no apparent income. In total, Local Government cost Horsham £1,076 8s 10d.[772]

The following year, May 1879, Horsham’s drainage system was completed at a cost of £13,560, almost £6,000 above the original estimate of £7,590.[773]

That 5 September at 8.30pm a Special General Meeting was called by six members of the Committee of Horsham Literary Institution, as the letter was addressed, to dissolve the Institution. Thus ended the Horsham Literary and Scientific Institution.

The balance sheet for the institution reveals that it carried over a £14 12s 8d deficit from the year previously, paid the Librarian £10 8s, subscription to Mudie ½ year’s of £4 16s (Mudie was a circulation library) and paid out £17 10s 6d on lectures but only received £16 10s 11d income from them. As mentioned previously there was a desire to see a catalogue of the books which the institute issued (the library held over 1,600 volumes in 1861[774]). One seems to have been produced but it only raised 10d in sales in the previous year. The Institute paid out £29 2s 7d on newspapers and periodicals but received £3 13s ½ d income from selling them. In the sale of items they made £10 for the piano, £63 5d 6d net for the sale of books, furniture and waste paper. They had to pay the churchwardens 15/- for removing the bookshelves. In total they had a balance £56 15s 2 ½ d.

The Institute had survived since 1847 and whilst it had provided talks, reading room, music room, library and a museum of natural and artificial curiosities[775], the key benefit to the town was the promotion of public health with its sponsoring of the report on water quality in 1862 after the scarlet fever epidemic, thus being seen as impartial, even though the results supported Hurst’s campaign.[776]

ELABORATIONS

‘The neglect of Englishmen to learn to swim has been dwelt upon so often that the repetition has become almost tiresome’ Horsham Advertiser 1870s.

You are now standing in the third swimming pool complex to be built on this site. The first pool was constructed in 1934, the next in 1981 and the present one in 2002, yet the history of swimming in the town goes back even further, to the 1870s.

The River Arun and the various mill and hammer ponds in the area would have provided plenty of opportunity for people to swim. However, public swimming baths did not become an issue until the mid-19^th century when the health of the public became a concern of the state.

It was in the 1870s that various proposals appeared in the Horsham Advertiser concerning the idea of public baths. The leading campaigner was Henry Michell Jr. who argued for it in the local paper saying that he was not interested in profit, but in the good of the town. All he wished to do was cover his expenses.

In 1873, Henry Michell’s Horsham Public Swimming Baths opened on the west side of Worthing Road. According to the Horsham Advertiser, which actively supported the baths, there was a less than enthusiastic response from the public. The swimming pool was open air, as it was seasonally operated, and fed with cold spring water. It is illustrated on the Ordnance Survey Map c.1870 with buildings (changing rooms?) on three sides. In the 1873 season just 56 swimmers had subscribed and in 1874 only 26; as Mr Michell commented on in the paper, ‘Total receipts are quite inadequate to meet current expenses. If it is therefore not thought desirable to maintain such an institution as a swimming bath in the town, I have no wish to force it on the public ….’ 

In 1875, the paper reported that unless a minimum of 50 subscribers signed on at the pool by 21 May, it would have to close. It cost 10s 6d for the season and 5s 3d for two months. The cold spring water discouraged some users, so Michell proposed an ingenious solution. He would build a large shallow open-air pond/reservoir, which would warm the water ‘by exposure to the air’. This would then feed the baths. The pond can be seen on the map. By 1880 the pool had closed down.

1896

In 1894, Horsham Urban District Council was formed. One of its first acts was the proposed development of a swimming bath in Albion Road. Apart from the illustration, nothing is known about the development. With the closure of the public baths, swimming continued in the River Arun, and in particular around Prewett’s Mill bay. The bay was a large expanse of water. Former Collyer’s schoolboy, Cecil Cramp, records the following about the swimming that took place there.

‘Collyer’s pupils were allowed to swim in the millpond of Prewett’s Mill – the ‘off’ pond nearest the cricket field. Arrangements were made with Mr Prewett or the head miller. Changing was done in the stables. The pupils would throw items into the bottom of the pool and then dive down to pick them up – they would come home dirty – needing a bath – as the water was filthy’.

Another pupil records small leeches clinging to him as he swam.

Such was the popularity of this area that, in the late 1920s, a scheme was put forward to build a 200 foot long by 40 foot wide swimming bath on the site. To pay for this grand scheme it was suggested that shares be issued. The scheme never took place though £485 was promised.

TWO PROPOSED SWIMMING POOL SCHEMES

Amongst the town archives there are two plans for proposed swimming pools. One suggests converting the old tan pits in Brighton Road into swimming baths. The suggestion seems to have been that this would involve little work. The Tan pits, used in the tanning of leather, used fresh water from a feeder pond and the pool would do the same. Horsham’s last tan yard closed down in 1913, suggesting this scheme dates to soon after the closure.

The other scheme was for a pool to be built on the site of the W.W. (waterworks?). As well as swimming, the baths, if they were built, would have four personal baths (the coffin shape in the cubicles). Unfortunately, this plan is undated. The plan might refer to the old waterworks reservoir in New Street, which was replaced in 1883 by a new one built near the Work House in Crawley Road.

HORSHAM’S NEW SWIMMING POOL

In 1929, America suffered the Wall Street Crash, with a collapse in the value of stocks and shares. This quickly led to a worldwide Great Depression, which affected Britain in the 1930s leading to a large number of unemployed workmen. In Britain the government of the day encouraged local councils to establish Employment Committees to create worthwhile work for the unemployed in return for benefit. Horsham Urban District Council saw this as an opportunity to construct a purpose-built modern pool.

On 7 July 1934, the pool opened with great pomp and ceremony, especially as Nana, Sir Ofori Atta K.B.E., hereditary king of Akyem Abuakwa, member of the Legislative Council of the Gold Coast, was in attendance with his gold crown and robes. The first person taking the plunge was Mr Bryce, the council chairman, who ‘dived in amid loud applause.’

To mark this event an official opening programme was produced, and later a leaflet with photographs celebrating the event, but it is the memories of those that used the pool that give a real flavour of its life and times. No doubt many of you will have your own memories; below, though, are two recollections of a mother and son, Gladys Gates and Malcolm Gates; both Horsham residents.

MEMORIES OF THE OPEN-AIR SWIMMING POOL, HORSHAM

Mother’s Memories

‘Living in Roffey, we would walk to the shops in town on most days and on the way home would rarely be able to pass the Park entrance without being diverted by our children into the grassy play area with its swings, roundabout, see-saw and a terrifyingly lofty slide. As they played under the watchful eye of us ‘1950’s mothers’ the magnetic sound of other, older children laughing and shrieking as they played in the cold water in the adjacent open air pool proved too much of an attraction for them to resist.

Our youngsters would race to the railings, stretching to see over the low wall and between the leaves of the hedge that curtained off the whole swimming pool area. For a better view we walked to look through the entrance gate and sometimes encountered school parties emerging through the exit turnstile, still shivering after their lessons – and most no closer to mastering the skills needed to be a ‘fish’ and receive that elusive swimming certificate.’

Son’s Memories

‘A few years later (it’s the 1960s) I was among those who rattled through the green painted turnstile, gaining entrance by showing the season ticket for which I had paid ten shillings and sixpence at the beginning of the season.

Once inside this green hedged ‘fortress’, we turned to the right and ran towards the green painted metal changing cubicles within the brick construction that headed the pool. Boys on the left and girls on the right. The sound of the metal doors crashing and clanging echoed around this building together with the high pitched shouting of pubescent boys who came and went in the clumsy way that boys of that age do. Many of the doors – I guess they were all original – were bent and buckled but they did the job of preserving our adolescent embarrassment at having to take off our clothes in a public place.

Our skinny white frames emerged from that metal maze carrying our clothes on curiously designed metal carriers that incorporated a hanger for clothes and a basket for your shoes (where we all hid our watches for safety).

Stepping cautiously through the foot bath that smelled strongly of disinfectant, we cautiously passed the deep end (eight foot six) casting an eye towards those brave boys and girls who bounced on the springboard, dived from the high board and, risking splinters in their bottoms, slid down the wooden water slide. Our first task was to find a good spot for a ‘base camp’. This was usually on the wide concrete ‘beach’ to the left of the pool or sometimes on the gently sloping grassy area beyond. That was the nice thing about this pool. You came for the day. It was a place to ‘hang out’ (although we didn’t call it that) with your mates, to picnic, to drink lemonade, enjoy ice creams and look at the groups of girls who were doing exactly the same. Sometimes we even went into the water!

But the water was always cold and tasted of chlorine. It was only really inviting on the very hottest of days and they were few and far between. But we had fun. The strictly illegal practice of ‘bombing’ other bathers when the lifeguards weren’t looking was particularly rewarding. A powerful and well executed jump, with your legs tucked up, could create such a mighty splash you could believe that the level of water had visibly dropped with the volume of water displaced.

On quieter days the pool was the place where you could lie in the sun for hours reading your best books or revising for exams, with the promise that your studies would eventually be disturbed by the welcome appearance of a mate, or better still, one of the girls you liked.

In the right hand corner (shallow end) the cascading fountain launched chlorine rich droplets to be carried on the breeze and provided the underlying soundtrack onto which the noise of young people having fun was superimposed – the sound that would be exciting younger souls peering in wonder from the outside through the leaves of that protective privet.

Then the summer would be gone and so would all the people. The fountain was quiet and on the grass in North Street council workers could be seen taking down the ‘Swimming Pool. Coming in?’ sign featuring the painting of a lady with a beach ball. I wonder who she was? I never saw her in the water.

Gladys Gates

Malcolm Gates                                                                                                        October 2002

Horsham was justifiably proud of its new pool and produced publicity posters promoting it.

In 1947, as part of Horsham War Memorial Community Centre & Playing Fields, Horsham swimming pool was going to be enlarged with the creation of a half moon children’s pool. The pool itself, as the plan shows, was going to be part of a larger sporting complex. It was never built.

THE END OF THE ‘NEW SWIMMING POOL’ AND OPENING OF HORSHAM PARK SWIMMING CENTRE

By the 1970s, Horsham pool was looking tired and out of date. The public were expecting covered, heated pools; not cold, open air ones. In 1979, Horsham Indoor Swimming Pool Association was formed and in December 1979, Horsham District Council agreed to build a £900,000 indoor swimming pool, provided the Association raised £85,000 towards the cost of the fixtures and fittings. The fundraising had begun before 1980, but early in that year, the charity began its work in earnest. Some 18 months later, in November 1981, the new pool opened as part of Horsham Park Swimming Centre. Horsham Museum has a calligraphic Record of Donors, showing a great deal of community support for the new pool. Unfortunately the, pool had to close soon after it was opened due to structural problems and then again, around 1992/3, for further major repairs. However, the pool was very popular with over 250,000 attendances recorded in its busiest years.

 A NEW POOL FOR A NEW MILLENNIUM

The 1980s and 1990s saw a significant rise in the population of Horsham and the surrounding area with major developments in Southwater and North Horsham. The public, having experienced different types of swimming pool complexes, were increasingly demanding a better facility in Horsham. Horsham District Council could either try to increase the water area at the Park Swimming Centre and tackle the existing structural and design issues, or start afresh with a major new design and facility. A ‘Swimming Strategy’ for the Horsham District was adopted in 1996, which envisaged a major new ‘flagship’ facility in Horsham to replace the Park Swimming Centre along with new community pools at Steyning and Billingshurst. The mid 1990s saw the launch of the National Lottery and the possibility of funding for a major development through the Sport England Lottery Fund. Horsham District Council submitted an ambitious plan that was initially turned down, but on resubmission was approved. The plan included an eight-lane main pool, leisure water pools, a fitness and health suite and a dedicated gymnastics hall, towards which Sports England Lottery Fund gave £3.56 million, the largest grant then awarded in South East England. In January 2000, Horsham Park Swimming Centre closed and in November 2002, the Pavilions in the Park opened.

OLYMPIC CHAMPION COMES TO HORSHAM

In 1980, Margaret Hill gave to Horsham Museum a collection of items relating to her husband, Arthur E. Hill, who won a gold medal with the British Water Polo team in the 1912 Stockholm Games. He was born in Birmingham in 1887 and grew to well over six feet tall. He started to win swimming championships at an early age using a swimming style called the ‘Trudgeon Stroke’, which was later replaced by the faster crawl.

In 1908, as a reserve, he represented Great Britain and Ireland at the Olympic Games held in London that year. Four years later he was on the winner’s podium. The Olympic newspaper produced daily at the Stockholm Games reported the following:

‘The most useful man on the English side seems however to be Hill, the back, whose displays in the three matches, apart from unnecessary fouling in the first two, have all been of a high standard. Not only is he a strong defensive player, but he has the capacity for turning defence into attack which is the hall mark of the high grade exponent of the game.’  Stadion Edition No. 24. 15 July 1912.

After the games he travelled in Britain appearing in exhibition matches. In 1913, he moved to Canada where he worked on the Canadian Pacific Railroad, possibly as a policeman, later serving with Canadian forces in the First World War. In 1919, back in Canada, he rescued a drowning boy but was not awarded the Life Saving medal by the Ottawa Humane Society because the boy subsequently died, though he was sent a letter of appreciation. In the early 1920s, he swam for the New York Athletic Water Polo Team, captained by Johnny Weissmuller (later to play ‘Tarzan’ in the 1930s black and white films), helping them win the American championships.

In the 1920s, he came to Horsham, according to his widow, to run part of the family business where he was landlord of the Bridge public house in East Street. He lived in the Horsham area for over forty years, dying at the age of 79 in 1966.

WATER POLO: ITS ORIGINS AND OLYMPIC CONNECTION

Originating in Britain, probably as some form of water football, the first official rules of the game were not drawn up until 1870 by the London Swimming Association. It was originally thought that the game would provide something new for swimming galas. There is no connection at all between water polo and polo other than the name, which itself which comes from the Hindi (Indian) name for ball: ‘pulu’. The first recorded description of ‘aquatic football’ concerned a match played in open water outside London on 13 July 1876.

Early games involved brute strength and wrestling skills rather than the game you see today with each player determined to score a goal without passing. As the pools did not have filtration, the water was often dirty and cloudy so the player would dive underwater with the ball in his drawers, then reappear just outside the goal to score, unless the goalie jumped on him.

In the 1880s, the ‘Trudgeon Stroke’, a new style of swimming, led to the game changing from a rugby to a soccer style of play. Players could now only be tackled when they ‘held’ the ball and the ball could not be taken under water.

The ‘English rules’ game spread across Europe, though according to one authority it was actually developed in Scotland, spreading to England in the 1880s, Hungary in 1889, Austria and Germany in 1894, France in 1895 and Belgium in 1900. Such was the game’s popularity that it was the first team sport to be added to the Olympic programme in 1900. The Americans did not compete in the games until after 1913 when they changed from the old rugby-style game to the modern soccer-style.

HORSHAM LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH  BY-LAWS ON ACCOMMODATION – THE FIRST STAMP OF AUTHORITY

Clause

“ 5 Rooms used as kitchen or Scullery for the use of the lodgers shall not be occupied as sleeping apartments.

6 Rooms in the basement or below the level of the ground shall not be used as sleeping apartments

7 The Keeper of such lodging houses shall cause the windows of every sleeping room …to be kept open …from nine to eleven o’clock in the morning and from two till four in the afternoon of every day unless prevented by tempestuous weather or by the illness of any inmate in such room and during the time the windows are open as aforesaid he shall cause the bed clothes of every bed in such room to be turned down and exposed to the air. But in those rooms occupied by persons who are obliged to work during the night and sleep in the day the windows shall be kept open from two to four o’clock in the afternoon.”

Clause 8 sets out the cleaning routine with all the floors to be swept daily and washed weekly. The walls to be lime-washed at least twice between April and October “and at any other time the Inspector may direct”, with the “blankets, rugs or covers” cleaned at least four times every year. Clause 10 deals with the person being ill and the requirements to thoroughly clean the house, whilst 11 to 16 deal with sanitation and waste and are set out below, because they put into context the issue of sewage mentioned above:

“11 Every such lodging house shall be furnished with a dust bin of sufficient size to contain the dust ashes etc. that accumulated in the intervals of its being cleaned away, which shall not exceed two weeks

12 a water closet or privy shall be provided for every such lodging house having a yard or other facilities for erection thereof and where such facilities do not exist or where the closet or privy is used in common by the lodgers of two or more houses the privy or closet must be provided in some place conveniently contiguous, to the satisfaction of the Inspector, and for every 20 lodgers to be accommodated, a separate closet or privy shall be erected

13 The drains, the closets and sinks shall be trapped so as to prevent effluvia coming up from the sewers or cesspools, the sink in the yard shall be so placed as to take all waste water through the drains from the closet

14 The closet seat, floor, and walls shall be kept free from filth, and clean in all other respects, and in good working order

15 The yards and areas of every such lodging house shall be properly paved so as to run dry and effectually take off all wastewater

16 Every such lodging house shall have a proper drain communicating with the common sewer where such sewer is within 100 yards of the premises”

Clauses 17 and 18 deal with the actual supplies and bedding required for the lodger, whilst 19 states that “Every member and Officer of the Board shall have free access to every lodging house and to every part thereof at any time between 10 A.M. and 8 P.M.” to inspect the property.”

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN

SEDGWICK CASTLE – OF HORSHAM BUT NOT HORSHAM

The following is an account of Sedgwick Castle. Although it lies within the parish of Nuthurst and technically is not part of Horsham’s story, it is today treated by many as being of Horsham. It is the only typical castle built near Horsham, and its thousand year old history is told below; separate, but part of the narrative of the town’s history.

Nestling in a valley a short distance from Horsham town centre lies Sedgwick[777] (or as VCH spell it, Sedgewick). Winbolt suggests that the name might be of Saxon origin for the area, a settlement by the sedge[778], especially as the stream flows through the area. It is probable that Fecamp Abbey, which was a large landowner in Nuthurst in the medieval period, owned some of the land in the area in 1086 when the Domesday survey was carried out. In that survey it is recorded that Little Broadwater, a detached part of Broadwater parish[779] (from where Broadwater Lane gets its name), had woodland to the value of 20 swine. As Broadwater Manor was on the coast, this has to be the outlying part, their landownership in the wooded weald.

The Savage or Sauvage[780] family were Lords of the Manor of Broadwater. In 1205 it is recorded that a Sauvage was resident at Sedgwick. But where did he live and in what type of dwelling Excavations carried out by Winbolt in 1923/4 revealed an early structure presumed to be a hunting lodge. It was around 47.5 ft by 44 ft built on a plateau near the bottom of the slope of the valley.[781] This would tie in with the exploitation of the area for hunting, as already noted, at Chesworth and Chennelsbrook. Winbolt suggests, but no more than that, that “It is possible that Sedgwick was one of the numerous castles erected during the anarchical reign of Stephen (1135-1154) a, period rife with private warfare…(and) ‘as many tyrants as lords of castles”[782];  the lodge was a fortified hunting box and the sedgy ground may have been drained by a moat, as Normans were skilled fish pond makers.[783]

In 1222 Robert le Sauvage, as Lord of Broadwater,  was receiving rents from Sedgwick which suggests the possibility of a small hamlet around the castle/lodge area, perhaps servicing the establishment.[784] Robert Sauvage, who was sheriff for Surrey and Sussex, held Sedgwick between 1242 and 1249,[785] and in 1248 he leased Sedgwick to John Maunsel for life. The lease included the park, which is recorded for the first time, though it probably existed before then.[786] In the lease Sedgwick is refered to as a manor[787] although some of the land was held in Nuthurst by Fecamp Abbey.

Who was the new tenant? John Maunsell was a powerful man and at that time the chief counsellor to Henry III[788]. Born around 1210, he was a warrior, intermittently Keeper of the Seal and secretary and trusted counsellor to Henry III. In his youth he fought in Italy, particularly against Milan for Emperor Frederick II, as well as in France with Henry III, so to Sedgwick he brought valuable knowledge and experience of fortifications. He had custody of the Great Seal, though without the title of Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was a diplomat, going on numerous embassies to Scotland and France and arbitrating in disputes.[789]

On 4 November 1258 he was given permission to strengthen his house of Sedgwicke with fosses and a wall of stone and lime, and to crenellate it[790]. Work started and the licence was renewed in 1262.[791] However, the period was difficult for Maunsell and the King. In 1260 Maunsell entertained the King and Queen of Scotland in Durham (he was given the temporalities of the see of Durham). The following year the King was forced to dismiss him and then in 1262 he was accused of stirring up trouble between the King and nobles.[792]  The building works were completed by 1263 when it was described as a fortalice. In that year Maunsell was forced to seek shelter in the Tower of London before fleeing to Boulogne in June. From 18 July to 18 September Sedgwick was given to Peter de Montfort on behalf of the barons.

What was Sedgwick like after the rebuilding? The moat was extended and deepened and a further one added, creating two concentric rings. A curtain wall, crenellated and turreted with a gate-house and a hexagonal keep with a tower was also added. It was the nearest thing Horsham had to a “traditional” castle. The castle design may have come from Maunsell’s involvement the conflicts in Europe.

Maunsell apparently never returned to England; his lands were alienated. However, one record states that he, even though taking holy orders, was married and had a son, John Maunsell the ounger; another states he had no heir.[793]  By February 1264 the King restored Sedgwick to Maunsell’s trustees. In January 1265 Maunsell had died probably in France. As the lease was only for life Sedgwick reverted back to the Sauvage family; not before being claimed by William de Braose, but in 1267 it was successfully claimed back by John le Sauvage[794], then the following year, in 1268, it was held along with Broadwater by Hawisa Sauvage.[795] Some four years later the de Braose family obtained it through a land swap and the manor merged into the holdings of de Braose, whose main Horsham base was Chesworth. 

It is probably around this time that the park was incorporated into the St Leonard’s forest management, for by the 15^th century it is recorded as a bailiwick (an area with specific boundaries) of the forest.[796] In 1281 he obtained a charter from King Edward I for a free warren ver the district. A free warren did not mean that it was turned over to rabbit breeding.[797] Nothing is then heard of Sedgwick as it became linked to the Chesworth estate. In 1326 the park consisted of 400 acres with 300 being held by Fecamp Abbey.[798] Some four years later there were 21 taxpayers listed as living at Sedgwick, and in 1378 there were 124 recorded, including 26 married couples. It is doubtful that they lived at the castle; more in the manor.

Although used primarily for game there is clear documentary evidence to show that Sedgwick was also exploited for Horsham stone. In 1301 a barn in Thorny Manor, Chichester, was roofed with 2,500 “scletes” or Horsham stone slates. A hundred years later 9,000 blocks of Horsham stone from Sedgwick were used to repair Warminghurst Church. Just as Horsham’s natural resources would be exploited by the manors along the coast, so would Sedgwick, even for the stone that formed the ridge that gave it such prominence. Roger Birch in his Sussex Stone identified nine quarries exploiting the ridge, more than any other area around Horsham.[799] 

In 1395 Thomas Lord Braose died at the age of 42. He lies buried in St Mary’s Horsham. Sedgwick. It then passed to Sir William Heron and others until 1498 when it became part of the Howard Duke of Norfolk lands. The archaeological evidence suggests that soon after acquiring the lands the castle was dismantled with the gate house, drawbridges and most of the curtain wall being demolished. The drawbridges were replaced with banks across the moat and a range of Tudor buildings constructed including a great hall, great chamber, kitchen and other offices which cleared away the Norman buildings from its frontage. The space in front of the hall was turfed over with a paved courtyard to the west of it.[800] In 1529 a parker was recorded, suggesting that the park was being managed.

Sedgwick, like Chesworth, then suffered as the Howards became embroiled in national events. It is, however, likely that Chesworth was the main Norfolk home with Sedgwick being ignored. In 1545, with the arrest of the Duke of Norfolk, Sedgwick was given to Thomas Seymour, later to be Lord Admiral. On his fall from grace in 1549 an inventory was made that recorded that the Park had around 100 deer and 10 porkers. The keeper was paid £4 11s 3d as well as having the right to pasture there 8 oxen, 12 cows, 6 mares and geldings and 16 pigs.[801]  In 1553 the old Duke was restored to favour under Queen Mary, only to die the following year. His grandson then owned Sedgwick, and it was during his ownership that the manor was described in 1561 as having timber suitable for fortifications and shipbuilding. In 1572 he was executed and the Crown took possession. Possibly then, but definitely by 1573, the park was disparked – that meant that the land was turned over for other uses. It was probably around this time that the various farms were established.[802] Three years later the crown leased it to Sir T. Fynes.[803] Three years later in 1579 the woodland seems to have been badly-managed for the trees are recorded as growing “dispersedly”.[804] Sometime during the 16^th century a fire had broken out at the castle, probably towards the end of the century, for in 1591, but certainly by 1602 when Queen Elizabeth leased it to Sir John Caryll for 60 years, he decided to build a new house called Sedgwick Lodge, further up the hill. It may be that the cutting down of trees at Sedgwick for repairing of Sedgwick House[805] was an attempt by Caryll to restore the buildings after the fire, but that he gave up, cut his losses and decided to build afresh in 1602 on a new site. In 1608 the park, which consisted of 624 acres, was dispaled (removing of the paling around the park). In 1612 Sir John, who died a year later, demolished a great deal of the castle and sold the material for building. [806] Although the park had been turned over to farming in 1643, Sir John Caryll retained the right to hawk, hunt, fowl, or fish there.

In between 1649 and 1653 Parliamentary surveys were carried out to record the late King’s possessions. Survey no. 48, carried out in 1650, records: “Sedgwike lands sometime called Sedgewicke Parke ancently disparked” and covers just over 1033 acres. Here Sedgwicke Lodge is described as having a “Hal, Parlor and kitchen besides other necessary rooms below stares and foure Chambers above stares besides Garretts together with one Barne with a faire Orchard and garden thereunto adjoining”.[807]  In 1655 it is recorded that a Bryan Wilkinson, who came from the north of England, lived there and had George Fox, the founder of the Quakers, stay there and preach to a large crowd.[808]  With the restitution of the monarchy the lands in 1662 were granted in trust by Charles II to his mother Queen Henrietta Maria, who then gave them over on various leases. Around 1699 it was let to Sir John Bennett, serjeant-at-law, who bought the freehold in 1705.[809]  In 1707 much of the site was described as wooded. Around 1715 he built a new house having eight bays, two storeys and a hipped roof. It seems as if the gardens were also laid out around this time with an 18^th century “canal” and a gateway with piers being erected.

In 1738 another John Bennett sold Sedgwick to Charles Lennox, Duke of Richmond, perhaps as a grand hunting lodge; his son sold it in 1760. Joseph Tudor left it at his death to William Nelthorpe (who died in 1791), who in turn left it to his sister Elizabeth. Elizabeth changed the name from Sedgwick Lodge to Nuthurst Lodge and on her death in 1801 it was inherited by her nephew James Cowne who took the surnames Tudor and Nelthorpe.[810]

It was during the second quarter of the 19^th century that Mr J. T. Nelthorpe quarried the castle, taking hundreds of loads of stone to repair the local roads.[811] This despoliation of the castle can be seen in a series of small drawings by Thomas Mann. In a manuscript entitled “A Legendary Poem The Channels” with the T, Mann cipher dated 1860, Thomas includes a number of localised illustrations and mixes local stories and myths together in an epic poem. The illustrations include the ruins of Nuthurst Castle along with the lines “I seek my Uncles Tower, in Nuthurst dreary dale it nobly stands, Surrounded by three (changed in pencil to its) moats none dare approach”. Thomas Mann was a noted local artist, a member of the Mann’s Medicine family. Obviously the castle was a noted local ruin that could appear in a romantic Victorian gothic tale, which draws on Tennyson’s famous poems.

On 28 May 1862 at Garraway’s Coffee House, Cornhill, London the property known as Nuthurst Domain was put up for sale by Mr W. Mortimore who had gone bankrupt. From the sale particulars issued by Farebrother, Clarke & Lye it would appear that the estate had been entailed to both James Cowne and Samuel Cowne. Elizabeth’s will, written in 1797, gave them power to fell timber and to lease the property. Samuel’s son Henry Cowne in 1854  bought out the entail, enabling him to sell it to William Mortimore for £38,000 in 1856. As John’s interest was still intact, he took out a £6,000 life assurance in case John died leaving a male heir. John and Samuel still had life interests in the property so when the sale took place it was sold with the following conditions. That James, born on 19 October 1783, and Samuel, born on 22 January 1790, both retained a life interest in the property. Secondly that James could have a male heir who would retain an interest; but he was a widower and never had any issue (so it was unlikely). There was a reversionary mortgage for £38,000 as well as the notice of the insurance policy paid out just in case James had a surviving male son.[812]

The sale particulars described Nuthurst Lodge as a “CAPITAL RESIDENCE…approached by Three Private Drives from the Horsham, West Grinstead and Brighton Turnpike Roads…(with) Outbuildings consist(ing) of Two Double Coach Houses, extensive Stabling with Carriage Yard; Farm Yard with all necessary Agricultural Buildings, Cottage, &c WALLED GARDEN, CONSERVATORY, PLEASURE GROUNDS, ORNAMENTAL SHEETS OF WATER, A LARGE PARK, BEAUTIFULLY STUDDED WITH FOREST TREES”. It then goes on to describe the various other properties in the 1,333 acres being sold that had a rental value of £979 8s per year, as well as “capital shooting in the several Woods and Covers” and timber and timber-like trees recently valued at £16,527. Unfortunately, we do not know how much the estate was sold for. We do know that the details were in demand as its sale particulars went through three editions. The purchaser of Nuthurst Lodge was one Robert Henderson, who could not move in until James died or vacated the property, so he took over possession in 1865.

It was under the ownership of the Henderson family that Sedgwick gained its local fame. Robert Henderson lived at Randall’s Park Leatherhead, suggesting that he bought the estate as an investment rather than to live there. Robert Henderson and his brother George were closely involved with trade with India and the Far East. George had set up a Jute manufactory in Bangalore.[813]

In 1871 Robert died; his son, also called Robert, took over the house though he did not, it seems, move in until 1878, as the Directory of 1874 states that the house was let.[814] Interestingly, in 1931 the Museum was given four albums of photographs by Mrs Henderson dated 19 January 1874 to 3 May 1875. According to her obituary Mrs Henderson was “a keen traveller” who made “two journeys around the world and visited South Africa three times”[815], whilst the Curator, Mr Shrewsbury, reported that the Museum had received from the Countess Leitrim (Mrs Henderson’s daughter) “an interesting record of the world famous places visited by the late Mrs Henderson, of Sedgwick Park”.[816] The Museum’s handwritten catalogue states that there were five volumes of photographs illustrating the travels of Mrs Henderson”.[817] The assumption by previous curators has been that the albums are of her visit. However, the date 1874 would tie in with the house being let by Robert.

The Hendersons

Robert was a Director of R & J Hendersons, East India Merchants (see footnote 37). They had family connections with George Henderson, the jute manufacturer. He also held directorships of the following companies: The Bangalore Jute Factory Co. Ltd, India Rubber, Gutta Percha & Telegraph Works Co. Ltd and the London Assurance Corporation. He was also a director of the Bank of England. He was born on 3 May 1851 and died in September 1895.

Emma Henderson was born Emma Hargreaves in 1851/2. Her father owned a family printing firm and in 1856 they moved to Cuffnells, Lyndhurst, Hampshire. Both parents were keen horticulturalists, stocking the garden with plants drawn from across the globe. In 1862 the whole family moved to Rome, in the hope that the drier air would improve the health of Jonathan. However, he died in Rome in January 1863, and the family returned to Cuffnells. With the death of her mother in 1872 Emma inherited £12,000 from her mother’s will to which she was entitled on reaching the age of 25. Her brother Reginald inherited the estate.

The Photographic albums.

As mentioned in the newspaper report the museum was given “five”, but actually, four, albums of photographs. These cover the following period and places:

Jan 19 – July 20^th 1874  India-Singapore-Jahore (Including Delhi, Benares, Agra, Calcutta

July 21^st – Oct. 10^th 1874 Java-Borneo-Siam Including Batavia, Bangkok

Oct 11- Jan 30^th 1875 China-Japan Including Hong Kong, Macau, Canton, Shanghai, Nagasaki, Yedu

Arrived home May 3^rd 1875 Japan- America including Yosemite, Salt Lake City N.Y

The contents of the photographs suggest, but no more than that, that they were collected by Robert Henderson, rather than Emma, as Robert let the estate in 1874, though Emma may have gone after inheriting money from the estate. As a traveller, Robert or Emma would arrive at the photographic studio and select a range of photographs that would be printed off, and in Beato’s case some were hand-coloured. The prints would then be delivered before sailing, or sent back home to be mounted. The albums were made in Britain and a caption in a fine italic hand was written to locate the scene, or describe the person. As some of the images were alien to the person describing the scene there are differences in titles, for example …. In recent years the importance and quality of Bourne and Beato photographs have become established, with a number of books reproducing them. From this we know that Emma and Robert had a wide selection to choose from. Therefore the images selected; for example, mining camps, logging areas, beheading, and punishment suggest that the views were collected by Robert rather than Emma.[818]   The reasons for this are:

1. Emma’s interest became garden design, and her upbringing suggests a typical range of interests; Japanese gardens, rather than typhoon damage. 
2. Also it is recorded that Emma went on two world tours; we know that she visited Japan with her husband in 1885 and again in 1910, which were probably taken as part of a world tour
3. This therefore makes her undertaking the tour of 1874/5 less likely.

Whoever took the tour, the albums contain some of the finest examples of mid-Victorian photography including work by Felice Beato (Japan) and Samuel Bourne (India).

On 24 September 1878 Robert and Emma married[819] and Emma moved into Sedgwick Park. Two years later Violet Lena Henderson was born (in 1902 she would marry Lord Leitrim, and as Lady Leitrim she would donate items to the museum). In 1882 Neville Henderson the diplomat was born; at the time of Emma’s death he was the only surviving son, the elder son Robert Evelyn Henderson, born in 1881, having died in 1925 after a distinguished military career, whilst the younger son Reginald George died as a result of injuries received in the Great War in 1917.

It was during the pregnancy of Violet, that Sedgwick[820] received two of its most notable guests: Alice and Reginald Hargreave. Reginald was Emma’s brother and he married the young girl that so entranced Dodgeson, Alice Liddell (the real Alice of Alice in Wonderland fame). They married at 3pm on 15 September at Westminster Abby; Alice wore “rich silver brocade and white satin, and the front was covered with valuable old Spanish point lace, the gift of her mother. Sprays of natural orange blossom looped back her magnificent tulle veil, and on her head was a circulet of diamonds, the gift of Robert and Emma Henderson. About her throat was a superb diamond and pearl pendant, Regi’s gift to her, and pinned to the front of her bodice was a horseshoe-shaped brooch sent as a wedding present by Prince Leopold”.[821]  After the service and reception the couple travelled to Sedgwick Park where they spent a few days. Alice would write Emma a letter thanking her and her husband for the loan of Sedgwick Park for the three-week honeymoon. “I think Sedgwick will be a long time before it shelters two more foolishly happy creatures than Reginald and me”. Whilst at Sedgwick they drove to the nearby monastery (St Hughes Parkminster), with Alice acting as “Charioteer”, and found it “exceedingly hideous”. The park was covered with mushrooms which they picked by the hatful; Regi also shot game, bagging one partridge, wounding another and bagging two waterhens. Alice in the letter also describes how “Regi quite forgot and told Austin to give ‘Miss Liddell’ the potatoes – he tries to practice the new name, but had hardly got used to it yet”[822]. The marriage lasted 46 years. 

In 1885 Robert and Emma travelled to Japan. It was here that they brought the large earthenware vase donated to the Museum in 1931 as described in a letter that Emma sent to the Victoria and Albert Museum. The V&A rejected the donation and so fortunately Horsham museum received it. With the object came a copy of the letter Emma sent the V&A which reveals something of her travels.

 “My Husband Mr Robert Henderson & I went travelling in Japan early in 1885. At that time the monasteries were in rather low water as there was some talk of the Japanese turning Christian.

We were staying in Kyoto & had brought a number of interesting things, when from a Japanese we were told that there were very curious things in the Higeyan Monastery which he might be able to get us leave to see – accordingly he took us there one day – what we had no sort of idea that anything there would be for sale.

The Monks showed us 2 very curious examples with raised figures of monks on them- & then to a Great Vase between 4 & 5 ft high – in part of it was a bowl of joss sticks – which they burnt at times….

Sir Ernest Satow[823]  who spends as much of his life in Japan told me he had never seen anything like it – & in 1910 when I was again in Japan I hunted through as many museums as I could to see if there was anything of the sort in them – but found nothing – We got the monk to write out in Japanese the History of the vase, saying how it had been given 700 years before by one of the mikados to the Temple…The only person who has ever given me an idea of what the pottery is – is Lord Banstead who was at Sedgwick last year & much struck by the vase & said it was Raku Zaku – I built a special alcove in my drawing room & have always insured it for £1,000.”

The alcove that Emma mentions would tie in with the date of the great remodelling the Hendersons did to the house. They employed the architect Earnest George who, in 1859, went into partnership with Harold Peto until 1893. He became famous for countless commissions for elaborate domestic architecture executed in Tudor and Jacobean styles and large-scale domestic architecture. He was knighted in 1911.[824] Harold Peto may have also designed the gardens as part of the overall scheme of redevelopment (there is conflicting information on whether it was designed by Emma or by Harold, though later developments were by Emma). Above the main south door, east of the tower is a date 1886. It is likely, but not certain, that the work started in 1885 when the Hendersons were on their world tour. In the letter Emma makes no mention of the children; were they travelling with them or farmed out to a nanny?

In 1895 Robert Henderson, then a director of the Bank of England, died. Emma had the choice of staying on in the house or moving to a smaller property. She chose to stay, and it was probably then that she devoted time to the gardens which she continued to enhance. By 1903 they featured in The Country Life, (Henry Smith’s sales particulars say 1901), where the gardens are described and the underlying design is explored. In Country Life there is clear indication that they see it being designed by Mrs Henderson.

“Quaint and curious is the idea of likening the house and garden to a ship of the Royal Navy…it is extremely interesting to learn that the great existing garden was planned by Mrs Henderson, and brought to perfection under her care. What a garden it is that we gaze upon the lofty “masthead” of the abode! Below is the semi-circular terrace, paved with huge Cyclopaean blocks, which cherish  green things in their crevices, all enframed on the homeward side by deep green yew hedges, giving place for beautiful seats for the view, while at the ends of the curves are classic athletes in bronze….The path leads onward to another marked feature of the garden…the sudden dip of the ground has afforded another fine position for an outlook , as it were, over a bastion- or perhaps, in this maritime garden, we should say a bulwark- while paths lead down on either side to the lower level, where the “chief cabin” is a delightful place to rest in, with its cool stone archway and pavement.

It was looking out from this point, or from the elevation above, that Mrs Henderson’s children, seeing with delight the water-space before them, proclaimed it as “The White sea”…it is characteristic of this garden that it belongs to the landscape: it is a part of its surroundings; it is wholly in harmony with its natural framework. Here, then, we may truly say, is a triumph in gardenage – a success which is not open to all, but which  a few, who have gardens in like situations to that at Sedgwick Park, may also attain” .[825]

In the year the article came out further additions to the building were made, with a Bell Tower dated 1903, which rebuilt some of the 18^th century buildings. In 1910 she visited her son in Tokyo and took a great interest in her children’s careers. She also devoted a great deal of her energies to local affairs including Nuthurst Church where family memorials were held and she threw the gardens open to the public for various charities including the Queen Alexander Memorial for Nurses. She was also Chairman of the Ladies Committee of Horsham Hospital. During the Great War she opened the house to overseas convalescent officers under the Lady Harrowby organisation, offering accommodation to about 100 Australians, Canadians, and New Zealanders. According to the obituary in the West Sussex County Times one of the convalescing Australians, Mr J Loveless, stayed on as agent for the Sedgwick estate.

In 1923 she excavated the castle, under the direction of S. E. Winbolt. The findings were published in a privately-printed booklet (1924), and later in the Sussex Archaeological Collections where Winbolt sets out the castle and estate’s history as well as interpreting the discoveries. The following year her eldest son died, leaving her younger son Neville Henderson. This seems to have resulted in a decision to dispose of some of the objects collected by Emma and Robert, including the large vase mentioned above. In February 1926 Mr Clifford Smith of the Victoria and Albert rejected the gift of the large vase but suggested that the recumbent Malayan (Indonesian) Gantma Buddha might be of interest.

Some four years later, Winbolt wrote to Shrewsbury, Honorary Curator of Horsham Museum, which a year earlier had opened in the basement of Park House; a confidential letter concerning some of the Henderson material suggesting that a donation of items would encourage others as well as encourage artistic taste. He suggests a cabinet be made solely for her material, ending the letter with “I think she would find enough things to fill it. At any rate I fancy you would be wise to accept gratefully anything she offers. It seems to me a good offer. Take the bull by the horns.”

On 15 December 1930 Emma wrote to Mr Shrewsbury:

“Grateful thanks for the trouble you have taken about my Show Case, – & I like the design- ? don’t think it will be made by Museum Show case makers?  Dunstall is not really a cabinet maker – & he would not understand how to make in air and dust proof- I imagine Mr Winbolt also knows about regular Case makers & I fancied you would let me know about them – Don’t you think we had better leave the matter until after Xmas? I am sure you are very busy

Best wishes for Xmas & the New Year.

 Yours sincerely

Emma Henderson”.

On 29 January the following year Mrs Henderson died and was buried at Nuthurst Church, the service attended by “Distinguished persons and village folk”.[826]

With Mrs Henderson’s death the House and estate were put up for sale with W.H. Abbey buying it. Neville Henderson must have owned property on the estate for he returned to Sedgwick in 1939 after the “failure of a mission”, as he titled his book on his diplomatic mission in Munich. 

In 1942 Christopher Hussey would write of the Abbey’s ownership:

“Mr Abbey, who bought the property from the executors of Mrs Henderson in 1931, has redecorated many of the rooms and has installed a select collection of paintings of the English school. At the end of the entrance hall hangs Gainsborough’s unconventional portrait of Sir William Medlicott (1763) – …in this sunny house with its noble gardens looking across the Sussex Weald, over the long history of which there, yet looms the shadowy form of a medieval king’s evil genius”. By now the gardens had become well established with Abbey doing little more than maintaining rather than enhancing the grounds. Though Christopher Hussey did conclude his article with the following observation “In the sympathetic hands of Mr and Mrs Abbey the promise of the place has been carefully preserved and enhanced. The garden is now invested with a rare individual character and charm which give it a distinguished place among the gardens of England”[827].

A fascinating account of Sedgwick at this time was written by Dorris Winchester, nee Randall, who was born in Horsham on 30 May 1915.

“I went to the registry office and got a job as kitchen maid at W.H. Abbey’s Sedgwick Park, the perfect estate… It was a very busy place: in the house there was a butler, two footmen, three housemaids, two nursery maids, a cook, a scullery maid and me. The butler ran everything to the letter, but his wife, the cook, was another drinker, mostly whisky, and he had access to the boss’ booze! As a result I did most of the cooking, and the designated cook just shuffled out to hand the food to the footmen. And it was a great deal of work, with several tureens of each vegetable at every dinner.

Bert, the fifth generation of gamekeepers in the Winchester family, was the second of four keepers at Sedgwick Park, where he lodged with the head keeper in winter and the chauffeur in summer. As well as game, he used to bring turkeys and ducks- especially reared on the estate – into our game larder as our boss could only eat white meat….we went out together for about a year at Sedgwick, and there was no problem having the same boss. We had a code: in the evening, after the cook and her husband, the butler, had gone up, I’d be left in the kitchen to make sure everything was in apple-pie order. At about 9 or 9.30pm I’d look out the window, and if Bert had left a roll of paper in the drain opposite I knew he was there. So then I’d go out to meet him, under the pretext of going to the dustbin with the rubbish, which I’d deliberately left till last.”  Later on she recounts the New Year parties at Sedgwick, “At Sedgwick we had these wonderful New Year parties for all the staff, and we’d also entertain the staff from other estates. Mr and Mrs Abbey would go off to London so that we had the place to ourselves. Then we’d go back to other estates. The owners of Pelsham, Mr and Mrs Scott, even used to join in with us, doing solo songs and so on.” [828]

The Abbeys did do some rebuilding, adding the porch which has the arms and motto of William Henry Abbey, in 1935; “Deus Nobiscum Quis Contra”.

In 1947 the house was put up for sale and was bought by Sir Herbert Crayzer in 1951. Sir Herbert was noted as a fastidious dresser. Born in 1881, he married at the age of 30, in 1911, Freda Penelope, daughter of Colonel W. H. Rathborne, part of a great Liverpool merchant family. He entered Parliament in 1918 as Conservative member for Plymouth, was created baronet in 1924, and Lord Rotherwick in 1939. His family interest in shipping served him well when from 1923 until 1939 he served as Chairman of the Commons committee of shipping. In his obituary in The Times it was commented that “He believed profoundly in the causes he advocated and could, and did, advance them with forcefulness, sometimes tinged with a little acidity.”

His father, Sir August Cayzer, had lived at Roffey Park, Lower Beeding and it might be through this that he had knowledge of Sedgwick. On his death in 1943 Herbert, Lord Rotherwick, became chairman of the Clan line. In 1955 at the height of a bidding war, Lord Rotherwick fell ill, though with the help of his nephew he won the bidding war creating British and Commonwealth Shipping, with him as Chairman. On 16 March 1958 Lord Rotherwick died at Sedgwick Park.[829] In the 11 years of ownership Country Life again featured the house and gardens, commenting on the addition of roses to the gardens and the cascade, made up of 21 interlinking ponds. With his death the estate of some 2,000 acres was now split into lots. His wealth at death was recorded at £636,924 8s 11d.

The new owner of the estate was Michael Bizony. It was under his ownership that the gardens and house fell into decay. He would later develop Parkinson’s, employing a nurse with whom he left the house in 1987, creating a buzz of scandal.[830]  The following account reflects some of the pressures put on developing and saving historic properties in and around Horsham in the 1980s and ‘90s. 

The house was put on the market and various schemes for its development were proposed including turning it into a nursing home (personal recollection at the time I arrived at the Museum was that the solicitor and developer K. Pritchard Jones, owner of Field Place, had expressed an interest in such a development). This led to local pressure to get the house listed and thus save the house from unsympathetic development. Interestingly the house, but not the gardens, was listed on 17 October 1988 with a Grade II status. In 1994 The Independent newspaper ran an article, “Dispute leaves Alice’s idyll at weather’s mercy”, which set out the controversy. Between 1987 and 1994 three developers had owned the site and its 117 acres, the last one paying £1m for it in 1989. That owner, Keeper Holdings Ltd, went in to receivership and a dispute arose over its value. Horsham District Council was asked by Sedgwick Estates Ltd to allow enabling development, where this creates funds to preserve the building. They wanted to convert the house into flats and build four homes in the park. This would have contravened planning policy, so it was recommended to be rejected. A local businessman wanted to convert the house into a family home offering £330,000, some £20,000 less than the District Valuation Officer’s valuation. This would have meant Lloyds Bank, which had lent the £1m to Keeper Holdings, taking a huge loss. The local pressure group, Sedgwick Park Action Group, formed to prevent development, wanted the bank to give way. The Council in the meantime had served an Urgent Repairs Notice to carry out £40,000-worth of repairs.[831]

The house and grounds were eventually bought in 1996 by the Jacksons, who invested in undertaking urgent repairs and restoring the house and gardens, using the wealth they had made from the music business.[832]  Their plans were not always met with favour. In 2001 the current owners, John and Clare Davison, increased the area of land around the house from about 49 acres to 100 acres including joint ownership of the Castle which they are restoring (as of 2006). The Davisons have created a website and are marketing the property for various venues. 

ELABORATION

THE HENDERSONS AND THE NEW “CUTTING-EDGE” BUSINESS PRACTICES

The following is based on an article by Cox H. & Metcalfe S., “The Role of Networks in the early development of the Borneo Company Limited”, published by Centre for International Business[833], in 1997 which reveals how the Henderson family was connected with the development of “genuine multinational companies as early as the mid nineteenth century, using networks as the means of economic co-ordination”.[834]  One such company was The Borneo Company Limited that had been formed by Brooke, the famous “White Rajah” of Sarawak, who allowed Henderson to promote the formation of a joint stock limited liability company. (J. Henderson had previously been involved with the Eastern Archipelago Company, which had obtained a Royal Charter in 1851 which was exploiting the antimony generated by small-scale Chinese goldmining operations. For various reasons J. Henderson withdrew funding, the Royal charter was terminated and by 1862 the Company had folded). This took advantage of the new legislation granting shareholder liability for private companies registered in Britain. “The authorised capital of BCL at the time of its formation (8 May 1856) was £250,000 of which £60,000 was issued in 600 shares of £100. The single main provider (sic) of investment capital were the members of the Henderson firm itself, who between them subscribed 20 per cent of the first issue, and one of the partners, Robert Henderson, was appointed as the first Chairman of BCL”[835]).

The main aim of the company was to exploit the minerals resources of Borneo; they paid James Brooke royalties to the Sarawak Treasury in return for rights “To take over and work Mines, Ores, Veins or seams of all descriptions of minerals in the Island of Borneo, and to barter or sell the produce of such workings”.[836] They then invested £12,500, in 1856, to buy a steamship to serve the coal trade between Sarawak and Singapore, followed by another ship soon after. These investments were held in a subsidiary company. In 1864, when it was thought that antimony, one of the main minerals they were mining, might be used in paint manufacture they made the inventor an employee. “the episode illustrates both a willingness of the company to expand into related activities in Britain itself, and the highly active management role which the London headquarters played in developing the organisation”[837]. Although it proved unsuccessful, they were taking risks. Contemporary newspapers commented on the company investing in things such as the “erection of machinery in Bengal”, asking: “Such an enterprise is, of cause, highly laudable, but what in the name of all that is consistent, has the Borneo Company to do with it”. This comment “illustrates the sheer novelty of a company, such as BCL which in the mid-nineteenth century co-ordinated the operation of a multinational collection of fixed investments from its headquarters in London[838].

---

---