Page:Item 8 1860.pdf/128

against the publication of influential names. In either case the complaint is a childish sham; and no one who has really peeped behind the ‘gauze screen’ and knows who sits there will believe that that person is either afraid or ashamed to avow and support his opinions. [The benevolent institutions here alluded to had reference to the efforts of the Rev. W. W. Hume, Mr. Montgomerie, and perhaps one or two other gentlemen, who, with the opinion of acturies(sic) sought to get those institutions – and more particularly the Old Friendly Society – so to alter their rules as to place them upon a safer basis. They were told, however, in published letters to mind their own affairs and not meddle with things they knew nothing about. Alas! the melancholy end which those busybodies foresaw came sooner than was expected; for although some alterations in the rules were afterwards made, the change was too inefficient or too late, and the insolent boast of some of the officers was followed by an inevitable break-up]. “And now with respect to the Harbour Question, I cannot say pur et simple; for, though the shareholders may be simple, the neighbourhood of the harbour will be anything but pur. I suppose I need not stop to argue the point whether those who happen to differ from your correspondent’s views are necessarily selfish and reckless of human suffering and loss of life. Among competent persons, (including naval men) are those of opinion that ten times more lives would be lost upon this dangerous coast by tempting men to run for a harbour at Hastings than by keeping out to sea and giving a wide berth altogether. And as for selfishness, the charge is clearly most applicable to those who for the sake of carrying out a commercial speculation, would force their ill-concocted scheme down the throats of their fellow-townsmen. To show that all the humanity, as well as all the common sense of the place is not, as we are told, monopolized by the advocates of this scheme. I may add that I am at liberty to state that Lady Waldegrave - who is as distinguished for her active benevolence as she is for her position and possessions, and is ever ready to lay the ‘first stone’ in any act of humanity and public utility – entirely disapproves of this Hastings Harbour scheme, as also do the chief persons of the place with whom I have spoken on the subject. The reason there has been no active opposition seems to be indicated by the answer I have received when expressing my misgivings as to the evil consequences – ‘Don’t be under any apprehensions; nothing will ever come of it’; and, so far from looking upon the inanition of which I spoke as the probable result of the expression of my opinion, that opinion was -