Page:Item 7 1858.pdf/9

From Historical Hastings
This page has been proofread

Ross has been actuated by personal feeling in the past which he has taken on the matter in dispute. To the last edition of his local guide I observe appended a page and a half containing a gross misrepresentation of the proceedings and the feelings of the Burton family, to whom Hastings owes so much. I shall, however, say no more on this head, as the subject referred to may probably be discussed elsewhere.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
your obedient servant

The Postmaster’s Reply

A communication was received at St Leonards and also by the Mayor of Hastings by the Postmaster General, stating his Lordship’s determination not to alter existing arrangements of the postal districts. The St Leonards people were triumphantly excited on receipt of the news, and parade the streets with a band of drums and fifes. His Lordship referred to the settlement a few years before and saw no new circumstances to justify a reversal of that decision. The Council, however, determined to try the effect of their deputation, and, if that failed [as it was bound to do], they threatened to go still further to substantiate the legality of their proceedings. The St Leonards people were, however, determined not to be far in the rear of their opponents in any additional movement that the latter might make; they too asked the Postmaster General for an interview by deputation, if such should be granted to the deputation from the Town Council. The reply came quickly to both parties, the letter addressed to the St Leonards Committee being as follows:

“General Post Office, Jan 4th 1858. In reply to the letter of the 29th ultimo and signed by you and the inhabitants of St Leonards, I am directed by the Postmaster General to inform you that his Grace has no intention of receiving a deputation from the Town Council of Hastings on the much vexed question of the postal arrangements there, which will remain undisturbed.
I am, Sir, your obedient humble servant
J. Tilley”

The Legal View of a Barrister and Geologist, who wrote to the Editor of the Hastings News as follows:

Sir,—It was not my intention to take any active part in the "vexata,questio" that is just now is agitating the borough, but in consequence of what appears in the last number of your Paper, I avail myself of my right, as an interested party, and send you the following expression of my opinion.

I would premise that my whole knowledge of the affair has been derived from the columns of your journal. I have received no private communications on the subject I should be sorry to make use of any expressions that may be construed as offensive to the Town Council; I do not wish to speak of persons, but things — not of men but of measures. It is true that measures are carried by men, and that our estimate of the latter must be formed by our opinions of the former; but it is not my wish to indulge in any personalities not required by the nature of the case.

It appears to me, sir, that this unpleasant disturbance may be referred to a misapprehension of, or at least a disregard of, that broad policy upon which all representative bodies are based. A member of the House of Commons, although representing a particular constituency, from the moment of his election becomes a member for the whole country; and it is his duty to act with as direct a reference to the wishes and interests of constituencies in general, as to his own constituents in particular. So the Council is a representative body, and each and every member should act with a due regard to the whole, and to every part of the borough; and the members representing the town of Hastings, should consult the feelings and wishes of the "West Ward" constituency, as much as if they were its direct representatives.

But, sir, how completely the reverse has this been. At the very last meeting of the Council it was properly suggested that the sense of those most interested should be taken on the subject. This was a common sense and a constitutional suggestion, and certainly a courtesy due to that populous district which is now the subject of discussion. But how was this proposition received? Why it was rejected with an obstinacy that looked like a pugnacious determination to hurl defiance at that influential community that is most nearly, if not alone, interested in the result.

I will not recapitulate or dwell upon the numerous reasons why the present name of the debatable district should be retained; I will repeat only three of them. Firstly, for medical reasons. I speak not in a sanatory, but in a climatal sense; I do not speak in a sense that would be eulogistic of one part at the expense of the other; each place is better than the other, according to the nature or stage of the malady; I speak advisedly, but I believe I, am correct in stating that there is more than one degree in the difference of temperature, and that upon this recognised difference, the opinions and advice of physicians are founded, when Hastings or St. Leonards is selected as the destination for a patient : a circumstance, by the way, that renders the question one of particular interest to visitors, with especial reference to whom the majority of houses are built. Secondly, for legal reasons, the present name should be retained; and, in virtue of my profession as a barrister, I at least have the privilege to entertain an opinion upon the subject. Thirdly, last and not least, the wishes of the people who are most immediately affected ought to be considered sufficient for non-interference in a matter. which substantially affects them, and affects no one else. But as is usual in such cases as the present, those who will not yield to the wishes of others, are anxious to the wishes of themselves, forgetting that like Members of Parliament they are but employees of those with respect to whom they are exercising, not consideration, but authority. "Tis true “ The rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” and my deep appreciation of the old and venerable, fills me with respect for the old name of Hastings; but it is obvious that for important reasons, that of St. Leonards should be retained.

One word as to whether or not the district in question is entitled to its present name. There are different ways in which localities may legally acquire names, and it appears to me that the district east of the Bar is legitimately entitled to the designation of St. Leonards. I will not recapitulate or dwell upon the point, but it does appear to me that those gentlemen have advanced judicious and unanswerable arguments upon the subject. It is true that St. Leonards to the east of the Bar is not within the St. Leonards Local Act, the operation of which is limited to the Bar; but if this local act so circumscribes St. Leonards as to exclude from its name every house that may be built, even in juxtaposition to it, then we are at once furnished with a reason why the district in question should not be called Hastings. The history of the past. few years is still fresh in our minds. A year or two before the introduction of the Sanatory Act into the borough, which, I would passing, as Mr, Putland justly remarked, had no other effect upon the district in question than to embrace it as a district – I say, before the introduction of the Sanatory Act, I purchased a house in Grand parade, and it was absolutely necessary, for the preservation of my property, that I should unite with a few persons who were in the same predicament as myself, and from my own purse to contribute to the restoration of a dilapidated groin, to prevent the total demolition of a disgracefully neglected parade, because the district in question hap-