View report page

27
"Resolved that it be referred to the Clerks and the Surveyor of Sewers to fully
consider the provisions of the said Bill, and to confer with the Metropolitan Board
of Works as neccssary and relative to the expediency of inserting in the said Bill
such additional powers as may be considered advisable for enabling the Vestry to
protect this Parish from floods and inundations, caused not only by the overflow of
the River Thames, but also by overflow from any water docks company's premises,
canals, inlets from the river, or other water areas within this Parish and also for the
insertion therein of such further provisions (if any) or such modifications thereof
they may deem expedient"
This Bill was ultimately withdrawn.
In June 1876, the Vestry, on the invitation of the Board of Works for the
Whitechapel District, appointed a Special Committee, consisting of Messrs. Robert
Foottit and Fdwnrd lames Talbot, churchwardens, and Messrs. John Bulmcr, Henry
Hayward, William Durrant, Edward John Cox, James Powell and Reuben Henry
. Williams, junr.. to attend a meeting of representatives from the Vestry of St
George's-in-the-Fast and of the District Boards of Limehouse, and St Olave's
Southwark, to confer with reference to the question of providing a communication
between the north and south sides of the River Thames, below the existing bridge
called London bridge. The Committee attended seven meetings of the representatives
at the office of the Whitechapel District Board of Works, Great Alice
Street, K., between the 18th July, 1876, and the 6th February, 1877. A report of the
result of the conference was drawn up concluding as follows.—"I hat as in th opinion
of the Representatives the matter is one of vast importance to the public, the local
authorities sho '11 either by combination or separately, as may be deemed better,
embrace the prcs it favourable opportunity to use their utmo t endeavours to Procure
the performance of a work so necessary as the construction of an efficient bridge
over, or subway under the Thames at a point east of London I ridge, which woul 1
afford an advantage to the general public far beyond the freeing from toll most of the
existing toll-bridges of the Thames."
Doubts having arisen as to the rating qualification of Mr Reubcn Henry
Williams, junr., who was elected a vestryman in May 1876, the Vestry caused the
opinion of Mr. J. Morgan Howard, Q.C.. to be taken on the subject, and the
following is a copy of such opinion—
OPINION.
1.—1 am of opinion that within the mea ling of the authorities applicable to this
question, Mr. K. H. Williams, junr.. is not legally qualified to act as a
Vestryman of th' said parish pursuant to the said Act