The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-04-08 00:00:00

DD DLEY.

THE Tows COUNCIL.—A quarterly meeting of the
above Council was held on Tuesday, the Mayor (Mr.
Joseph Stokes) presiding.—lt was agreed to adept a
petition against the Valuation of Property Bill now before
Parliament. This was done on the suggestion of the
Sunderland Town Council, which sent a list of objections
to the Bill.—Mr. Alleu, the clerk to the Assessment
Committee, addressed a letter to the Town Clerk, in
reply to a resolution of the Council. In this Mr. Allen
said that in view of the contemplited changes to be
brought about by legislation and the making of a new
valuation of property in 1877, the Assessment Committee
did not see the necessity for disturbing the existing
arrangements. With regard to the present aSeessruenta
of mines, minerals, and public companies, the committee •
lied in contemplation a revalution of such property.--.
Mr. Wainwright complained of the inequalities of rating
in Dudley, and expressed his belief that the larger the
people in the town the less they paid in proportion—
(l.ear, hear). There wanted a revision and a raising of .
many assessments. Alderman George Bagott said.
collieries and many other properties had had their
assessments doubled and trebled. If there was to be a
general raising of assessments the overseers or Assess-
ment Committee would want a 2s 6d rate to pay costs of
appeal. Mr. Job Garrett said he believed there wanted
a reassessment of collieries, and he spoke as a coal-
master.—The Mayor, who moved that the letter should
be referred to a committee, said he hoped that when Mr.
Peacock had to reassess the parish, the Town Council
shiaild have a representative who might be allowed to
give evidence. All the Council desired was a fair and
equitable valuation—(hear, hear).—Alderman Russell
seconded the motion, which was carried.—The Town
Clerk read a letter from the Mayor to the Chairman of
the London and Nort-Western Railivey Company. In
repla, his Worship said he was surprised to read in the
chairman's letter that the company had always been will-
ing to do what it could for the town, when he remembered
that fox more than twelve months the company had been
written to aud nothing had been done. There was still
time to avoid the trouble and cost of a commission, and
so, without prejudice, he (the Mayor) sent a list of what
the. town wanted, add asked the company to say in the
margin what they were willing to do. The Mayor then
explained that he went to London, and had an interview
with Mr. Moon, the chairman of the London and North.
Western Railway Company, and although he could not
give the details of what took place, he might say that he
had agreed to adjourn the enquiry before the Railway
Commissioners until a day to be mutually agreed upon
to enable Mr. Mooa to consult the chairman of the Great
Western Railway Company as to what that company
were willing to do, so that a joint-scheme ravaht be pro•
perly carried out. Mr. H. M. Wainwright (chairman of
Railway Committee) explained that he had had a satis-
factory correspondence with Mr. 5 Grierson (Great Wes-
tern Railway). The Mayor said in addition to the pro-
posed new station there was no questions of better ser-
vices of trains and improvements at Dudley Port, but it
was well to go by steps, and not anticipate.—The reports
of several committees were read and adopted.—ln the
Sanaa!), Corntnlttee's report Dr. Timmins, the medical
officer of health, stated that the number of deaths during
four weeks bad been 86, giving a death rate of 239 ia
the 1,000. No less than 56 deaths were those of children
under three years of age, Most of them had died in
convulaions, and five from inauition. One death had
occurred from fever, this being the only one from
zynsotic diseases. • The medical officer condemned
certain wells of impure water, and houses unfit for
habitation. The report was alop ted ; and the
Sanitary Committee, in the report, recommended
that the officer should have the power to close the wells.
Mr. %V. Challingsworth called attention to the fact that
Dudley had a lower death-rate than towns with deep
sewerage, and he •iondered that Drs. Ballard and Thorne
were not sent down to find fault with such places as Man-
chester and Salford. So far as he Was concerned, he wait
satisfied that the deep drainage could nat be preceeded
with at Dudley. The report of the Sanitary Committee
was adopted.—After the reading of the Watch Cott:unit-
the's report, the Mayor explained that the Town Clerk
had received a certificate from the Home Office, stating
that the Council were to be the Local Authority under
the provisions of the Exp:osive Substances Act. It was
agreed to leave the details in the hands- of the Watch
Committee.—ln the ; report of the Water Committee
there was a recommendation to pay the Mayor £627 on
behalf of the opposition to the South Staffordshire
Waterworks Company. Mr. Wainwright considered the
bill too large and exhorbitant. The Dudley Town Coun-
cil appeared before the House of Lords to oppose, but
they were allowed no standing, and there the expenses
ought to have ceased. But the Council went to the
House of commons, and wanted their standing deter-
mined !Ilion. Without calling upon him (the speaker)
to say anything, the House disallowed their standing.
In an adjoining parish, where opposition was carried on
six days, the expenses were about one-half of Dailey.
There was a bill standing against the Town Clerk of
£392. and of this Mr. Brooke (the Town Clerk) said he .
knew nothing about it; other persons had charged—
non-professional persons not entitled to charge—in his
name. Mr. Waiuwright then moved a lengthy resolution
called for details as to the coats of the opposition. The
Mayor said it was not in very good taste that Mr. Wain-
wright, connected ashe was with the Company, should
have made that public display, when he might have had
all the information he wanted at the committee meeting.
Ile admitted that at the House of Lords, they were ruled
to have no locus standi, but by going on with their case
they succeeded in obtaining the exclusion of objectionable
clauses. It was done in this way. Sedgley and the
surroundingplaces had not worked up an opposition
worthy of the occasion, because at conferences held
oeforehand it was agreed that Dudley, having the stung.
eat case, should go first and bear the brunt of the battle,
the other parishes coming after. When it was
ruled that Dudley had no locus standi they kept to
their desire to wring concessions from the Water.
works Company, and be (the Mayor) and Mr.
Barradale worked the whole of the Dudley case
through the Sedgley counsel, who had a locus standi.
So well too was that done that the company surrendered
a great deal of the bill. (Hear, hear.) The Counci
went to the referees of the House of Commons, because
there was such general consternation and surprise at
Dudley being refused a hearing- With regard to the
bill standing in the town clerk's name, it was a legal
matter, and he (the Mayor) would undertake to explain
to the committee how the matter was to be settled In
reply to mm remark from Alderman E. Bagott, Mr. War.
mingi on said the town clerk's name was the proper one
to attach to the bill. He agreed with the Mayor that the
Council were compelled to oppose the company by the
force of public opinion in the borough, for in every
quarter of the town there were complaints of filthy water
and deficient supply. Mr.. Chalongsworth wanted a,
a detailsd statement of accounts. The Mayor said the's
details would be laid before the Finance Commi,te4
Challingswoith : That won't satisfy "nie: -
Mayor : I will undertake to show ,how every penny hue •
been spent, and I will undertake to show that I h ive
saved you a heavy lawyer's bill. I hntl lay everything
before the cotnreitte, and let them report on it. If that
report is not accepted, I shall have to pnrau., a isiurse
consistent with my own digui.y. Alderman George
Bagott was sorry that taa Mayor shou!cl ceuaider him-
self insulted, because he felt sure that the ratepayera.
wanted a detailed statement. Finch tiusted that if
the ratepayers had a detailed statement they
should also have a detailed statement of Out objectionable
clauses surrendered by the Waterworks Compiaily to the
Council's opposition. A Id,,rinan Hassell complained of
the uugentlemanly attack by Hr. Millwright ol the
Mayor, in not giving hint wit ce of his intention to bring
the matter forward that day. The Mayor, as chief
magistrate, and a gentlemen who had devoted himself
to the opposition in the maaner he had, could not desire
for one second any misapptopriation of the public money
(Hear, hear.) Mr. George l'ilampsou also expressed.
his unbounded contidenee in ths I.l‘yor, and teu.lered
him his thanks for the benefit lie had conferred on the
town. Mr. Wainw, ,ght said he ti t called on the Clerk
and the chairman of the Pinatico Couiwittee, who knew
no details. The %lavas : Why did vett not do rao the ,
honour of calling upon ruse ? Mr. -Waniwrielat : I. was I
from home. It was thee agree b. 11 to 10 that the re- I
port of the Finance CoinuiLtee should tie ado,a..d. with
the exception of the part relatin4 to the paym-nt of the
£625., it being clearly undenoood that the Mayor wml
let the committee have the fullest idetails.—The rent o
the business was formal.

CORRESPONDENCE.


To the Editor of the " Observer."
STOURBRIDGE AND DISTRICT ASSOCIATION
FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO
AN

Bir)—l have the: pleasure to inform you that the

Printed and Pablipheil by the Sole Proprietor, SIKNO2I
YIELD, at h ofices. 92, High-street, Stonrbrittga. In
the (loamy el Worcester: to watch place all letters/and
othEr bonimnnicaticuie ninot be addresse4. 411
gaturday, April 8. 1876. I