View report page

111
"held four meetings, and considered very minutely the suggested
"regulations sent on from the Local Government Board; and I,
"as chairman, moved that a special meeting should be held by
"the Vestry to consider these regulations. When the meeting
"assembled, before I could move the adoption of the regulations,
"a member of the Board got up at once and moved that the
"question should be adjourned without listening to any statement
"on my part whatever. Of course I felt that that was merely
"to shelve the question. However, I fought somewhat hard
"against it, but they were successful in getting it referred back
"to the Sanitary Committee to reconsider. Of course that has
"materially delayed the question. The Sanitary Committee have
"already met twice again to reconsider tho question. We
"brought up a report very much in harmony with the suggested
"regulations, making some modifications, and we had a meeting
"last night upon the question. We shall have another meeting,
"and I do not think we shall be able to make very many
"alterations as regards our first recommendation. It seemed to
"me at the time, and I cannot but feel now, that it was merely
"an effort to shelve the question." Have you anything to say
upon that statement?—I should say myself that Mr. Jennings
hardly need put that construction upon the fact of one clause
not having been acceptable.
17,491. Since that time, however, I understand that the Vestry
have rejected those resolutions?—I fancy you are speaking of
what Mr. Jennings perhaps would call the rejection of them.
17,492. No, I am speaking of since the time when he was under
examination. You not having answered my letter I am not
certain what you have done and I go by newspaper reports; but
I understood that the Vestry had rejected the resolutions?—I can
hardly say that the Vestry have rejected them. They negatived
a certain clause, and that clause having been negatived, no further
steps were attempted to be taken, even by the Chairman of
the Sanitary Committee. It was quite open to him or to any
other member of the Vestry if that clause proved unacceptable to
move that it be referred back for further consideration.
17,493. Was it on tho 2nd of May that that clause was
rejected?—Yes, they only debated one clause.
17,494. Was the vote taken by a show of hands?—Yes.
17,495. There was no division called for?—I would not be
certain; I think there was a division.