The Cardigan Bay Visitor

ABERYSTWYTH. BOARD OF GUARDIAS'S, Mosiav. JTLV 17TH. Present Mr W. A. Miller, Llanbadarn, vice cha;rman, presiding: the Rev T. A. Penry, Messrs G. Fossett Roberts, T. E. Salmon, J. J. James, and Ricnard Edwards, Aberystwyth Edward Jones, Ceulanymaesmawr Thomas I Jenkins, Cytoethybrenin James Jones, Llau- badarn Lower Thomas Powell, Llantihangel Upper; Da\ id Edwards, Llanilar Evan Lewis and John Jones, Llanrhystyd J. E. James, Melindwr Thomas James and Richard Davie?, Trefeirig Hugh Hughes, clerk and Dr Bonsall, medical officer. Statistics.— Out-relief administered duriugthe past fortnight: Aberystwyth district, per Mr Thomas Yaughcu), £47 Lj; Od to 15S paupers, an increase of 63 3d in relief and a decrease of '2 paupers. Llanfihangrl district. pr Mr J. J. Hughes, £.)-1, 6s Od to 191 paupers, an increase of f2 17s in reKef and a (If- crease of 1 paupr; aud liar district, p; r Mr J. Morgan, t43 113 Od to 133 paupers, a decrease of 4 paupers and of £1 14s la relief. Number in the House, 34 last year. corresponding period 52. Number of vagrants relieved during the pa. t fortnight, 25 last year, corresponding period, 8. Chat.- mambip of Guardian*.—A letter was read from the North Bierley L'nion suggesting th.t chairmen of bpards of guardians should be ex-offi magistrates and that trie Guardians should support a Bit with that object in view.—Mr James Jens and Mr Salmon approved the suggestion and the Chairman observed that the best thing would b? to ask their Parliamentary representative to sup- port tne Bill in the House of Commons.—On the proposition of Mr Salmon, seconded by Mr James Jones, it was agretd to ask Mr Vaughan Davies, M.P., to support the Bill. Yacniiiatioii.—A letter was read from the Black- burn Union who considered' the minimum fees for vaccination aitogetner too high and asking the Guardians to mem. riaii/i the Local Government Board to reduce the amount.—Tne Guardians did not adopt the suggestion. Out.r"lid.-In going over the Aberystwyth books, Mr James Joues called attention to a woman who was in receipt of out-relief. The Guardians objected to continuing relief unless the woman got someone to look after her and it was now stated that she had got her grand daughter, a girl of eightee i, to look after her. Mr James Jones poiuted out that the girl could be earning £1:2 or jE14 a year and that it was now impossible to get servants in t: wn or country.—Mr Salmon was understood to s-ay that the girl went out working during the daytime and went to her grand-mother's house at night. The woman was determined not to go into the Workhouse and said she would rather die first.—Mr G Fossett Roberts said he did not see what could be done except continue out-relief, seeing that now the woman had some- body 3 look after her. —It was agreed to continue the relief.—A second case was mentioned of Emma Bowyer, 74, Mill-street, who was in receipt of 15s a week and it was stated that she would not go into the House.—Mr James Jones said he had been on the Board for twenty years. Hitherto there was no difficulty in getting people to go into the House, but now nobody would go into the House.—Mr Salmon said there was a reason as they went from the Workhouse straight to the Cemetery.—Mr James Jones added that the Guardians gave out-door relief and then of course the paupers would not go into the House. He did not want to be hard on anybody but the ratepayers were spending lirge sums of money in maintaining that House and yet they were giving 1-fs 1. week in cut-relief.—Mr Salmon thought the Guardians should not hesitate in paying 15s ard 21s in out-relief in such cases. If the relief was stopped and the person was removed into the House, she might die. He thought it very hard to debate such a case as her condition was an act of Provi- dence.—Mr James Jones said he was not afraid of cases like that going to the public.—Mr Salmon said he was on his Let while Mr James Jones was interrupting by speaking while sitting down and striking the table. The Guardians were only doing their duty by giving Is Gll a day for nursing in that case. The son was repaying a certain amount of the relief.—Mr Richards Edwards must siy that in justice to the ratepayers the Guardians ought to be moie careful so as not to have to give large sums like that to some paupers and inadequate relief to others. In that particular case, he be- lieved that the family was very wealthy.—Mr (Salmon replied that it was misleading to say that the family was wealthy. The son-in-law might be well off, but the Guardians had no claim on him. The son was a labourer with a wife and family and earning 16s. 17s, or 18s per week only.—Mr ".James Jones said he did not refer solely to that case but to the general policy of the present Board. There was '.he case of Trefechan mentioned just now. Supposing that one W. t ill, the Guardians would have to vcte a sum for nursing. The Guardians couid notcompeithegranddaughter tostop and nurse the grandmother and he would not go into the House. The Guardians were Acting wrong iu principle and were gdting wone and Worse. Be hau never seen so great an alteration for the worst- since he had been a member of the Board.—Tiie | Chairman said the matter rested with the Guard. iacs. Would anyone make a proposition that out- relief should be stopped 'Mr Vaughan (the re- lieving officer] asked it the Guardians had power to compel people to go into the House; and Mr Salmon saii, "No,"—Mr ^ughan added that the only thing to do was tW stop the relief and then th- responsibility would r< st on the Guardians.—The Rev T. A. Penry said the question was whether the woman Bowyer v ae in a fit state to be removed to the Housi Dr Bonsall having been called in, said the woman was in an advanced state of heart disease and dropsy, and the Guardians found that they had no alternative but to continue the relief. lafunt Lije Prof Ictioa Act.-In reply to Mr G. 8Fossett Roberts, the Clerk said that persons re- ceiving for boarding into their houses more than one child was bound under a penalty to report it. TOWN COUNCIL, TUESDAY, JCLY ISTH.—Pre- sent Councillor D. C. Roberts, ayor, presid- ing Councillor John Jenkins, ex-mayor Alder- men David Roberts, Peter Jones, \V. H. Palmer, and Captain Doughton Councillors C. M. Williams, R. Peake, R. J. Jones, E. P. Wynne, Evan Hugh James, T. E. Salmon, Isaac Hopkins, Robert Doughton Messrs A. J. Hughes. town clerk; Rees Joues, borough surveyor H. L. Evans, borough accountant and Dr Abraham Thomas, medical officer. MAYOR'S AUDITOR. The MAYOR announced that he had appointed Councillor Peake as his auditer. THE POSTAL SERVICE. The Town Clerk read a letter from Mr Williams, postmaster, acknowledging receipt of the Council's letter re mails and adding that every possible effort was made to effect an early delivery. On the 4th July all the postmen had completed their delivery and returned to the office by 9-10 and on the 5th by 9-15. He was, however, forwarding the Council's letter to the Surveyor. Mr C. M. WILLIAMS asked if the Council could not get the times of arrival of the mail every morn- ing, for he believed that since the last meeting of the Council the mail train had been late nearly every morning and one morning was over an hour late. He understood that the Council intend-d asking a young man in their employ to take the date of arrival of the mail train as well as of the other'trains and it would be weH to have the returns presented at every meeting of the Council. One or o mornings last week the mails did not arrive in Pier-street until long after nine o'clock. The MAYOR said that what Mr Williams had stated was quits correct, One day last week the mail was over an hour late, and the delivery of leters was very late. Mr SALMON asked what was the remedy. The MAYOR replied that the only thing to do was to keep a record of the arrivals and bring all influence the Council could bear upon the Railway Company. The TOWN CLERK said a report might be presented every meeting. Mr C M. W ILLIAMS added that that was the inten- tion to have a report so as to present it evary fort- night to the Manager. That was the only way in which the Council could hope to secure improve- ment. Mr R. J. JONES believed there had been a great improvement this season. Letters were delivered earlier. The MAYOR said there was no doubt about that but it was still a fact that lately the mails have been arriving unpunctually Alderman PETER believed it would be satisfactory to have the report of the arrivals every fortnight which might be notified to the Manager. Pcssibly there might be an explanation in which other companies would contribute to the result. It would, nevertheless, he satisfactory to ascertain where the fault lay in order to he able to know where to work for an improvement. He therefore seconded Mr C. M. Williams's proposition that a report. on the arrival of the trains should be pre- sented to the Council every fortnight. Mr WYNNE said that two years ago Mr Denniss wrote that he was quite aware of the delays and that in each case they had been investigated. Mr C. M. WILLIAMS said the arrivals of the mails were not included in that return. The MAYOR—It will be useful to have a return. Mr R. J. JONES—Kpep pegging away at them. Mr C. M. WILLIAMS— But we do not seem to get much improvement. Mr R. J. JONES—But there is a great improve- ment, as far as I can judge. The proposition was agreed to. COUNTY COURT DISTRICTS. The TOWN CLERK referred to a letter from the Lncal Government Board relative to an order de- lining county court districts and said a copy of the orders could be seen at his offices. THE TOWN HALL. The Town Clerk read a letter from Mr Fryer, the c untv clerk, with reference to the additions to the Town" Hall, saying he was directed by the County Council to a=k the T >wn Council to appoint a com- mittee to meet the Finance Committee to discuss the question generally. The plans had been laid before tbe County Council at their last meeting who would lay no difficulties in the way of the im- provements provided that the rights and vestei interests of the county in the south wing were fully safe-guarded and secured. The County Council suggested a conference on Wednesday, August 2nd, in the Town Hall. The Finance Committee were deputed to meet the County Council Committee. THE BANDSTAND. Mr Jack Edwards, leader of the B ind, wrote say- ing "Now that the season is so far advanced and tid- ings ot the proposed bandstand are not forthcoming, would it not be just as well to let the matter drop for this year and more satisfactory arrangements made for the next The SURVEYOR said he had written more than once to the makers about the bandstand. Their last reply of the 13th aid there would be ten days' holidays at the works. The MAYOR and others thought it advisable to cancel the order, but on the proposition of Mr SAL- MON, seconded by Mr PETF.R JONES, it was agreed o write cancelling the order if the stand could not be delivered by the Lt August. Tne SURVEYOR said he had the foundations of the stand toady. CORRESPONDENCE. The Town Clerk read a letter from Mr John Evans, solicitor, saying he had consulted by Mr John Jones, owner of 2, Northgate-street, re- pctiDg the: damage caused to his house by the erection of th-* adjoining house of Miss Jenkin". It app ais that the new lease to Miss Jenkins hid not yet been granted and his client asked that be- fore it was granted tiie C mnctl should cause a care- ful examination of the pirtition wall between the two houses to be made un Mr Jones's side of the wall. Alderman PETER JONES suggested that the Town CI rk should look into it. seeing that legal mttt-rs were pending and report to the Public Works whether the Council should interfere in the matter. The suggestion wis adopted. THE FIRE BRIGADE. The Town Clerk read the following letter from Chief Constable Howell Ev,lOs 10:h July. Dear sir,—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 5th asking me to accept the captaincy and to undertake tle formation of a new fire brigade. In reply, I beg to -tate that I have care- fully considered the matter and although the duties connected therewith will entail a considerable amount of work and responsibility, being anxious to render what assistance I can to the public, I am prepared to undertake the duties relative to the office, subject, of course to the approval of the Standing Joint Committee a meeting of which will be held before the end of this month. The matter shall then be laid before them, and until I receive their consent I cannot undertake to do anything As soon as the matter has been dealt with by the Committee. I shall communicate with the Council immediately on the subject." The Tows CLERK thought that in the meanwhile there would be an interregnum but the MAYOR pointed out that the Surveyor had been instructed to make temporary arrangements dealing with fires pending the formation of a fire brigade. ANTIQUATED BYLAWS. The TOWN CLERK said he thought it right to call the attention of the Council to the dte of the by- laws in force in Aberystwyth at the present time. The Council were aware that the bylaws were sanctioned as far back as July 15th, 1S84. Since then, he understood there had been various im- provements in bylaws making them more adaptable to the present time and it was for the Council to say whether it was not a matter which should be referred to one of the committees. He would then confer with the Committee aa to more recent by- laws and call attention to any matter which might suggest itself to him. On the proposition of Alderman PALMER, seconded by Mr R. J. JONES, the matter was referred to the General Purposes Committee. PUBLIC WORKS. The Public Works and Harbour Committees re- ported on various matters already reported and the recommendations were adopted without comment. MARKETS. Mr Evan Hugh James brought up the report of the Markets Committee, which recommended that a weighing machine for the slaughter house should be purchased and that the owner of the horse Lord Ventnor should be allowed the use of the Smith- field to exhibit and give a prize to the best of his stock. The report was adopted, and as tenders by Messrs Davis and by Messw White for weighing machines both quoted £11, Mr R. J. JONES suggested that each firm should be asked to supply half a machine. On the proposition of Mr PEAKE. it was agreed to refer the decision to the Markets Committee. Mr SALMON asked if two members formed a quorum, aud the MAYOR, while saying they did not, said if the report was adopted it would practically be a recommendation of the Council itself and could be adopted. The report was adopted. THE MAIN SEWER. The Council also adopted a report of the whole Council recommending that the Surveyor should prepare plans and estimates for the extension of the sewer outlet, THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. In moving the adoption of the Finance Committee recommending the payment of bills, Mr C. M. WILLIAMS stated that at the previous meeting the Cimmittee had not gone very carefully into the exact increase in the Town Clerk's salary for addi- tional work and there seemed to be a great deal of ambiguity as to the amount. He found that the actual increase was The sum of f20 was hitherto paid for work in connection with thr- Burial Board, but both the work and the Board had ceased and Mr Hughes would be entitled to a small amount of compensation. The total amount Mr Hughes received was JE140 and with the f40 now added would make up the salary to £180. GENERAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE. Mr Wynne brought up the report of the General Purposes Committee recommending that the Town Clerk should report upon all resolutions of the Council within the past three years relative to obstructions on Marine-terrace, beach, &c. also that he should write to the owners of hackney carriages informing them that he was instructed to proceed without delay against any persons reported to have committed breaches of the Jpylaws relative to hackney carriages. The report was unanimously adopted. APPLICATIONS. Applications by Messrs M. H. Davis and Sons for a site on Rofawr of a warehouse by Mrs Mary Jones for the renewal of the lease of 5, Baker- street; add byMfeRea. for the renewal of 10, Pcrtland-street, were referred to the Finance Gom- mittee. MR HOPKINS'S LEASE. A STORMY AND COMPLICATED DEBATE. The following paragraph appeared in the report of the Finance Committee Mr Isaac Hopkins's lease: A letter, dated 4th July, from Mr Hugh Hughes, solicitor, acting for Mr Hopkins, stating that Mr Hopkins was now prepared to withdraw all claims against the Council on condition that the Council grant him a renewal of the lease of his two houses in South-road, on the terms quoted in 1895, was read. After considerable discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the renewal of the lease of the two houses be granted on the terms given in 1S95, whereupon the Chairman ruled that inasmuch as the terms and conditions given Mr Hopkins in 1895 had since been withdrawn and cancelled by the Council his last application must be treated as a fresh application and that before it could be dealt with by your Committee it was necessary for them to visit and inspect the pro- perty anew, pursuant to a resolution of the Council which has hitherto been acted upon in cases of first application, and also in cases where fresh ap- plication has been received owing to previous terms and conditions given having been withdrawn and cancelled and therefore he could not allow any deviation from the usual course in the case of Mr Hopkins's premises, which must be visited by the Committee before terms and conditions can be de- cided upon and recommended to the Council. Among the notices of motion were the following —ouncillor T. E. Salmon will move "That the application of Mr Isaac Hopkins for a renewal of the leases of Nos. 27 and 31, South- road, Aberystwyth, be granted upon the terms con- tained in the report of the Finance Committee dated 12th February, IS95." The following are the particulars, terms, and conditions mentioned in the said report, viz., as to No. 27, South-road, afore- said Original grant, 1813; years unexpired, 18 scale, 7s rental, £ 10 with fifteen per cent off, £ S 10s line, £ 2 13s 9d, commuted at £ 4 10s 9d^ £ 2 17s ground rent, 2s 6d total, £ 2 19s 6d.' Conditions New roof, new windows, chimney- stacks renewed, and front cemented. As to No. Conditions New roof, new windows, chimney stacks renewed, and front cemented. As to No. 31, South road, aforesaid Original grant, 1S13 years unexpired, IS scale, I rental, £10 with fifteen per cent off, fine, £62 133 d, com- muted at £-110s 9:1, £2 17s ground rent, 2s 6d total, £2 19s 6i. Conditions: New roof at the back of house and chimney stack rebuilt. That for the purpose of dealing with and disposing of the said application at this meeting, all existing resolutions of the Council dealing with or prescrib- ing the procedure of the Council or of the Finance Committee respectively relating or incident to the granting of leases or renewals of leases by the Cor- poration be aud the same are hereby rescinded so far only as the same relate to or apply to the said application." MrC. M. WILLIAMS, moving the reception of the paragraph iu the Finance Committee's report, said he did not wish to make any remarks upon it. Since the meeting of the Finance Committee, he never- tneless added, he had looked farther into the matter and saw what was the resolution of the L-'Uincil with regard co old applications as well as other resolutions, so he was quite satisfied that what he did at the Committee meeting was per- fectly just and fair in saying that the Committee had no right whatever ingoing behind what the Council had actually done. The MAYOR somewhat impatiently informed the Council that Mr YY illiams simply moved that that report should be received, adding that there was I no recommendation, Mr JOHS JENKINS and Mr PEAKE seconded the] proposition. Mr SALMON thought the report should stand over until the resolution of which he had given notice had been introduced. That paragraph was simply the report of the Chairman himself and was drawn up without the consent of the Committee. The MAYOR sail that was so. Mr SALMON—He declared the meeting at an end and this is his own account of it. Mr C. M. WILLIAMS—It is my duty to make a report. Mr SALMON—I do not see why you should force your opinions upon the Council. The MAYOR said in so far as it wis a record of what took place he had no objection to it. Certain members did not agree with the ruling ot the Chair- nun, of course, ana they (lid not even to-day aglee with it. Still the Council might take the report as a record of what took place at the meeting and, he took it, that was all Mr Williams moved. The Council could approve or not, one way or the other, of what took place in Committee, but that was a re- port of what took place and as such might be accepted by the Council. The question of grafting the lease was another matter, respccilJg which there would be a resolution, and any discussion 00 the matter would come on when the proposition. was moved. Mr SALMON aid the report was misleading, for it did not state what actually took place. MrC. M. U ILLIAMS. however, said that it was an actual report of what took place. Tne MAYOR said it was a report of Mr Williams's ruling and not a report of all what took place. Mr Williams differed from the Committee and there they had a record of Mr Williams's contention. It might, however, be preceded by the contention of members of the Committee that the proposition at the Committee was perfectly in order. So to be correct, that also should be embraced in the report. Mr C. M. WILLIAMS said he had no objection. The MAYOR added that Mr Williams could have no objection. It would have been well if the report had been drawn up in the Committee meeting. What did the Council suggest, because it was only a record of what took place and therefore any words the Council thought desirable to place in the report, it seemed to him, might be accepted then ? Mr C. M. WILLIAMS said if the question was to be re-opened he had not lost the right to make his remarks. He understood that the report was accepted by the Council, but if the matter was reo opened, he had remarks to make justifying the action he took. Alderman PETER JOSEE; thought the report and Mr Salmon's proposition was so interwoven that it would be well to defer the matter so that the Council might have the advantage of Mr Williams's statement for those members who were not present in committee and also for those members who wrre present and yet differed in opinion from Mr Williams. MrC. M. WILLIAMS did not see what the report had to do with the notice of motion. The accept- ance of the report had been proposed and seconded and if that was going to be discussed he should ask to be allowed to make his remarks. The MAY'OR—C-rtainly. (To the Council) Then do you move that the report be deferred to the end of the meeting ? Alderman PALMER asked the date of the cancel- lation of Mr Hopkins's lease but the MAYOR said the Council were then considering procedure. Mr WILLIAMS asked if he was treated fairly but the MAYOR asked Mr Williams to wait a minute and then asked if anyone seconded Alder- man Peter Jones's proposition to defer the matter to the end of the meeting. Mr SALMON replied that he would second jt. Mr C. M. WILLIAMS asked if it was an ordinary rule by which the Mayor was acting ? There was a report of a committee. It had nothing whatever to do with the proposition on the agenda and yet he was to be allowed to give 'no reason why he had inseited that report. However much he differed from it, he should always obey the ruling of the chair. The MAYOR said that course was often adopted. MrC. M. WILLIAMS—Not unless there is connec- tion. The MAYOR replied that there was surely connec- tion between the report and the proposition and often when there was a report and a proposition the two things were taken together, because it tendc 1 greatly to shorten discussion. He, how- ever, was quite prepired to allow Mr Williams to make any s'atement he desired. At the same time, he asked him not to do so until the end of the meet- ing, s., as not to have two discussions on practically the same mat er. Howewr, he would leave that to Mr Willi tins. Mr WILLIAMS ga d h was not going to do any- thing v 11 eh appeared to be coutrary to the wishes of the Council. The MAYOR then a-ked Mr Williams to make his stat^me but Mr W'ILLUMS a-ked that the pro- pi siti m should be mil. > 'ben. Ultimately, how- ever, h*- launched upon his -tatement, remarking ihat he had a right to mak" a statement also upon the 1'1' position "s the i-.»p rt and the proposition were two d s inct 'h ugs. Certain statements hai m <b\ lie ;t, (le t,. and inferences drawn, as if Mr Wdii w as not prepared tc act as fail-as any member of the Council and therefore he thought he s ionld be allowed to explain why he took the action he did in COJlJrni,tee, because it was not a question whether Mr Hopkins should have his lease or not, but a question of procedure. On the 15th February, 189S, the Council cancelled all terms alld conditions of leases which had not been takp\1 up by January, 1896. There was a list of the premises. Mr Roberts, the present mayor, moved an amendment omitting from the list places in connection with which reversionary leases were held. That ameudment was discussed, but the Council by a majority decided that the whole of the terms and conditions given of leases which had not been taken up by January, 1896, should be cancelled. Several members expres-ed a wish that the book should be cleared of all arrears. In respect of several leases, terms had been given three or four times and those cases were entered on the books three or four times, and it was practically the unanimous feeling of the Council that a start should be made somewhere and that things should be put in order so that the Council might know where they were. At the meeting subsequent to that, Mr Isaac Hopkins appeared before the Coun- cil. He (Mr Williams) was then ill and was not able to be present. Re, however, found from the report that there was a lengthy discussion and the remarks made by Aldermaa Jones fully bore out bis (Mr Williams's) contention in committee—that the whole list had been cancelled and that what- ever was dane in regard to the premises io that list in future would have to be considered as from that period. Mr R. J. Jones made remarks at the came tIme; but Alderman Jones said He presumed that the terms would be pretty much the same as before, but the lessees would have the advantage of a new lease for seventy-five years from the pre- sent date instead of several years unexpired at the increased Mr R. J. Jones was anxious to know something, and Alderman Jones said that certain resolutions had been passed giving certain instructions and he presumed that each case would be taken on its merits on application but prac- tically what was surmised would be carried out, though perhaps not in every detail. Having passed the resolutions, it was not right that the Council should depart fromjthem. The terms would be con- sidered afresh when the applications were again made. Mr R. J. JOSE asked as his name had been men- tioned, it was only fair that Mr Williams should read what he had said. Mr WILLIAMS, complying, read that Mr R. J. Jones asked if it was taken for granted that the terms were otherwise to be the same as heretofore ? In some cases the estimated value of the premises to be renewed was higher than when the terms were quoted, so that the fine for renewal would be much increased. Now, if it was understood that the lessees who had not renewed through no fault of their own was to have renewals on the old esti- mated value of their premises there would not be the slightest hardship. If they were to have renewals on the increased ratable value of their houses there would be hardship. He took it that the; terms were based on the old ratable value. Those were Mr Jones's remarks and the reply that Alderman Jones gave was that each case would have to be treated on its merits. Alderman PETER JOSES asked Mr Williams to read further on, when he would find that he (Mr Jones) had made comments on Mr Hopkins's plication which would be consistent with his pre- sent position. Mr WILLIAMS hoped that that matter would be discussed in quite a friendly manner as he had only just mentioned those remarks. The MAYOR pointed out that Mr Peter Jones asked that all he had said should be read. Mr W ILLIAMS replied that he had read all the remarks. Alderman PETER JONES added that Mr Hopkins made an application and he (Mr Jones) made a re- mark and that remark would be found to be in harmony with what he did at the Finance Com- mittee. With all those newspaper cuttings he thought Mr Williams might discover something more. (Laughter.) Mr WILLIAMS replied that it was only at one meeting that the discussion took place. After Mr Hopkins made a statement the Town Clerk made ¡ a statement. He supposed Mr Hall could verity the report as it was a cutting from the Cam- brian Neics. Mr Williams having been asked to read the whole report, complied by reading as fol- lows: Alderman Peter Jones said sonae applicants had not onlv not accepted the terms,' but probably did not wish to do so and therefore it would be quite useless to refer all of them to the Committee. The intention was to have the leases and their terms and conditions posted up. He presumed that the terms would be pretty much the same as before, but the lessees would have the advantage of a new lease for seventy-five years from the present date instead of several years unexpired at the increased rent. -The Town Clerk said the increased rent would only re- present the money which had not been paid hy the applicants.—Mr R. J. Jones asked it if was taken for granted that the terms were otherwise to be the same as heretofore ? In some cases the estimated value of the premises to be renewed was higher than when the terms were quoted so that the fine for renewal would be much 1 increased. Now, if it was understood that the lessees who had not renewed through no fault of their own were to u have renewals on the old etimated value of their pre- mises, there would sot-be the slightest hardship. If they were to have renewals on the increased ratable value of v their houses there would he hardhip. He took it that '• the terms would be based on the old ratable value. 1 —Alderman Peter Jones said that certain resolutions had r been passed giving certain instructions and he presumed that each Case would he taken on its merits on applica- tion, hut practically what was surmised would be carried out, though perhap not in every detail. Having passed I the resolutions it was not right that the Council should dpart from them. The terms would be considered afreh when the applications were again made.-The ( Town Clerk said he would ask the Council's permission i to intimate to the persons whose names were on the first schedule that the Council were prepared to consider their applications'?—Mr Win. Thomas: Yes, on their merits. — The Town Clerk added that, acting for a good many of the parties, he should place their applica- tions on the next agenda and therefore it would be only right that he should intimate the position of the" Council to others for whom he did not act.- Mr D. C. Roberts said if the applicants were dealt with 111 the way suggested there would be no hardship. No one stated clearly at the previous meeting what had been stated there that day, that it was the intention to renew on the same basis as three years age. If that was stated, he should not have pressed his amendment. He thought that was the fair way to treat the applicants who had not renewed throurih no fault of their own.Ir ,\Yi1liam Thomas said that was a very impoitant point on which the view of the Conncilshould only he taken on a distinct' proposition, of which notice was given on the agenda. Members of the Finance Committee felt strongly on that matter mil he hoped nothing would be taken for granted as to the course to h pursued by the Council unless there was a proper resolution. As far as the Council was con- cerned that day the matter was open. If, however, it was thought that the lapsed terms should be renewed on the same basis as before, there must be notice of motion to that effect or a recommendation by the Committee. At present it was an open question. -11' Marks: So it is.— The Town Clerk It will come from the Committee.—Mr Peake: Yes, on each case.—Mr R. J. Jones If the Com- mittee were fortified with an instruction by the Council it would be better.—It was then understood that the ap- plications could he renewed and that each case would he treated on its 11 erits. Continuing, Mr Williams contended that all the terms had been cancelled and withdrawn and the Committee had no right to go b hind what was done on that occasion. He believed that twelve or thirteen in that cancelled list had made fresh applications. Those applications had been referred to tne Committee. In every case they had been treated as fresh applications aud terms given not dating behind the time of cancellation but near as could be dating from the time of the second application. There was, for instance, the case of Air Thomas Morris's lease in Terrace road. In that case he and Mr Peter Jones were of the same opinion that it should be considered as a fresh application, and ultimately he and Mr Jones were appointed to see Mr Morris relative to the widening of Mill-street. The MAYOR said the reason why Alderman Jones objected to the old terms in that case was ia order to secure the widening of Mill-street. Mr WILLIAMS—You are entirely wrong, Mr Mayor. The MAYOR—I am only relying on my memory, but I do not think so. Mr WILLIAMS said he would relate what took place. Mr Jones never moved in the matter of cancelling. He agreed that the whole list should be cancelled. At that particular period nothing was said about Mill-street, but it was had in view that it should be considered when Mr Morris applied the second time. When he did apply a small committee was appointed. The MAYOR said that was no answer to his con- tention. Mr PALMER—I should like ——— The MAYOR —Order, please. There is a question of order between Mr Williams and I and we cannot have another question of order before that is disposed of. The reason Mr Jones objected to the renewal of Mr Morris's lease on the first terms was that we were anxious to widen Mill-street. Alderman JONES—Yes. Mr WILLIAMS—But he did not object to the lease. The old terms were cancelled and Mr Morris had to make a fresh application. The MAYOR asking what Mr Palmer wanted to ask, Alderman PALMER replied that he wanted to know on what question Mr Williams was speaking. (Laughter.) The MAYOR—Mr Williams is speaking on the report of the Finance Committee. Alderman PALMER—Has he proposed it ? The MAYOR—Order please. Will you listen to me for a minute ? There is a proposition that the report be deferred to the end of the meeting and Mr Williams with my permission is speaking to that. Mr WILLIAMS—I hope to make it clear to Mr Palmer although I am not sure I can. (A laugh.) Alderman JÐEs-That is quite uncalled for. Mr WILLIAMS—I hope that Mr Peter Jones will discuss this question and not be personal. The MAYOR--It was you that introduced personal matters. It was a very uncalled for and personal remark to make to Mr Palmer. Mr WILLIAMS—It was not intended to be per- sonal in any wav. Continuing his remarks, he added that the Committee had considered every application anew and had varied the terms con- siderably. In Mr Morris's case the first terms were based on ratable value and the second terms on the basis of site, the house not being as good as was expected after the plaster was taken' clown. Mr Morris complained that he was made to go to f400 or jE500 expanse by the new terms. The same course was adopted with regard to the Rev J. Pughe Morgan, North-parade. Miss Hopkins, Northgate, Mr John Griffiths, Mr John Mathias, and others. Someone said that Mr John Mathias had the old terms. They WHe new terms and the lease was dated 1897, as near as could be to the date of the second applica- tion. The only reason he had for making those re- marks was to show clearly how the Committ se had acted in accordance with the instructions of the Council. He never heard anv demur because the Council did not go back to 1895 terms and felt that Mr Hopkins should be treated in the same way as the other thirteen who had made fresh applications had been treated. Mr Hopkins's application would have been reported upon in the usual way if Mr Salmon had not made the proposi- tion he did make. The premises would have been' visited in the same way as other premises in the list had been visited and a report would have been presented to the next meeting of the Council. He thought he pointed out to the Committee that it wou d have been open to propose the same basis of renewal as before. If they thought £10 a reason- able sum as ratable basis it would have been quite open to them to renew on that basis. The whole thing having be n cancelled,he had no right to allow even a m jorityi.f the Committee to put a resolution contrary to the resolution of the Council. In order to be more sure of his posit on, he happened to meet the Town Clerk the next day, who fully concurred that the Committee hud no right to go behind the resolution of the Council. That was so, was it not Mr Hughes ? The TOWN CLERK said it was so. He had said tha- Mr WiLiams was technically right. Mr WILLIAMS added that he did not refuse to put the resolution at the Committee because he dis- agreed with it, but because it was against the re- solution of the Council. He also stated that the application must be treated a& a fresh application and the premises visited. In the face of that, he was surprised to find an attempt made to force the thing through, asking the Committee to do what was an irregular and illegal thing an that occasion. The MAYOR—Oh. Mr WILLIAMS—I am giving my opinion. The MAYOR—But I cannot allow you to say it was irregular and illegal; but you can say it was your opinion. Mr WILLIAMS said he was only referring to it in his remarks. What personal feeling, continued Mr Williams, had he in reference to Mr Hopkins's lease ? He only wanted the lease to go through in the same way as other leases. He had no personal feeling, but it Had been made to appear as if he had. He ventured to appeal to the Council if that course he recommended was not the right course and the onb that had been adhered to in every other instance. Mr SALMON asked if it was not through jtheir own fault that the thirteen referred to by Mr Williams had had to apply again ? Mr WILLLUlS replied in the negative. A great point had been made of the fact that ft was no fault of Mr Hopkins chat he had not taken up his lease before. Even if that was so. the Council cancelled the whole list. The Mayor proposed an amendment that a few reversionary leases should not be cancelled, but the amendment was not carried. The MAYOR—There was an undertaking given at the time. Mr WILLIAMS said there was not. The MAYOR asked to be excused in contradicting Mr Williams in that; but there was an undertaking given by the Council that when an application was made by lessees whose terms were cancelled on the ground that they were reversionary leases that the leases would be granted on the previous terms. Mr R. J. JONES said he put a question to that effect and Alderman JOXES replied that that would be distinctly understood. Mr WILLIAMS denied it and said he opposed the amendment which was lost by six to eight. There were no exceptions. The whole books were cleared. Even assuming there had been a little difficulty in regard to Mr Hopkins's lease in respect to reversion, the terms had been on the books for three years and not accepted. The first terms were given to Mr Hopkins in 1S92 and he himself withdrew the application. The next terms were given in 1S94 and 1895. The terms had been on the books three years. The difficulty with regard to reversionary leases had been settled in March, 1897. Mr Hopkius was himself a member of the Council up to November and the Council did not cancel any- thing until February, 1S98. There was therefore < twelve months in which Mr Hopkins could have obtained his lease, assuming that the Mayor's con- < tention was correct. ] The MAYOR said his contention was correct. There was an understanding that the applications i would be dealt with on the same terms. Mr WILLIAMS—There was nothing of the kind. ) Mr R. J. JOES thought Mr Williams was Iftbour- ing under a misapprehension. He well remembered asking the question and was told in reply that the 1 same terms would be given. I Mr WILLIAMS replied that Alderman Jones did iot say anything to that effect, but that each ca&e u vould have to be considered on its merits. There t vere twelve months after the reversionary difficulty t vas settled and Mr Hopkins had done nothing. If t le had complied with the conditions an exception f night be marie in his case or if his lease was 8 ictually aeady, but he had not done a stroke. He ( nentioned that in order to show that there was no lardship and that Mr Hopkins was to blame and t iot the Council. Since March, 1898, Mr Hopkins ipplied a second time, but owing to a remark he I made when the Committee were in the neighbour- t flood of his house that he was going to claim t lamages in respect of theyard, theCommittee wisely decided to do nothing until they heard what 1 the claim was. He wrote Give me my lease I shall let you know the damages hereafter." Con- ( eluding, Mr Williams contendeJtthat his action in Committee was a legal one and that had always been acted upon—that tie Committee could not go be- hind what the Council had done. He also dis- claimed all feeling in the matter. A division was then taken when two voted in favour of accepting the report and eitrht against. The Council tnen proceeded to consider Mï Salmon's proposition to renew Mr Hopkins's lease on the 1S95 basis, but before getting on to it MI- WILLIAMS said the matter had been refined to the Committee for consideration and report Could therefore the Council accept the proposition until that report had been received ? The lAYoll replied that tne proposition wa perfectly in order. It was a pr >po<ition by a member of the Council upon which the Council had full power to act. Alderman PALMER remarked that the matter wis referred to the Finance Committee and the chair- man had not brought in the report of the majority of the Committee. The MAYOR said that was not a point of order. He had to rule on a point of order. By the Stand- ing Orders it was psrfectly in order for the C mucil to grant a lease as long as there was a proposition to do so on the agenda. It was true it was usual to refer matters of that kind to the Finance Com- mittee aDd it was necessary for the sake of pro- cedure. In that case it was not necessary, because terms had been given before. Mr Salmon had given notice of motion and the proposition was per- fectly in order. Mr WILLIAMS asked if the other resolution should not be first cancelled but the MAYOR replied and said the proposition was perfectly in order. Mr Williams having said he accepted the Mayor's ruling, Mr SALMON moved his proposition and said the application had been repeatedly before the Council. There might be a little business dulness in the applicant in regard to other matters, for when the Council found he was going to claim damages they naturally refused renewal until he waived his claim. Mr Hopkins attended a meeting of the Committee and there withdrew his claim. The Committee, however, wanted it in writing and Mr Hopkins wisely complied. At the meeting, how- ever, the Chairman ruled the proposition to renew on the old terms out of order. Mr WILLIAMS said that Mr Salmon by the terms of his proposition proved that he was right. Mr SALMON denied that he had proved anything at all, adding that Mr Williams put him in mind of President Kruger and Mr Milner. (Laughter.) The MAYOR—Oh, the Transvaal has nothing to do with it. (Renewed laughter.) Mr SALMON added that Mr Hopkins had not been treated as the Committee promised he should be treated if he sent a letter withdrawing his claim. Mr WILLIAMS said the terms were that the ap- plication would be considered if he withdrew his claim. Mr SALMON added that Mr Williams observed that the time at the Committee meeting was getting late to consider the letter. [Mr WILLIAMS Quite right.] He did not know why Mr Williams was so reluctant to go into it. [Mr WILLIAMS I was not at all.] Mr Williams said it was a new ap- plication and the majority of the Committee said it was not, but the renewal should be given on the old terms if Mr Hopkins withdrew his claim. Mr Williams refused to put the proposition to renew and he (Mr Salmon) had no alternative but to put it on the agenda. He hoped the matter would be dealt with without ill-feeling either by Mr Wil liams or anybody else. [Mr WILLIAMS I have no ill-feeling.] Alderman PALMER seconded the proposition, re- marking that he was not at the Committee meet- ing, but when he read the account in the papers, he must say he was surprised because he thought it the duty of a Chairman to put the wishes of the majority. Mr WILLIAMS—Certainly not unless they are legal. Alderman PALMER thought it would be better if Mr Williams had put the proposition and then had objected to the recommendation in Council. When ne was chairman he always put the re- commendation even if it was against his own opinions. Perhaps it was a sore p)int, but he mightsay that he was oncechairman of the Committee for ooe year. During that year, towards the end of it, he brought in a recommendation that the lease of Mr Gibson's property in Terrace-road should be granted to Mr Gibson. The MAYOR—I don't see the bearing of that. We are now discussing this proposition. Aldenman PALMER—I only want to speak about the question of the chairman of the Committee. The MA YOR- Very well then. Alderman PALMER said he was chairman of the Committee when there were three for and three against the recommendation granting the lease to Mr Gibson—or four for and four against-and he gave his casting vote that the recommendation should go to the Council. Mr Williams ob jected. Mr WILLIAMS said in that case there was no re- solution to the contrary. That waa the difference. Alderman PALMER added that he had no business as chairman to send the recommendation to the Council, but on his vote it was sent to the Council. Mr WILLIAMS said there was no resolution on the book with regard to that, but there was a resolution with regard to Mr Hopkins's lease. The MAYOR said that Mr Palmer was discussing Mr Williams's conduct as chairman of the Com- mittee. Alderman PALMER added that the recommenda- tion was made to the Council when Mr WTilliams proposed that the Council should wait until applica- tion had been made to the Local Government Board as to whether the Council could grant that lease. The Council agreed to Mr Williams's recommenda- tion. Mr WILLIAMS said that was not the actual state of things. Alderman PALMER—Well, I will leave it. Mr WILLIAMS—You had better because you show clearly that you do not understand it. Afaerman PALMER supposed he was not capable of finance as much as other members, but he was only chairman for one year and Mr Williams was elected to the chair. Mr WILLIAMS-Is that a grievance ? You shall have the chair now if you like. Alderman PALMER said that Mr Williams as chairman of the Finance; Committee had not brought the question of Mr Gibson's lease before the Council. Mr WILLIAMS replied that he had very good reason. There had been no application. [This is incorrect, but we suppose quite fair. An application was mafle years ago. The applicant was told that he-must buy a portion of back premises belonging to Mr Wheatley. He bought the premises at a coat of £40. Then the Council wrote tp the Local Government Board. The application has never been withdrawn and has never been settled.—ED. Alderman PALMER—Surely you ought to have brought it forward after the answer of the Local Government Board. Mr WILLIAMS—It was read here. I take it, I have no part in that. You are wrong, Mr Palmer. Captain DOUGHTON-I do not see what this has got to do with it. I rise to a point of order. Mr Palmer is out of order when he brings on matters that have nothing at all to do with it. Mr WILLIAMS—There is no parallel The MAYOR—Order. Will you proceed, Mr Palmer? Captain DocGHTo-And keep to the point or we shall be here all day. Mr PALMER continued by contending that any matter referred to a committee should be reported upon by that committee. In the olden time, he added, the saying was that anything referred to the Public W orks Committee was dead, but now everything was pushed on by that Committee. Mr WILLIAMS said it never was before the Com- mittee and Mr Palmer was wholly incorrect. The MAYOR—It was referred. Allerman PALMER said it was referred to the Finance Committee and Mr Williams ought to have brought forward what the recommendation of that Committee .was. He ought to take the ruling of the whole Committee and not say This is my law." Mr WILLIAMS said he gave his reason. He ob- jected to Mr Palmer's statement. He did not say that that was his law. He called attention to what the Council had done and said they could not go behind it. Alderman PALMER replied that Mr Williams told the Committee that they could not do any- thing. The Council might as well refer matters to one man. Mr WILLIAMS—You are wrong and are evading the point. Alderman PALMER—Isayit wasyourduty to bring in a report to the Committee whatever was your opinion. Mr WILLIAMS—I say that the Council had can- Jelled it and there was no right to make the pro- position. Alderman PALMER concluded by seconding Mr Salmon's proposition. The MAYOR then said the proposition was before ( ;he meeting and asked if any members desired to 'peak. t Mr PEAKE said the Council knew his sentiments ( .vith regard to that lease. The matter should have aeen dealt with before. When Mr Hopkins attended the Finance Committee it was practically 1 understood among the members of the Committee^ v then present that if Mr Hopkins waived his claim 0 the Committee would that week have recommended v that he should have his lease. He (Mr Peake). v failed to see any difference between that meeting v and now. The matter had been before the Finance s Committee time after time, the property had been I t visited, and there was not much difference between t the property now and what it was in 1895. t Mr ROBERT DOUGHTON—I don't see in this I matter what it is all about. (Laughter.) I don't 1 think there is a single member here but who agrees E to give the lease to Mr Hopkins. > Mr WILLIAMS—No, not one. It is only a ques- tion of procedure. < Mr ROBERT DOUGHTON—I have not heard of one objecting to give him his lease. What I object to is doing an irregular thing. Mr WILLIAMS—Quite right. Mr ROBERT DOLUHTO-If the Finance Com- mittùe refuses to bring in a report —— Alderman PETER JONES—The Committee did not refuse. That is a fact. Mr WILLIAMS—But they said that a report would be brought in by the next meeting after visiting. Mr ROBERT DOUGHTON—Let them do their duty. I he MAYOR—We tritd to do it, but the Chair- rcan would not allow it. Mr WILLIAMS—We said that the report would be brought in in a fortnight. I protest against the remarks made which are unfair to me. The terms will probably be the same in the end. Mr ROBERT DOUGHTON—It is rushing the thing through. We have never done such a thing before. Mr WILLIAMS—Never. Mr ROBERT DOUGHTON—Wrait another fortnight. What harm will be done in that? In future you cannot th 11 say Here is a precedent," and people will not say You rushed Mr Hopkins's through why not rush mine?" Mr WILLIAMS—They will not only have a pre- cedent. They will have a right. Mr SALMON—This is done in the regular way. Mr" WILLIAMS—No, it is not. The MAYOR—Order. Mr ROLlmT DOUGHTON continued by saying that the lease had been cancelled. That was a fresh application and must go through the regular course, People would say the Council were giving favours to Mr Hopkins which they were not prepared to give to people outside the Council. Let the Committee visit the premises and bring in a report and let the Council have a fight then if they wanted to fight. (Laughter.) To test the matter, he proposed that it should be left in the hands of the Finance Com- mittee just like anything else. Mr JOHN JENKINS seconded the amendment. Alderman PETER JONES thought the Council had discussed a great many questions which appeared to him to be rather irrelevant to the subject matter of the debate. He thought therefore it would be well to hark back to the state of things which existed when the application was made in the first instance for renewal of the lease by Mr Hopkins. Oa that occasion the Committee were desirous of effecting what at that period they thought would be a great improvement in that particular part of the town, and if he rightly remembered he and Captain Doughton were deputed to try to come to terms with Mr Hopkins so as to be able to heighten the roadway and not cause any inconvenience to Mr Hopkins. Mr ROBERT DOUGHTON-I rise to a point of order. The MAYOR—What is your point of order? Mr ROBERT DOUGHTON-That it has nothing to do with the case. The MAYOR—I consider that interruption quite unnecessary. Mr R. J. JONES-I think it has everything to do with the case, and in a very practical manner, too. Mr WILLIAMS — Yes, if he agrees with yeu. The MAYOR (sharply)—Is that a reference to me ? Mr WILLIAMS—No, Mr PETER JOKES, continuing his remarks, said that the Committee made a certain concession to Mr Hopkins consequent upon his allowing the Council to raise the roadway, and Mr Hopkins had carried into effect that arrangement. It was therefore the duty of the Council to carry into effect their part of the arrangement. Circumstances arose, partly of a legal kind and others of a financial nature in a claim made by Mr Hopkins which retarded that matter. There was the matter of the reversionary interest, which was settled on ad vice obtained by Mr Hughes, but which was doubtful in 1894 or 1895. Mr WILLIAMS replied that Mr Hopkins did not raise that question as would be seen by newspaper cuttings. Alderman PETER JONES reported that he had not a single cutting. (Laughter.) When reports in the newspapers did not agree with certain members' views, they were not correct, but when they did agree they were like the laws of the Medes and Persians. (Laughter.) He was simply giving what occurred to his recollection. When Mr Hopkins waived his claim it cleared the ground and placed the Council in the original position of 1895 when Mr Hopkins allowed the Council to effect the im- provements. Therefore, he (Alderman Jones) thought it the duty of the Council to grant the lease on the 1895 conditions because the Council reverted to the original state of things. tMr Williams said that technically it would not be right to do so but he (Mr Jones) said that technicalities had been complied with. A fresh application had been made, notice had been put on the agenda, and referred to the Committee and it was competent for the Committee to have dealt with it at the last meeting. Mr WILLIAMS—Not in that form perhaps. Alderman PETER JONES-I take it that all techni- calities have been complied with. Mr WILLIAMS—You may contend that. Alderman PETER JOKES added that in other cases the Council had given terms identical with those previously given. Mrs Elizabeth James made an application for renewal of lease —— Mr WILLIAMS—Mrs James's lease had not been cancelled by the Council. I wish to put you right. Alderman JOEs-That does not affect it. Mr WILLIAMS—But it does affect it because you have made a point of it. Alderman JoxEsBut allow me to proceed. Mr WILHAMS—And allow me to put you right when you make a mistake. Alderman JONES—I trust Mr Williams will appre- ciate my recognition of his assistance in the same way as he tenders it. Mr WILLIAlIIS- Yes. without the sarcasm. Alderman JONES, continuing his remarks, said that certain conditions were given Mrs James. The matter came before the Committee again who in their wisdom varied the condition and brought in a report to thft effect, but the Council at its meeting agreed to the conditions previously given. Mr WILLIAMS again said that lease had not been cancelled and hoped members would deal fairly with him. Alderman JONES said they were discussing a business matter and did not see what personalities had to do with it. The Council in that case was only doing what they had done in Mrs James's case. Mr WTILLIAMS—Clearly they are, because this was scheduled and the other was not. Alderman JONES said he set aside scheduling as having no bearing upon that part of the case. In the case of Mrs James, the Council set aside the variations and granted the lease on the original terms. Now, what was different in Mr Hopkins's case ? Mr WILLIAMS-Because his lease was scheduled. Alderman JONES said that Mr Hopkins had com- plied with the terms of scheduling and what was there to debar the Council from reverting to the conditions when the terms, as far as the Council were concerned, had been carried into effect ? Mr WILLIAMS denied that that had been done. Alderman JONES said he was sorry he had not made himself clear and used the word "obtuse," which Mr WILLIAMS objected to and asked that it should be withdrawn. The MAYOR asked Mr Jones to confine himself to the point and if he had made any reflection on Mr Williams to withdraw it. He (the Mayor) did not hear it, but if he had done so, would he with- draw it? Alderman JONES—Very well; but he must go upon what I said and not upon his construction of it. Captain DOUGHTo-I move that we get on. The papers will sell well this week. (Laughter.) Alderman JONES, continuing, believed that the terms now given Mr Hopkius were fair and reasonable when the Council con- sidered the circumstances which existed at the time. The lease would date from that time and the conditions should be those which ex- isted at that time. If anything fresh had arisen it could be dealt with under the terms of the lease in regard to dilapidations. He said he was perfectly consistent with what he had said pre- viously in saying that the terms would be some- what identical. There, however, the circumstances were exceptional because of-raising the road. Mr WILLIAMS said that Alderman Jones had favoured the Council with a considerable amount of information concerning that case, but not all the information. When the Council were negotiating with Mr Hopkins they did so entirely on the grouud that Mr Hopkins was owner of the workshop. Captain Doughton, who at that time was very intimate with Mr Hop- kins and acted as his spokesman in the Coun- cil (Laug hter.) Mr ROBERT DOGGHTON-Ah. Mr WILLIAMS—Said that until the Council re- ceived Miss Lewis's letter he never dreamt that Mr Hopkins was not ewner of the workshop. Alderman Jones and we all were labouring under ¡ the delusion. Mr ROBERT DOUGHTON—Well, well. (Laughter.) Mr WILLIAMS added that with all his plausi- bility Alderman Jones could not make a case out of it. Mr Hopkins was tenant and not owner, and yet the Council treated him as owner in the negotia- tions by which Mr Hopkins was to receive £:35 as compensation for depreciation ot his workshop. Alderman PALMER—It was not paid. Mr WILLIAMS admitted that, but said it proved his case. On the understanding that Mr Hopkins pas owner, the committee recommended renewal n a basis of £ 10 ratable value. Objection vas taken to the amount and the matter vas referred back, and in a few days after a letter vas received from Miss Lewis, Llanon, saying that he was the owner and that Mr Hopkins was only enant, paying f3 per annum rent. Everybody altered their position and expressed surprise ,hat they had been misled, being under the im- }res.don that Mr Hopkins was the owner. The natter was discussed at the Finance Committee, md Mr R. J. Jones said, Dear me, did you know ,vhen you were making those remarks at the ast Council meeting that Mr Hopkins was the Dwner ? Mr R. J. -JONES—I must disclaim that. Mr WILLIAMS—It is in all the local papers. The MAYOR—Have you got that cutting? Mr WILLIAMS—No, I have not got it here, but [ cm supply Mr Jones with it. Then, continued Mr Williams, the whole thing dropped and the Council did not hear anything more for twelve months. The £35 went because Mr Hopkins was not the owner. Mr R. J. JONES—Mr Hopkins refused to accept f30 and allowed the work to be done by the Coun- cil. Mr WILLIAMS—We never heard of it again for twelve months. Then Messrs R. J. Jones, John Watkins, and Dr Harries met in committee. Alderman PALM KR thought the Council did the improvement to the road. Mr W ILLIAMS asked Mr Palmer to kindly wait a bit. Messrs Jones, Watkins, and Harries met in Finance Committee and made a certain recommenda- tion. In the first recommendation Mr Hopkins was to receive £3. but objection way raised to the price as well as to tne ratable value taken as basis, the rental being fixed at £10. When it was found that Mr Hopkms was not owner the whole thing fell through. In 1S95, however, the FinaucHCorninittee consisting of three persons presented a report leaving out the question of compensation altogether. The bare terms and conditions for repair alone remained and that le- port was ultimately agreed to. Mr R. J. JONES — Why was that done? Simply beciuse the improvement had been effected long before that time. The MAYOR—By the Council. Mr R. J. JONES—Put it fair. You want to show what the three members did ;but put it fair. The improvement had been done. Would it not be un- fair to put it in then when the improvement had been carried ou", by the Council? It would be absurd. Mr WILLIAMS asked if it would have been absurd after the Council had found out that Mr Hopkins was not the c wner ? Mr SALMON—Mr Hopkins was occupier and could object to the work being done. Mr WILLIAMS added that compensation was left out because it was found that Mr Hopkins was not owner. Mr R. J. JONES denied it and said he knew it be- cause he was at the Finance Committee at the time when the recommendation was made. Mr WILLIAMS retorted that Mr Jones knew some secrets perhaps^; but nothing came out to the ublic. Mr R. J. JONES—You are not fair. Mr WILLIAMS—Yes, perfectly fair. Knowing that Mr Hopkins was not owner you left out the compensation. Mr R. J. JONEs-I say emphatically no. The MAYOR-fr Jones was present and knows what was done. You cannot possibly knCw what was in their minds. Mr R. J. JOEs-It is not fair. The road had been improved. Mr WILLIAMS-My point is that the whole posi- tion changed when it was found that Mr Hopkins was not owner. Alderman JONES—Those reasons are not stated in the report ? The MAYOR—No. Alderman JoxEsOh Mr C. M. WILT. 1 AMS, continuing his remarks, said that miles of falsehoods had been said over that matter, not in the Counji), and it was w, Ii that the public should know the actual state of things. If there was any depreciation it was s. depreciation of the property of the owner who did not ask for a penny compensation. The MAYOR-All the inconvenience was the tenant's. Mr WILLIAMS—At £:3 a year rent. Mr PEAKE—That does not matter. Mr WILLIAMS—If the rent paid was f20 —— Mr R. J. JONES—He had the promise of a lease, Mr WILLIAMS said the Council treated with Mr Hopkins as owner and when they found that he was not the owner they altered the terms. If the Council granted the lease on the ratable value of £10, it would be one of the grossest cases of unfairness to others, because the basis without exception had never been less than the ratable value and sometimes considerably mere. Alderman PALMER— I must rise to a point of ■rder, It is net right for Mr Williams to say that the whole body of the Council aie unfair. We all seem to be unfair according to Mr Williams except him. MR WILLIAMS-It is my opinion, The MAYOR—Order, order. Mr Williams is perfectly right ui expressing his opinion and if that is his opinion of the Council, I do not see that we have any reason to object to it, but to take it at its value. Mr WILLIAMS—Yes, I take things at their value. You, Mr Mayor, often say things which I take at their value. Mr R. J. JONES—I think we had better adjourn for dinner. (Laughter.) The MAYOR—Tnere will be no adjournment until you finish this matter. (Renewed laughter.) Mr X\ ILLIAMS, still continuing, said the Council acted en the give-and-take principle in quoting £10 as the ratable value. Mr R. J. JONES—Was not that more than the ratable value ? Alderman PALMER—The ratable value was JE8. Mr WILLIAMS—That is not correct. The MAY'OR—-Well, will you say what is correct ? Mr WILLTAMS—In 1895 the ratable value of Mr Hopkins's own house was £14. I believe the other was £11 or JE12. Afterward the ratable value of Mr Hopkins's own house was reduced to £12. Mr SALMON—What year was that ? Mr WILLIAMS—You can look up the year. I mention the fact that the basis was put at £10 on the give-and-take principle. Mr R. J. JONES—We have not got our cuttings. Mr WILLIAMS—But you can keep cuttings the samp as I do. Alderman DAVID ROBERTS—Let Mr Williams get on Alderman PETER J ONES-Oh, dear me. (Laughter). Mr WILLIAMs-It may not be satisfactory to Mr Peter Jones, but I intend going on. Alderman PETER JONEs-Comb your hair Mr Williams. (Laughter.) The MAYOR—I must appeal to you to go on. Mr WILLIAMS (replying to Alderman Jones)—I do not know about my hair. I may be losing my hair, but Mr Jones has lost his head. (Laughter.) The MAYOR—Oh, do let us go on. Mr WILLIAMS—Alderman Jones asked me to comb my hair and I retort by saying that if I am losing my hair he will be losing his head beforq long. I am not going to have these remarks. I have had enough of them. Alderman PETER JONES—Mr Williams never uses them. Mr WILLIAMS—No I have some regard for other people's feelings and you have none. A Member having asked for order, the MAYOR said that Mr Williams was perfectly in order if he would only go on. Mr WILLIAMS, continuing, said that in 1892 the ratable value was JE8. The Committee did not regard that as the right rateable value and fixed JE12. When the report was presented Mr Hopkins said, "I wish to say that Mr Daniel Morgans, Captain 0 Nen Rees, Captain Jones, and myself beg to withdraw our applications for re- newal of leases in Shipbuilders'-row because of the unfair and unjust way you have extended the leases of the town." Then he charged Mr Powell and the Mayor with getting some tremendous advantage and wound up by saying that members of the Council were getting undue advantages, and then Mr-Peter Jones, as became an old member, called upon Mr Hopkins to bring a specific charge. The MAYOR—Surely we need not go into these things now. Mr WILLIAMS, again continuing his remarks, said in 1S92 the Committee fixed the ratable basis at £12 and, treating with Mr Hopkins as owner of the yard, recommeuded that it should be reduced to £10. Knowing what the Council did know now, was it fair to give Mr Hopkins a lease below ratable value ? But whether the Council went back to 1895 or started from now, any member could see that the house Mr Hopkins occupied was worth JE17 or 118 to let. Mr SALMON—In consequence of the improve- ments. Mr W7ILLIAMS replied that there had been no im- provements. Captain Humphreys lived there and put in a bath house. The Council was supposed to renew on a fair letting value and was £10 a fair letting value? He hoped that Alderman Jones would forgive him, but when Mr Hopkins claimed a right to renewal as a ratepayer, Aldermau Jones at once disabused his mind of that idea. The question is, he then said, "what is the fair and reasonable value of the premises. If thA. Committee said £10 was the tip-tnp rent which could be obtained in the market he would recognize their decision though he would differ from it." Was not that clear proof, continued Mr Williams, that Alderman J ones did not considerate the fair ratable value of Mr Hopkins's house? It was now pro- posed to give Mr Hopkins a renewal on £8 10s. after deducting 15 per cent a* was customary from the ratable value fixed at £10 In 1895. Mr PEAKE asked to be allowed to give his version of the affair. He knew that Mr Hopkins had been proved not to be the owner before he (Mr Peake) became member of the Council, and that was in 1894. Those terms were given in 1895 after the Council knew that Mr Hopkins was not owner. Mr WILLIAMS "-aid if the majority of the Council Continued on 6