View report page

87
public health of the Metropolis—others which are objectionable to
the Sanitary Authorities. Copy of a petition against the second
reading presented by one of these bodies, was forwarded to the
several Vestries and District Boards, with a suggestion of the
desirability of their adopting a similar course. The gravamen
of the complaint against the Bill, as set out in the petition, was
that "a pernicious principle pervades it in many of its clauses and
sub-divisions, which is calculated to destroy the efficiency and
responsibility of local self-government in the Metropolis; "clauses
being cited as rendering the Local Authorities "subordinate to
Central Authorities, the members of which cannot by any means
be deemed to be so well acquainted with the local circumstances
and requirements" of the several districts as the Sanitary
Authorities and their officers. It was held, moreover, that one of
the effects of such subordination would be, the "discouragement
thereby given to men of intelligence and aptitude in local government
affairs to join Local Authorities." The petitioners contended
that the size of the Metropolis, its population, wealth, &c.,
established conditions peculiarly and exclusively applicable to it
alone .; that there was nothing to warrant the interference of a Central
Authority, and that if a change were to be made, it should be in the
direction of assimilating the powers of the Vestries to those possessed
by the municipalities of similar size and population in the provinces ;
subject to the special powers possessed by the County Council for
larger or county purposes, such as main drainage, bridges, fire
brigade, and other similar Metropolitan undertakings. Clauses were
cited as introducing provisions involving derogatory subordination,
and as being humiliating to the Vestries, by placing them at the
mercy of a common informer. Regret was expressed that the
Local Grovernment Board, who last year took steps to elicit the
opinions of the Vestries on the draft of a Consolidation Bill, should
not have ascertained the views of those Authorities upon the
provisions of the Amendment Bill. For the reasons stated, and
others, the petitioners prayed the House to pause before accepting
the principle of a measure containing so many highly contentious
proposals, and not to allow the Bill to be read a second time.