London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Lewisham 1890

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Limehouse]

This page requires JavaScript

If, however, the average interest wore taken for the 50 years
I pointed out that the annual charge was equal to £88 11s. 10d.
as follows:—
Limehonse £33
Ratcliff 19
Shadwell 14
Wapping 17
On the 14th May, when the question was again under discussion,
a Deputation attended and presented a petition, signed by some
600 persons, in favor of the improvements and addressed the Hoard
in support thereof. A letter was read from the Clerk of the London
County County Council as follows:—
"The Improvements Committee has under consideration your
"letter of the 9th October last on the subject of a proposed
"improvement by widening the western end of Ben Jonson Road.
"The Committee before determining upon its report to the Council
"has directed me to enquire of the two local authorities concerned
"the Limehouse District Board and the Vestry of Mile End Old
"Town—whether in the event of the Council deciding to carry out
"the Improvement they would each bo prepared to contribute half
"the cost. I have accordingly to ask that you will bring the matter
"before the Limehouse District Board, and inform me whether the
"Board on its part is prepared to make a contribution of half the
"cost." The Board having considered such letter resolved: "That
"as it would be illegal for this Board to contribute towards the cost
"of any works outside the District the County Council be urged to
"carry out the proposed Ben Jonson Koad and Victory Bridge
"Scheme as a County Improvement"
On the 16th June, at a Special Meeting called pursuant to
requisition it was moved that negotiations be entered into with the
Mile End Vestry, with a view of accepting the offer of the County
Council, and pledging the Board to contribute half the cost, but it
was ruled that the motion could not be put, as the resolution of
14th May had not been rescinded.
On tho 25th June, a Special Meeting was called pursuant to
requisition when it was moved that tho resolution of 14th May be
rescinded, but upon a division 11 members voted for the rescision
and 9 against, and as the motion was not supported by a majority
consisting of two-thirds of the members present, as required by the