pened not to come within the operation of the local act of Hastings.
I will employ the following legal fact, not as an analogous case, but to illustrate the “process by which “St. Leonards” to the east, became entitled to that name.
Picture to yourself two estates, the property of two gentlemen, A and B, and situated on the opposite banks of a channel or gigantic river, and let the river be the property of the Crown; if the waters of that river were suddenly to subside, and leave the space over which they flowed permanently dry land, that dry land would be the property of the Crown; but, instead of an abrupt termination ofthe stream, let us suppose a gradual dereliction of the water, and a consequent gradually laying bare of the base as dry land, and let this slow subsidence take place only on one side of the river, and on that side occupied by A’s estate; then the bottom of the river, as it becomes dry would become the property of A, and not of the Crown-and if this dereliction were to continue until at length it should reach the opposite bank, and leave the land dry even in juxtaposition to B’s estate, the whole would become the property of A. Now this is not a creature of imagination, but a legal truism, and I adduce it to shew that as this newly-acquired property would have been cared by the name of A’s estate, althougn not included in his original title deeds, so by gradual annexation, the district in question has, with strict propriety, received its present denomination, and has a legal right to retain it. I am aware that the space between the towns was not Crown property, but it does not appear to have been included in the Hastings Act, and if it had been, it would not materially alter the case, for I doubt not that if the intervening river in the case alluded to had been the property of B, he would as gradually have lost his ownership in it, as I conceive that Hastings has lost an absolute right to the district in question.
“If they could get this alteration,” says a member of the Council, alluding to the measure proposed respecting the Post Office, “every other alteration which they thought necessary could easily be carried.” First, then, an attempt is made to obtain a postal alteration on a large scale, for the whole borough; this having failed, a limited alteration in the same direction is asked for, and this not because of any postal inconvenience, for the reverse is alleged by those to whom alone an inconvenience could arise. I must say, sir, that this reminds me of the anecdote of-a celebrated artist, whose favourite subject was a lion.” A publican, wishing to embellish a public room, requested this artist to paint a fine subject in a large panel on the wall to the surprise of the publican, the artist suggested a large lion; the publican then begged that some choicer design should be selected for a small panel over the mantelpiece; tho artist, after much deliberation, thought nothing would do half so well as a small lion. Now, sir, we do not wish to have even the small animal, for once admitted, it would be so pampered and fattened, that soon the whole menagerie would follow. It does seem to me that the resolution of the Council was pushed with that intemperate haste which belongs to a bad cause. Suppose a member ‘of the House of Commons to propose a motion, and in despite of remonstrances and entreaties of the people, to hurry the question through Parliament to prevent a failure that would inevitably result from delay. What, in such a case, would the people think?
I trust, sir, that the Council will re-consider the question—will vindicate their high character as a calm, deliberative body, and relinquish a question that can be of no practical good, and must be of much practical harm,
I remain, sir, your obedient servant,
Southsea, Jan. 4, 1858. SAMUEL H. BECKLES.
THE VISITORS AND THE EX-MAYOR.
Another Letter to the Editor of the “News” from a professional gentleman was as follows:
SIR, - I trust to your carefully-preserved neutrality to give insertion to a few lines in reply to some "complimentary" remarks affecting the visitors of St. Leonards in general, and my poor self in particular, which fell from Mr. Alderman Ross at the last meeting of the Hastings Town Council, as reported in your impression of Friday last. As old Horace has it, "difficili. bile tumet jecur," and, instead of immediately sending for his able St. Leonards friend, Mr. Gardiner, the worthy ex-Mayor doubtless thought that the cheaper and easier remedy would be to take, on his own responsibility, a gentle emetic, and, behold the acrid and unsavoury result. "He did not know anything about Mr. Harwood, any further than that he was told that he was a manufacturer of diaries, or something of that kind. He thought the visitors should not come down to dictate to old inhabitants of the town. They were glad of the visitors’ company, but did not want their dictation. The Town Council were quite capable of managing their own affairs without the dictation of Mr. Harwood, or any other gent." Now, as respects that part of this atrabilarious effusion which touches the right of the visitors in general to interfere in this "pretty little quarrel," I most distinctly claim that right for them, as well as for myself, as one of them. A public watering place differs essentially from a provincial town. It is constructed almost exclusively for visitors, and it is almost, exclusively supported by them. Its hotels, its lodging-houses, and its shops are filled and maintained by the visitors, and, therefore, any proposed diminution of its respectability and importance, or any derangement of its existing conveniences, whether postal or otherwise, gives the visitors a perfect and an absolute right, both to pronounce upon and to protest against any such measure, notwithstanding the histrionic musings of any local Roscius, to the contrary. In fact, no one but an alderman would ever have dreamt of giving utterance to so discourteous and so flimsy an objection. With reference to the personality affecting myself, I feel that it is somewhat compromising the dignity of my cause to run a tilt with any "Mr. Deputy-Mayor" — aquile non captant muscas; but I cannot refrain from assuring his quondam worship that, unfortunately for the success of his pop-gun artillery, his globulic ammunition fell very wide of the mark. Although my time is gratuitously, and very largely given up to the public weal, yet I am not, in the remotest degree, connected with the manufacture of diaries, or, indeed, of anything else, save, perhaps, occasionally, a few somewhat, I fear, prosocial platform-platitudes. It does, however, so happen that I regularly keep a diary on my library table, and I shall certainly not fail to enter in that, for the year 1857, as a remarkable fact, the following note :—
Moral: "Pigmies are pigmies still, though perched on Alps."
“In the month of December, the highly-fashionable and rapidly and extensively increasing town of St. Leonards-on-Sea, where I have already spent and still hope to spend many pleasant, because amicable, and peaceful hours, had it's tranquility seriously invaded, and was sorely ‘frightened from its propriety’ by the reckless spurring after popularity on the part of the ex-Mayor of the adjoining old township of Hastings. This notable worthy, having been puffed into mid-air during the too fleeting continuance of his official honours, dreaded to reinhale the lower atmosphere which previously had been so pre-eminently his congenial element, and strove, therefore, at all hazards, to lengthen out, if possible, his satellitic existence. His wiser and abler neighbours, however, perceived that the meteoric character of his recent position had evidently induced a strong tendency on his part wildly to flare about the scene of his civic distinctions scintallations of a highly inflammatory and igneous description, and they apprehended that the safety of the neighbourhood would be thereby seriously imperiled. They, therefore, resolved, although with some friendly compunctions of heart, promptly to obfuscate him in his own smoke, and they forthwith proceeded, in the dominant spirit of a lofty local patriotism, finally and irrecoverably to ‘snuff him out.’ It is almost needless to add that peace and good will were immediately restored."
I remain, Mr. Editor, your obedient servant,
H. HARWOOD HARWOOD.
78, Marina, January 4, 1858.
An Archaeologist’s View of the Boundary Question
“Sir – I have seen in the communications in your paper various reasons for, and some against the retention of the name of St Leonards in the district to the east of the archway; but I have seen no allusion to one which strikes me to be of some interest now-a-days when every effort is making to preserve the memorials of olden times, especially those in connection with our churches. Now, Sir, I know of hardly any question of greater interest in this neighbourhood than the whereabouts of any churches or chapels which existed in these parts before the encroachments of the sea washed away their glebelands and denuded them of their population. That the lands, studded with fine timber, reached far into what is now covered by the sea we know from the existence of what is called the submarine forest, which may be traced off Hastings and St Leonards to Bulverhithe, as far out as the lowest tides, and how much further into the deep we know not. And although it is by no means easy to find evidence of the exact sites of any churches or buildings which may have been submerged or may have fallen into ruins from the destruction of the glebe and the removal of the inhabitants, it is of not less importance to endeavour by all possible means to make them out. To verify especially the site of the ancient parish church of St Leonards, the patronage of which rests in one of our colleges (though long in abeyance from the non-existence up to a late period of any population to require its exercise), may become of ex-