View report page

10
the Board in introducing a Bill in Parliament for effecting the
object desired, and the necessary parliamentary notices were published
for such purpose.
No sooner, however, was this done than the objection was
started by the Guardians that they were not authorized to make
such an application to Parliament, and in the event of the Bill
not passing they might be rendered personally liable for the costa
incurred, they therefore withdrew themselves as promoters of the
Bill, and not only so, but most strenuously opposed it before the
Committee of each House of Parliament.
The present report being in respect of the year ending Ladyday,
1873, this subject cannot be continued without anticipation
and trenching upon the proceedings of the year 1878-4. It is,
however, unnecessary to go into particulars of the hardly fought
battle between the Board and the Guardians over all the more
important clauses of the Bill—first in the Lords, and afterwards
in the Commons—but it will be sufficient to record that the
Beckenham Sewerage Act, 1873, provides as an equivalent for
the advantage of participation by the Beckenham Tongue of
Land on the Metropolitan Sewerage System, for the payment of
the following sums and continuing charges:—
To the Lewisham Board, £1062 10s. on the 25th of March,
1874, and a yearly sum equal to one half-penny in the pound on
the rateable value of the Tongue of Land called in the Act the
Beckenham Sewerage Area.
To the Metropolitan Board, £2312 10s. on the 25th of
March, 1874, of which sum £1062 10s. is divisible between the
Parishes who contributed to the cost of construction of the
Ravensbourne and Sydenham Sewer, the apportioned part of such
amount receivable by Lewisham being £618 6s. 2d.
And yearly sums to provide for the interest and sinking fund
of money borrowed for main drainage purposes, and also to provide
for the maintenance of the main drainage system, proportioned
to the rateable value of the area to the metropolis.
The Board have, by formal resolution, tendered their thanks
to James Richard Lloyd, Esq., the representative of the Plumstead
and Lewisham Districts, at the Metropolitan Board, for the
valuable services rendered by him in the very protracted negociations—not
only between this Board and the Metropolitan Board—