Unfortunately, I could not find any householder willing to aid in such an effort. The following is a type of the responses received from householders:
‘I do not think my presence at a conference would be of any service. I have so little knowledge of municipal affairs, never having attended a meeting since I resided in Hastings.’ The same sort of answer came from busy tradesmen and leisured gentry. It therefore seemed that a more decided educational effort was needed, an effort to show our voters how a Town Council really represented in modern days much of the practical action of the Church in past ages, and that it ought really to present the Theocratic idea—i.e., government by the Highest Good. But here, too, unhappily, I could find no one who did not seem to think that the function of a Town Council was to save them all trouble and responsibility, and that it must be elected on party grounds.
Thus, more and more I recognised the profound character of the disease of indifference, which has become endemic in our municipalities, and the urgent need of remedial measures. I therefore entered into correspondence with the Social and Political Education League, which has borne in succession the honoured names of Professor Seeley and Mr. Froude as Presidents. I received a cordial letter from the honorary secretary, who forwarded a list of 107 names of lecturers, with numerous addresses that they would be willing to deliver. Unfortunately, in this printed list of several hundred lectures I could find nothing that met our special need—viz., short, simple, progressive instruction, inviting questions, ‘on the use of a Town Council and the meaning of a vote.’ I was meditating on what to do when I became most unexpectedly involved in municipal work, where I was compelled to take a prominent part, for which I was not fitted either by knowledge or experience.
At the town meeting in August already referred to, when the addition to the public debt was made, a Corporation Bill was spoken of, which appeared to be of very great importance, and which was to come before the town later. I therefore watched the notices by the church doors, and marked down the date of the Statutory Meeting, which must be called in order to sanction this Bill. I was much surprised not to see attention strongly called to this important measure by the local press and others; but the local politicians were all in such a state of excitement because Hastings was to lose one of its Parliamentary representatives that the way in which municipal affairs were carried on seemed to excite no interest. I called at the Town Clerk’s Office a few days before the meeting to sanction the Bill was to take place, and asked for a copy of the Bill, but was told that there were ‘no copies’ for ratepayers; neither could the Bill be seen. I spoke to about ten persons in the course of the day, but no one knew anything about the Bill. I then wrote to several ratepayers to beg them to attend the Statutory Meeting. One replied that there must be a mistake as to date, naming a meeting three days later, which, being a ‘Party’ meeting on Redistribution, entirely drew attention from the municipal meeting. Another householder consulted a gentleman friend, who told her that the proposed Bill was one to lessen taxation, so there was no need of attending the meeting. I was unable to find a single ratepayer who knew anything about the Bill, or had even heard of it. The time came, a very stormy evening; about seventy persons attended out of over 8,000 ratepayers. No one had seen the Bill, which, from the short abstract given by a Councillor, was evidently of the utmost importance to every class of the inhabitants, and particularly to the industrious classes. It was urged by the Town Council Committee in charge of the Bill that no opposition to it should be made, for two reasons. In the first place, the next day was the last chance of registering the Bill for the present Session of Parliament, and a year would be lost if the Bill were not accepted that night; in the next place, it was stated that any opposition would be very expensive to the town, for, as they had already paid £500 for the expenses of the Bill, and would pay about as much more to complete it, if any opposition were raised it would cost the town some thousands of pounds.
As no other ratepayer seemed to discover any flaw in these statements, I ventured to suggest that, as no one amongst us had seen the Bill, we ought not to sanction it without any opportunity of examination, and that it would be better to lose a Session than do so. I therefore begged to move an adjournment; this was seconded by a ratepayer, but not put to the meeting. The Bill was accepted in the name of the ratepayers by a vote of 47, the Parliamentary agent who directed the proceedings most courteously assuring me that ‘there would be ample time to object to the Bill in London.’ Of course, I knew, and many of the poorer ratepayers present knew, that it would be too late to consider the Bill after it was accepted in our names; but I was struck with the inability of those present to formulate their objections, although much dissatisfaction manifested itself in the meeting. Entire ignorance (in which I fully shared) also existed as to what steps to take in such a case. Had I insisted, as I ought to have done, upon the motion for adjournment being put, it would probably have been rejected by a small majority. But I was utterly ignorant of what was right to do in such a strange position, and it seemed almost unladylike for me alone to oppose the Mayor and Town Council, with their Parliamentary Committee and legal advisers, particularly as it was insisted that opposition meant distrust of the Council, whereas I thought simply of my duty as a ratepayer. I did not know then, and no one present seemed to know, that any ratepayer has a right to demand a poll; and, if insisted on, it must have been allowed. In this case the few pounds it would have cost the town would have been well expended, in delaying what proved to be an exceedingly bad and retrograde Bill. But nothing has struck me more in this singular experience than the utter ignorance of all our otherwise intelligent burgesses as to the steps by which their municipal rights may be guarded, either in the borough or in London. This ignorance seems to arise from the inattention and habit of indifference to municipal duties produced, not only by the pressure of private affairs, but by exclusive absorption in party politics.
As soon as the Corporation Bill was thus nominally accepted by the burgesses, copies of the Bill were allowed to circulate. I saw at once, on scanning this enormous Bill of 243 folio pages, thus sprung upon the town, that it was a very retrograde Bill, and would prove especially tyrannical to the poor. Being fully convinced that a fundamental duty of any community is to guard the industrious poor from being crushed into paupers, I looked at the Bill from that point of view, and was shocked by it. It was drawn up to favour the growth of that modern mistake, a fashionable lodging-house town, by endeavouring to attract rich temporary visitors, instead of promoting permanent productive industry. By its provisions it largely increased the debt of the town; it withdrew expenditure from control of the ratepayers; it provided for a largely-increasing bureaucracy, by placing all the new institutions under officials of the Town Council; it confirmed and established a virtual octroi on coal and the necessaries of life; it introduced the most minute and arbitrary regulations in relation to building, sanitary inspection, police arrests; it re-enacted the obsolete regulation which regards vice as female; and in many other ways it sought to convert the Town Council into masters instead of servants of the people.
I immediately commenced asking individual ratepayers if they had seen this Bill, which interfered with every class of inhabitant. No one had seen it, and later inquiry seemed to prove that not one member even of the Town Council itself had read the Bill carefully through, outside the little Parliamentary Committee who followed the guidance of the London official agent.
I am glad to say that the first note of serious public alarm was sounded by the Medical Profession, who, finding they were to be turned into family spies by this Bill, refused to submit, and, having an organized medical society unanimous in opinion, they commenced an opposition to those objectionable clauses which affected their position. But weeks of precious time were lost before attention was aroused to the generally tyrannical character of the Bill. At last the growing discontent found a voice in an active, enlightened burgess. A crowded public meeting was held, attended largely by the poorer ratepayers, and a committee was formed to see what amendments could be introduced. But there was then not time to examine thoroughly this enormous Bill before it was read in Parliament. Here, again, two circumstances were noteworthy. First of all, the complete indifference of the richer inhabitants to the Bill and to all that involved trouble on their part, with the dread of the poorer inhabitants of the frightful law expenses which opposition would entail.
The second noteworthy point was the utter ignorance of all parties as to the best and exact method of procedure in the various steps necessary to be taken in seeking to amend or oppose the Bill—as, for instance, the times allowed for the various stages, the parties to address, the ways of addressing them, the rights of the burgesses to appear, etc. No one, either layman or lawyer, possessed exact detailed knowledge.
For my part, I sought information at headquarters in London. Here, once for all, I beg to state that nothing can exceed the courtesy and often kindness with which my crude inquiries have always been met by those highest in authority. Indeed, all my life long, though painfully compelled to work against rather than with social conditions, I have always found men eager to help an honest, unselfish worker.