DISORDERLY MEETING AT WESTWARD HO! – THE DRAINAGE QUESTION: On Monday afternoon a meeting of the Drainage Committee and the inhabitants of Westward Ho! was held at the Baths – Adams’s – for the purpose considering the amended plan and report of Mr. Ellis, engineer, of Exeter, on the drainage of Westward Ho! Hutchinson was voted to the chair, and there were present, Colonel Wheeler, Captain Molesworth, Rev. I. H. Gossett, Dr. Hemmings, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Prior, Mr. A. Wren, Mr. Adams, Mr. Price, Captain Beer, Sergeant Murray, Mr. Bazeley, Mr. Pynsent, Captain Sangster, Mr. Mill, and Mr. Cawsey. Mr. Bazeley commenced the proceedings stating that the meeting was called to consider the amended report for carrying the drainage to the eastward into the deep part of Goosey Pool, so to avoid the expense of taking it the whole distance to Pimpley. He laid the amended report – dated 26th July 1876 – before the meeting, but although he had made application to the Local Government Board for the plans referred to in the report, they had not been sent. He had only received the two plans he would lay before the Board, stating that that was all they had. The meeting had been called in accordance with a letter from the Clerk of the Northam Local Board, who had been directed, by the Local Government Board, to ascertain the views of the district on the subject, but the plans be had put before them had been objected to by the Board above consequence of their being complicated. Mr. Pynsent proceeded to question several of those present whether they had been summoned to attend that meeting, and, receiving replies in the negative, he complained to Mr. Bazeley. Mr. Bazeley said he had held the unenviable position of having attended every single meeting they had held, for which he had never received a single farthing. He had given his services for years for nothing, and he did not consider he was to blame in the matter. He was the so-called summoning officer, and, if anybody had been left out, he was sorry, but they could not expect him to attend those meetings there, and go about as an errand-boy, for nothing. Mr. Price said he had never been summoned to one of the meetings; he had always intruded, and they had been kind enough not to kick him out. Mr. Bazeley said it had always been the custom for the Secretary of the Hotel Company to summon. He had sent the notices to him and had asked him to send them round. Mr. Pynsent charged certain gentlemen with being an obstructive party to the scheme of drainage, and told Mr. Bazeley that, as he represented them, he must look to them to be paid. Some of the opposite party had never been summoned and had always been left out. Mr. Bazeley said they always attended the meetings, at any rate, and the meeting that day had come to the knowledge of nearly every person in the district. The Chairman said it was the wish that everybody should be summoned. Mr. Bazeley said it was monstrous to suppose that anybody was purposely left out.
Captain Molesworth remarked that there was no intention to keep anybody away, and Mr. Bazeley was not to blame. The captain then proceeded to speak on the question of the separation of the district of Northam and Westward Ho! when Mr. Pynsent interrupted him by saying that they were not there to discuss that question. The Rev. I. H. Gossett said he had a very strong opinion on the matter before them, and it was that, in the absence of the proper documents, it was waste of time to attempt to go into the business. He had read the report carefully, and it contained references to certain plans, which plans had evidently been up to the Local Government Board, because Mr. Morgan (the inspector) spoke of and referred to them. Neither of the plans before them then had any reference whatever to the report Mr. Ellis, sent to the Local Board of Northam. He would move that the owners of property and the ratepayers of the drainage district, having that day attended a meeting to consider the amended plan of drainage, as recommended Mr. Ellis, regretted to find that the Local Board of Northam, through their clerk, had sent them the wrong plan, and they felt themselves compelled to adjourn the meeting to Friday, December 1st, and resolved that such adjournment should be notified to Mr. Hole (the clerk), with request that he would procure the amended plan at that time.
Mr. Pynsent said that the persistent opposition to the improvement of the drainage of Westward Ho! had been carried on for two whole years. Two years ago, a meeting was held there, and Mr. Ellis was called in, but obstruction was the order of the day. What was the state of things now? Why in June last the medical officer of the Board, who was called in to make an examination of the state of the Burrows, said it was a most dangerous nuisance, and that had gone on from the month of June one to the present time. In fact, every meeting was held with a view to obstructiveness. In June there were 220 feet of open drain on the Burrows, which was the work of these obstructives. Captain Molesworth: No, the Local Board of Northam. Mr. Pynsent -They did what I say. They opened a new 222 feet; they formed an open gutter of that length, which, within a month of that time, Dr. Pratt reported a most dangerous nuisance. They also took up pipes which exposed 100 feet of sewerage. At the end of that there were 178 feet of natural gulley, six to seven feet in breadth, so that, consequently, on the Northam Burrows there were 520 feet of open sewage drain. That was the state at present at Westward Ho! Capt. Molesworth: That is not at Westward Ho! Mr. Pynsent; I beg your pardon. Capt. Molesworth: It is not, I beg your pardon. Our district is portioned out and what you speak of is not in Westward Ho! district. Mr. Pynsent: I beg to say that this fifth — Capt. Molesworth: Northam Burrows. Mr. Pynsent: This filth is at the foot – as this gentleman who has interrupted would say if he would speak correctly of a row of houses called Eastbourne Terrace, which are in that district. It is row of lodging-houses. They suffer greatly from the nuisance. Mr. Pynsent then referred to the opposition Mr. Ellis’s schemes had always met with, and now said they had the amended plans, and they were meeting with the same opposition. Rev. I. H. Gossett: I solemnly say they are not here. Mr. Pynsent: Then why are they not here? For five years that had been the state of the Westward Ho! watering-place, and he could show them a report of the directors of five years ago, in which they congratulated the shareholders upon having carried out the sewage works beyond the Company’s estate, but they did not say that they had taken the nuisance from their place and deposited it other people’s doors, which they did at his door. The filth was brought in front of his house, and a cesspit made in front of it. Captain Molesworth: I think you are mistaken. Some more remarks followed, when Mr. Gossett protested against Mr. Pynsent’s insinuation that he came there to oppose the proceedings. What he said was that it was waste of time to come there and, to discuss business without materials. They could not argue the case from the document before them. Mr. Wren suggested that if the report were read, they might manage to make the plans do which were before them. Mr. Bazeley then read the report of Mr. Ellis.
Mr. Pynsent again alluded to the open drains on the Burrows and produced a bottle full of sewage which he had taken up. It was quite black, and he invited Captain Molesworth to smell it, but that gentleman refused to oblige him. That was taken up from near the Golf Club House. Dr. Hemmings suggested that a committee should be formed. He also went at length into the subject, and strongly advised the irrigation system. It was approved of entirely by the Local Government Board. But they must carry the levels higher than Mr. Ellis contemplated, so as to purify what they would carry out. He thought, also, it would be a good undertaking to deepen Goosey Pool, as they might then drain the Burrows, and thereby drain the sands. One of the two plans before them should be carried out, but it would be better to form a committee and endeavour to carry it out harmoniously to the satisfaction of all. Mr. Pynsent said Mr. Ellis’s first plan showed an estimate of the cost of the works of £579 5s; his second plan, which would only go part of the way, would only involve £375, and there had been £360 in the Bideford Bank since 1870, borrowed for the special use of the Westward Ho! drainage district, why could they not carry out that lesser plan. He would propose that that meeting recommend the Local Board to approve of either of the two plans before them, with the alteration that the levels be a little higher. The Chairman said they had already expressed their disapproval of them. Mr. Pynsent said they had only disapproved of some system of disinfecting tanks which could be altered. They did not object to the line which was to be followed. Captain Molesworth said a scheme had already been resolved upon some time ago, and tenders actually advertised for. Mr. Ellis’s plan did not provide for the future of Westward Ho! They had not deviated from the first from the principle laid down by Mr. Leatham, one of the best of engineers, and why not carry it out? He thought the only resource open to Westward Ho! was to apply for a separation and carry out the scheme themselves. If they had their own Local Board, they could carry out their own scheme. Mr. Pynsent said that was irrelevant to the question. Mr. A. Wren defended the action of the Local Board against some remarks made by Captain Beer as to their inability to do their work, as they prejudiced a lot of men. Captain Beer also criticised Mr. Ellis’s plan, and said it was only theory, there was nothing practical about it. Mr. Gossett’s motion for an adjournment was not seconded, but Mr. Price seconded the motion of Mr. Pynsent. Captain Molesworth moved an amendment because the plans did not deal with the lower-level houses. He moved that the original plan, as amended and agreed upon, be adopted by that district. Captain Beer seconded. Mr. Gossett supported the amendment. His reason was that a great writer had told them that art must assist nature, and he knew that nature said they must drain in the direction of the estuary. He looked at the plan of Mr. Ellis as a bad one.
Mr. Pynsent protested against Mr. Ellis being so spoken of. Ultimately, in the midst of the utmost confusion, during which the Chairman was interrupted, the amendment was carried nine voting for it and six against. The names were called for, and Mr. Bazaley was accused by Pynsent of taking down those who did not vote, and he then threw up his pen and said he should refuse to have anything more to do with the meeting. After the motion had been lost, Captain Sanger protested against the legality of the proceedings, it was not a meeting of the inhabitants; they had not been all summoned. The Chairman said it was a mistake, and he (Captain Sangster) admitted it by actually remaining there. Captain Molesworth said it was not the inhabitants, it was the ratepayers who were summoned, and if he (Captain Sangster) was not a ratepayer he had nothing to do with it. Captain Beer said the objection should have been made before the motion was lost if it had been carried nothing would have been said. The meeting then broke up amidst confusion, someone remarking that the chairman deserved the thanks of the meeting for presiding.
[see also Exeter and Plymouth Gazette: Friday 1st December 1876]
Transcribed in whole or part from scanned originals: Presented with or without modified text and punctuation. For absolute accuracy refer to the original newspapers. Source: The British Newspaper Archive.
Referenced
GRO0835 Hennock: Thomas Pynsent: 1808 – 1887