View report page

28
and was therefore less disposed to make a united front against the Board.
Even the quarterly Vestry Meetings, at one time a rallying point for the
whole parish, had lost their significance for a scattered population and
consequently their cohesive influence. Furthermore, the old single two
fold grouping of the rate bearing population into gentry and tradesmen no
longer held good; local professional men, local manufacturers, salaried
city businessmen, city clerks and London artisans were all complicating
the pattern of local society and stratifying it on such a mixture of new
lines that the interests of the various groups were not easily to be
brought to a common focus. From the Board's point of view the changes
were strengthening for they fortuitously gave it the benefit of the
"divide et impera" principle of government.
Then again, if the ratepayers wished to use their votes to eject the
existing members, as they had once done, they would need to find acceptable
candidates willing to stand for election. Here was a difficulty,
there was no pool of eager candidates to draw on as there had been in 1855.
Board-work it was realised had become "most onerous and difficult," so
that as one ratepayer put it, "no man whose time is of value to him can
be expected to serve." In this connection Mr. Albert Hill, author of the
Reminiscences of Tottenham, found an analogy for the parish's plight in
the case of the United States"where the unwillingness of the best men to
serve Congress" was equally disastrous. Granted certain defects among
the present members there was, nevertheless, the risk that control of the
Board might fall into even less desirable hands. The Herald, using as
its text the election of 1866 when the only candidate opposing the return
of retiring members was the landlord of the "Seven Sisters,"' asked its
readers to think carefully before rejecting renewed offers of service
from present members, "although we have often had occasion to find fault
with their mismanagement of parish business,", for "if the Soard has
defects and is a shade despotic, what of it? Bumbledom,is not confined to
Tottenham. We might fare worse."
It was recognised, too, that the whole blame for the parish's difficulties
could not be laid on the Board. The law was deficient: Tottenham,
it was felt, should not be baulked by the Lea Trustees' injunction
from access to the natural outlet for its sewage and at the same time be
denied any legal redress against Edmonton and Hornsey which according to
the Board's surveyor "had done what they wanted, namely remove sewage out
of their own parishes by using Tottenham's streams," For the defects in the
law the Government was felt tobeto blame; "it is to be hoped, " said the
Herald, "that the Government will give up its present slipshod method
of legislating on sanitary questions which is the cause of burdening this
parish with the excreta of its neighbours." The Government, so it seemed
was not even helpful: for as the chairman of the Board pointed out on one
occasion, "Tottenham is being compelled to carry out experiments in the
deodorising of sewage at its own expense which will be used by other
authorities later and should be a charge on the Government." Certainly
no unprejudiced observor could be entirely devoid of sympathy for the