waste, but which the appropriators contended the Corporation had no legal right to. That the said officials sometimes doubted their own ability to enforce their claim is shown further on where is given a review of the case from 1596 to 1837; but in the present instance, after the beach-land had been appropriated and built upon for several years, the Corporation demanded payment for what they held to be stolen ground, and so far enforced the claim as, in 1825, to have realised a total of £1265, the then owners of Beach Cottages paying sums varying from £20 to £100. The proprietors of Pelham Place had also paid the Corporation £200 for the beach whereupon to construct a new piece of parade in front of those mansions; and as one of the improvements proposed to be effected by the Commissioners, was the extent of such parade to a distance that would require the demolition of the shipbuilding premises and the adjoining row of cottages. Not only on public grounds was the clearance advocated, but for private reasons also; and here, as will be seen the crux of the contention. The Pelham Arcade, Pelham Crescent and the central Church had been built, and the view from the whole of these was then obstructed by the Beach Cottages property, which of course lessened the value of the newer erections. It was but natural under such circumstances for the owners of the better property (whose names I withhold) to warmly support the removal of the source of detriment, and to the expense of which it was believed they would have liberally contributed.
Recollecting, as I do, now the owners of Beach Cottages had to withstand the assaults of the sea, and the great expense to which they were subjected in restorations and inadequate protection (both before and after the year now under review), I can but wonder that they resisted so strongly as they did the removal of property which they had built on so dangerous a site. It can hardly be imagined that they would not have been suitably compensated, but now let the newspaper correspondence, here abbreviated, tell the rest of the story.
Sir,
On perusing the last number of your journal, I was surprised by a letter from three gentlemen who are mearly(sic) strangers to the town; and taking into consideration the evil consequences of such a communication, I venture to lay before my brother townsmen my opinion on the important measure to which that letter alluded. I conceive, sir, that a measure of such magnitude as removing property ought not to be carried into execution without a due regard to the claims of the owners, and a strict adherence to public justice, all of which has been lost sight of in this instance. I would ask those gentlemen who have favoured you with their epistle how they would approve of such conduct were they in the same situation as the proprietors of Beach Cottages?
I have but little doubt that they would express the same feeling as those who have been placed, as it were, on the brink of ruin by the avaricious disposition of a few lodging houses proprietors and a servile set of fools who have strayed out of the path which Nature had assigned to them. Was it justice that dictated the course pursued on Friday when it was put to the vote that Beach Cottages should be cleared away, thus to deprive several industrious persons of their little all? Also, was it justice to attempt to ruin the proprietors of a business which at times has above a hundred persons depending on it for support?
There is not in this town another place where those individuals could exercise their calling; consequently, if driven from their business, they and their dependants might be reduced to having to seek relief of those reckless beings who had caused their ruin for their own aggrandisement. If, sir, these large lodging-house proprietors intended to commence hostilities, why not have done it in an upright and manly way? Why not have given notice of their intention to the individuals interested? Was it justice to take advantage of the small number present, and doom to destruction that which is worth more thousands than the number of inhabitants there present? If the proprietors of the property in the background wish to get rid of Beach Cottages, why not purchase them? But no, they are too subtle for that! Get the public to do away with nuisances, say they, and we will advance the cash required on the rates &c.; it will be a good -
