View report page

228
would bepricticable, under the provisions of the Act, to obtain
com iciion-;, unless ihe matter were handed over to some
officer having technical knowledge of furnace-conduction, &c.
as it ha-i to be p oved that the nuisa ce is due to preventable
negligence on the part o! the owner, or to furnaces defectively
constructed."
GRAND JUNCTION CANAL.
I referred in my last repor t to complaints that had been
made respect ng the condition of parts of the Grand Junction
and Regent's Canals, and to the action of the Vestries of
Paddington, St. Maiylebone, and St. Pancras, in relation
thereto. The C>unty Council, when forwaiding to your Vestry
a copy of the report of the delegates of the three Vestries
requested to be informed as to the condition of the Grand
Junction Canal in this parish, whereupon I reported, after
inspection of the canal, that there did not appear to be any
objectionable condition calling for action on the part of your
Vestry, and that I had received no complaints on the subject.
The length of the portion of the canal in this parish is about
half a mile, viz., from Plough Lane Bridge, Portobello Road,
to the western limit of the gas works wall on the towing-path
side, the Kensal Green Cemetery being on the other side.
There are no houses on the banks, and no wharves or laybyes.
No drains, save a few for surface water or for roof
drainage, enter the canal, and there are no visible sources of
pollution on the banks. In the early part of the current year,
the Council forwarded to your Vestry a report by their
Medical Officer of Health on the condition of the canals, in
which it was stated that the Grand Junction Canal "appears
to be systematically scavenged," and that " the water was
found in a cleanly condition." At about the same time the
Council resolved to take the opinion of Mr. Poland, Q.C.,
" Whether it would not be competent for the Attorney-General,
if called upon by the Council, to proceed by public indictment