View report page

16
Buildings, and that several hundreds of underground kitchens have
been emptied, not to mention the numberless drainage and other
defects which have been remedied, to way that the condition of the
Parish is not improving is monstrous,— it is not true.
I have the honour to remain,
Gentlemen,
Your obedient Servant,
J. W. GRIFFITH, M.D.
February 4th, 1884.
And this letter was duly sent to the daily press.
Sir Charles Dilke, however, appeared determined to
prepare a way for the London Government Hill, which was
to be introduced by the Government, by attacking the
existing bodies and this Vestry in particular, and not
only the Vestry as a body, but its individual members, for
in a speech in the House of Commons on the 4th March,
on the question of the Dwellings of the Poor, he said:
"He was sorry to say, that in Clerkenwell, the two joint
dictators of the Parish, who had control of the Vestry
and its leading Committee, one of them being Chairman
of the principal Committee, were the largest owners in the
whole district of Clerkenwell of bad or doubtful property.
The Royal Commission would have, perhaps, to go beyond
the useful labour of the Committee of 1880, and make an
inquiry into the question from this point of view, whether,
in fact, it was not the case that many trading members of
local authorities were large owners of property of this
description. In Clerkenwell, there were 14 house farmers
on the Vestry, and 12 publicans, who seemed to work very
much with them, and that state of things had undoubtedly
led to insufficient care being taken by the Vestry for the
condition of that Parish." And on the 6th March the
matter was brought before the Vestry, who directed the
Clerk to send to Sir Charles Dilke a general statement and
all information upon the present sanitary condition of
Clerkenwell, compared with that of some years ago, and
the Clerk therefore wrote the following letter :—