View report page

113
piers of property along the line of route, the Vestry determined
to co-operate in opposing the scheme in the interests
of the ratepayers who would be affected. Active opposition,
however, was rendered unnecessary by the abandonment of
the scheme at a very early stage.
The second scheme is of a different character, presenting
greater advantages and fewer disadvantages than the last
mentioned. The railway is proposed to be continued to the
City, where it would join the City of London and Southwark
Subway, instead of stopping short at Holborn as proposed by
the opposing schcme, and it is to be constructed without
disturbing the surface of the street. It would therefore
afford greater convenience by entering the City and forming
a connection with another railway, and would prevent the
heavy loss to tradesmen and others along the route, during
construction, which is involved in diverting or obstructing
the traffic. The Vestry, therefore, resolved not to oppose
the Bill, provided the promoters undertook to pay to the
London County Council, for street improvements or other
public purposes, such sum as Parliament should determine for
the use of the land in the public streets for which no payment
would otherwise be made. In adopting this proviso
the Vestry were to some extent influenced by the precedent
set in the construction of the Metropolitan and District
Railways, when a sum of money was paid to the Chelsea
Vestry for the purpose of street improvements, and streets
were formed in the Parishes of Kensington and Hammersmith
by the Companies concerned.
The promoters did not agree to the above-named condition,
consequently a petition has been deposited against the Bill,
so that the Vestry may raise the point before the Parliamentary
Committee, if, on full consideration, they deem it
expedient to do so.
H