[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for St. Saviour's].

  • St. Saviour's District (London, England). Board of Works.
Date:
1885
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Credit: [Report of the Medical Officer of Health for St. Saviour's]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: City of London, London Metropolitan Archives

    4/48 (page 4)
    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