View report page

40
the Councillors for their respective divisions. Many of the
local authorities, in their replies, intimated having taken
such action. The Council, however, replied on the 26th
September at considerable length, "that it was not
"expedient that the reports of Committees should be com"municated
to outside parties before presentation to the
"Council," and that notwithstanding the difference, as
compared with the late Metropolitan Board in the relation
of the Council to the Vestries and District Boards, " the
"Council was at all times desirous of affording to the local
"bodies all possible information respecting its proceedings,
"and of co-operating with them in promoting the interests
"of the inhabitants of London."
The value of the sentiment expressed in the last sentence
is materially diminished, if not destroyed, by the facts.
Overflow
of Main
Sewers.
In the final report of the late Metropolitan
Board of Works, issued in February, 1889, a
retrospect or their proceedings tor the improvement ot the
main drainage system of the metropolis was given. The
Board called to mind that " in times of heavy and long
"continued rain, and more particularly when much rain
" fell at the time of high water in the river, the closed
" sewers were unable to store the increased volume of
" sewage water, which then rose through the house drains
o 7 o
t: and flooded the basements of the houses." The context
showed that this was intended as a description of the main
drainage system as the Metropolitan Board of Works found
it; but it is much more. So far as Westminster is concerned
it is a true description'of the system as the Board left
it, after thirty-three years administration ; and it is none the
less true of the condition of things after twelve months
repeated remonstrance to the London County Council. All
the facts have been fully and repeatedly laid before the
Council during the year, but the last reports of the surveyor
prior to Lady-day testified that the nuisance continued
on the increase.