ABSTRACT
The CH..URMAN read the annual report, whiCh stated that the Committee, in presenting their report, had much pleasure in directing their attention to the steadyprogress of the movement in the sister towns or Brighton and Hove. The ladies whose candidature for the Brighton Board of Guardians was supported by their Society, had this year been re-elected, Mrs. Haycraft for the third and Miss Bigg for the second time. Their places on the Board being twelve and sixteen, instead of seven and eight, as in the previou~ year, might seem to imply a .decline of public interest in the .return of women as Poor Law Guardians, bnt it must be pointed out that at the last election their Committee, by the special request of Mrs. Haycraft and Miss Big~, discontinued the practice of canvassing for votes .. This last re-election of lady guardians had, therefore, resulted from the acknowledged merits of the case, and no votes had been obtained by solicitation. The report went on. to refer to a meeting held on October 29th, 1885, in the Hove Town Hall, with the object of arousing loo&l public interest in the movement. Unfortunately, however, the chief object of the meeting, namely, that some lady should be found to come forward for election on the Hove Board of Guardians, was not attained, and the Committee, therefore, urged that no pains should be spared to obtain a suitable candidate before the next election; and as it was not thought desirable at pre-: sent to endeavour to elect a third lady Guardian for Brighton, the Society would feel at liberty to devote itself entirely to the question of Hove.
