Page:Item 6 1854.pdf/161

cil. He then explained his motive for rising, when Mr. Ross was speaking. He merely wanted to know what the resolution was to be, so that he might be prepared, but this was denied him. He thought that ought to be known at first, in case an amendment should be moved. He believed that in the House of Commons the motion was always known whilst the mover was speaking upon it. As regarded Mr. Ross's remarks bout visitors being at the St. Leonards public meeting, Mr. Putland would admit that there were a few interested visitors, probably about one in twenty. The body of the room seemed to be filled with tradesmen, although at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, it was one of the largest meetings of the kind he had ever seen in the borough. It was called by placard, and he thought on such a question the visitors ought to have had the opportunity of giving their ay anyway. The Council had acted with great precipitation and without consulting the people - both residents and visitors - whom it most concerned, which conduct was looked upon as a sort of Russianism (Cheers and Laughter). It had been stated that the resolutions passed at the previous meeting were in consequence of difficulties experienced by people getting their letters; and it was therefore thought that there was no better way of ascertaining the truth than by inviting visitors as well as residents to a public meeting. With respect to Mr. Beecham's statement at that meeting concerning the name of St. Leonards being inserted in legal documents, he (Mr. Putland) could say that by far the greater portion of such documents were worded with the name of "St Leonards-on-sea, in the parish of St. Mary Magdalen, in the Borough of Hastings". (Mr. Vidler here held up a document in which he said that the district was called Hastings, but he did not state that it was called the town of Hastings). Mr. Putland would admit that there might be isolated cases to the contrary, but it was a general rule for the writings of property east of the Archway to be made out as he had stated. There was no one who objected to the fact of his being in the Borough of Hastings, but the town of Hastings was a different thing; and he must say that the present dispute was an unfortunate event. There had been no single proof of the necessity of such a step. He had not heard in what way any, part of the borough was to be benefitted by it, and yet the inhabitants were to be thrown into dire confusion. He next referred to the Act of Parliment which in 1836 authorised the "St. Leonards and Sedlescomb Turnpike" which commenced from the Saxon Hotel at the bottom of London road; and he contended that the Town Council had -