The Weekly News and Visitors' Chronicle for Colwyn Bay Colwyn Llandrillo Conway Deganwy and Neighbourhood

CONWAY. A GOOD PLACE FOR Boors.—For the best and cheapest of all ctasses of Boots and Shoes go to Joseph Jones, Berry Street, Conway. Best Shop for repairing, adv. toq— PHILHARMONIC SOCIETY.—The nrst practice was held last Wednesday evening, when there was a pretty good attendance. The next practice will be held at 8 p.m sharp Wednesday evening next. SEtON CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH.—On Tues- day evening, December 31 st, ',Ihe Scion Congre- gational Church Young Peopled Mutua) Improve- ment Society held their annud soiree at the Connexional Schoolroom, the President (Rev. T. D. Jones) in the chair. After a very enjoyabte supper served by the ladies of the congregation, an entertainment was held, and a pleasant evening was spent, the young people of the congregation rendering dialogues, recitations, and vocal and instrumental music. CONWAY DISTRICT NURSE ASSOCIATION._The annual meeting of the Conway District Nurse Association (ot which the Mayorcssof Conway is Hon. Secretary), wiH be held, at the Guitd Hall, Conway, at three o'clock this (Friday) afternoon, January roth. THE POST-OFFICE ANNUAL SUPPER.—A few hours previous to the departure of the Otd Year, the Omciats of the Conway Post-Omce, resorted to the Aberconway Temperance Hotel, and partook of their annua) supper, prepared in ex- ceHent style by Mrs Jones. After the supper, a very social evening was spent. A vote of thanks was passed to all who had so kind)y contributed towards making the evening so great a success. A GRANT TO THE LOCAL BAPTIST CAUSE.— Among the grants for 1806. voted, by the Baptists of Carnarvonshire, to the weak Churches of the denomination in the county, appears the following: —Conway and Deganwy, £ g. A STEAM-YACHT FOR THE CONWAY FISHERIES. —Mr. Pitcher's 10-ton steam-yacht Yorkshire Lass has just been Htted up, under Captain John Riinmer, for fishing purposes, and good catches have been the ruie during the Hrst few days of the experiment of utilizing a steam-propetted vessel in the Bsheries of Conway. DiSTRtRUTION OF XMASTIDE COALS.—This Christmastide, with his usual thoughtfuhiess, Mr. Atbert Wood, J.P., D.L., ofBodiondeb, distri- buted, among the widows of Conway, in tots of 6 cwt each, a quantity of coats (procured through Messrs. Roberts & Co., Conway Quay). The Mayor (Councillor Humphrey Lewis, J. P.) has also distributed about 20 tons to the widows and old people. PATENT NEWS.—We observe, from the custom- ary omcial notification, that a Patent (numbered 23984, and dated 14th December, 1895), has been granted to Mr. J. W. Post and to Mr. W. Carty of Conway, for "An improvement in connexion with the extinguishing of oit-tamp- The im- provement, which is the invention of Mr. Post, is simplicity itself, and is applicable to most existing parafin-lamps, the exptosion of which on extin- guishment will be reduced to a minimum by its use. A TREAT FOR THE UNION WORKHOUSE JUVEN- ILES.—On Friday evening, January 3rd, the children of the Conway Union Workouse were treated to an entertainment consisting of views in the Holy Land (and others of local interest), by the means of a Maggie Lantern, under the manipu- lation of Alderman H. Hughes, assisted by Mr W. H. Jones, and the various views shown being described by Alderman H. Hughes. This treat, again, is due to the kindness of Alderman Hughes and Mr Roger Williams, who deserve great praise for their thoughtfulness in catering an enjoyable evening for the poor. TABERNACL (WELSH WESLEYAN) MUTUAL IM- PROVEMENT SOCIETY.—On Monday evening, Jan- uary 6th, the ordinary meeting of the above- named Society, was held, under the presidency of the Rev 0. Evans, when Mr Thomas Jones (Railway Terrace) read a very able paper on "The Year 18gs.Several members having supported the paper, a hearty vote of thanks was accorded the reader.—Next Monday evening, January 13th, will be a Reading Night. SERIOUS ILLNESS OF SUPT H. D. WILLIAMS.—, By a large circle of friends sympathy will be exti pressed with the retatives of Superintendent H D. Winiams, who, whitst engaged in the busine'e' of the Conway Petty Sessions on January 6t'K fett so unwell that he retired from the Court, ar31 afterwards fainted. Hewasremovf to his pri- vate apartments, where he was attided by Dr Dalton and CounciHor Dr R. Arthr-Prichard, two of the magistrates who were o the Bench. For some hours he was unconsciousbut his con- dition had slightly improved late th night. His medicat attendants reported that hevas sufferiag from paralysis of the right side. Ms condition was considered very criticat on \)esday and Wednesday. On inquiry yesterd? (Thursday) morning, it was learnt that while,e had had a stroke on Monday afternoon, hehad had no second stroke (as had been rum'red); that he was just a little better when his m<ica[ attendant visited him tate on the Wednesiy night, and that about eleven o'clock that (Thsday) morning he was just about the same, th is to say, the improvement noted the previouMight had not been tost. Dr Prichard and h assistant (Dr Williams) are in frequent attendee. ROYAL CAMHRIAN AcAUEMY.At an R.C.A. Council meetingon Tuesday evetg, January 7th, it was decided, on the motion the President (Mr H. Clarence Whaite, R.\V. to inaugurate the opening of the new Cattery the Academy's historic home, Ptas Mawr, Corny, by a Fancy Dress Baft on February 4th nt, the costumes to be preferably those ot the 'dor period. CONWAY BOARD OFUARDIAXS. At the Conway Hoard of Guard!:) month!y meeting on Friday. January 3rd, the Ch-ill";KR,v W. Venables- Wi))iams) presided, and there wereso present Mr John Davies (Vice-Chairman). the Rev lid Davies.Afderman Hugh Hughes, County-Councillor th Owen. and Messrs John Porter, J. Allanson Picton. "ict PhiHips. Kohert Evans, Edward Williams, Robert E Henry \V)))iams. \V. F. Jones, Hugh Caraher. G. 0. JonTho.nas Roberts, and Richard Jones, and the Clerk (MrTP.trry). A ROMAN CATHOLCHtLU. There being in the neighbourh no Roman Catho)ic Schoo) for pauper children, the 'rk was Instrm-ted to ascertain a suitable school (in EmJ) tor a boy named Preston. AVOTEOFTXKS. On the motion of Mr J. AHansP'cton. a hearty vote ot' thanks was tendered to the follog tadies and gentlemen. for their Christmas gifts to therkhouse inmates:—The lion. Mrs Llovd NlostN-ii, the-oress (.Mrs Hu.nphrcv Lewis), Mrs Dalton, Miss Duttoivs Goode, Mrs Howarth, Mrs Wood, Mrs HadleV. Mrs We', Dr R. Arthur-Prichard, Mr Caraher. Mr J. Uoyd Jones. Atderman Hugh Hushes. THE The Visitors' Book conUtinettries by the Revs Owen Evans, T. D. Jones, T. Gwyne^oherts, and if. Harrow WiUiams. who testined to the a<.ab)e manner in which the Workhouse is managed. THE NL'MBER (INMATES. The Master (Mr Edward Joneported that there were in theHouse m inmates.and th4\'an-rants had visitedt)]e establishmettt. PAUPER L^TICS. It was decided to support th'untyConnci)s Association in a resolution in favour of insing the grant for pauper lunatics connned in the\Vorkh. AN ALLEGATTACK. Authority was given to prJte a pauper Inmate (John Thomas, hailing from Llyst. tor attacking the House Porter with a cleaver and I ki THE FINANCIAL ST: OF LLANELIAN. The Chairman read a tettfm Mr Horthwick (formeriy the Guardian for Llanelian)ying that Danehan was (as reported to the Board's' pres meeting) in arrear to the amount of £ 260; the amountrrear was only ^"74.. The C)erk said that Mrrthwick had mixed up two matters.—the Rural Distrounci) and the Board of Guardians. The arrears at resent date were £ 266. The rate had not been based suntly high. The Chairman remarked lot all the various parishes in the Union. Uanehan was on)y one whose Assistant- Overseer was not appointeihe Guardians, the office being vested in the parishioners. MrJ.AHansonPicton'd. and Mr Henry WiDiams seconded, and the Board cd. that proceedings be taken against the parish of Dan tor the amount due on the call. Councillor Hugh Owen n* to rescind a resolution (passed at a prev.ous meeting) to >e with block flooring the Hoor in the children's day-roo'le maintainedthat theWork- house children compared f'ably in health and appearance with children outside, an considered to carry out the suggested aheration wouan unnecessary expanse, which the ratepayers should not-lied upon to bear. Mr VV, F. Jones seconi. The Chairman stronglyunced anything like a pennv- wis): pound-foolish" pof'the treatment of the children. to *ho,ii the Board of Gans stood in loco parentis. As Christian fileti, they oujO do everything they could to protect the, children's heaid to proti'o te their comfort. Mr Caraher supDorte Olairm-tn. and mentioned that the Local d Inspector (Mr Bircham) had strongly recommended tHouse Committee the suggested alteration. Mr J. AUanson Pic'bserved that. apart from Mr Bircham's recommend:<hat this work shoutd bj carried out, the Guardians wernd to exercise as careful a watch over the life and healtthese children as each Guardian would maintain with rfito his own children at home. Mr W. F. Jones topoke, and complained that Mr Bircham's report had i £ n communicated to the Board. The motion was to 4. -111 Hugh Carahcposed, and Mr Picton seconded, that the tender of MM. & J. Williams. High-street, Conway.be accepted. Alderman Hugh H moved, as an amendment, that freshtendersheinvitt Councillor Hugh 0«conded the amendment. The original motiorcarried by 8 votes to 5. DEFNG A LETTER. It was reported tha morning a long Welsh letter had been received.and th.Clerk had not had time to read it. to get It the it. The Chairman now inquired whether the letter wceep till the next meeting, and was inforrncd that it wceep. and therefore said that the letter should be left t next meeting. Alderman Hug-h H complained that the letter should lie thrown awav, —setters were treated one way. and someanotherway. The Chairman sat he had been informed that it would wait. Alderman Hugh Is again protested, but the Chairman decided that the lettrht wait. A OtON OF FINANCE. Seieral bills wetsented which had not been brought hefore the Finance nittee, these having been received at the t.T.stmoment;'mo\'edand seconded.thataUhiUs (except the one to Nurses at Penrhynside) should be referrej to the Fii1'°'nrn'tl:ee- Alderman Hughes moved, and Mr W. F. Jones seco!)dt-d. an amett that a)t the bills be referred to the Finalce Committe Th; amendmenthen put anddost. Thi Clerk repeat the Sanitary Inspector had given hi.n a bill for supiWcured in coniiexior, with the typhoid fever ILI tl)reak qt N-ide, but that several items were incluiej which chargeable to the Kura) District ] Coun;;i, and the !s returne-i for the e!imination of these items 'phe nexou ot the h!H still contained some of thesejtems- and turned for correction. It was desirable that he bill shie paid soon, or the supplies might be stopM. It'-asdecidedthis (andai) the other bi))s)shou)dhe referej to the 'ce Committee (at a special illeetiji., to be hjj within days) with authority to paythehi!?s if corr^t. Th Board that the Clerk request the Lady Augst t Most'lend the Penrhynside Mission-Room for an U'ectious ses Hospital, as recommended by the Med;;l] Qflicind the Clerk was authorised to make arra„crne,|ts ocuring necessary furniture. <ON\VAND LL\NDUDNO PETTY SESSIONS. C»WAY,NDAY, JANUARY 6rH.—Before Henry KnighaW, (chairman); CounciHor Dr R Arthur- Prita.rd; aty CounoiHor C. H. Darbiahire: Dr Da'jn; 'Jia.nson Picton, Esq; Ephraim Wood, Ms( and Da.vies, Esq. A RIOT IN CONWAY. IjharftaH'8* 2, High Street, Penmaenmewr, wa.ohtt.with a.t.tempting' to rescue a prisoner (J'h SaRailway Cattage, Pdnnia.euma.wr) out of thehan^ the poUce at Conwa.y, nn Saturday e,ving,vomber 30th.-Su.pt. H. D. WiHia,tus pt'<ieu<on behalf of the police.—The Bench it'fteJ"s of 10j and costs. jjjiUth, H.a.il\vay Cottage, Penmienmiwr, pUje-Hilty to bein? drunk und disorderty, annuity to assaulting P.O. E. W. P.).rry (30).— P. y gave evidence of the asa!iu)t by the dei<? who was the prisoner whose attempted reiifl occasioned a previous o)Me.—Supt.H. D. Wiporroborated—The Bench fined the defendant 5-).,ts for being drunk, and iS2 and costs for the asji the police. Wynne, Wind Street, Meant Pleasant. Ccwas charged with resisting the police at the sue and place, and was fined 10s and costs. TICKETLESS TRAVELLING. David Lloyd, organist, Bethesda and Blaenau fg, was charged with travelling tioketlesa from Jt Conway, on November 22nd.—Mr Fenna ited on behalf of the L. & N.W. Railway ly, and Mr R. A. Grimths (Carnarvon), 3d.—Mr Fenna read an explanatory letter ant had written to Mr E. A. Neele, enclosing .re from Abor to Conway, which fare w.ts ed to the defendant.—John Roberts, booking- Bingor, proved issuing to the defendant a from Bangor to Aber.—John MuMick&n, guard train by which the defendant travelled, gave ice as to the defendant not having atighted at F At Conway, the ticket-clerk (Mr Blane) went the defendant and brought him back, and, in jias'a hearing, told Blane that he had come from without taking a ticket—Mr William Penny 'ams, porter at Conway, gave evidence as to the ldant having made an inquiry from the wituess having afterwarda passed out without giving up tckot or having one demanded from him.—Henry jhton Btane said that he was in charge at ray station on the morning of November 22nd Acting on information received, the witness d the defendant back after he had left the on, and, in the conversation which followed, the idant offered the exceaa fare, which the witness refused.—For th«j defence. Mr GriSths said that his client had intended to call at Aber en, route to Blaenau Festiniog, but in the train changed his mind. At Conway, there was no one collecting tickets, and the defendant was guilty of carelessness or thoughtless- ness in not having made a point of seeking out the right person to whom to pay the excess fare. The speaker asked the Bench to accept the explanation offered and dismiss the case, or, if they could not do that, to dismiss the case on payment of costs.—The Bench inflicted the full penalty/40/- and costs (10/6). Alfred Flash, Jew pedlar, Uandudno, was charged withtravelling tiokettess from Deganwy to Llandudno. —Mr Fenna prosecuted on behalf of the Railway Company.—The defendant said that he had not noti- ced the train stop at Deganwy, and, on being spoken to by a porter at Llandudno. he had offered the excess fare, which was refused—The Bench lined the defendant 20s and costs. A CHARGE AGAfXST A CONWAY PUBLICAN. Hugh Hughes, stonemason, Machno Terrace, Con- way, was charged with being drunk on the licensed premises of Thomas Jones (The Ea.gies Inn. Conway) who was charged with setting intoxicating liquor to a drunken person.—Mr Humphreys (Llanrwst) prose- cuted on behajf of the police, and Mr Lloyd Carter defended.—P.C. David Wdti<.ms (30) said that, about 8 20 on Saturday evening, December Hth. he saw the defendant Hugh Hughes coming down High-street" drunk. He saw him enter the Eagtes Inn. The witness entered in a minute or two afterwards, ant saw the defendant with a full glass of beer before him Before the witness s.ud a word the licensee asked th" witness whether the defendant Hughes was too drunk to be served, and the witness said that anvwone c )u)d see that he was. After further conversation the de fendant Hughes offered not to drink the beer if the witness would not report Thomas Jones, and Mrs Jones took the beer away. Mrs Jonos told the wit- ness that she would rather give a nve.pound note than do wrong. Cross-examined, the witness said that h-< had not promised not to report the case. The witness knew that Hughes went afterwards to another house (the George and Dragon), and he was not serve t there. The witness did not know of his going to the Hoyal Oak. In answer to the Bench, the witness said that he was perfectly certain th.t Hughes was drunk —ror the defence, Mr Hoyd Carter sud that it was a matter of opinion whether the defendant Hun-h Hughes was drunk, and the opinion that he was drunk was that of one polioe-consttbie; against that he would bring forward several witnesses who would say that Hughes was not drunk. Even if he was drunk it might not he perceptible to the licensed victualler' —Richard Williams, stone-mason, Gytnn, said that he met Hugh Hnghes. on the evening of December Itth. at the bottom of High-street, and went with him into the Eagles. Hughes was then sober. They went into the room on the left-hand side, and there were already in the room a woman, and Mr and Mrs Thomas Jones. The witness and Hughes eabh ha.d a gtass of beer, but Hughes had not begun to drink it before the constable came in. The pjlieenian spoke first and after speaking to Hughes, told the landlord that Hughes ought not to be served, drunk or sober. Cross-examined, the witness said that there were only nve in the room William Williams was in the other ro,)tii. The first words the policeman said were Wel), Hugh. is it here you are The witness di) not hear Thomas Jones ask the onuer whether Hughes was too drunk to be served. Thomas Jones told the noiicemm that Hughes was not drunk.— Hannah Jones, wife of Thomas Jones, corroborated theevidence-in-chicfofthe previous witness as to he and Hughes having been served. The policemm o t entering, was the nrst to speak, and spoke to'the witness, asking her why she had served Hughes 1.- the conversation that followed, Thomas Jones sa: I that Hughes was not too drunk to be served and th.j constable r.aid that Hughes should not be served drunk or sober. On Hughes going out without drink- ing the beer, the policeman told him that, if he went home then, he would have nothing on him about it. Cross-ex unmed. the witness was sure that the police- man spoke first to the witness, and not to Hushes The policeman had sud that Hughes was so drunk that he had been refused liquor at every house in the street. She had not said to the policeman that she would rather lose a five-pound note than do wron" she had not said anything of that sort.—Wdli&m Wiihams, labourer, Ty-gwyn Cottages, C.'nw.ty. said that, on the evening of December 14th, he anj Robert Ellis were at the Eagles Inn, in the room opposite that where Hugh Hughes went. B )th doors were open, and he could see and hear everything that passed in the other room. The policeman '8poke before being addressed by anyone, and he asked who had served Hugh Hughes. Cross-examined, the witness said that he h 3anl the p)Iieem mask lf:i,-h Liughe-) whether ho was He h^ar'.l Thomaa Jones ask the policeman whether Hugh Hughes was too drunk to be served. Mrs Jones had said that she would rather give a five-pound note than do wrong. Margaret Ann Hughes, sister of the defendant Hugh Hughes, said that she was in the habit of going to the different houses to look for her brother, and she went hit) the Eagles after the constable had gone in. Her brother was then sober. Cross-exa- mined, the witness said that her brother was with her the whole time after lie left the Eagles, except when he was maide at Royal Oak; andthsy walked home together from the Rjyal Oak. He was aober then. In answer to the Bench, the witness said that her brother did not go to any other licensed house. He went straight to the Hoyal Oak, from the Eagles. Thomas Jonee, landlord of the Eagles Inn, Conway, said that he was in his house on the evening ot December 14th, when Hugh Hushes and his companion came in. The policeman spoke first, before anyone spoke to him. Cross- examined the witness said that he did not re- member his wife saying that she would rather give a Hve-pound note than do wrong. The policeman never said that Hugh Hughes was drunk. The policeman told the defendant not to serve Hugh Hushes, drunk or sober. The police- man. when going out, said that the witness' house wastheontyptace in the, street that served the defendant. The defendant was sober.—Hugh Hushes said that he remembered going to the Eagies with Richard Wifiiams. He had only two drinks previously, at the George & Dragon. He was sober when he went into the Eagles. The only house he went to after he left the Eagies, was the Royal Oak. He had come from the George & Dragon, striaght to Hie Eagles. The Constable's first words were to ask the witness "Is that you here, Hugh?" He also told him that he was not fit to have beer. In answer to the witness, the constab)eto)dhim that he did not say that he was drunk, but that he was not fit to have beer. Miss Lewis, landlady of the George and Dragon, was catted at the desire of the Bench, and gave evidence as to refusing Hugh Hughe.s drink on December 14th, because she bad determined not to serve him whether he was drunk or sober. She did not notice whether he was drunk.—The Bench nned Hugh Hughes is and costs, and Thomas Jones _4-i and costs, the license not to be endorsed.—The Bench declined to accede to Mr. Carter's application that they should make an order suspending the collection of the fine, pend- ing an appeal. IS THE DEFENDANT SANE ? John Thomas, an inmate of the Conway Union Workhouse, was charged with assaulting Robert WHIiams, the Workhouse porter, -Evidence was given by Robert WiUiams, who said that the defendant held a knife-blade in his hand in the dining-hall, and tried to hit the witness with it earlier, he had tried to hit the witness with a cleaver.—Frank Gotoo, another inmate, corro- borated as to the assault by threatening with the chopper.—The defendant said that he had nothing to say except that he asked the Bench's pardon. —In answer to the Bench, the Workhouse Master (Mr. Edward Jones) said that the defendant was not classed as mentally deficient.—The Bench adjourned the case for a month, with a view to having an enquiry made into the defendant's mental condition.

BALL PROGRAMMES. R. E. JONES & BROS., CENTRAL LIBRARY, 8, Station Road, Colwyn Bay AND Rose Hill Street, Conway. Printed a.nd Published by R. M. Jones & Brothers, at their Printing Works, 3, Rose Hill Street, Conway, and Publiahed at the Central Library, Colwyn Bay.

Before going further, we may here call our readers' attention to the inuendo involved in this M passant observation of Mr Parry's. The only inference we can make from this observation, and, we venture to add, the only inference our readers can make from it, is, that Mr Farrington's Scheme was presented under conditions which ought to have disqualined it from being adopted, and that, as it actually was adopted, some underhand work on the part of the Cowlyd Board, was perpetrated in favour of that Scheme. We invite Mr Parry to say whether that is the inference he intended to be made or not. If not, then his ob- servation in this connexion, is cruelty unnecess- ary, and casts an injurious reflection on the Board. If, on the contrary, our interpretation of the meaning of his remark is correct, then we venture to think that it would have been more satisfactory, in every way. it Mr Parry had made a distinct allegation of unfair dealing in this matter, against the Board of which be it remem- bered he was himself, at the time, a member. Passing on, Mr Parry is reported to have said :— "Mr Newton, injhis report states:—'After the fu))est con- sideration. and with an earnest desire to do full Justice to each of the competitors, I recommend that the premium be awarded to Mr Radford. There the machine stopped tor awhile. Mr Radford was in the way, although he had the premium, and his estimate for the whole of the work at the Lake, including- pipes, mains, fittings, crossing the river Conway and all, with 12 inch pipes from Cowlyd to Sarn Mynach. was £ 23,500, and that was for first-class work. This estimate had never been exceeded by £ ,\oo in any premium work, but away he must go. Mr Farrington was appointed to take charge of the Scheme at the rate of 4 per cent, and not to exceed £ ~$o his remuner- ation was altered if I remember rightly. three times. The last was in October, 1892, not to exceed £ 1000." Here again, a grave insinuation is thrown out against the Board (of which Mr Parry was a member) to the effect that the best Scheme was deliberately thrown on one side to make room for Mr Farrington's Scheme. We invite Mr Parry to say whether this is or is not what he meant to convey. We would also ask Mr Parry whether he voted for or against Mr Farrington's Scheme, not with any arrit're pensde, but simply because, at the moment, we do not remember whether he voted for or against it. Again pro- ceeding, Mr Parry states that Mr Farrington's remuneration was altered three times, if he remembered rightly," a remark which suggests (though Mr Parry makes it without comment), that there was something wrong in these altera- tions. Again we invite Mr Parry to state whether the inference we draw, is that which he desired should be drawn. We would also ask Mr Parrv to state the circumstances under which these alterattons in the Engineer's remuneration were made. and whether he voted for the alteration or against them. Proceeding, Mr Parry gave a list of the tenders received, addmg that "Mr Bug- bird's tender was accepted because it was the lowest, and ample security was asked-for before the contract was signed,"—surely a good reason for the acceptance of the contract, and a wise precaution in connection with its letting. But immediately after this Mr Parry is reported to have said, "The Bridge as you know was a separate contract. Mr Farrington's estimate was, if I remember rightlv, £ 1,600 to cross the river Conway, but, somehow or other (I cannot understand how it occurred, because I was not within the 'Cabinet') the Bridge estimate was raised to £ 5000. This was a good rise at one leap. With, respect to this statement (winch, like the others, conveys an insinuation that some dis- creditable work was perpetrated by the Board), we would ask Mr Parry whether it is not the case that when Mr Farrington estimated ^1600 would cover the expenses in connection with the Bridge, it was the intention of the Engineer to carry the water pipes over the river Conway along the old Suspension Bridge, but that the Local Government Board's Engineer having tabood that idea, it became necessary that an absolutely new Bridge should be thrown across the river, and that it is this new Bridge which was estimated to cost £ 5000. We ask Mr Parry whether that is not so and we also ask him didn't he know that that was so. We would further ask Mr Parry whether he did not vote for the con- struction of the new Bridge, at an estimated cost of >65000. In asking these questions, let us again state, once for all, that in asking these we do not mean to imply that Mr Parry did vote for these things. We simply ask the questions because, at the moment of writing, we don't remember which way Mr Parry did vote on these questions. Continuing, Mr Parry names two "blunders" which the Board (of which, be it remembered Mr Parry was himself a member) was guilty of, the nrst being, "the payment to the Contractor of Liooo on his plant. In other words, to pay him beforehand the grand sum of £ 1000 to enable him to buy horse' carts, tools, etc. I never heard of such a thing being done before." Again we put a question to Mr Parry, and that is, is it not a usual thing for a contractor on entering into a large work of this description, to be advanced some money on the plant he lays down ? Against Mr Parry's reported statement that two gentlemen who subsequently went and saw the plant reported that they would not care to give L200 for the whole concern," we have nothing to urge, but we may remark that though those two gentlemen (whoever they were) might not feel disposed to give L200 for the whole concern," yet the whole concern may have been worth a good deal more than that, and in any case it would have been more to the purpose if those two gentlemen had gone and looked at the plant bejore the Board had advanced the great stim of'L I ooo on it, instead of after. Besides, we would again question Mr Parry, and ask him if he did not vote for the advance of the ^1000 to the Contractor on his plant ? Pursuing his list of the Board's blunders, Mr Parry is reported to have said, "The next blunder the Board made was to take upon them- selves the testing of the pipes, and this cost the ratepayers £ 500. There was no need for the Board to meddle with the pipes at all. If the work was cirried-out properly, and according to the specifications (which I consider were right enough, had the Engineer kept up to them), the pressure of the water would soon test them. With six months' high pressure, the strength of the pipes would be soon told, and, whatever fault there would be, it would fall on the contractor. The £ 500 has been spent in vain, and has not been 1veil sbent.' With all due respect to Mr Parry, we beg to say that, if he is correctly reported, in this sentence he is talking sheer nonsense. He asserts that there was no need for the Board to meddle with (!.< to test) the pipes at all the pressure of the water would soon test them." Aye, so it would, and possibly burst some of them after they had been put in position under the ground, with the result that the water would have had to be turned off, the burst pipes dug up, and new ones obtained and laid down, and subjected to the water test," with perhaps the same result. And what would that have cost ? We venture to say that it would have cost a good deal more than ^500, and, in our opinion, the Board acted wisely in testing the pipes before they were put in the ground. Besidas, we must again question Mr Parry, did he, or did he not, vote for the testing of the pipes ? We now come to a statement of Mr Parry's (as reported) of which we candidly confess we cannot make head or tail. We, therefore, reproduce it, in order that our readers may, if possible, get at the true inwardness of it. Now," Mr Parry is reported to have said, "let me refer to the wonderful Ardda land which has been covered with gold. We cannot give the correct figures, but an immense capital has been made by some members of the Board in attempting to shield the money and the loss of time on the part of the Contractor and Engineer on this wonderful land, as to delay and extras. I am prepared to prove to you that there is nothing in it. or at least there ought not to be anything in It. If the Engineer had done his duty, there would not have been a day lost, nor a farthing extra cost on the original contract. It was the duty of the Engineer to get the sand etc., cleared, for the Contractor to enter upon it. Mr Radford said distinctly, that it was part and parcel of his duty 'if the Scheme was entrusted to him. Also. so far as there was dispute, and the owner of the land would not allow the Contractor to proceed with the work, the duty of the Engineer. according to the specifications, was to give the Contractor notice to stop. But there was no need to stop the works, as there was plenty of room between the Lake and Ardda, and that should be done during the sunmer, and not in the middle of winter. It has been said that the Contractor was stopped foreighteen months. Say from June, 1893, to November, 1894, he has received about ,610,000. I could show you almost immediately what sum the Contractor has received on the contract, and as extras, and, if the Contractor was stopped from doing his work, the money ought to have been stopped as well." The only observation we can make touching the above, is that, though Mr Parry asserts that he is prepared to prove there is nothing in it," and that he could show, almost immediately, what sum the Contradtor has received on the contract and as extras," yet he neither proves that there is nothing in it (whatever that may mean) nor shows "what sums the Contractor has had on the contract and as extras." We also reproduce the next statement made by Mr Parry (as reported), again confessing that we do not foHow his line of reasoning, though we are conscious of a vague inuendo running through it. It is as follows :— "A meeting of the Board was held on March 32nd, 1894, but I could not be present. There were only a few members present,-and they resolved to make the Contractor a present of £ 900. On the following day the Chairman met me on Station Road, and inforini2d me of the fact. I complained.— as I generally do, -and said I could not see how they could have voted the money, as it was entirely against the specifica- tions and agreement" The Chairman replied, warmly, But you must see". and then ran away. At the next meeting of Board, I protested against such action, and the Chairman endeavoured to gag me, by asking, Did I think that, because I was not present, I would be allowed to upset the business of the Board ?" In the Weekly News for September 7th, you will find a resolution which was passed at a meeting of the Board held on the 31st of August. It is to the effect that the Chairman, Messrs R. A. Prichard and Thomas Parry, be appointed as a Committee to assist the Clerk and Surveyor in any matter that might arise, and as to the ques- tion of witnesses, etc., necessary for the Arbitration case, and that the Committee be authorised to sign the cheques for whatever money that might be required in Court. Have I been called upon to sign cheques ? No, gentlemen, not one. I knew nothing at all of the way things were being carried 0,1, although I was Chairman of the Finance Committee. I was not once called upon to go to London, Chester, or anywhere else,—and I can tell you there is a nice little bill,—because I was not within the Cabinet." About two years ago, there was a Finance Committee formed, and I well remember the bundle of bills that was produced -amounting to about £ 500 —although the £ 700 had been paid the Contractor. These bills were produced to the Board before they had come before the Finance Committee, and under such circumstances I pro- tested at the tii-ne against these being paid. Eventually, some of the bills were before the Committee, and, upon my asking why all the bills were not produced, the Chairman rose and said that I had no business to ask for tliern. All that came before us, then, was about £ 260, and I protested against them being paid even then, on the grounds that they were not proper bills, and most of them were without any name or signature. They were initialled "M. AV," and the Engineer and Chairman of course made a handle of that, and asked me, ironically, did I dispute Moses Williams, whom they said knew everything about them. I challenged them all, and said that Moses Williams knew nothing about the bills. That same night, I went and saw Moses Williams before anyone else could see him, and he told me that he knew nothing whatever about the men nor the materials, and that lie was asked to sign the bills simply because the work was done to his satisfaction ?s Clerk-of-the-Works, and not as time-keeper. At the November meeting of the Board, Moses Williams himself substantiated this fact. At the meeting held on December 7th, 1894, the Engineer reported that the whole work was completed from Sarn Mynach to within (mark you) six furlongs of the L'ike. This was over twelve months ago. The Contractor has, therefore, since received the sum Of £ 3 ooo for six furlongs." This is such a bewildering mass of statement, feeble wit, and querulousness, that all we can make out of it i-. a suggestion that some hocus pocus work has been going on with regard to the payment of certain monies. Mr Parry does not, as far as we can make out, charge anyone with having paid money that was not due, nor charge anyone with receiving money that was not due. There is one statement, at the beginning of the extract, to the effect that at a meeting of the Board, on March 22nd, 1894, at which Mr Parry could not be present, and which only a few mem- bers attended, "thev resolved to make the Con- tractor a present of -Cgoo." As for this, we can only say we know nothing of it, and we are in- clined to think either that Mr Parry is speaking figuratively when he states that the Board "re- solved to make the Contractor a present of ^900," or that he has made a grievous mistake. In any case, it is a charge which the members involved in it ought to answer. But when Mr Parry, by means of question, conveys the idea that he, as Chairman of the Finance Committee, was not asked to sign cheques, we should like to ask Mr Parry why he was not asked to sign cheques. Was it because he was not present at the meet- ings at which those cheques were presented for signature, or for some other reason ? Mr Parry does not tell us, and we are left to imagine vain things. But surety one of the most naive con- fessions ever made by a Chairman of a Finance Committee is that made by Mr Parry, when he says (as reported) that he "knew nothing at all of the way things were being carried on, although he was Cnairman of the Finance Committee." We are compelled to ask why didn't Mr Parry know anything at a!) of the way things were being carried on ? Was it because he neglected his duty, or because he was kept in the dark by others ? If the former, it is no credit to him if the latter, then it speaks iU for his fitness for the post which he occupied, that he, as Chairman of the Fiiiatic, Committee, should have allowed anyone to keep him in the dark oil *inatters of such vital importance as the examination of accounts and the signing of cheques. The remainder of Mr Parry's statement (as reported) consists of a series of assertions, prophecies (of a kind), sneers at the "Cabinet" of which "the Chancellor of the Exchequer'' is not a member, expressions of doubt as to certain investments of the Board turning out to be good ones, and, besides, the foHowing statement, which, when it is remembered that the whole pith and trend of Mr Parry's address was in the direction of throwing blame on the Cowlyd Water Board for its blunders, and shortcomings, and im- perfections, is simply astounding, and illustrates the hopeless confusion of thought which pervades the whole of this astonishing deliverance. The statement we refer-to is as foHows :— "Our Scheme has often been compared with those in other places, such as the Vyrnwy Water Works, Manchester Water Works, the Ship Canal, and I suppose the Panama Cana). and Salford. Are we bound to follow them ? Is there any gentleman in the room who is prepared to stand up and say that all their deeds have been perfect ? We know well how much money has been spent in many of these places. Has it been for the good of the ratepayers ? No"; certainly not. I will say no more on this point, but don't let us follow bad examples." We repeat Mr Parry's words, "Is there any gen- tleman in the room who is prepared to stand up and say that at) their deeds have been perfect ? Decidedly not, we should say, and the Chairman of the Cowlyd Board, and the Engineer of the Cowlyd Board, and the Clerk of the Cowlyd Board, are each and all prepared to admtt that all their deeds have not been perfect. But that is a sentence that would better befit an advocate for the defence than the leader of the prosecution, and we cannot understand Mr Parry's use of it. For the tine of reasoning from it, is "if the pro- moters of the Liverpoot and Manchester water supply schemes were not perfect in all their deeds, surety there can be little wonder that the pro- moters of the Cowlyd Water Scheme should have made mistakes." And thus, once again, we come to the crux of the whole agitation. After wading at wearisome length through Mr Parry's incoherent and cloudy statement, the only thing that stands out in it with any degree of distinctness, is that the Board (of which, be it remembered, he was and is a member) has made mistakes. Wpll, it is human to err, and, besides, the Board has erred in com- pany with Mr Parry, and in Mr Parry's company. Why then should Mr Parry, of all men, continue to rake up and display before the eyes of the world the blunders (which, after all, are not crimes) of the unfortunate Board of which he was and is a prominent member ? The Board has, through its Chairman, uttered publicly its mea culpa it has said, We have done those things which we ought not to have done and left undone those things which we ought to have done." But it has not yet said and there is no health in us," and we venture to say that Mr Parry has failed to prove that there is no health in the Board. The Board is at the bar of public opinion, and its prosecutors have not brought (we will add, dare not bring) any charge against it beyond that which it has already admitted, viz., that it has made mistakes. The reiteration of this charge (especially by one who has participated in the mistakes) can serve no good purpose, but this reiteration can and does produce evil effects, such as public irritation, suspicion, and passion. We are sure that Mr Parry does not wish to perpetu- ate such a condition of things, and it is in that conviction, and also in the conviction that his present course of action has that tendency and no other, that we appeal to him, and to his sup- porters, to (to use an expressive colloquialism) drop it," and set to work loyally (and to the best of his ability, and in conjunction with the other members of the Board) to make the best of a bad job. If, however, Mr Parry (or anyone else) has reasons for believing that something worse than mistakes has been perpetrated, in the name of all that is honest and manly let them state those reasons, and formulate their charges, so that we may be rid once for all of this infernal cloud and murk of inuendo and hint. The ratepayers know that mistakes have been made, andve dubt not, the ratepayers are magnanimou'noug to forgive mistakes. What the ratepa's do not know, is, that their money has beefiisapro- priated and wilfutty squandered. If ?one oes know this, let them "in the interest the Rte- payers," speak out and say so, depen'g onthe support and countenance of those rwayer to hold them harmless of consequences.