View report page

20
formed that copies of the Petition were lying for signature at the Town
Hall, and certain places in Cambridge Road and Whitechapel Road.
The persons who signed the petition were few compared with the
numbers of those to whom the proposals of the Company would have
been productive of great inconvenience.
The Clerk and Surveyor had interviews with the Chairman, Solicitor,
and Engineer of the Company, which resulted in the Company offering
to modify their plans by giving girder bridges over Essex Street and
Suffolk Street, with the same headway as the bridges of the Great
Eastern Railway, over Cudworth Street and Collingwood Street, with
a headway of 12 ft. 6 in. over Temple Terrace; with a headway of
10 ft. over Somerford Street; with a headway of 10 ft. 9 in., and by
giving at Trafalgar Place a footway 7 ft. high; and at Thomas Passage
a bridge approached by steps. These were all the modifications of the
plans which it was in the power of the Company to offer, but were
felt by the Vestry to bo so insufficient as to make it necessary to
persevere with the opposition to the Bill. Counsel was accordingly
instructed by the Parliamentary agents to oppose. The Bill was also
opposed on the preamble by the Metropolitan Board of Works. It was
understood that Board opposed as the Vestry did, because the Bill was
in itself objectionable; but unfortunately the officers of the Metropolitan
Board of Works, without any communication with the Vestry (and it
seems without the sanction of their Board), withdrew the opposition
of the Board on having certain unimportant clauses inserted. The
Vestry were thus left alone, and the effect of the withdrawal of the
opposition of the Metropolitan Board was to render the opposition of
the Vestry futile. Counsel for the promoters urged strongly and with
effect on the Committee of the House, that the Metropolitan Board of
Works being satisfied showed that the opposition of the Vestry, a
minor body, was groundless, that the proposed interference with the
street was not such an injury as should weigh against the alleged
convenience to the public of the intended line, and that the Metropolitan
Board being satisfied the Vestry should be. The member of
the Metropolitan Board for this Parish submitted the matter to that
Board, with the view of getting that Board to oppose the Bill, if possible,
in the House of Lords. The Great Eastern Railway Company consented
to insert the Clauses as to Lighting, Paving, &c., asked by the Vestry,