itself should be saddled with the expense of draining Hastings [Hear, hear!] Mr. Hollond said it was not the dirty, but the clean parts that created the difficulty, and the question had now been under discussion for three months. Mr. Piggott said the people of Hastings were not at all unanimous for the Bill, whilst nearly all of St. Leonards were decidedly opposed to it. The House divided, and the third reading, with Hastings included, was carried by in 95 to 77 this, as before stated, was on the 30th of June; and, ten days later, a petition was presented to the House of Lords, against the inclusion of St. Leonards; and praying that the petitioners might be heard by counsel. The latter prayer was granted, and on the 18th of July, the case was argued on one side by Mr. Taylor, assistant-secretary to the General Board of Health, and for the Commissioners of St. Leonards by Mr. Talbott and Mr. Johnson.
Before a Committee of the House of Lords
A Select Committee of the House of Lords heard the case, and the following is a summary of the proceedings: — Mr. Taylor first addressed their lordships in opposition to the petition to the St. Leonards, and explained that the bill before the committee was a public one, which embraced an order of the Board of Health, applying the Public Health Act to the whole borough of Hastings, which included the town of St. Leonards. The order for applying it to Hastings did not appear in the bill originally introduced by Lord Seymour, the noble lord having struck out the name to give the petitioners against the bill time to further consider the matter. At the third reading a motion was carried for the re-insertion of Hastings. The first step in the proceedings was a petition from Hastings for applying the Act to the whole borough. Mr. Cresy was then sent down to inspect the locality, and in his report strongly recommended the application of the Act not only to Hastings, but also to St. Leonards and the intermediate district. The reason assigned in the petition as constituting a hardship if the Act were applied to St. Leonards were to the effect that, however desirable the application of the Act to Hastings might be, the same necessity did not exist in St. Leonards, since the latter was of recent erection, and consisted principally of first-class houses. It was clean and well ventilated and every house was provided with a water-closet, etc. It had a southern aspect, was situated by the sea-shore, and had excellent natural facilities for drainage. It was already provided with an Improvement Act, efficiently administered by a board of commissioners acting gratuitously. Altogether it did not require the application of the Public Health Act. Such were the allegations in the petition. Now, the borough of Hastings contained two bodies of Commissioners, one for each town, and each having a distinct Act of Parliament. The Public Health contemplated the extinction of both these bodies and vesting the Town Council with power to act in their room. It was a fact that the drainage of the borough could not be carried out in except by one general system [afterwards disproved by there being two separate systems]. It was a general principle that local boards should be consolidated, and it remained to be considered -
