two converted horse buses were renumbered, and four further new cars were obtained. From G.F. Milnes & Co., two double-deckers were purchased, and two of toast rack design came from an unknown maker. It is possible that those two toast rack vehicles were built at Nottingham in the company’s own works. Illumination inside the trams at night was very poor, and to quote a contemporary writer, "gloom prevailed," the only light being a small oil lamp at each end in the recess where the conductor kept his tickets. The tickets were pre-printed, each service having its own series, the stage points being printed lengthways along either side. In 1892, the two remaining converted horse buses were scrapped, one of the toast rack cars was renumbered and a further two double-deckers were obtained from G.F. Milnes being similar in design to those purchased the previous year. In 1895 the horse tram fleet was completed by the purchase of three further double-deckers, this time from the Brush Company’s Falcon Works at Loughborough. Section 43 of the Tramways Act of 1870 provided that where the promoters of a tramway were not the Local Authority, the Local Authority may, within six months of the expiration of 21 years from the date the promoters were empowered to construct the tramway, acquire the undertaking, at the current value, with and including all lands, buildings, works, materials, horses and rolling stock as required for the operation of the system. Nottingham Corporation Tramways, 1897 onwards Withdrawal of Horse Tram Services The relationship between Company and Corporation appears to have been an uneasy one. There were complaints from local residents about the running of trams on Sundays. There was a proposal from the company to the council asking to share the cost of narrowing causeways (pavements) on Arkwright St. This was due to the fact that Arkwright St was not sufficiently wide such that vehicles could park on the roadway without obstructing the tramlines. Clearly the council were unhappy, as not only did they not agree to share the cost, they insisted that the company leave the pavements as they were. There was also a disagreement with the company over the maintenance of the roads in which the tramways ran. The work was supposed to be done by the Corporation, with the bills being paid by the company, but the company found it was cheaper to hire in labour