Page:Item 7 1858.pdf/47

From Historical Hastings
This page has been proofread

the St. Leonards people between the Archway and Infirmary imagine that the very party with whom they co-operated for sanitary purposes would turn against them in an attempt to abolish their post-office and their long acquired name; but so it came about; and Mr. Ross, who strongly objected to the “West-Hastings” Bill when promoted by Mr. Eversfield’s party, and even formed one of the deputations to London to oppose it, was afterwards imperatively energetic in the endeavour to change the district from St. Leonards to his then own definition of “West Hastings”. He would not object to the front line being called “St. Leonards Road, Hastings” but he and his part would not hear of its being called “St. Leonards, Borough of Hastings” – its real topographical position – which the St. Leonards Committee very generously suggested as a compromise.

No animus against Hastings

Another matter in which Mr. Ross’s “no animus to St. Leonards” did not come out with clear proof was when, at a Council Meeting in 1853, Mr. Deudney suggested that the separately named clusters of houses between Warrior Square and Verulam Buildings should be known and numbered under one designation. He had, he said, seen the several owners, all of whom were willing to adopt the title of Eversfield Place, the name which Mr. Tree had given to his nine or ten new houses. This Mr. Ross strongly opposed, and characterised any desire that Mr. Eversfield might have for his name to be associated with the property as lowering him in his (Mr. Ross’s) estimation at least fifty per cent. This, perhaps, would seem to be an indication of a personal rather than a general animus – a dislike to the gentleman who had given the site for the Infirmary, the site for the St. Mary Magdalen Church, and the Corporation the Eversfield Parade; but the said gentleman was a St. Leonards man, and the seconder of the same was a St. Leonards man. To an impartial observer, there would seem to be no valid objection to the name; and even Mr. Ross’s own party voted in sufficient number to carry the motion, as against the objector.

The Eversfield Waterworks

Another St. Leonards or Eversfield man who did not find favour with Mr. Ross was Mr. Charles Clark. The former gentleman appeared to have at least something that did duty for an animus against the latter and all his works, or in other words, his waterworks. Hastings was spending thousands of pounds in the vain endeavour to obtain an adequate supply of water, and at a Council -