View report page

49
Of course if cither of the two companies come to Parliament for further powers, the occasion should
be taken advantage of to endeavour to obtain more stringent provisions for the prevention of nuisance.
In the meantime, the initial step lies with the local sanitary authorities. They must require the
sufficient cleansing of the surface of the water and the dredging of the canal bed and lay-byes. They
must take care that no further pollution takes place from the wharves and frontages on the banks of
the canals, and they must enforce the new by-law of the Council with regard to the carriage of foecal
or offensive or noxious matter by road or by water through London.
On the presentation of this report the Council resolved to take the opinion of counsel, whether it
would not be competent for the Attorney-General, if called upon by the Council, to proceed by public
indictment against the Grand Junction and Regent's Canal Companies for creating a public nuisance by
their neglect of the proper management of their canals and basins within the metropolis.
The Committee, later, reported that the case had been submitted to Mr. Poland, Q.C., and that
his opinion was—
To the effect that he agrees with the Council's solicitor that the canals are "premises" within the
meaning of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891. He considers that this is not a case in which the
Government would be likely to instruct the Attorney-General to take up the prosecution until after every
effort had been made to put a stop to the nuisance under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891. After
much consideration he has come to the conclusion that the Council cannot pay the expenses of a prosecution
by indictment out of the county fund; and he suggests that at a convenient opportunity the Council
should obtain from Parliament the power of spending money for this salutary purpose.
So far as the Grand Junction canal is concerned, counsel considers that there is no case against the
canal company, having regard to the printed report of the medical officer, which has already been submitted
to the Council.
It will be remembered that the Council on the 27th February last passed a resolution to the following
effect—
That the Parliamentary Committee be requested to prepare a bill dealing with the canal
property of the Grand Junction and Regent's Canal Companies, with the object of handing
over to an administrative board representing the various local governing bodiss interested
the entire sanitary control of the canals.
We have therefore thought it well to refer counsel's opinion to the Parliamentary Committee for
their consideration in connection with that resolution, as it is very doubtful whether, assuming for the
moment that the Council had power to spend any money in introducing such a bill, there would be any
justification for it, unless it could be shown that the powers of the Public Health Act had been exhausted.
We have called the attention of that Committee to the suggestion made by counsel that the Council
should apply to Parliament for power to proceed by indictment in the case of this particular nuisance,
and possibly this power might be extended generally to any nuisance which the Council found itself
unable to adequately deal with under its existing powers.
We have at the same time addressed a communication to the sanitary authorities through whose
districts the Regent's and Grand Junction canals pass, inquiring what action has been taken since the
conference in December last, whether any mud deposits have been removed from the canals, and whether
the surface of the water is periodically or regularly scavenged. We have also asked the Yestries of St.
Marylebone and St. Pancras what steps have been taken for diverting the drainage of the Zoologicalgardens
from the Regent's-canal. We report the course taken for the information of the Council.
The Council declined to receive the report of the Committee.
The annual reports of the medical officers of health contain the following reference to the
canals—
Kensington—The medical officer of health reports that after inspection of the canal there did
not appear to be any objectionable condition calling for action on the part of the vestry.
St. Pancras—The medical officer of health reports that a notice was served on the North
Metropolitan Railway and Canal Company to cleanse and scavenge the surface and banks of the canal
forthwith and in future three times a week in June, July, and August, and twice in each week in the
remaining portion of the year; to cleanse and scavenge the bottom lay-byes and basins of the canal
forthwith and in future once in each year; to concrete so much of the canal, including the lay-byes
and basins, as are likely to allow mud and other deposits to accumulate ; and to construct an overflow
at the southern end of Cumberland-basin so as to change the water in the basin and prevent its stagnation.
This notice not having been complied with, the company agreed to a joint inspection of the
canal by officers of the company and vestry, for the purpose of verifying the accumulation of mud
stated to exist. Many lay-byes and docks being in the occupation of private owners responsible for
the maintenance and condition, notices, where necessary, were served upon them. Many h undreds of
tons of mud were removed from the waterway, lay-byes, &c. The laying of a sewer to drain the
Zoological-gardens was under the consideration of the vestries of St. Pancras and St. Marylebone.
Islington—An inspection of the canal showed that " beyond its usual semi-stagnant condition
and the collection of a deposit of mud at a lay-bye, together with the discharge of rain-water pipes
from a barber's shop, no nuisances were discovered."
St. Luke—The medical officer of health states that the report of the Council's medical officer
confirms the views he expressed in ] 892.
Limehouse—Upon the receipt of the report of the Council's medical officer the board caused
notices to be served upon the owners of property on the Regent's-canal to divert the drainage, and
on the canal company to remove an accumulation of mud near Brunton's wharf.
Housing of the Working Classes.
During the year 1893 further progress was made in carrying out improvement schemes with
respect to the following areas—
(a) Scheme undertaken by the Council under Part 1. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act.
Boundary-street.—On July 10th the Public Health and Housing Committee reported that
the bulk of the property in the Boundary-street area had passed into the hands of the Council, and
a table showing the results of the negotiations and arbitration in respect of the various claims was presented.
This return gave £300,000 as the cost, in round figures, of acquiring the property. The valuer's
original gross estimate amounted to £371,000. A saving of £71,000 upon the estimated cost had thus
been effected in the case of this area—the first to be dealt with under Part I. of the Housing of the
Working Classes Act of 1890.