Conference of Thames Borough and County Councillors.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2501, 11 January 1877, Page 2

Conference of Thames Borough and County Councillors.

This meeting was continued after we went to press yesterday, and the following is a brief resume of what was done :—

The point of whether Dr ELilgour's motion was an amendment or a negative on the motion was again raised, and the Mayor ruled that " Dr Kilgour's motion was a negative, with two words added for the purpose of catching stray votes," Cr Gibbons pointed out that the councillors present had no power to amalgamate the County and Borough, but that the question would have to be referred to the ratepayers, and the sooner that was done the better.

The Mayor said the proceedings of the meeting could only be for the enlightenment of their constituents as to the views of their members " pro and con:" Cr Keushaw said he really had not had time to examine the two Acts, and could not honestly pass an opinion as to which would be most advantageous for the district. He urged the postponement of the question. He then moved an amendment to the effect that it was not advisable at this early stage of proceedings to come to a hasty decision on the matter.

Cr Macnab seconded the motion.

Cr Bagnall said they were simply there to express their own opinions, and not to bind the ratepayers. He read sections of the Act. He said he had long had the opinion that one of the biggest mistakes they had ever made at the Thames was the formation of the Thames Borough. He advocated money being spent outside the Borough so as to open up the country, and urged that the union of the County and Borough should take place. Mr Eowe replied on his motion, and repudiated all idea or intention of taking either the Borough or County rates to keep the Big Pump going, and said that if the Big Pump had to be kept going by such means it would not be kept going at all. He made a very able speech on the subject. Cr Mitchell said, as the meeting was not unanimous, he suggested an adjournment until the next day.

Cr Eilgour thought the proposed adjournment to be for too short a time. A long series of remarks then ensued, and Cr Kilgour took his hat and left the meeting. His example was followed by Crs Butt, Bead, Macnab, Coutts and Thorp. Cr Rowe's motion was then put and carried, seven voting for it, and no one against it; Cr Eenshaw not voting. The meeting was adjourned until 3 o'clock to-day.