View report page

29
Board; after a careful study of the question Sidney Herbert, who was
Under Secretary to the Board of Trade at the time and had been approached
by the Tottenham Board to see if he could soften the intransigence of the
Lea Trustees, replied that "hewas unable to help the Board but gave full
credit to the members for their endeavours to grapple with the extraordinary
difficulties with which they were beset".
If the various factors and sentiments just referred to rendered the
ratepayers less prone in the 'sixties than they had been in the 'fifties
to turn members out of office at election times, they were aggresive
enough to the Board in other ways. The non-payment of rates was the
commonest expression of their indignation: it was a cumulative injury
and by 1868 the clerk informed the Board that "the summonses for unpaid
rates could be counted by the hundreds." The recognised method, however,
for ratepayers to register their strong dissatisfaction was by public protest
meetings. Between 1864 and 1872 the parish never went long without
the Vestry or one or other of the Defence Associations or some independent
group of inhabitants inviting ratepayers to join together in giving
vent to their feelings. The outcome of these public meetings was almost
invariably either a deputation to the Board, the Home Off ice or the Privy
Council. As a rule nothing constructive emerged, nor were the different
government inspectors who on five occasions during the period came to
Tottenham to investigate ratepayers' allegations able to do more than suggest.
palliatives, such as cleaning up the bed of the Moselle or adding a
fresh tank to the sewage works, which rebounded on the ratepayers by involving
the Board in additional expense.
For a time the ratepayers rather pinned their faith on getting rid
of the Board entirely or, at least, drastically clipping its wings: the
Home Secretary was petitioned either to abolish the Board and allow the
inhabitants "in self defence to revert to the old form of government" or
to debar it from dabbling in water, sewage, and drainage schemes for, as
was pointed out, "in Edmonton there is little drainage and the inhabitants
live and thrive under the old system to an extent to make Tottenham wish
it had not expended so many thousands on sewage works." There was, however,
to be no easy escape from Tottenham's troubles on these lines, for
the petitioners were informed that even the Home Secretary had no power
to interfere with a local board unless and until it had been found guilty
of actual neglect of duty. Alternative proposals which some of the ratepayers
presently began to advocate more vigorously and persistently than
anything else was that the Board's membership should be increased and that
the parish should be divided into wards for electoral purposes. The argument
was cogent; an enlarged membership, it was said, would spread the
burden of Board-work and lighten the load on individual members sufficiently
to induce responsible inhabitants to offer themselves as candidates;
while ward voting would stimulate an interest in parish affairs among ratepayers
in outlying districts. Though time and again the Board was asked
to approve these proposals and seek powers to have its constitution altered
accordingly it obstinately refused to do so, on the feeble grounds that
the proposals were derogatory to the present members.