in Mrs. Samwell's field had progresses about 40 yards, but they were unable to say that when the work was finished it would answer expectations. A cheque for £40, however, was wanted and granted.
An important proposal of the owners of property in York Buildings to give up the garden ground in front of their houses for a more commodious footpath from Castle street to the Priory Bridge was taken into consideration. Mr. Ginner said as it would incur much expense, he moved that it be referred to a committee to examine and report at the next meeting. This was done, and the report represented the paving as too expensive to make the acceptance desirable. Hence the non-aquisition(sic) of a line of frontage which later owners or occupiers have been able to turn greatly to their own advantage.
There were no shops at the time in York Buildings, the whole range of houses (one or two excepted) being let in apartments to visitors. The ground offered to be given up consisted of neat flower-gardens, enclosed by painted railing and small gates. It happened, however, that boys and others who should have acted differently amused themselves by plucking the flowers and damaging the slender railings with sticks or other objects. Hence, probably, the desire of the owners to give up the ground to the public.
Some of the Committee, it was thought, having an eye to the picturesque, deemed the turning of gardens into footpaths to be the reverse of improvement, whilst others regarded the expense of the work not justified by the low state of the Commissioner's finances.
Consolidating the funds of three parishes - Council meeting
The meeting having been made special for the purpose of considering the necessity of consolidating the funds of the several parishes, Mr. T. B. Williams said the motion was one that he should have made long since had he been aware the act would have allowed him to do so. He felt convinced that many commissioners held an opinion which was an erroneous one, that St. Clements was so pressed by expense that they could not fulfil their engagements.
In 1820 an Act of Parliament was obtained, when the rateable property in St. Clements was equal to the two parishes, a double portion of the debt then incurred, and also a double portion of the income. In 1832 another act was obtained based on the above principles, At the present time, St. Mary-in-the-Castle was nearly equal to double the other two. It could not be supposed that St. Clements would so press upon the funds of the other two as to make any material difference to them. He wished to raise such a fund that might enable the commissioner to make such improvements as the town stood in need of. He then proposed that from and after the first of June next, the funds of the parish of St. Mary-in-the-Castle shall become consolidated with the other two for the purpose of raising such sums of money as the commissioners might deem expedient. They must either pass this resolution or revert to their position in 1834. Mr. Gill asked if the motion was to make St. Mary-in-the-Castle liable for the debt already incurred by St. Clements. Mr. Langham answered yes, and seconded the motion. It had been said by some gentlemen present, that it was contrary to the Act, but as he could see nothing in the act directing separate accounts to be kept. One clause (which he read) clearly referred to such consolidation. Mr. Hannah stated in 1820 All Saints parish was left out of the Act of Parliament altogether, and only consented to be brought in the act on the arrangement made previous to the passing the act in 1832.
Mr. Thwaites stated, in 1820 the act was passed as Mr. Hannah had stated, and that the parish of St. Clement being allowed 40 commissioners, double that of St. Mary’s, the parish of St. Clements had carried every question in its favour, and had, he believed, taken more of the money of St. Mary-in-the-Castle than they ought to have done. He contended, from accounts he held in his hand, that the funds of St. Clements were not now in a worse state than they were in 1832. St. Clements had endeavoured to get every expense shifted on to the other two: if they wanted a sewer, it was a market sewer; if a house was to be pulled down to widen the street. Mr. Williams did not then say where is the money to come from. Had Mr. Williams come forward stating the parish of St. Clements insolvent, and not with the cloven foot, he (Mr. Thwaites) had no doubt that they should have been willing to assist them. He hoped gentlemen would not be hoodwinked by his friend of darkness, Mr. Williams, but enter fairly into the subject before they voted for such a wild scheme.
Mr. Gill stated that if the motion was carried, it would be a violation of agreement entered into at the time of obtaining the acts. The rates in St. Mary-in-the-Castle were very high. He then handed a letter from Mr. Duke, barrister, stating his opinion to be, that the commissioners were impowered(sic) to pass such a motion as the one before the meeting. Mr. Vidler thought Mr. Williams should consider that property in St. Mary-in-the-Castle was much depreciated, as there was not any property which produced £5 per cent.
Mr. A. Harvey stated that the parish of All Saints would receive more than equivalent to what it would be called upon to expend. Mr. Ginner thought it would be a benefit to the parish of All Saints, but he was not prepared to vote for the motion as he did not see the justice of making one parish pay the burden of another. He moved an adjournment for two months, to allow time for consideration. Mr. Heath seconded.
Mr. Williams wished to reply to gentlemen who had spoken as to the engagement made at the time the act was passed, to which there was not a dissenting voice; and again went through the whole of the previous arguments, for the purpose of refuting those used by the opposition. The Chairman said they had heard the opinion of two legal gentlemen, as to the legality of the motion; he thought it best for their clerk to give them his opinion as to the legality. The Clerk said it was his decided opinion that the Commissioners had a legal right to adopt the motion.
Mr. Ginner's motion was carried by a majority of four.
Council Meeting
At the quarterly meeting of the Town Council on the 3rd of August held at 11 O'clock in the forenoon, with the Mayor (Mr. F. Smith) in the chair, a communication was received from the Commissioners of Woods and Forests respecting a new road over the Priory ground. Letters were also received from Lord Cornwallis and Mrs Millward in answer to some communication made to them on the 28th of May last on the subject; in which answers they stated that they had taken the subject into consideration and saw no reason to alter their previous determination.
Some discussion then took place on the subject, which ended in a resolution being carried to proceed at once with the road without reference to the claims set up by either of the individuals in question.
On the motion of Councillor Clement, a bye-law was passed for the suppression of dog-carts within the borough [it is a curious circumstance that Mr. G. Mills, a Hastings man began his commercial career with carrying fish into the country by means of a cart drawn by dogs, and that in after life he, like Mr. Clement, became a rich man]. At the same meeting, the Clerk drew the attention of the meeting to the fact of the late Condemned Hole not having fulfilled their covenants. He was directed to write to them on the subject.
On the motion of Mr Thwaites, seconded by Mr Ross, the salary of the Pier Warden was ordered to be icreased £5 per annum, and he was directed to take upon himself the duties of the water bailiff. The Mayor also reported the return of the Rt. Hon. Joseph Planta and Robt. Hollond, Esq., as Barons of this port to serve on the ensuing parliament.
On the 6th of July great excitement was caused in the borough by the arrival of intelligence that a Liberal candidate had been nominated at Lewes for this division of the county. The Tories were prepared to chair their Members on the day of nomination, and the cortege was to have been very imposing, had not Mr. Curteis, M.P. for Rye, suddenly appeared emong them and broke the charm by proposing Mr. Shelley in the Liberal interest. They were dismayed beyond measure to think that the slumber in which they had been indulging was thus broke in upon. The Liberals, on the other hand, were in high spirits at the prospect of an opportunity of at least recording their votes as county voters in favour of the Liberal measures of Her Majesty’s Ministers. The candidates then were Messrs. Darby, Fuller and Shilley. Of the second candidate, the Sussex Advertiser remarked that Mr. Fuller was recommended at the Hustings as the inheritor of the legislative virtues of the late Johb Fuller, Esq. of Rosehill; but, said the same journal, "we are assured that he will never attain the peculiar parliamentary celebrity enjoyed by his relative!" Whatever might have been the ability of the several candidates, it was soon proved that both Mr. Fuller and Mr. Darby were far ahead of Mr. Shelley at the poll, for while the last-named gentleman obtained only 883 votes on the first -
