convinced that the best course • for the Beard to puisne will be to withdraw their Bill. We did/not like the Bill before, whea we could only guess at the motives of the Board. We like it stifl. less now, and we trust that the public will take .care that it shall act pass into law. Wβ take it that'

all that is to be said in its favour is com prised in the four paragraphs of ihe manifesto referring to the four. main paints of objection; and we may briefly consider these seriatim. First, as regards the power of making cesspools. The Board affirm that, in the Bill, they have only asked for power to deal with "ex ceptional cases." w> can bat observe that no such limitation is to be found in the Bill itself. If this is all that is wanted, why has it not been made known before P But, even assuming all that the Board wish, we would emphatically say that the formation of these cesspools would be a grave error. The Board, in their capacity as a Board of Health, very properly do all they can to prevent private individuals from making cesspools. It would be most mischievous if they were, in their. other. capacity, to make, themselves, these objectionable re ceptacles, more especially as there appears to be no provision whatever for cleansing or keeping sweet the cesspools when made. On the second point, we are sorry to say that the -Board misstate the objection raised by the ratepayers. No body, as far as we know, has objected against I,the building of houses "with j proper appliances for drainage." The whole controversy turns upon the meaning of the term "proper appliances;" but as j long as the Board state the case of their opponents erroneously it must obviously be useless to discuss this point. We pass on, therefore, to the third question, and : here the Board show, we think, that they have failed to catch the gist of the oppo sition to them. 