Board he confessed that he did not at first understand the position of the water question. Since the last meeting he had taken a great deal of trouble to acquire information, and he did so because he thought that the Board had acted in rather an arbitrary manner towards Mr. Clark. But having gone thoroughly into the matter it was but right that he should say that he had arrived at the opinion that the Board had taken a wise course, and that by extending the mains throughout the western district the inhabitants would get that sort of supply which was greatly required. Mr. Gausden then went largely into figures in defence of the course the Board had taken and concluded amidst general applause.
A Duplicate Engine. At the April meeting the Water Committee recommended the purchase of a duplicate engine for the Waterworks, the estimate of which was about £1,000. Coun. Vidler could not sanction such an expenditure, merely as against a casual accident which might be put to rights in 24 hours. The Board was going ahead too fast. The new reservoirs would supply the town easily during any repairs that might be needed. In reference to this statement the Surveyor said the new reservoirs would contain ten million gallons of water, enough to supply the whole borough for four days. Coun. Bromley thought their present engine would do all that was wanted for some time; that the proposed expenditure was premature; and that it ought not to be incurred till litigation was at an end. Ald. Ginner contended that there would be plenty of work for a new engine to do in supplying the high levels; he trusted there would be no delay. – Coun. Gausden was an advocate for a new engine; it might not be probable, but it was possible for an engine to break down; it was one of the strongest arguments for obtaining the support of the West Ward that the Board could always give a good supply. On the proposition of Ald. Ross the consideration of the report was deferred till the next meeting by a majority of 14 to 5. At the next and following meetings, however, there was no report.
Litigation or Compromise. – At the same (April) meeting, the Clerk reported that Mr. Clark’s Bill was withdrawn on the 19th of March, it being decided that as the Standing Orders had not been complied with it could not go on, but Mr. Clark had obtained leave to introduce another bill. As to the Chancery suit, the Vice Chancellor had refused the injunction, but suggested to plaintiff that it should be set down as a motion for a decree. Mr. Clark had given notice of his intention to do so. A correspondence was next read that had taken place between the Clerk (Mr. Growse) and the plaintiff’s solicitor in which the latter offered the Eversfield Waterworks for sale on terms to be fixed by two arbitrators and a referee. But Mr. Clark, himself, had also written, intimating that he did not acquiesce in such offer and wishing the letter to be returned. The generally expressed opinion of the Board was that it was useless to attempt to negociate(sic) with Mr. Clark.
Another Offer. At the next meeting (May 3rd) the Committee reported that an offer on Mr. Clark’s behalf had been received for the sale of the Eversfield Waterworks at £9,360, Mr. C. retaining 4 acres of land. The Com-
