dispute, but he felt himself at liberty to introduce Hastings into another bill in a few days. Mr. Hollond moved that Hastings be added to the schedule. The Committee divided and Mr. Hollond’s motion or amendment was lost by a majority of 39. In again stating his reasons for the omission of Hastings, Lord Seymour said a deputation from St. Leonards waited on him and said, although it was fair for Hastings, it was unfair for St. Leonards. He therefore decided to give them a few weeks to settle the dispute among themselves. On the following Monday, on the order of the day for considering the Bill as amended, Mr. Brisco moved that Hastings be inserted. Lord Hotham said that while Hastings required sanitary regulations, St. Leonards — built only some twenty years since — did not require a twentieth part of the same sanitary precautions; also that the people of the latter town protested against being included, and against having their money applied to purposes in which they were not interested. He considered Lord Seymour did only what justice required. Mr. Brisco’s motion was lost by 48 to 46.
As Mr. Hollond was absent on the latter day, he was severely taken to task by “An Elector” in a letter to the Hastings News. The writer asked — “Can it be possible that the men of Hastings will much longer remain quiet or reconcile themselves to such unjustifiable dereliction of duty? . . . The sooner Mr. Hollond ceases to be our representative the better for us all”. I, who am now writing was one of those who signed the memorial for the Health of Towns Act to be applied to the district between Hastings proper and St. Leonards proper, but I demurred to the criticism of the correspondent of the News. Mr. Hollond was a representative not merely of the town of Hastings, but of the borough of Hastings, which included St. Leonards. He had at first done what he could to get Hastings inserted in the Bill, and on his own motion to that effect was defeated by a majority of 39. He at that time held considerable property in St. Leonards, resided at St. Leonards when at home from his parliamentary duties, was a member of the St. Leonards board of Commissioners, and it fell to his lot to have to present a lengthy petition from that body against the inclusion of St. Leonards. This he did, without supporting its prayer. I ask what more could be expected of Mr. Hollond under such circumstances?
The Third Reading. — When the order came on for the third reading of the Bill, on the 30th of June, Mr. Hollond was present, and Mr. Fuller moved the insertion of Hastings in the schedule, on which Lord Seymour remarked that he did not deny that Hastings was one of the dirtiest towns in England, and the only question was whether St. Leonards, which had drained -
