Talk:Metropolis Management Act 1855

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

London Mid‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Non-administrative vestries[edit]

It looks like the vestries of the parishes grouped into districts continued to exist. Robson (1939) says that the 1899 act abolished 44 "non-administrative vestries" as well as the vestries and district boards. With a little digging, it appears more vestrymen were elected for these vestries than the district boards required and there was a secondary election to each district board. "Immediately prior to the passing of the London Government Act there were thirty administrative vestries (including Woolwich Local Board), having 2,481 members, elected; and forty-four non-administrative vestries, having 1,632 vestrymen, who appointed 619 representatives on twelve district boards" [1]. The non-administrative vestries had no function it seems other than acting as an electoral college. Need to work this in somehow. MRSC (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. So a doubly-indirect form of election. I suppose the non-administrative parish vestries could theoretically break free from their district if they had a sufficient increase in population, as seen in the case of Hackney and Stoke Newington in 1894. Lozleader (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And presumably this was in line with section 2 of the 1855 Act, which provided that there should be:

Eighteen Vestrymen for every Parish in which the Number of rated Householders shall not exceed One thousand;
and Six additional Vestrymen, that is, Twenty-four Vestrymen for every parish in which the Number of rated Householders shall exceed One thousand;
and Twelve additional Vestrymen, that is, Thirty-six Vestrymen, for every Parish in which the Number of rated Householders shall exceed Two thousand;
and so on at the Proportion of Twelve additional Vestrymen for every Thousand rated Householders :
Provided always, that in no Case the Number of Vestrymen shall exceed One hundred and twenty

Lozleader (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And this perhaps explains the advantage of Westminster St Margaret and St John forming a 'combined vestry' rather than remain a district board, as it presumably meant all the vestrymen actually got to be elected.

What is less clear is if the non-administrative vestries actually met. I've found no evidence of this, although as they had no powers as such there isn't much to take record of. Presumably the 'break away' vestries met to resolve to do this, but I'm not sure to what extent they had any existence outside of appointing the district board members. MRSC (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to [2] non-administrative vestry powers, other than electing district board members, were libraries following the Public Libraries Act 1855 and baths and wash houses from the Baths and Wash Houses Act 1846. This quote sums the situation up "I have found that a member of the Vestry, unless he is also a member of the District Board, has responsibility without power and labour without fruit". MRSC (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving sections of the Act[edit]

'As of 2012...' - are they still valid? Jackiespeel (talk) 13:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]