London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972
View report page
Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
Wandsworth 1892
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Wandsworth District, The Board of Works (Clapham, Putney, Streatham, Tooting & Wandsworth)]
This page requires JavaScript
21
The rateable value of London according to the Valuation List now in
force is £33,542,457, and the rateable value of this district £1,092,730.
The population of London according to the preliminary Report of the
Census of 1891 was 4,211,056, and the population of this district 156,931.
| PARISHES. | Amount of Rate at 6d. on rateable value. | Amount of grant based upon population. | Difference. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| In favour. | Against. | |||
| £ | £ | £ | £ | |
| 6951 | 8660 | 1709 | ||
| 4148 | 3522 | 626 | ||
| 8484 | 8513 | 29 | . | |
| 711 | 1146 | 435 | ||
| 7024 | 9258 | 2234 | .. | |
| £27318 | £31099 | 4407 Less 626 | £626 | |
| £3781 | ||||
The foregoing sum of £3,781 would bo paid to this Board by the
County Council. The apportionment thereof in accordance with the
provisions of Clause 1 (6) would be as follows, viz.: Parish of Clapham,
£1,053; Putney, £428; Streatham, £1,035; Tooting, £139; Wandsworth,
£1126. No rate for the purposes of the Act would bo mado in any of the
parishes in this district.
The Board petitioned against the provisions of the
London Improvements Bill, which proposed to enable
the County Council to make a new central street and
streets in connection therewith from Holborn to the
Strand, and to levy an improvement charge upon the
adjoining property. The Board objected to the
formation of the proposed street, as in their opinion
the improvement to be effected thereby would not be at
all commensurate with its immense cost. This was
estimated at nearly four millions, which might in course
of time be reduced by recoupment to two-and-a-half
millions. The Board also objected to the manner in
which the proposed improvement charge was to be