View report page

187
The Committee having carefully considered the said
Clauses reported to the Vestry strongly in its favour, and
the Vestry adopted the recommendation of the Committee.
The Bill was referred by the Standing Committee of
the House of Commons to a Committee of the House, who
heard evidence in support of the Clauses and against it,
and the Clauses were ultimately rejected by the Committee.
The Council withdrew the Bill.
Canterbury Road The paving of this Road under the 105th
Apportionment. Section of the Metropolis Management Act
having at length been completed, the Owners who had
paid were entitled to be paid the difference between the
estimated and the actual cost, when a legal difficulty
arose as to reapportionment, the Vestry having
already apportioned the expenses three times. Some
of the Owners in this parish had paid on the first
apportionment, and on the third, Owners in both Parishes
had been charged and the expense apportioned. A
further difficulty arose in consequence of the Metropolitan
Board of Works including in their contract the cost of
paving the approaches for the new Bridge, extending on
this side to Penarth Street, the Vestry consequently did not
pave that portion which abutted on land belonging to Mr.
Stotesbury. A case was submitted to Mr. Austin, who
had been the Vestry's Counsel in this matter, and he was of
opinion the first thing to be done by the Vestry was to
return to such Owners as had paid upon the original apportionment,
the difference in each case between their share of
the expenses as originally apportioned, and their share as
finally apportioned. When this had been done, any balance
n