THE LOCAL BOARD OF EAST DEREHAM
The Local Board was established in 1877 and was composed mainly of prosperous, public-minded citizens. It had the responsibility for those areas which still today would be dealt with by local government. In January 1881 they were having problems with the scavenging (waste disposal) of the town, and were also involved in selecting a firm to construct a sewage system and lay drains. They were negotiating a loan for the new sewage and waterworks; dealing with the applications and complaints arising over new and existing buildings; dealing with a contravention of the “Markets and Fairs Act”; taking action to clear the highways of snow; receiving a report from the local medical officer; and suffering a charge from the editor of the local newspaper that they had become ‘A hindrance to business and enterprise’.
The following editorial, published in January 1881, serves to illustrate both the workings of the Board and the editor’s view of its competence:
“The Local Board of East Dereham, judged by the reports of its proceedings at meetings to which reporters are admitted, has made itself not only ridiculous, but has so far perverted local government as to become a hindrance to all business enterprise. A few months since, in a sudden spasm of sanitary necessity, alarmed by the stinking and dangerous state of portions of the town, it decided to carry into practical effect the local obligations which the Board had voluntarily accepted and a contract was made for scavenging and for several months earth closets, privies, ashpits and cesspools to be cleaned by the local authority.
It is notorious that, when, by lapse of time, the contact expired the Local Board – as capriciously as it accepted the legal obligation – refused to renew the contract, declined to do the work, threw back the future of scavenging upon the owners and occupiers, while at the same time it had inserted that charge for scavenging in the estimates for a rate then made.
Several independent ratepayers better able to resist the illegal demands made upon them than others of their neighbours, refused to pay the rate, and in the public interest, determined to test its legality. As the same time the Local Board, pricked by the quick and vigorous hand of the Medical Officer, suddenly repented and invited tenders for scavenging which, only a meeting or two previously, it had resolved not to undertake any longer.
One tender was received, but the large sum demanded for the work was pleaded as an excuse for not doing it. At this juncture a little pressure came in the form of letters from the National Local Government Board. The report of the last meeting of the Local Board as it appears in these columns today, shows how those outside influences have operated, also how the Local Board has shuffled in this matter; how, like the coy maiden ‘first she wouldn’t and then she thought she would’, but it all depended upon the price”. Now tenders have been invited for the scavenging of the whole district, a semi-private arrangement was concocted to limit the work to the town area.
The tenders were divided into first weekly, then eight monthly portions, for the purpose of evading the statute law, and if possible to secure the total defeat in the rate now being extracted from the local ratepayers. It was moreover suggested that this device would give the Local Board the chance of dropping the scavenging again any week, or at the end of eight months. Such methods of conducting public business may probably appear very clever to the little people who accept them. They have the appearance and sometimes get spoken of as ‘economical’, but in the end they are wasteful of public money as they get unsatisfactory and inefficient in practical results.”
The new sewage scheme seemed by comparison to be proceeding comparatively smoothly. Tenders had been invited and fourteen were received. These came from as far afield as London, Exeter, Dover and Stoke on Trent, and varied in price from £2843 to £5,510. The lowest estimate came from Mr Hubbard of Dereham, and it was carried unanimously that his tender should be accepted. Application had been made to the National Public Works Loan Committee to borrow £80,000 for the waterworks and drainage of the town.
There was however, opposition to ‘progress’. Mr Freeman, living at the White Hall between Commercial Road and the Railway Line, wrote forcefully to the paper on June 9th, 1881: “When a traveller is stopped on the road, and the demand is made in terms of ‘Your money or your life’ he deems discretion to be the better part of valour, and so to save himself further annoyance he hands over his purse. Precisely I now yield under protest to an illegal demand for an illegal rate, the payment of which is urged with intimidatory threats.
Life is too short for continued conflict against ‘blundering and plundering’ carried on in the name of (but in ruthless violation of the first principles of) local self-government. Property is depressed, trade is paralysed and all public common interests are irretrievable damaged, while one of the best institutions under the British Constitution, namely local Government is perverted into an instrument of local petty tyranny and vexation, and personal annoyance.
It is generally known that my object in the first resistance of this rate was not to avoid payment, nor to nullify the rate, but to assist a minority on the Local Board who desired by regular and systematic scavenging (charged for in the rate) to promote cleanliness, health and comfort in the homes of the poor householders, and also to keep off, as we did five years ago, the noxious system of drainage now making havoc in the town, a system of drainage that completely fails to meet the sanitary requirements of the district, while it artfully contrived to provide conveniences for a few great people at the general public expense.”
The work on the sewage system also created problems for one of the existing services, gas. The cast-iron gas mains were prone to cracking and the gas company was, by May 14th, reporting many breakages in their pipes which they blamed on the sewer contractors.
On the last of these occasions all the gas made during the evening escaped. The only plan to prevent a recurrence of this was to alter the position of the whole length of the disturbed pipes. This required labourers from the Boars. Gas had been cut off from Theatre Street. As the loss to the company from these continual breakages was a very heavy one, the company asked that the matter should be laid before the Lighting Committee with a view of compensating them in some measure for the severe loss incurred by them through the action of the contractor.
The mains were laid only 11 inches deep and it was felt that a heavy cart could break them!
By the 10th September the sewerage work was almost completed with exception of connection with the house drains. Like many public projects the full difficulties had not been foreseen and on 17th September it was reported “Mr Hubbard will lose considerably by his contract for the sewerage works. Running sand has been the foe with which he has had to contend almost from the commencement. Some surprise is expressed that the charge for timber should have been so heavy, but wherever the tender was placed, the contractor was put to an extra charge for labour. What has been a loss to the Board has been greater loss to the contractor.”
The completion of the sewers, along with the gas mains, and water supplies, opened the way for more houses to be built.
The following editorial, published in January 1881, serves to illustrate both the workings of the Board and the editor’s view of its competence:
“The Local Board of East Dereham, judged by the reports of its proceedings at meetings to which reporters are admitted, has made itself not only ridiculous, but has so far perverted local government as to become a hindrance to all business enterprise. A few months since, in a sudden spasm of sanitary necessity, alarmed by the stinking and dangerous state of portions of the town, it decided to carry into practical effect the local obligations which the Board had voluntarily accepted and a contract was made for scavenging and for several months earth closets, privies, ashpits and cesspools to be cleaned by the local authority.
It is notorious that, when, by lapse of time, the contact expired the Local Board – as capriciously as it accepted the legal obligation – refused to renew the contract, declined to do the work, threw back the future of scavenging upon the owners and occupiers, while at the same time it had inserted that charge for scavenging in the estimates for a rate then made.
Several independent ratepayers better able to resist the illegal demands made upon them than others of their neighbours, refused to pay the rate, and in the public interest, determined to test its legality. As the same time the Local Board, pricked by the quick and vigorous hand of the Medical Officer, suddenly repented and invited tenders for scavenging which, only a meeting or two previously, it had resolved not to undertake any longer.
One tender was received, but the large sum demanded for the work was pleaded as an excuse for not doing it. At this juncture a little pressure came in the form of letters from the National Local Government Board. The report of the last meeting of the Local Board as it appears in these columns today, shows how those outside influences have operated, also how the Local Board has shuffled in this matter; how, like the coy maiden ‘first she wouldn’t and then she thought she would’, but it all depended upon the price”. Now tenders have been invited for the scavenging of the whole district, a semi-private arrangement was concocted to limit the work to the town area.
The tenders were divided into first weekly, then eight monthly portions, for the purpose of evading the statute law, and if possible to secure the total defeat in the rate now being extracted from the local ratepayers. It was moreover suggested that this device would give the Local Board the chance of dropping the scavenging again any week, or at the end of eight months. Such methods of conducting public business may probably appear very clever to the little people who accept them. They have the appearance and sometimes get spoken of as ‘economical’, but in the end they are wasteful of public money as they get unsatisfactory and inefficient in practical results.”
The new sewage scheme seemed by comparison to be proceeding comparatively smoothly. Tenders had been invited and fourteen were received. These came from as far afield as London, Exeter, Dover and Stoke on Trent, and varied in price from £2843 to £5,510. The lowest estimate came from Mr Hubbard of Dereham, and it was carried unanimously that his tender should be accepted. Application had been made to the National Public Works Loan Committee to borrow £80,000 for the waterworks and drainage of the town.
There was however, opposition to ‘progress’. Mr Freeman, living at the White Hall between Commercial Road and the Railway Line, wrote forcefully to the paper on June 9th, 1881: “When a traveller is stopped on the road, and the demand is made in terms of ‘Your money or your life’ he deems discretion to be the better part of valour, and so to save himself further annoyance he hands over his purse. Precisely I now yield under protest to an illegal demand for an illegal rate, the payment of which is urged with intimidatory threats.
Life is too short for continued conflict against ‘blundering and plundering’ carried on in the name of (but in ruthless violation of the first principles of) local self-government. Property is depressed, trade is paralysed and all public common interests are irretrievable damaged, while one of the best institutions under the British Constitution, namely local Government is perverted into an instrument of local petty tyranny and vexation, and personal annoyance.
It is generally known that my object in the first resistance of this rate was not to avoid payment, nor to nullify the rate, but to assist a minority on the Local Board who desired by regular and systematic scavenging (charged for in the rate) to promote cleanliness, health and comfort in the homes of the poor householders, and also to keep off, as we did five years ago, the noxious system of drainage now making havoc in the town, a system of drainage that completely fails to meet the sanitary requirements of the district, while it artfully contrived to provide conveniences for a few great people at the general public expense.”
The work on the sewage system also created problems for one of the existing services, gas. The cast-iron gas mains were prone to cracking and the gas company was, by May 14th, reporting many breakages in their pipes which they blamed on the sewer contractors.
On the last of these occasions all the gas made during the evening escaped. The only plan to prevent a recurrence of this was to alter the position of the whole length of the disturbed pipes. This required labourers from the Boars. Gas had been cut off from Theatre Street. As the loss to the company from these continual breakages was a very heavy one, the company asked that the matter should be laid before the Lighting Committee with a view of compensating them in some measure for the severe loss incurred by them through the action of the contractor.
The mains were laid only 11 inches deep and it was felt that a heavy cart could break them!
By the 10th September the sewerage work was almost completed with exception of connection with the house drains. Like many public projects the full difficulties had not been foreseen and on 17th September it was reported “Mr Hubbard will lose considerably by his contract for the sewerage works. Running sand has been the foe with which he has had to contend almost from the commencement. Some surprise is expressed that the charge for timber should have been so heavy, but wherever the tender was placed, the contractor was put to an extra charge for labour. What has been a loss to the Board has been greater loss to the contractor.”
The completion of the sewers, along with the gas mains, and water supplies, opened the way for more houses to be built.
The information in this section is taken from a document written by members of Dereham WEA and the University of Cambridge Board of Extra-Mural Studies led by Chris Barringer in 1989, and given to the Dereham Archive in 1998.
The original authors were: Joan Adams, Chris Barringer, Ben Norton, Teddy O' Donnell, Brian and Ruth Warwick-Smith, with help and additional material from Colin and Anne Chambers, Joy Lodey, Sharon Lake and Beryl Flatt.
The text was prepared for this website by Steffi Spooner.
The original authors were: Joan Adams, Chris Barringer, Ben Norton, Teddy O' Donnell, Brian and Ruth Warwick-Smith, with help and additional material from Colin and Anne Chambers, Joy Lodey, Sharon Lake and Beryl Flatt.
The text was prepared for this website by Steffi Spooner.