Immediately after the application of the act to this city, all sorts of absurd rumours were put into circulation as to the expense it would occasion to the ratepayers; and the ignorance and misinformation that appeared to prevail upon the subject, would scarcely be credited if related. Ward meetings were very generally held, at which memorials to the Council were adopted, praying them not to carry out the act, or to postpone its operation. And thus commenced an agitation, which, being fostered by persons who had their own or party ends to serve, long continued to disturb the peace of the city.
At the meeting of the Council on the 7th of August, Alderman Elgie moved that the Public Health Committee should report to the next meeting as to what offices were necessary to be appointed, and other steps requisite to be taken under the Health of Towns Act. This was carried by a majority of 19 to 11.
At a subsequent meeting, the committee reported that the officers required would be a clerk, treasurer, surveyor, and medical officer of health. An amendment for delay was rejected by 22 to 12, and the clerk and treasurer were at once appointed.
In consequence of the determination thus evinced by the Council to proceed vigorously with the practical application of the measure, a public meeting was called by the parties hostile to it. This was held on the 25th of September, 1849, and presided over by the Mayor, Mr. Padmore. Mr. Summerfield moved the adoption of a memorial to the Central Board, praying that the act might not be applied to Worcester, because it was denied that the mortality of the city exceeded 23 in 1,000; and because a majority of the inhabitants were said to be unfavourable to the introduction of the Public Health Act. Alderman Thompson seconded the memorial. Alderman Edward Webb proposed, as an amendment, “That inasmuch as the act is at present applied to the city, and considering the unsatisfactory state of the dwellings of the poor, the insufficient drainage, and bad supply of water, the memorial is unnecessary.” Alderman Elgie and Mr. Waters addressed the meeting at great length on the general question, and pointed out the absurdity of supposing that any memorial to a board in London could stop the operation of an Act of Parliament. Excepting Mr. James Wall, who made a few observations, no one attempted to speak on the other side; but the amendment was lost, and the memorial carried by a large majority.
The presentation of the memorial was intrusted to the Rev. R. Sargeant and Mr. Lucy, but the Board declined to receive them as a deputation in the absence of Mr. Clark. The Rev. R. Sargeant, therefore, forwarded it with a letter, and the Board of course returned for answer, that they had no power to stop proceedings under an Act of Parliament; and further, that the act had been legally applied to Worcester—as the Registrar General had certified to them, under his own hand, that the mortality was 25.05 in 1,000.
The appointment of surveyor was postponed by the Council till after the municipal elections for 1849; but at the meeting of November 16, further delay was resisted, and an amendment to that effect was defeated by 26 votes to 12. Mr. Edward Leader Williams was then chosen surveyor under the Public Health Act, by 23 votes to 8 given for the opposing candidate, Mr. Samuel Purchas. The question of salary was postponed.
For some months Mr. Williams went on, under the directions of the health committee, preparing his plans for the improved drainage and water supply of the city. His report on the drainage question was issued and printed in June, 1850, and met with very general approval. Having been called before the Council, at their meeting in August, and given explanations upon some points, the Council in full meeting adopted the report with only two dissentient voices. The report estimated the cost for the entire drainage of the city at £17,345.
The excitement amongst ratepayers was, however, kept up by a question of the necessity of appointing a medical officer of health; and so strong was the current of public opinion against such an appointment, that the Council were compelled to abandon all thoughts of making it. Dr. Malden and Dr. Hastings both addressed letters to the Council, declaring that, in their opinion, a medical officer was needed for the proper carrying out of the act.
The by-laws necessary under the Public Health Act for the regulation of slaughter houses, lodging houses, &c., were another fruitful source of squabbles during 1850. On the 5th of March a code was agreed to in the Council, by a majority of 15 to 7, which rendered it necessary that an “officer of health” should have the superintendence of such places, and to these the Secretary of State gave his assent. In July, however, the anti-sanitary party having increased in boldness, carried a new set of by-laws, by a majority of 18 to 16, in which the words “inspector of nuisances” was everywhere inserted instead of “officer of health.” They then begged the Home Secretary to endorse their inconsistent proceeding, but he refused to do so. The original by-laws are, therefore, now law in the city of Worcester; but as there is no “officer of health,” no use has been made of them—they remain a dead letter.
On the 5th September, 1850, the anti-sanitary party had a public meeting in the Guildhall, at which Mr. Toulmin Smith attended and delivered an harangue against centralisation. The meeting actually came to a resolution “to resist the application of the act in that city and elsewhere; and, if possible, obtain its repeal.”