the smallness of the town as compared with the remainder of the district forming the western division of the Borough), the same objection would prevail, the proportion of voters in the proposed Local Board of Health, — exclusive of the Mayor and Aldermen—being 12 to 6. That if the Public Health Act be applied to St. Leonards, the interests of its inhabitants will not therefore be so well protected as they are at present. Your memorialists, with hardly one exception, being deeply interested in promoting their prosperity, and having each of them a considerable amount of property at stake in the town, and it not being for one moment capable of supposition that the Town Council of the borough would be influenced by a similar desire to watch over the welfare of St. Leonards. That by the St. Leonards Local Act, certain “rates, assessments, tolls, duties and impositions are authorised to be made, raised and collected”; and your memorialists are thereby empowered to borrow and take up at interest any sum or sums of money not exceeding in the whole the sum of £16,000; and by writing or writings under the hands and seals of any seven or more of your memorialists to mortgage or assign the said consolidated rates, &c., as the case may be, or any part or parts thereof to the person who shall advance money thereon, as security. That under such powers, various sums of money, amounting, in the aggregate to £13,300, have been borrowed, and the debt so incurred is still a charge on such rates. That if the St. Leonards Local Act be repealed by means of the Public Health Act, the mortgages or securities given will be invalidated. That the provisions of the Public health Act St. Leonards Local Act are amply sufficient for all sanitary purposes of the Public Health Act within the limits and jurisdiction of St. Leonards. Your memorialists, therefore protest against the injustice of the proposed application of the Public Health Act to St. Leonards.”
The committee further reported that having observed the sea’s encroachment near the west end of the town caused by the bank of earth deposited by the railway contractors on the beach, which had already been the means of an overflow into the haven, against which, and to preserve the hutch, the Commissioners of Levels had commenced putting down a groyne, the committee considered it to be urgent to protect the shore to the eastward, and had consulted Mr. Major Vidler, under whose advice Nos. 3 to 5 groynes were put up. It was then decided to advertise for tenders for a groyne nearly opposite to 102 Marina. The tenders were those of Jas. Hutchinson, jun., £126 10s.; John Carey £99 10s.; W. Winter, £96; and Richard Selden, £94 10s. The last-named tender being sent in too late, and irregularly accepted, the commissioners agreed to pay him £8 out of their own pockets, and to advertise for fresh tenders.—A rate at 1s. and 6d. respectively, was ordered as usual. It was next resolved to adopt the following memorial, to the General Board of Health:—
“The humble memorial of the Commissioners for the Improvement of St. Leonards, sheweth that your memorialists have taken into consideration the report of Mr. Cresey[1] on the sanitary condition of the Town and Port of Hastings, recommending that the Public Health Act (11 & 12 Vic. Cap. 63) should be at once applied to the entire borough, including St. Leonards, by which the corporation will be the Local Board of Health; that there are many errors in the Report, calculated to injure the town of St. Leonards, and such as to induce your honourable Board to believe that the Public Health Act is properly applicable thereto, inter alia.— The limits of the said town are so indistinctly defined, and districts within the said town so blended therewith that many statements in the report apparently applying to the inefficient sewage, drainage and supply of water; and the sanitary condition of the inhabitants thereof, have, in reality nothing whatever to do with the said town, but relate to a district eastward of the archway forming the eastward boundary thereof. That the correct limits of said town are set forth at page 18 of Mr. Cresy’s report, and are delineated in the plan annexed thereto and distinguished thereon by dotted lines; and to which plan your memorialists crave leave more particularly to refer. That by reference to such plan it will appear that the town of St. Leonards reaches more than half a mile along the sea-beach, from which the ground rises rapidly to the north or upper part of the town; that it possesses great natural advantages for draining, and that it is situate 1½ miles westward of the town of Hastings. That the proposed drainage of the populous district forming the East Ward of the borough by means of a sewer, to be carried through and to terminate westward of St. Leonards, and the proposed manufacture of the sewage water to be collected by such sewer at such western termination into solid manure will be injurious to the health and comfort of the inhabitants and visitors, in as much as the only level carriage-drive into the country is westward of the town, and that the W. and S.W. winds prevail on this part of the coast for three-quarters of the year. That your memorialists are fully aware of the advantages that would be gained in many places by the collection of sewage water, but they are entirely convinced that in this case the nuisance and inconvenience to invalids and others would very greatly counterbalance any profit likely to accrue by the sale of such manure. That the contents of all houses may be discharged into the sea without any of the evils referred to by your Inspector by the adoption of the reservoir plan patented by Mr. Page, C.E. That the proposed union of the two towns for the sanitary improvement of Hastings being therefore unnecessary, will manifestly be most unjust. That St. Leonards is of recent formation and consists chiefly of first-class houses in wide, airy streets, built on one uniform plan, with well-constructed sewers, and a sufficient water supply; whereas the town of Hastings is of great antiquity, and where, according to your Inspector’s Report a great proportion of houses are of an inferior class, many of them having cesspools only—many having no supply of water, some having no drains whatever, and many of the streets without cover sewers. That it will be most unjust to throw a portion of the expense of improving the drainage and water supply of Hastings or of the intermediate district of the two towns, which has no local Improvement Act upon the owners and occupiers of property within the town of St. Leonards. That by the Municipal Corporation Act the borough of Hastings is divided into two wards, viz., All Saints and St. Leonards. That All Saints ward comprises the parishes of All Saints, St. Clements, part of St. Mary-in-the-Castle, and part of Ore. That St. Leonards ward comprises the parishes of St. Andrew’s, Holy Trinity, St. Michael, St. Mary Magdalen; part of St. Leonards and St. Mary Bulverhithe (sic). That All Saints ward returns 12 Councillors, and St. Leonards only six. That the town of St. Leonards is situate partly within the parish of St. Leonards and partly in St. Mary Magdalen; is wholly within the borough of Hastings, but is, in fact, only a fractional part of the area of the St. Leonards ward or western division of the borough. That new houses being continually erected in the district lying between the two towns, the owners or occupiers whereof would be eligible as councillors for the said ward, the town of St. Leonards would not be fairly represented at the proposed Local Board of Health; and that even assuming that the full number of six councillors were elected from its inhabitants (a circumstance most unlikely considering the smallness of the town as compared with the remainder of the district forming the western division of the Borough), the same objection would prevail, the proportion of voters in the proposed Local Board of Health,—exclusive of the Mayor and Aldermen—being 12 to 6. That if the Public Health Act be applied to St. Leonards, the interests of its inhabitants will not therefore be so well protected as they are at present. Your memorialists, with hardly one exception, being deeply interested in promoting their prosperity, and having each of them a considerable amount of property at stake in the town, and it not being for one moment capable of supposition that the Town Council of the borough would be influenced by a similar desire to watch over the welfare of St. Leonards. That by the St. Leonards Local Act, certain “rates, assessments, tolls, duties and impositions are authorised to be made, raised and collected”; and your memorialists are thereby empowered to borrow and take up at interest any sum or sums of money not exceeding in the whole the sum of £16,000; and by writing or writings under the hands and seals of any seven or more of your memorialists to mortgage or assign the said consolidated rates, &c., as the case may be, or any part or parts thereof to the person who shall advance money thereon, as security. That under such powers, various sums of money, amounting, in the aggregate to £13,300, have been borrowed, and the debt so incurred is still a charge on such rates. That if the St. Leonards Local Act be repealed by means of the Public Health Act, the mortgages or securities given will be invalidated. That the provisions of the Public Health Act
Signed W. W. Burton, clerk to the Commissioners.
St. Leonards Commissioners v. S.E. Railway Company 1850
Considerable correspondence took place in December, 1850, and continued during January, 1851, between the St. Leonards Commissioner and the Hastings, Rye and Ashford Railway Company, the former seeking compensation for alleged damage to the parade wall by an inrush of the sea consequent on the deposit on the beach of a large quantity of earth, forming a high bank at Bopeep. The railway company would not admit their liability, their engineer, Capt. R. H. Barlow, stating that there was no proof that such deposit was the cause of the damage; that such an inundation had occurred before, time out of mind; and that people had been allowed to carry away the beach, the natural protection, also time out of mind; that the diverting the deposit to another place, about -
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedCresy
