Page:Item 7 1858.pdf/58

From Historical Hastings
This page has been proofread

We ought not to encourage this man, as the country does. I cannot see why we should be taxed to support him and be called upon to honour him, if it is an honour”. The Mayor thought they could do no less than show him the proposed respect. Coun. Winter also differed from Harvey; for, with the exception of Sardinia, his country was almost the only free country in Europe! Coun. Vidler would certainly vote against the proposition. The motion was, however carried, the only dissentient votes being those of Harvey and Vidler – two utterly political opponents.

Salaries of Officials. Coun. Vidler again voted against his own political party and was again in a minority, when, on the motion of Ald. Ross, it was proposed to fix the salary of Mr. Carpenter (registrar of the Burial Board) at £35, he having to find a room and to be in attendance from a certain hour in the morning until a certain hour in the afternoon. But consistency was not one of Mr. Vidler’s prominent virtues; and so, whilst voting against most of his own political party for one official receiving as much as £35, he further acted against many if not most of the same party by advocating (unasked for) for £15 to be added to the salary of £120 of another official. Perhaps he had a mind to show that he was a more independent member than he had been given credit for; or, on the other hand, perhaps by voting in the second case for a motion seconded by Mr. Ross, he was right, and his other political confreres were wrong. The argument for the motion was that in the person of Mr. Glenister, the Superintendent of the Police, they had a good officer, and the Watch Committee thought they had better order an increase in salary than for the Superintendent to ask for it. Councillors Duke, Winter, Bromley and others were of opinion that to raise the salary in the first year of service was premature, but that the time might come when an increase would be necessary. Councillor Duke would recommend a gratuity of £10 instead. Coun. Winter contended that there was a tendency in the Council to unnecessarily increase the salaries of their servants. He protested against the efficient discharge of duty bring made the only reason for the increase of salary. It was not long ago that they had a Superintendent at £60, but they discharged him because he was not efficient. They then doubled the salary and got an efficient one. No one respected Spt. Glenister more than he did, but he thought it preposterous to increase his salary merely because he properly discharged those duties for which he was engaged. He (Mr. W.) thought Mr. Duke’s suggestion of a gratuity of £10 would meet the case. The original motion was carried by 9 to 6. -