The Press. — London, England, 1855-06-02 00:00:00

518 Corrtsponttnct. METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT BILL. TO THE EDITOR OF " THE PRESS." Sir,—ln my former letter it was shown that the late Metropolitan Commission of Sewers fully ap proved and adopted a plan for the arterial draining of the metropolis on the 20th October, 1853. It was laid before the House of Commons by four parlia mentary papers—being (1854), No. 84, p. 14-28 ; No. 180, p. 152; No. 376; and No. 394—and, for the purpose of commencing its construction, the Com mission resolved, on the sth September, 1854 : That the requisite steps be immediately taken for raising a further sum of 300,0001., for which powers have been given by the act of last session, and that negotiations be entered into for the purchase of land, and that steps be taken for proceeding with the main drainage works imme diately that the said sum of money is obtained. The land required being at Deptford and at Hack ney, both within the limits of their act, it was quite competent for the Commission to make the purchase by "negotiations," and failing to secure the land on equitable terms a short act of Parliament could easily have been obtained. These works, estimated to cost 1,050,0001., will increase the necessity for the remaining portion of the late Commissioners' schemes, the total cost of which is estimated by their consulting engineer at 3,000,0001. Three questions naturally present themselves :- 1. Is the General Board to be constituted by the Metropolis Local Management Bill, and to be in trusted with the permission of constructing these works, likely to incur such an expenditure of the ratepayers', their constituents, money? 2. Are the works represented by 1,050,0001. right or wrong ? 3. Is there any other plan for accomplishing the same object at a less formidable expense ? By way of reply it is submitted that:- 1. If 3,000,0001. be raised at four and a half per cent —the rate recently paid by the city of London— and the amount be repaid within twenty-five years, then the annual charge will be 202,3171., or a total payment of 5,057,9251. A very large majority of the elected Board will no doubt object to works which they will urge are not required by their districts, and which, with the ordi nary sewer rate of sixpence in the pound, will involve a charge of five per cent. on all the property of the metropolis; and, unless there be enacted a compul sory payment from " Local Boards," and compulsory action on the part of the " General Board," the dis pollution of the Thames and arterial drainage will probably be further and indefinitely deferred. In 1853 Sir Benjamin Hall and Sir John V. Shel ley, the Metropolitan and the City Commissions of Sewers, opposed a payment of 30,000/. for arterial drainage, although it was only asked for twenty-five years, and was to commence only after the construc tion of the works to the satisfaction of the Board of Works, and amounting only to a rate of three farthings or nne penny in the pound ; any profit arising from the sale of the sewage to diminish and extinguish this limited charge. How, then, can they justify the supposition that the constituents of the General Board will be involved voluntarily in an annual payment of' seven times the amount, or 202,3171. per annum, especially when there is no prospect of a profit, and a large increase in taxation, to afford a ready excuse for delay ? 2. The first portion of the late Commission's scheme, to cost 1,050,000/., is almost exclusively provided for storm-waters, at an elevation of eighty feet, running from Kilburn to Hackney, and from Dulwich, Clapham, and Battersea tol Deptford, and costing 300,0001. and 750,0001. respectively. There are on an average only twenty-three inches of rain in the metropolis annually falling on 150 wet days, and a rainfall exceeding a quarter of an inch, therefore, cannot occur very frequently. Evapora tion, independent of absorption supplying local wells, is more than equal to the rainfall. On the Ist June, 1853, there fell 1.15 in. of rain in seventeen hours ; and it is is evidence that, on the following day, it passed off, without any difficulty, through existing channels. That storm-water drains were required was sub mitted by the Commissions of Sewers before a select committee in 1853, but the statement was entirely rejected, the committee considering that they would actually have a very prejudicial effect, by depriving the lower districts of their influx, and that, on the contrary, sewage drains were required. The City Commission of Sewers rejected the scheme, to cost 1,050,0001., so soon as it was " pub lished," the Chairman declaring, on the 25th October, 1853, that "it was quite different from the original plan, intended to go in the direction of the Isle of Dogs"; and the surveyor stated "that he thought he ought to have been consulted upon the matter." The new Metropolitan Commission of Sewers, on the day of their appointment, called these works in ques tion, and at their neat meeting, on the 6th December, THE PRESS. 1854, they declared their readiness to receive and examine other plans for the arterial drainage of the metropolis, and they have subsequently passed reso lutions which entirely reject the works adopted by their predecessors. 3. A peculiar interest is therefore at the present time attached to the subject which the Earl of Car narvon brought before the House of Lords on the 3rd inst.:— The Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers proposed to expend 3,0(.10,0001. in the construction of a main line of drainage for the whole metropolis, while a rival plan for accomplishing the same object was stated as likely to cost only 1,000,0001. The question was one affecting the well being of all classes alike. Even the walls of the building in which they were assembled were sapped by rotten sewers and festering heaps of abomination. Times, May 4, 1855. The latter scheme thus brought under the notice of the House of Lords is very different from the late Commissioners', although costing a similar sum of one million. It consists of a tunnel sewer, or "deep outfall drain," commencing at Chelsea and Nine Elms, and adapted to take off three or four times the ordinary sewage, and to convey it below tidal in fluence east of the Isle of Dogs. This was submitted to the secretary of a select committee of the House of Commons, who, on the third day of their inquiry, declared themselves satisfied with its capacity : " the Chairman stated that the Committee were of opinion that there was no necessity to go any further into the question of rainfall." The examination lasted seven days. The Com missions of Sewers, as already stated, opposed the monetary clause of 30,0001. per annum for twenty-five years, declaring that local works costing 2,000,0001., and all tending to pollute the Thames, should first be constructed; and the Committee thereupon re fused the bill, although they approved of the scheme, and had the minutes of evidence published for future legislation. The Chairman has distinctly informed Parliament "that that part of the scheme which proposed that there should be two tunnels—one on each side of the Thames—to receive the drainage of the metropolis, had been fully approved by the committee which sat last year." Sir B. Hall informed the promoters of this plan that, at an interview with Lord Palmerston on the 14th July last, it bad been admitted that the Com missioners' scheme was wrong, and that his was right, and was to be commenced with the 300,0001. to be raised by the Metropolitan Commission ; and the same fact has been stated by other metropolitan members of Parliament, and coinlides with the words used in Parliament by Lord Palmerston on the 27th July following, and which cannot apply to a high-level Hackney drain into the River Lea, and to three tunnels terminating at Deptford on the south. After speaking of "the great trunk lines which were to carry off the general sewage of the whole metro polis," Lord Palmerston added that " the money was necessary to enable the Commissioners to commence the construction of the two great outfall drains—one for the north and the other for the south of the river—works which were of great necessity."—Han sard, July 27, 1854. The diainSge plan referred to (commonly known as the " Great London Drainage Scheme ") has been originated and prosecuted by private enterprise, and is before the House of Commons by four parlia mentary papers (1853)—N0. 541, No. 629, and No. 629 x, and petitions No. 1,640 and (1854) No. 427 ; and ten other distinct documents in reference thereto have been sent to every member of Parliament. The whole question of arterial drainage was brought before the public by the Metropolitan Com mission of Sewers in 1849, when two rival schemes were before them, that of their consulting engineer and their chieisurveyor, it being " sug gested by Dr. Arnott that at the special court to he held that day fortnight all schemes that had been proposed should be taken into consideration with a view to save time; " and another commissioner then stated " that the Committee were open to approve of any plan that might be laid before them.—Times, July 8, 1949. Nearly 200 schemes were submitted to the Corn mission, which extended the time from that day fortnight to the following October. These schemes were all reported to be founded on insufficient data, and Mr. Frank Forster, together with Mr. Stephen son and Captain Vetch, then enunciated a scheme of main drainage without ever referring to the " Great London Drainage Scheme, " which gave rise to Dr. Arnott's suggestion, and Mr. F. Forster told a deputation "that he had not copied it."—Greek street, November 18, 1851. This scheme of Mr. Forster, it has lately trans pired, was never perfected on the north side of the Thames, the sections never having even been decided upon, and his southern scheme was publicly exposed by Professor Hooking, at Greek-street, on the 22nd of February and 18th of March, 1853. The Commission accordingly admitted, before the select committee, that they had no plan for the main drainage of the metropolis, and subsequently pro duced ones—Greek-street, October 20, 1863 SATURDAY, The present Commissioners, calling this plan in question on the 29th November last, brought forward a resolution to receive " other plans," and the time having been extended to the 3rd April, the whole question of arterial drainage has again been for months past before the officers of the Commission and others. The Commissioners have made a selection from the schemes submitted, for further reference "to engineers not connected with the Commission," and then they adjourned the subject in expectation of a speedy dissolution. There has thus been ample time afforded for making any modification in either of the two opposing schemes which are before Parliament by eight sessional papers of 1853 and 1854. - The subject has been before the Government and the public for many years. Mr. Stephenson and Sir William Cubitt were members of the Health of Towns Commission which reported in 1844. The discussion in the House of Commons on the 9th August, 1853, shows that it was to be finally decided by them, Lord Palmerston, Sir B. Hall, and Sir John V. Shelley speaking on the subject; ana the scheme was produced on the 20th October following, and was proposed to be "immediately proceeded with," at Greek-street, on the sth September, 1854, and has since been defended. It is represented by No. 394, and can hardly require "the approval of her Majesty's Board of Works," as proposed by the 107th clause of the Metropolis Local Management Bill. If, however, the original plan, referred to on the sth July, 1849, "fully approved" by the select com mittee of 1853, and brought before the House of Commons by sessional paper No. 427, is to be carried into execution, then it will have to be remem bered that its long prosecution of ten years must have furnished information of value in the final decision of details; that very heavy expenses, inde pendent of time and labour, have been incurred by the opposition of those who have had no plan of their own, nor a more economical mode of execution than the one proposed in 1853, and thereby causing the delay which has resulted; and that in these days of Administrative Reform it would be unjust to give the execution of the plan into the hands of those who have opposed and disparaged it, or indefinitely to defer it by giving merely permissive powers to a " Metropolitan Board of Works," whose members will, by local interest, be disinclined to proceed with the measure. The issue is legitimately before the House of Commons. Sir G. Grey referred it "to Parliament" (Whitehall, April 12, 1851). The Metropolitan Commission of Sewers referred it "to the Legisla ture " (Greek-street, November 18, 1851). It is before Parliament by the various sessional papers alluded to by a grant of 300,000/. ; by Lord Palmers ton's speech as recorded by Hansard (July 27, 1854) ; and by the 108th and 107th clauses of the Metropolis Local Management Bill ; and "if a prompt decision in respect to the plans submitted to the Metropolitan Commission, and prompt execution be not secured by Parliament, then there will remain no remedy but 'to stifle all the members,' or that their discussions should be terminated as quickly as possible."—Sir W. Molesworth's speech, Times, &c., July 25, 1854. It therefore behoves them to resolve that the question of the dispollution of the Thames and of arterial drainage be not adjourned sine die.—l am, sir, your obedient servant, HER MAJESTY having ascertained that a large number of the children of the domestic and other servants at Buckingham Palace were much neglected in the matter of education, has commanded that premises in Palace-street, Pimlico, should be fitted up as a school, to be opened for educational purposes on Monday next. Mr. Charles Dodd, a gentleman of tried ability in his vocation, has been appointed master. The whole of the expenses will be defrayed by her Majesty. The number of scholars of both sexes at present eligible for admission is sixty-six. An evening school will also be established for such of the elder children as may be prevented from at. tending in the daytime. THE foundation-stone of a new church, dedicated to St. Andrew, was laid on Wednesday, by the Earl of Shaftesbury. The church is to be erected in Princes-street, leading out of Stamford-street, and will be a somewhat capacious building, in the Gothic style of architecture. The district assigned to St. Andrew contains a population of about 8,000, and the patronage will be in the hands of trustees. The Rev. Alfred Stephen Canney, formerly curate of All Saints' Church, Gordon-square, is the firstincumbent. PAPER AND Rom have been fabricated from the common garden hollyhock, by Mr. Niven, gardener at Kuir-house, who has patented his invention under the title of " Niven's patent hollyhock paper and rope." The paper is of the appearance and texture of that used for small bags and parcels by grocers, &c., and is very clean and firm. The rope is about half an inch thick, light and shining in colour, and apparently of considerable strength%