connection with the scheme? [The Mayor "I think that a most bold question, and I shall not think of answering it".] Mr. Ginner put the same question to Mr. Rook, who replied that it was a most improper question, and he should also decline to answer it. Ald. Ginner, continuing, said he thought that gentlemen who advocated new schemes generally put forth their names and announced that the work would cost so much, and that so many thousand shares had been taken up. And therefore, as those gentlemen would not answer his question, he concluded that the first six names - four Aldermen and two Councillors were myths, so far as the harbour was concerned. Ald Rock said he could not see what the names had to do with the question before the meeting, which was whether they should adopt the report of the Committee. In resuming, Ald. Ginner said he thought they were not all bound by that meeting. He remembered that at the meeting when Capt. Sleigh came down, a non-ratepayer seconded the motion in favour of a scheme which was as wild a one as could possibly be. That scheme was taken up by the same gentlemen whose names they saw before them; and he was very sorry that they should think fit to lend their names to two gentlemen who were strangers to them. He should take every opportunity to oppose the scheme both in his public and private capacity.
Coun. Vidler explained the grounds on which he advocated the harbour. He had a house in Eversfield place and two houses in St. Mary-in-the-Castle, and he was perfectly satisfied in his own mind that his property would not be injured by a harbour. It would benefit the parishes of St. Clement's and All Saints, and it would place those houses which Mr. Winter had spoken of in a much better situation. [Like Mr. Vidler, MR. Bromley had a house in Eversfield place, but unlike Mr. Vidler, he did not believe the town would be benefited by a harbour, and he would oppose it with all his might.] Coun. Picknell, as an old inhabitant, had always been in favour of a harbour. They had one of the finest fishing grounds, but three fourths of the boats were unable to put to sea in the winter-time, which would not be the case if they had a harbour. The coal vessels would also be protected, and coals would be half a crown cheaper. [As an "old inhabitant" (like the writer), Mr. Picknell should have known that the fishermen's difficulty during the winter gales was not so much getting to sea as the keeping at sea, and in which latter trouble a harbour would be of no assistance. He should also have recollected that coal vessels, with their freight from the north had been many times been kept back by adverse winds for several weeks in succession, and in which condition also a harbour could have afforded no relief.] Coun. Kenwood said he was one of those to whom Mr. Picknell had alluded as a piler up of bricks and mortar, and -
