The Health of Towns Act. — More opposition.
An associative subject for contention was that of the Health of Towns Act, which as viewed in connection with the via media inhabitants for and against the proposed local Act, appeared to place the parties in a very anomalous position. But the district thus divided against itself was less real than it seemed to be. St. Leonards “within” had a local Act and a board of Commissioners of its own, and did not want the Health of Towns Act. St. Leonards “without” being only under parochial management, wanted a more comprehensive ruling body with the increased powers for sanitary and other purposes. At first, a majority of the inhabitants were willing to assist Hastings in obtaining the Health of Towns Act, and its extension to themselves, but they did not approve of their neighbours, the “insiders”, who, unlike themselves, had a legalised rate which they could not get rid of, being additionally burthened with the expense of the Health of Towns Act, administered as it would be, by a different authority, who whilst they took the place of the Commissioners would not be able to relieve the town of its financial liabilities. The sympathy thus felt by a few rapidly extended to the many until Mr. Piggott declared in Parliament that he had a petition signed by a majority of the inhabitants in favour of the private Bill. Although this sympathy was evoked by the East-Ward Councillors and one of the West Ward being determined by every possible means to carry their point, it was not the only motive for supporting the private Bill. I have mentioned the names of Mr. Robertson and Mr. Mace as two of those proposed as commissioners in the local Act. These gentleman being the lessees of the Government ground from the Woods and Forests Commissioners, they, doubtless, would be able to gain the interest of Lord Seymour, who was the chief commissioner of that Board. Hence the action of his lordship as seen in what follows: —
On the 28th of March, the Public Health Act for several towns appeared before Parliament, with Hastings struck out by Lord Seymour, and to remedy which, Mr. Fuller, Member for East Sussex, gave notice of a motion for the following Wednesday. This he withdrew on the promise of Lord Seymour to insert Hastings in the next Bill introduced on behalf of the Board of Health. On the 10th of April, in answer to a question by Mr. Frewen, Lord Seymour said why Hastings was omitted from the list was because several deputations had waited on him — some in favour of the Bill being applied to Hastings and some against, and as he could not make out which was right, he had a omitted Hastings for the present, that they might come to some decision among themselves. A few days later, Mr. Hollond presented a petition for the re-insertion of Hastings in the schedule then before the House. This was to include St. Leonards — as well within the Archway as without — whereupon, on the 24th of April, a public meeting was held in the St. Leonards St. Leonards Assembly Rooms, for the purpose of petitioning Parliament for the exclusion of St. Leonards from the Act in contemplation for both the town and borough of Hastings.
The Rev. G. D. St. Quinton presided, and on -
