London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Mile End 1891

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Hamlet of Mile End Old Town]

This page requires JavaScript

285
16 march, 1892.
IX. Mr. Catmur, pursuant to notice, moved—That the conduct
of the Chairman, on Wednesday, January 6th, 1892, in
neglecting to advise the members upon a question of order,
and on Wednesdays, December 16th, 1891, and January 6th,
1892, in refusing to allow any question, explanation, or debate
upon motions to adopt long Committee Reports, was grossly
irregular, was unfair both to private members and to the Committees,
was opposed to the interests of the ratepayers, and
deserves the severe censure of this Vestry.
After discussion Mr. Catmur by consent of the Vestry withdrew
the motion.
X. Mr. Catmur by consent withdrew the notices of motion
numbered (2) and (3) standing in his name on the Agenda.
XI. Mr. Catmur, pursuant to notice, moved, and it was seconded
by Mr. Richardson—That, as it is in accordance with the
constant practice of the Vestry, and is necessary to make
payments legal and enable them to pass the Auditors, that
full explanations should be given and the Vestry's approval
gained of all expenditure; and as the Clerk and Finance Committee
decline to submit to such proper ordeal the particulars
of the use of the cheques obtained by the Clerk on account of
Nott v. Vestry, the Clerk be called upon to forthwith refund
the monies thus unaccounted for, to the Treasurer of the
Vestry.
The motion was submitted to a show of hands and there
were
In favour 2 votes
Against 16 „
A division was demanded and upon such division there
were
In favour—Messrs. Catmur, Richardson.—2 votes.
Against it—Messrs. Andrews, Birks, Burge, Chidgey, Cook,
Hasted, Hirst, Jacobson, R. Kemp, Livermore, A. Lloyd,
E. Lloyd, Martin, T. J. Smith, Thomas, Upton—16 votes.
The Chairman declared it lost.
XII. notices of motion.
By Mr. Richardson.
That, in the opinion of this Vestry, all Refreshments at
the expense of the Ratepayers should be abolished.
By Mr. Richardson.
That this Board protests against the extravagant manner
in which the case of Nott v. Vestry was defended;
incurring an expenditure of over .£800.