View report page

4
(altered to No. 35 in the Act), authorising the construction of
temporary shafts in the Borough High Street, for the purposes of
the excavations, remained, the Engineer of the Company being
of opinion that openings of the kind could not be altogether
dispensed with, and as these constituted one, if not the chief,
ground of objection entertained by the Board to the passing of the
Bill, they resolved to oppose it in the House of Lords. The
Committee of the Upper House to whom the Bill was entrusted
consisted of Lord Romilly, Lord Lamington, and the Earls of
Clarendon, Hopetoun, and Kintore, who, at the outset, intimated
that they did not wish to hear any statement of facts as to the
alleged inconvenience which would be occasioned to the district.
Mr. Killick, however, on behalf of the Borough Market Trustees,
gave evidence of the number of foot passengers passing over
London Bridge to the Railway Stations, and down the Borough
High Street; and Mr. Rider, on behalf of the Board, as to the
state of the neighbourhood generally; and, at the suggestion of
Counsel, photographs, prepared by Mr. Medland, were put in, for
the purpose of indicating to their Lordships the crowded state of
the Borough High Street on market mornings. Mr. O'Hara, the
junior Counsel to the promoters, although in his opening speech
he had offered to do anything he could to meet the wishes of the
Board in regard to the number of shafts, declined to listen to
any overtures on this subject; but the Committee, nevertheless,
unanimously agreed that one shaft only should be sunk in the
district, and in this respect an important concession has been
obtained. Efforts were made by Counsel, on behalf of the Board,
to obtain the insertion of clauses impounding the deposit if the
works were not completed and opened to the public within a given
time, and to prevent their being commenced or undertaken until
a certain proportion of the capital had been bona fide subscribed
and allotted, but in this he was unsuccessful, and the Bill was
read a third time on the 11th July, 1884. Although not
efficacious to prevent the passing of the measure, as had been
hoped, the opposition of the Board has resulted in important
concessions and alterations, which, in the event of the project
being carried out, will give the Board considerable powers of