View report page

17
adjoining owners, but had been dedicated to the public by the
freeholder, and that the western side had some years ago been
kerbed by the Parish. Complaints having been made of the danger
arising from the defective fence at the end of the Road at the canal
bank, the Vestry built a wall at the north end of the Road, but (at
the expense of the owner of the saw mill) made a doorway in the
wall, so as to admit of access to the canal bank, on an arrangement
that the Vestry should be at liberty at any time, to block up the
doorway. At the meeting held on the 5th of October, it was resolved
to give the owners of the saw mills six months' notice to remove the
timber stacked on the Road, and that if within that time the timber
was not removed, proceedings to compel the removal should be
taken. Notice was given accordingly.
EAST LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
The promoters of the bill mentioned in the last report offered
certain modifications of their plans, for the purpose of mitigating the
evils which carrying out the deposited plans would occasion. The
modifications were, to give girder bridges at Essex-street and Suffolkstreet,
with the same headway as the new bridges to be made by the
Great Eastern Railway Company; at Cudworth-street and Collingwood-street,
to give girder bridges with headways of 12 ft. 6 in.; at
Temple-terrace, a girder bridge with a headway of 10 ft.; at
Somerford-street, a girder bridge with a headway of 8 ft. 9 in.; at
Trafalgar-place, a footway of 7 ft. high; at Thomas-passage, a bridge
approached by steps.
It appeared that these were all the modifications it was in the
power of the promoters to offer without withdrawing their bill and
depositing fresh plans for the next session. The modifications did not,
in the opinion of the Vestry, remove the substantial objections to the
bill, and the Vestry resolved to carry out the original intention of
opposing the bill on the preamble. Counsel was instructed by the
parliamentary agents accordingly, and it was understood that the
Metropolitan Board of Works would also oppose. To the surprise
of the Vestry the officers of the Metropolitan Board of Works, while
the bill was before the Committee, withdrew the opposition of the
Board, and not only left the Vestry unsupported, but furnished the
promoters with the argument that the Metropolitan Board of Works
being satisfied, the objections of the Vestry were shewn to be
B