Page:Item 4 1848.pdf/130

was, upon the whole, in as good a state of drainage as St. Leonards itself; the defects of one district applied also to the other. For the drainage of the whole borough the natural facilities were great. The eastern portion of Hastings could be drained into the Bourne, which would be kept clear when the additional water supply was obtained [a monstrous suggestion], and the western portion could run into the Priory stream [nearly as bad]. The intermediate district had the benefit of the Gensing stream [often dry], and St. Leonards itself had an outlet at the Asten [which was being shortened and diverted]. Thus, there were four natural outfalls for the drainage of the borough; and this could be completed as cheaply as in any town in the Kingdom [Yes! And with four centres of sea-pollution]. He believed that 25 per cent. in expenses would be saved under the Public Health Act. [This statement was at least illusory, howsoever beneficial the adoption of the Act may have proved to be in other ways]. He could not see why the St. Leonards rates should be raised under the general Act. Ald. Burton maintained that such must be the case for thirty years, after which there might be some improvement. He (Mr. Putland) felt a great interest in St. Leonards, and though he did not like to speak of himself, yet he felt excused in saying that he had spent much time and devoted much exertion for its benefit without any pecuniary recompense. [The Commissioners’ books show that Mr. Putland was always paid the price of his contracts.] Why should St. Leonards, he asked, pay 9d or 10d in the pound for water when Hastings was to have it for 3d or 3½d [but Hastings did not get it at that price. Hastings, in fact, was trying to get the water-rate reduced from 9d to 6d, the latter sum being what the intermediate district was paying to the Eversfield Waterworks]. — Ald. Scrivens, while speaking in favour of the Public Health Act, hoped that nothing which he might say in favour of the general measure would be allowed to interfere with private friendship, as he should deeply regret such a result. It was perfectly natural for his esteemed friend, Mr. Ald. Burton, to be opposed to the introduction of the Public Health Act; were he in the place of that gentleman, he should most likely act in the same manner — simply carrying out the principle of not parting with any security or guarantee which he might possess. But he believed there was a misconception as to the working of the Act. When he heard of the increased expense under the Public Health Act, he heard nothing from the same parties as to the increased revenues which would be realised. The Gas Company alone would have to contribute an addition of £200 a year to the public rates, and, eventually, as much as £300. The proposed clause for constructing party walls was a good one. . . . The Councillors were fewer in number than the Commissioners, but they were men of greater weight and importance [Some of them], and he did not see why they were not sufficient -