that as a very large ratepayer and yet as an hotel-keeper excluded by the Act from serving on the Commission, the latter circumstance strengthened his prejudice against its members. The fact was that both he and his son William were good men and highly respected — particularly the latter, who like another good man (Mr. Hatchard) was of an extremely sanguine temperament which could brook no delay. As the lessee of the Victoria Hotel, Mr. Chamberlin, senr., was one of the largest ratepayers, and by the advice of his energetic son (an educationist, a philanthropist, a mesmerist, a phrenologist and a Liberal politician) he urged Mr. Burton, or the Burton family, or the Commissioners, to remove the Baths and to effect other improvements, as he called them, within and without the Hotel, which other parties concerned believed if everso (sic) desirable could not be accomplished in the manner suggested, or not in the specified time. That Mr. A. Burton was very reluctant to alter the designs of his father, for whom and for whose plans he entertained a great veneration, was well known to the inhabitants; but that he was so dictatorial or so all-commanding that he had “only to drop his pen or move his eye” to command the votes of the Commissioners, I as a note-taker at the meetings, can conscientiously deny. Instead of being an autocrat, Mr. Burton possessed the attribute of anti-imperiousness even to timidity; and this disposition, although in one sense a virtue, was in his own sphere of influence, regarded as a misfortune. If Mr. Chamberln’s ceaseless activity and Mr. Burton’s want of energy could have been mixed and equally divided it is probable that both themselves and the town would have been benefited. It was thought that during the visit of Mr. Cresy, the Government Inspector, he obtained from Mr. Chamberlin some erroneous information which helped to fill the Inspector’s Report which was condemned by all the public bodies in both towns as being full of damaging misstatements. It was thus that the well-meant but unfortunate statement of the Chamberlins occasioned less friendly relations between themselves and some other inhabitants — and particularly the Burtons which ultimately led to the Messrs. Chamberlin leaving the hotel and the town amidst general regret. Mr. Chamberlin quitted the premises at the Midsummer and advertised his removal thus: —
“William Chamberlin returns his grateful thanks to the Nobility, Clergy and Gentry for their liberal patronage during the lengthened period of twelve years, and begs to acquaint them that being prevented making certain improvements to the above hotel by failing to obtain a renewal of the lease, he has taken the commodious premises 6 & 7 Eversfield place, delightfully situated between the hotel and Hastings until the new house which will be built forthwith contiguous to the above, and which W. C. is determined and shall possess and advantages which it was impossible to impart to the one he has just left.”
The Bill again Delayed. On June 20th if the House went into Committee on the general Bill, when Mr. Hollond asked why Hastings was excluded? Lord Seymour again replied that it was in consequence of the local -
