the platform were G. H. M. Wagner, Esq., Capt. Hull, Alfred Burton, Esq., C. H. Southall, J. Carey, H. Hughes, J. Mann, W. Hunter, G. Roberts, E. Groslob, C. Neve, & S. Turner. The Chairman, in opening the meeting, recommended the exercise of a spirit of charity, fairness and justice. He said those who had called the present meeting did not oppose the application of the Act to the town of Hastings, with its population of 17,000, but desired to obtain the exclusion of St. Leonards, with its population of only 2,015. It was quite competent for St. Leonards to seek for a retention of a separate jurisdiction, since it formed but a small portion of the borough, had already a local government, and was in a remarkably healthy state. — Mr. Chamberlin, jun., moved the adjournment of the meeting, with the view to obtaining medical testimony from two medical gentlemen in the neighbourhood who were unable to attend, as they were not owners or ratepayers within the township. These two gentlemen, I happen to know were Dr. Duke, of Grand parade, and Dr. Blakiston, of Warrior square, both of whom were in favour of the Public Health Act being applied to their own district, as against the proposed local Act, but had not advocated the Act being applied to St. Leonards township within the Archway. — The Chairman said he could not put Mr. Chamberlin’s irregular motion to the meeting. — Capt. Hull moved “That the introduction of the Health of Towns Act into St. Leonards is unnecessary, not only because we have an efficient Government of our own, but also because under the proposed Act St. Leonards would have to pay the principal and interest of her own debt of £14,300, as well as to bear a portion of the general burden of the borough expenditure”. — Mr. Hughes seconded. Mr. Chamberlin, sen., then moved as an amendment “That St. Leonards be included with Hastings under the Health of Towns Act”. The Commissioners, he said, had neglected their duty, and he had no confidence in them. They were under the rule of one man, who had only to drop his pen or move his eye, and they all voted accordingly [Loud cries of No, no!]. He believed the Act would be do good. Mr. Putland seconded. The original motion was carried by an immense majority. Mr. A. Burton next produced a long petition to the House of Commons and moved its adoption. It included a prayer that if the application of the Act to St. Leonards were pressed, the petitioners might be heard by Counsel or otherwise. The Chairman remarked that they could at any time afterwards have the Act applied if they really found it desirable. — The motion was carried, with only a very few dissentients.
Mr. Chamberlin’s remarks as to the St. Leonards Commissioners having neglected their duty and being entirely under the rule of one man (meaning Mr. A. Burton) were regarded as being not only insulting, but also libellous. They were much commented on in outdoor gossip, and the question was asked if the Commissioners had failed in their duty, why had he not taken an earlier opportunity of publicly reproving them? It may have been -
