View report page

150
17,800. Have you any doubt in your mind that the systematic
policy of the Metropolitan Board of Works is to refuse to apply
such powers, and to cast back the whole charge as well as choice
upon the localities ?—I believe so.
17,801. Therefore if it were proposed to transfer not the
appellate but the direct choice and charge to the Metropolitan
Board of Works, do you think that would work?—I should
hardly like to say.
17,802. With respect to the delinquencies charged against the
owners of property I wish you would tell the Commission for my
satisfaction, if not for your own, that since I have been connected
with the locality as its representative I have never interfered
personally in any matter connected with the working of my
Acts ?—No; certainly not.
17,803. I have never suggested or endeavoured to control the
choice or the judgment of the Vestries, but that being so you
are, I believe, aware that with the assistance of the vicar of
Clerkenwell, I took considerable pains to ascertain the condition
of things some four or five years ago?—You did.
17,804. Did you ever hear until you heard it to-day that the
Vicar of Clerkenwell had shown entire indifference to the condition
of the people and had shirked his share of the duty of
investigation?—Certainly not.
17,805. Is it true?—No, I should say not decidedly; I am
astonished to hear it.
17,806. Is it true of any other clergyman of the many that
there are in Clerkenwell that they have shirked their share of
the duty of investigating the condition of the people ; have you
ever known their assistance sought in investigating the condition
of the very miserable or having been sought, have you ever
known it refused?—Sought by whom?
17,807. Sought by your authorities or sought by the persons
complaining to the Vestry?—If the assistance of any of the
clergymen of the parish was sought by the Vestry in any way I
do not think it would be refused for one moment.
17,808. Have you ever known it refused?—No.
17,809. With regard to the owners of property are there some
four or five very large owners of property in Clerkenwell?—
Yes.
17,810. Carefully excluding any invidious or personal reference,
I wish to know whether it is your experience that the
aggravation of the evils, whatever they are, of overcrowding or
of insufficient dwellings, ought not fairly to be laid to the door
of the large owners of property as well as of the small owners;
has there been neglect on the part of great owners as well as on