same to be repaid in 20 years. Coun. H. N. Williams renewed his former objection to borrowing money in a dear market before it was really wanted, when they could borrow from their own fund for a time. He was overruled, however, by Messrs. Bromley, Ross, Clift, Vidler and other Councillors who were also members of the H. I. P. S., the majority against him being four. It was also proposed to pay off £500 of bond No. 36 in the Hastings Improvement a/c. Mr. Williams asked why they should pay off 4 per cent. bonds and borrow at 5 per cent? Mr. Reeves would ask the same question. Mr. Putland also demurred to the borrowing of money in the then state of the market before it was wanted, and thus to pay both interest and principal before they began to make use of it. It was then decided to refer the matter back to the Committee. The result of this was to add another thousand pounds to the supposed requirement, thus raising it from £3,000 to £4,000, and from £4,000 to £5,000, and at the next meeting to resolve to memorialise the Treasury for consent to borrow the last named sum for the Cemetery.
Other Cemetery Matters - The Burial Board having recommended that the Superintendent of the Cemetery have 25s. a week and a house, the Clerk was asked what would be his duties; to which the reply was that he would have to be a man of respectability and good address; that he must be able to read and write well, have the general superintendence of the whole burial ground, have to act as a clerk, keep and have the care of a register, see that the ground was well kept up, and have the whole responsibility, but would not have to dig or do the heavy work. Coun. Vidler thought 20s. a week sufficient, and that to give more was to place a burden on the ground. He therefore proposed as an amendment to the report that 20s. be offered. Coun. Reeves seconded. Coun. Bromley moved the adoption of the report, for he considered 25s. a week was not exorbitant for a superintendent who ought to be a man of considerable address and ability. Coun. Putland had watched the expenditure with much care, but he was opposed to having under-paid servants any where. There would be plenty for him to do and the salary would be quite low enough. Vidler's motion was lost by 5 to 3., on which, in his disappointment he remarked that he had not doubt the person was already appointed. Coun. Ross and others dissented from Vidler's remark and thought it should not go unnoticed.
