generally a great opposition to it by the East Ward (Name the time!) He would give them a case in point. Though that district produced so much gold towards the expenses of the borough, the pathway opposite Warrior square was left in a disgraceful state, year after year, till he brought the matter before the Council and got a kerb laid down. He had asked for a pavement to be laid there, but there was a great opposition to it, and ladies frequently spoilt their dresses in consequence of its not having been done. Whenever a pavement had been wanted in the East Ward the West Ward Councillors had never opposed it. He next referred to a piece of ground leading from the Norman Hotel to the side of Warrior square where the excavations made by Mr. Moreing caused it to be dangerous. [The Mayor thought that had nothing to do with the question before the meeting, but Mr. Eldridge, before he moved a resolution, wanted to show that the Local Board of Health were less attentive to the needs of that district known as St. Leonards over which they had sanitary control than they were to any other part of the borough. He might have strengthened his position by a reference to the refusal of the Council to put down a pavement in front of 14 Grand parade, by Mr. Hempsted offering to pay the customary proportion of the expense; also to their refusal to grant the request of the committee of the St. Leonards Mechanics Institution. It was at a Council meeting on the 11th of July, 1854, that the said Institution applied to the Local Board to put down a pavement at 40 Norman road in consideration of it being a public building. On that occasion Coun. Bromley moved that the application be rejected, Coun. Williams said that as the Institution belonged to St. Leonards, although outside of the Commissioners boundary, let them be asked to do the paving. Ald. Rock - more considerate - thought they might have the front of the house on the same principle as that on which they had acted in the case of the Infirmary; and Coun. Ross, although admitting that they could not spend money on a more commendable object, still, he should vote against it]. With respect to the question now being agitated, Coun. Eldridge moved that the opinion of owners and occupiers betwen the Archway and White Rock be taken at a public meeting. Coun. Winter said they could not call a public meeting. Coun. Winter said they could not call a public meeting. Coun. T. B. Williams did not see why they should consult them at all; as that district belonged to Hastings.
Coun. Putland was very sorry to have to rise. He regarded the business as a very unfortunate one, especially at that season, when they wanted to be in harmony, instead of which they were all at sixes and sevens, and nothing was talked of from morning till night but the doings of the Council. Never, since he had had a sat in the Coun-
