The Hastings Commissioners
Having viewed the proceedings of the St. Leonards Commissioners during 1850, I will now summarise the transactions of the Hastings Commissioners during the same year.
Their first meeting was on the 7th of January, when John Goddard, Richard Martin and A. Thorpe, newly elected members qualified as such.
On a complaint that there were too many fly-stands in front of York Buildings, it was ordered that the number be reduced from 8 to 5. No answer had been received from any of the parties concerned as to whether they would contribute to the expense of lowering the Priory culvert for drainage purposes. Also no reply had come from the Railway Company nor from the Woods and Forests. The joint owners of the Priory farm (Lady Waldegrave and Earl Cornwallis) wanted more information thereupon.
Mr. Paine was desirous of seeing the town properly drained. He thanked the committee for having bestowed so much time and labour on the plans and estimates, but there must have been some great error in their calculations. The proposed main drain, 1,610 yards, was less than a mile, for which the estimate was £2,300.
Also at a special meeting on Jan. 21st., after Mr. E. Bowmer had qualified, Mr. W. J. Gant’s offer of a survey and plans of the town was accepted.
In a town similar to Hastings, he found that 7 miles of main drainage had been laid down for £5,000; so that their own estimate was too high. They should be very cautious in spending such a sum of money on work which, after all, the Board of Health might not approve. On a late occasion a gentleman offered to prepare a plan, showing every drain in the town, every house that had water on and every house with proper sanitary arrangements for 100 guineas, and that gentleman [Mr. Gant] was still willing to undertake it. He would therefore move "that before any further steps be taken, the town be properly surveyed."
Mr. Harman had every confidence in the committee’s capability, notwithstanding that it had been said that the Commissioners sat from time to time without doing any good for the borough. He contended that there never was a question introduced that did not receive due consideration. He, however, approved of Mr. Paine’s; motion, and believed if they could get the town properly surveyed for a hundred guineas it would be money well spent.
Mr. Vidler presumed that both the surveyor and the committee knew how to take levels, knew the quantities in a certain space, and the price of brick-work and digging; and it was on this knowledge that they prepared their estimate.
Mr. Shirley opposed the estimate as being extravagant, and hoped to see the town drained at less cost.
Mr. Womersley would support Paine’s motion, and had no doubt that Mr. Gant would do the surveying as Government would require. — Motion carried unanimously.
The office of coal meter having become vacant by the death of David Brazier, four candidates were proposed, when the votes were 28 for George Brazier (the deceased‘s brother), 25 for Robert Plane, 10 for Robert Hinkley, and 1 for William Wellerd.
Mr. Gant arrived at Hastings, agreeably to the appointment of the Commissioners, for the purpose of surveying the town, and on the 4th of February, the Commissioners at their meeting received a letter from the Woods and Forests Commissioners respecting a contribution for lowering the Priory culvert, which stated that the Crown Lands adjoining the culvert had been let on a lease of 99 years.
A communication was also received from Mr. C. F. Mott that he rejected the application to set back the fence of a house in York Buildings occupied by Mr. Womersley.
At their meeting on the 4th of March the Commissioners accepted Mr. Howell's tender of £81 9s. 6d. for building a six-stall stable at the Ash-yard; the higher tenders for the same ranging from £89 to £120.
The dedication of Russell street and Bedford place was the next business, Mr. W. B. Young on behalf of the owners and occupiers having applied to have them taken over.
Mr. H. Beck, in support of the application, said he had lived in Russell street 33 years [since 1817, about the time when the houses were built, the bricks for which were made on the spot under the superintendence of Mr. Beck's father], and he had regularly paid rates during that time. In the preceding year the committee recommended the request to be complied with on payment of £114 — two-thirds of the estimated cost of repairs, but that was rejected. Then it was thought that the Railway would have done something in the matter. Since then the proprietors had effected some sanitary improvements.
Mr. Vidler referred to the heavy pressure of the rates. He thought Mr. Beck had been in his house quite long enough. It was all very well for Mark Breeds to build his houses below the level of the sea, and then when floods arose for subsequent owners to want the Commissioners to put the place to rights. The property would prove very troublesome, for even when there came a shower of rain there would be someone running after the surveyor with, "Oh! I there's all my furniture floating about!"
Mr. Paine thought the cost of the late improvements should be deducted, and that the roads should be taken over on payment to the Commissioners of £50. This was agreed to.
It was thought at the time that road between Russell street and the lower range of Wellington square was included, but such was not the case, and it was more particularly this narrow thoroughfare — a receptacle of ashes and other refuse — that probably induced Mr. Cressy[1], a Government Inspector, to libel the town as one of the worst he had ever been into. Certainly it was very different 45 years ago to what it is in the present day, yet even at the former period it could show a remarkably clean bill of health. Those of our townspeople who remember the unsightly premises on the meadow side ofRussell street, and now view the locality with its Recreation Ground, its Municipal Buildings, its Gaiety Theatre and its handsome shops must be ready to exclaim "What a metamorphosis is here!”
The Committee, at the meeting on April 1st having recommended £63 to be spent for better lighting the town, Anthony Harvey objected, saying that the Commissioners were already £400 in debt, and a bill of £165 for paving being then presented, it was most imprudent to incur further expenses. But Henry Beck, who was chairman, denounced the Commissioners’ conduct as being "abominably stingy". To this, Harvey replied that if they were so unwise as to let their expenses exceed their income, they must borrow money to make up the deficiency, and he hoped it would be a lesson to them, for if they continued in that course, they would have to obtain a fresh Act to increase their borrowing powers.
The next business was to appoint a committee to consider the application of Richard Styles, for straightening the road [originally known as the Chalk road, leading down to the sea, as he was about to build at the corner of Wellington place. [I am reminded that there was a sad fatality in connection with the said building, but more of this anon.]
Of the transactions of the Commissioners at their June meeting I have no account, but the Hastings News comes to my assistance with the following article in its issue of July 8th: —
"We have heard of throwing away a sprat to catch a herring; of a Chancellor of the Exchequer disposing of a surplus revenue by so adjusting a graduated tax as to make it yield more; of an Irishman trying to lengthen his blanket by cutting a piece off the bottom and sewing it on the top. In short, we have heard of a variety of schemes in the shape of ways and means; but all these little stars are made to hide their diminished heads when compared with the brilliant experiment commenced in our local Commission on Monday night. The herring was there sacrificed to the sprat; and an inefficient revenue aided by a reduction in the income. It was resolved that as there was an apprehension that "as the St. Clement’s parish was paying off its debt rather too fast, the parishes of All Saints and St. Mary-in-the-Castle should have their half-yearly rating reduced by a penny in the pound". The insanity of this resolution will be evident when we consider that lately the three parishes have been rated up to the highest point allowed by law — namely, 4d. in the pound per half year; in despite of which the heavy expenses incurred by the recent improvements have sunk the Commission deeply in debt — a thousand pounds being overdrawn at the Bank! The point of support upon which the Archimedians of this new movement have placed their lever is this: some half century ago, when St. Clement comprised nearly the whole of Hastings, that parish got deeply in debt by its paving and other expenses. At the time when the present Local Act was obtained, St. Clement agreed to take a thousand pounds of its debt upon itself solely, in order to pay which it was to be rated a penny in the pound higher on the half-yearly rates than the two other parishes. The utmost rate to which any of the parishes could be rated was four pence. Under this arrangement things went on smoothly enough till lately, when the increased expenditure rendered it necessary for all the rates to be at a maximum. When those rates came in January last, the St. Clement's debt had been much reduced, and the only step taken for its further reduction since the fourpenny rate was levied has been an order for paying off of £50, which was made last month. Never-the-less, some of the Commissioners in All Saints and St. Mary’s appear to have been seized with a horrible apprehension that they were being taxed to pay off the St. Clement’s debt; so in order to remove that contingency and to satisfy their own minds of the impossibility of such benefit arising from their unworthy liberality, they have turned round, and resolved by cutting down the taxes in their own parishes, to plunge the whole Commission into a gulf of financial difficulties; plainly saying by their action that they would rather run the risk of swamping the whole Commission than by any possibility assist in removing the paltry residue of the St. Clement's debt. Thus a narrow parish feeling is allowed to prevail, to the injury of the town".
At the Commissioners’ meeting on the 1st of July, Dungate Thwaites was re-elected surveyor, and with an increase of salary from £75 to £100.
The Clerk said there was due a half year’s interest on the debt, which at 4 per cent. was £213. There were also sundry bills, including £65 for paving at Pelham place, amounting to over £188. They had overdrawn £1,000 at the Bank, which constituted a temporary loan at 5 per cent. Mr. Beck remarked that they could neither borrow money nor spend it with facility. They ought to follow the example of Brighton, who, the other day, had bought the Pavilion. Mr. Harvey differed, and said they had been going on too long upon a false principle, by supposing that they were richer than they were, when they were really poorer than they ought to be. He should like to see some alteration in collecting the coal duty, and he could not see why one part of the borough should be able to obtain coals at 3s. per chaldron less price than another part. If they had a new Act, he would like to see Holy Trinity and St. Michael's parish included. They might even have St. Mary Magdalen and St. Leonards, although he knew those parishes would fight hard against it.
The next was a special meeting, held on the 10th of July, when Mr. Harman attacked the veracity of Mr. Cressy's[1] report, especially that portion which, as was shown at the Town Council’s meeting that morning, was altogether untrue. He would move that their own meeting be adjourned, and that a public meeting be called by the Mayor.
Dr. Mackness seconded the motion, remarking that Cressy's[1] report was certainly erroneous in detail, but that the main facts were undisturbed.
The Surveyor being asked for his opinion, said Mr. Cressy[1] estimated the cost of the main sewers at £5,000, whereas they could not be constructed for less than £8,800, which, added to the cost of branch drains, engine power and other items would amount to a sum of £12,960.
Mr. H. N. Williams_addressed the meeting at considerable length, but being several times interrupted by Mr. Paine, retorted that he was rather glad of interruptions, because they would serve to put, the matter in its true light. He wished it to go forth by means of the Press that whereas Mr. Cressy denounced Hastings as being unhealthy, even the tables of mortality in his report proved the direct contrary. He proposed, in lieu of Harman's motion (then withdrawn), that a committee be formed to take such steps on Cressy's report as might be thought best. This was carried, and the following committee appointed: — H. N. Williams (wine merchant), C. Womersley (upholsterer), “Spike" Harman (tailor), J. Wrenn (brewer's manager), H. Beck (baker), A. Paine (reporter), H. Dunk (grocer), C. Duke (tailor) and J. Mackness (physician).
Notwithstanding Harman's withdrawn motion to memorialise the Mayor for a town's meeting, such meeting was convened, seven days later, and as the discussion at such gathering shows that the genera] feeling of the town was not so much against improved sanitation — howsoever costly — as against the Government Inspector’s exaggerated and damaging report, a summary of the arguments adduced is here given as a prelude to the Commissioners' next meeting.
At the said public meeting, Dr. Mackness expressed himself in favour of sanitary reform, as tending to the duration of life, and as the drainage of Hastings needed improvement, he moved that the introduction of the Health of Towns Act would an advantage.
Mr. Harman opposed the motion, and said they had nothing to do with Derby, Dover and Bradford, for whom the Doctor had pleaded so eloquently, with never a word for the poor working men of Hastings. As for the alleged bad condition of the town, he would remind Dr. Mackness that few years ago he wrote a pamphlet, in which he made out that Hastings was the most beautiful and healthful place imaginable. [Hear, hear, and laughter]. Had, then, our town grown worse during the last ten years? [No, no! A great deal better]. To be sure it had. Much attention had been paid to drainage, and, had it not been thwarted, a more comprehensive sanitary system would have been adopted. By the present proposal they were called upon to lay out forty or fifty thousand pounds, and to appoint a staff of officers at an expense, perhaps, of £500 per year, whom the Town Council might appoint, but whose acceptance and dismissal would rest with the central hoard. If the town wanted cleansing, the inhabitants could do it better and cheaper than any set of strangers. As to Cressy’s report, it went to show that Hastings people were the most pauperised and demoralised community in Europe; for it stated that the poor-rate last year amounted to £12,876, and the borough-rate to £3,468; thus making it appear that they were nearly all paupers, and required a large police force to keep them in order. Cressy had more than trebled their poor-rate, and had represented their borough-rate as £3,468, instead of £1,643. Mr. Harman pointed out other gross inaccuracies, and then moved as an amendment, that in the opinion of the meeting, Mr. Cressy’s report was calculated to do serious injury to the borough. Mr. Burton (of St. Leonards) and Mr. Harvey (of Hastings} also condemned the report, the latter speaker declaring it, amidst Hear, hears! be a libel upon the town. He therefore seconded the amendment.
Mr. H. N. Williams, in a speech of 40 minutes’ duration, went over the main points, both of the report and the Public-Health Act, condemning the former for its inaccuracies, and supporting the latter for its promised benefits. He combatted the assertion of the town's unhealthiness, and contended that during the last three years the death-rate had been considerably below the average of the United Kingdom, notwithstanding that for some time past the town and neighbourhood had been inundated by railway labourers, who indulged in every kind of dissipation. This speaker was greatly applauded, and the Mayor having put the motion and amendment to the vote as though they were independent motions, the latter, as censuring Cressy’s report, was carried by a majority of nearly 60, and the latter, as favouring the Bill, by 20.
At the adjourned special meeting of the Commissioners, on the 22nd of July, the committee appointed at the previous meeting, presented a long report, the chairman (Mr. Dunk) remarking that they had given the matter the closest attention. His own feeling was that as they had now reached the limit of their allowable expenditure, they must adopt some other means to carry out desirable improvements. Mr. Shirley, in moving that the report be received, said he thought we were so compromised by Mr. Cressy’s report, despite its errors, that the Health of Towns Bill must come sooner or later. He thanked his stars that he was not one of those who were the means of bringing Mr. Cressy here and supplied him with information so erroneous that could not fail to seriously harm the town. Mr. H. Winter, in moving that the committee’s report be adopted, said he had something to do with first mooting the sanitary subject, but had given Mr. Cressy no information, and had he seen his report before it was published, he would have corrected some of its errors. Last year's deaths from cholera were set down as 65, but the statistics of the registrar showed only 40. Dr. Mackness remarked that the registrar was not so good an authority as the doctor [Oh, oh!]. Mr. Edwards, in seconding Mr. Winter's motion, said if other towns improved their drainage, visitors would go there. Mr. N. Wingfield thought that despite the numerous errors in Cressy's report, we should let visitors see we were earnest for improvements. Mr. H. Williams, in some lengthy remarks [his speeches were always lengthy, but usually sound] said that the previous discussion had cleared the way for the real business of the evening, and he would at once move that in the opinion of the Commissioners the introduction of the Health of Towns Bill is desirable. He was certain that either that or some other bill was necessary for the acquisition of larger powers in the way of improvements imperatively demanded. They all knew the expense of Local Acts. It cost them £1,500 to get their last one. But here was a Bill of extensive provisions ready to their hands, and the question was whether there were any disadvantages formidable enough to counteract its many advantages. Although he was once opposed to the Bill, he confessed that it was because he did not know what it was like. It was said that under its provisions we should have to borrow £60,000, a sum represented as enormous; but which would not really he without a prospect of a proportionate income with which to pay it off. Suppose the drainage, estimated by Mr. Cressy at £5,000, should coat £6,000 with interest at 4 per cent. and a sinking fund at 2½ per cent., and reckoning £135 a year for repairs, such would make it 5s. a year to each house, and in 30 years there would be an end of both capital and interest. If landlords could add to the comfort of their poor tenants for about 1d. per week, he thought they ought to do it. Even some of the best houses had nuisances of which they ought to be rid. Then as to the increase of water supply, Mr. Cressy said it could be got for £5,000, but say £7,000; that would not be an expenditure without a return, as there would be an income of £1,000 a year from the improved supply. There was, however, one recommendation to which he was opposed — namely the erection of a house for tramps at a cost of £5,000, which he feared would he an encouragement to vagrants to visit the town. One other advantage was that the railways, coming under the provisions of the Bill, would contribute to the rates. He therefore moved that this meeting approve of the new Bill. Mr. H. Thwaites, in seconding, believed that the chief objection to the Bill had been through an idea that it would be -
