Part Iii. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, Within Their

borough.

All preparations for the change were completed by the autumn of 1899; the new Municipal Councils were elected on the 4th of November, the forty-three Vestries and District Boards ceased to exist, and London entered upon a new stage of her career.

Here, at the close of 1900, the Vestries and the District Boards of London came to their decreed end, and disappeared from the scene of London civic life. That end was not regretted by the general public, whose opinion may be gauged from the fact that the name "Vestry" had become almost synonymous with incapacity, mismanagement, neglect, sometimes even of graver transgressions, though in later years the Vestries did something towards removing from themselves that reproach.

They certainly had done much useful work, and even at the outset of their existence were a great improvement upon their predecessors. They had found their parishes and districts forty-five years previously in the state described in the first and second chapters of this work--a chaos of filth, a slough of insanitation and deadly disease, and the great mass of the people living in misery indescribable--and the task before them was one which might have daunted the stoutest heart.

In many ways they did their work well; local sewerage and house drainage were effectually carried out; the refuse of the great city was regularly removed; the paving, and lighting, and cleansing of the streets were greatly improved.

But in many parts of London, and by many Vestries and District Boards, the larger, graver problems with which they were confronted were scarcely dealt with at all. Powers entrusted to them by Parliament were not used, vitally important duties imposed upon them by Parliament were ignored or neglected. Had this been pure incapacity it would have been deplorable, but upon many of the Vestries were men who either were themselves interested in continuing existing evils and abuses, or whose friends were, and so laws which should have removed or mitigated the evils were not administered.

And the result was the non-prevention of diseases which led to deaths, and the continuance of miseries (consequent on disease) which might have been warded off, and the sowing of the seeds of evils of which we are still reaping the crop.

As years went by the pressure of public opinion upon them became more insistent, and their administration improved, but even to the end many of them grievously failed to fulfil the responsibilities of their position.

One class of workers under them must, however, be excluded from such blame, namely, the Medical Officers of Health.

It is not too much to say that the greater part of the sanitary progress which was made all through the period of Vestry rule was directly due to the unceasing labour, the courageous efforts, the insistence of many of these officers. Their recommendations were often ignored, their requests constantly denied, their opinions made light of; but in spite of such discouragement they persevered. And not alone did they bravely stand between disease and the people, but they were ever striving to drive it back, and to destroy its prolific sources and its power; ever urging upon their employers the necessity for action to relieve the people from the worst of the evils they were suffering under.

The description given in 1856 by one of them that their work was "a war of the community against individuals for the public good" had been proved to be absolutely true.

And in that war, of them generally, it is to be said that there were no sturdier fighters on the side of the community than they proved to be.

In 1885 Dr. J. Liddle, "a pioneer of reform," died after thirty years of "unflinching adherence to duty" as Medical Officer of Health for Whitechapel.

In 1889 Dr. N. Vinen died after thirty-four years' service as Medical Officer of Health for St. Olave, Southwark.

In 1895 Dr. J. S. Bristowe passed away after forty years of service as Medical Officer of Health for Camberwell.

And there are still in the service men whose labours have extended over prolonged periods. Such men as these, and others of them who gave their best to the service of the community, have indeed a claim to the lasting gratitude of the citizens of London.

FOOTNOTES:

See General Report of Census Commissioners, P.P. 1904, vol. cviii.

See speech of the President of the Local Government Board, Mr. Ritchie, in introducing the Bill in April. Hansard, 1891, vol. ccclii.

Statement by the Clerk of the London County Council.

See his Report for 1899, p. 63.

P.P. 1890, vol. xvii. See fifth Report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Sweating System.

See the Order made by the Home Secretary in November, 1892, as to "outworkers."

Not much interest appears to have been taken in the proceedings of some of the Vestries. Thus, in 1891, the Vestry of Westminster complained of the lack of public interest in the record of their proceedings. "Only eleven ratepayers out of 8,800 have purchased copies (price 2d.) of the Reports of the Vestry in each of the last three years." (A few years later they reduced their Reports to a few pages.)

And in 1896 the Vestry of Kensington complained of the limited demand for their Annual Report, though it only cost 2d.

See 3rd Report from Select Committee of the House of Lords on Metropolitan Hospitals, 1891.

See the Report of Select Committee of House of Lords on Hospitals, P.P. 1892, vol. xiii.

See Report of Royal Commissioners on the Amalgamation of the City and County of London, 1894.

See Hansard, 1899, vol. lxvii. p. 354.

In his last report he recorded the death of J. Munro, who had been Inspector of Nuisances for thirty-three years, so for that long period they had worked together.