for what it did not want, the proper mode of resistance if the Council persevered in such a course, was to give notice to the Treasurer not to pay for the map out of the Borough Fund, and as soon as such payment was made, to move to quash it in the Court of Queen’s Bench, under the Municipal Act, when the payment would be disallowed”
Mr Deudney remarked that upon Mr. Bramwell’s and also the Clerk’s opinion, the Finance Committee recommended the bill to be paid by the Local Board, but Mr. Williams went again over the old ground of objection, and contended that the counsel’s opinion must have been obtained on false premmises. (sic)
Mr. Deudney was sure that Mr. Young was too honourable a man to state a case falsely, and that Mr. Williams was using discourteous terms towards that gentleman. Couns. Ginner agreed with Coun. Williams in much that he had said, yet he would rather have the whole payment saddled upon the Local Board than go into the Queen’s Bench with a case legally uncertain.
Coun. Beck totally dissented from Mr. Williams’s view, and considered that both equity and law were on the side of St. Leonards. He regarded Coun. Williams’s remarks as touching the honour of himself and other West-ward councillors, and he hoped that whenever he came to that Hall and left honour outside it would be the last time. They were accused of voting on self-interest and not on principle. Now, four out of the six West-ward councillors were really voting against their own interest, inasmuch as most of their property lay outside the Archway. He, himself, had as much outside as in, whilst Mr. Peerless had the same. Mr. Neve had more outside than in, and Mr, Deudney’s property was nearly or quite all outside.
It was then suggested and a motion ultimately carried that the St. Leonards Commissioners be asked if they would consent to refer the matter to Mr. Furner, the County Court Judge!
Baths and Washhouses. A communication was received from Mr. Gant with plans and estimates for baths, washhouses and a fishmarket, proposed by some Hastings gentlemen, on a site eastward of the East Parade, at an estimated cost of £3,500. It would be left to the Council, as owners of the ground, to take up the scheme, or to sell the ground to a company. The Clerk then read a memorial from owners and occupiers of property in the vicinity, earnestly hoping that the Local Board would not sanction such erections, as it would seriously affect their interests as lodging house keepers. Councillor Ross, though admitting the desirableness of Baths and Washhouses, thought the erection of such in that locality would be greatly to the disadvantage of the memorialists. The building would extend 130 feet from the parade towards the Fishmarket, and to protect the same a wall must be built in continuation of the parade, which would have the effect of throwing the sea on to the stade that the Council had been widening and improving. He, for one, would object to cover the ground which for 9 years they had been struggling to clear. Coun. Burfield also objected, there being more legitimate means of spending money, besides which, the town was already complaining of the great bur-
