View report page

109
Sub-section 4 and the proviso of Sub-section 6 of Clause 1 of the
Bill, some parishes which would contribute to the Fund if they
were self-contained sanitary districts will actually receive grants
owing to their being joined with other parishes for sanitary
purposes.
Sub-section 4 of Clause 1 provides that "Where the aggre"gate
of the contributions from the parishes in the district is less
"than the grant apportioned to the district, the difference shall be
"paid out of the Equalization Fund to the Sanitary Authority of
"the district, and no payment towards any equalization charge
"shall be required from any parish in the district."
The proviso of Sub-section 6 is as follows:—"Provided that where
"the district of such Sanitary Authority comprises two or more
"parishes, the sum paid [from the Fund to a Sanitary Authority]
"shall be apportioned among the parishes in proportion to their
"population."
If I correctly understand the effect of these two provisions,
St. Botolph Without, Aldgate, Norton Folgate, Putney, Wapping,
and other parishes, will receive grants from the Fund owing to
their being combined with other parishes for sanitary (though not
for rating) purposes, which, if they stood alone, would, as
Mr. Dethridge's statement shows, actually contribute to the Fund,
On the other hand, many parishes, notably Mile End New Town,
will derive considerably less benefit from the Bill from forming
part of a larger sanitary district, than if they were self-contained.
A comparison of the following statement, relating to some of
the combined sanitary districts, with the figures entered against
the same parishes in Mr. Dethridge's statement will better illustrate
this point.
Whitechapel Sanitary District—
Receives.
Pays.
£
£
Whitechapel
1,219
—
Christ Church, Spitalfields
2,323
—
St. Botolph Without, Aldgate
—
393
Holy Trinity, Minories
—
144
equivalent to a rate of 3½d. over the whole district.