rate ought to be sufficient for sch a growing town, with its increased assessments. The rate under the Hastings (Commissioners') Improvement Act, at 3d. was also passed. A (illegible text) rate under the same Act was agreed to at the December meeting.
The Burial Board and Cemetery. At the February meeting the Burial Board resolved to charge 5/- a year for keeping up planted graves. At the July meeting several bills recommended to be paid by the Burial Board, and also the interest de on bonds were ordered for payment. At the meeting on the 1st of April, an inspection of the Cemetery having been suggested, Coun. Vidler hoped a good tea would be provided on the occasion. Coun. Putland would rather it should be deferred for a month, as he was about to be engaged to form a new road thither which would save a mile of ground. It would not matter, said Vidler, for if it shortened the road, it would not shorten the price. See opposite.
All Saints Burial Ground. The Town Council at their meeting on June 3rd, resolved that the borough seal be attached to a petition to the Secretary of State to allow burials in the quarter acre of unoccupied space of All Saints, instead of that comparatively new part being closed. At the meeting on Oct. 7th, Coun. Harvey thanked the Council for affixing the Corporation seal to the petition, on behalf of the parishioners of All Saints, and announced that the Secretary of State had allowed the burial ground to remain unclosed until Aug. 1st, 1866.
Taking Beach. At the April meeting, Mrs. Bridget Barton having been warned that she would be prosecuted for tresspass(sic) if she continued to take beach without leave, applied for permission to do so at a charge of 2d. per load. Most of the members condemned the existing charge of 1/- per cart-load and 2/6 per wagon-load as being excessive, and argued that inhabitants ought to be at liberty to take the beach free within a certain distance. Mrs. Barton and her son were afterwards sued by the Corporation at the County Court for tresspass(sic) and damages £2. Mr. Langham appeared for the plaintiffs, and while opening the case, said he had in court the charter granted by Queen Elizabeth by which the whole of the stonebeach was expressly granted to the Corporation. The judge asked the defendants why they had not employed a solicitor to defend them? The reply was, they had thought it to be necessary, and that they had no proof that the Council had authority to charge for the beach. They were reminded by the judge that they had committed themselves by asking for leave and offering to pay 2d. per load. Mrs. Barton said she did that to prevent the Pierwarden's continued annoyance. His Honour again exressed his opinion that in so important a question it was a great pity the defendants had not employed some professional man. The question was whether they had wilfully tresspassed(sic) on the property of the Corporation. He must find -
