Page:Item 6 1854.pdf/126

Hastings to the corners of the streets. By daubing over, by misleading additions to the name, and what was at least unmanly, by threatening to knock down the painter, and then, in one or two instances, preventing him from putting up the name, the St Leonards party have shewn their inability to offer any legal obtacle(sic) to affixing the odious name. The only question then can be - is it expedient? expediant? and I think it can be shewn that expediency is done either with or without the consent of the interested parties. If with their consent there still remains the question whether their consent is sufficient to warrant that act of expediency. In the present case the authority is an Act of Parliament, and the question is whether the people affected by that Act have the power liberty of restricting or extending its enactments as they think expedient? If the people of Hastings may, for the sake of expediency give up a part of that which is theirs by Act of Parliament, where is the use of the Act as a deed of definition? Would it not be better to leave the whole subject open to the townsmen for them to manage from time to time according to their notion of expediency? It is something like challenging the authority of the Houses of Parliament to say that their enactment with regard to the name of Hastings shall be a dead letter, and that the restriction with regard to the limits of the township of St. Leonards shall also be disregarded. But in the present case the act of expediency has not the consent of the interested parties - the Local Board of Health. And here the question assumes a serious aspect. We English are proud of our constitutional liberties. If I understand our Constitution rightly, the Executive have an authority to carry out the enactments of the Legislature, and that in no instance can any member of the Executive - not even the Royal head of it - enforce anything contrary to a legally passed Act of Parliament. But here the Executive in the person of the Postmaster-General has stepped in and said that Hastings shall be called St. Leonards in spite of the restrictions of two Acts of Parliament - that of the township of St. Leonards, and that of the Local Board of Health. He has no right to do this. In doing it he has broken the laws of England and infringed upon the liberty of the subject. It may be thought that I am placing the matter rather high; but let us look at it in all its bearings. If the Postmaster-General has a right to alter a name thus legally established, may not other branches of the executive claim other rights against Law? If the Postmaster-General has no right -