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

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%