Note 29 — Chapter XI

An instance of Mr Bradlaugh's interest in local matters may be found in the Tottenham and Edmonton Advertiser for March 1, 1865, which gives a notice of a vestry meeting held on February 20, at which he was present. He is reported as asking for a more detailed account of "Mrs Overend's charity," and the increased value of the land forming part of the property. Several members of the "Waste Land Commission" asked that an inquiry should be made. The Chairman (the vicar) refused to allow the subject to be discussed; but when the report was entered in the minutes, Mr Bradlaugh gave notice that he should move that an inquiry be made.

The next business was to receive a report of the committee appointed by the parishioners in the November before on the matter of the water supply. Mr Delano, chairman of this committee, read the report, which consisted of questions put by the local Board of Health, with correspondence thereon. After criticising the discourtesy of the Board of Health, the chairman agreed that nothing further could be done.

Mr Bradlaugh, however, "said it would not be right to let the subject drop without taking some further notice of it. He thought the Board was bound to act at least courteously towards any of the parishioners having complaints to make of the insufficiency of the water supply. The Board acknowledged this insufficiency, and showed they could give a better supply when a stir was made about the subject. He complained of the unfairness of the Board in refusing all explanation. Not only did they do this, but they added impertinence in characterising him as a new member of the parish. He could not tell who was to blame, but the Board confessed that the supply was irregular, and showed that it was capable of being remedied. In his opinion the Board deserved a vote of censure from the Vestry; they were bound to do their best for those who elected them, and as far as lay in his power he would teach them their duty. He then moved: 'That in the opinion of this meeting the conduct of the Local Board of Health, in refusing to answer the questions of the Committee, is deserving of censure.'" This was seconded by Mr Noble, and there was some discussion, a Mr Kirby rising to defend the action of the Board, to which Mr Bradlaugh replied "in a most caustic speech;" and the motion being put by the chairman, was carried: "twenty- six voting for, and two against it."