View report page

30
as to leave the largest quantity of dust he can for his successor to
remove, and indeed some Contractors boast of this proceeding as
an act of cleverness. Unfortunately, the mischievous consequences
and irritation which attend and follow this questionable effort are
not at an end when it ceases, for its full effects are generally quite
as apparent, for at least the first few weeks of the new contracts.
I now wish to point out from internal evidence furnished in connection
with this table, how greatly the applications were in excess
of what they either should or might have been if the work had
been uniformly done even as well as it was in respect to Ward 4,
during both the first and second three months when the applications
were respectively 190 and 184, numbers which so nearly approach
the number of pounds sterling £1962/3) paid each quarter to the
Contractor, that for the purposes of comparison here the money paid
over any particular period may be supposed to represent roundly
the number of applications (one to each pound) which might be
expected to be received during such period, It should be borne in
mind that this approximate standard is based upon what is seen to
have been the actual fact during six months in Ward 4. The test,
as first applied to this Ward, shows that as the sum of £590 was
paid to Mr, William Irons, the Contractor, during the nine months
that 590 applications only should have been received in the same
time, whereas they were 952, being 362 in excess, the whole of
which occurred during the last three months of the contract. For
Wards 2 and 3, the amounts paid to Mr. Henry Crane were
£454 and £460 and the applications were 1,201 and 1,239, being
747 and 779 in excess. For Ward 1, Messrs. Jackson and Son
were paid £500 and the applications were 1,761 or 1,261 in
excess. For Wards 5, 6, 7 and 8, Mr. William Irons was
paid £1,200 and the applications numbered 4,503, the excess being
3,303. Again, in Ward 4, the excess was for the whole period at
the rate of 61.3 per cent.; in Wards 2 and 3, it was equal to 166.9
per cent.; in Ward 1, to 252.2 per cent.; and in Wards 5,6,7
and 8, to 275.2 per cent. For the whole parish the total sum paid was
£3,204, and the applications being 9,656, or three times as numerous
as they should have been, the excess amounted to 6,452, and was
therefore at the rate of 201.3 per cent. During the first three
months the excess upon the whole parish was equal to 92.6 per
cent., in the second three months it was 109.2 per cent., and in the