whether St. Leonards presented any peculiar features to warrant a departure from the general rule. He would call witnesses to show that the allegations in the petition were not supported by facts. When opposition originally appeared in St. Leonards against the introduction of the Act one reason alleged for it was that out of 24 members of the Town Council, only six could be elected from St. Leonards. The General Board took this into consideration that whenever the Town Council sat as a Board of Health, it should be accompanied by two assessors on behalf of the ward in which the St. Leonards is situated. It was said that the Board of Health had no power to make this provision. He hoped their lordships would be able to decide upon the point thus raised.
The Chairman expressed an opinion that the Committee could not go into an enquiry as to the legality of the provisional order. The question before them was whether the Act was to be applied; not as to the manner of its application.
Mr. James Emary, as the first witness, said he was Mayor of the borough of Hastings, the Town Council of which consisted of 24 members, of whom 21 were in favour of the Health of Towns Bill. It was important that it should be applied to the whole borough. St. Leonards required it as much as Hastings. The borough comprised two wards. The East Ward returned 12 members, and the West Ward six members. Hastings and St. Leonards were a mile apart, and the intervening space was nearly filled with houses. He was Mayor and an hotel-keeper; but he was no party to getting the Borough Members to move in Parliament with reference to the Bill. He knew nothing of it. The oldest houses in St. Leonards were about 25 or 26 years, but Hastings had been going on for hundreds of years.
Mr. Frederick Ticehurst, a magistrate and an alderman, had practised in Hastings as a surgeon for nearly 20 years. He was medical officer to the Board of Guardians under the Nuisance Removal Act, and had certified a great many nuisances. As magistrate he had witnessed prosecutions under the Commissioners bye-laws with reference to vehicles applying for hire, and he considered it would be a benefit to have the various jurisdictions consolidated into one.
Mr. Cresy, civil engineer and inspector to the General Board of Health, had inspected the borough in Feb. 1850 [17 months before]. He should not call St. Leonards one of the cleanest and best ventilated towns in the kingdom. The water supply was deficient at that time. He was paid three guineas a day and his expenses when on such duty, and if the borough is brought under the Act it will have to pay the cost of inspection. He had reported in favour of the Act for every town he had visited, except that of Stonehouse in Gloucestershire. His report respecting the drainage of St. Leonards was correct at the time, but he could not answer for its present condition. There was plenty of water available at the back of St. Leonards. The extremities of the two towns were about 2½ miles apart. He did not contend for having his own plan of drainage carried out, and did not know that he should recommend that plan now. When he first proposed it he was not aware that it was generally objected to.
