The Press.
London, England, 1855-05-26 00:00:00

AUSTRALIA.

Some late intelligence from Australia has arrived
since our last impress►on. The Ballarat correspon•
dent of the Melbourne Argus states :—" New diggings
have been commenced about two miles to the west-
ward of Wardy Yallock, which are said to have
proved highly remunerative to the few engaged as
yet on them. The sinking is to the depth of thirty
or thirty-five feet, and the yield, in proportion to the
population, averages as yet some twenty-five ounces
pe► man. Some fresh impetus was much wanting to
stimulate the poor and unsuccessful diggers, who
cannot continue the expensive and deep sinking now
in vogue at Ballarat."
The writer of a letter dated " Castlemaine, Feb.
6," says :—" I have just had authentic and reliable
infor►nation from Fryer's Creek of a most magnifi-
cent nugget, found on Chokem Flat, near Murderer's
Flat ; it weighs 272 ounces of pure solid gold, and
the gentleman describes it to be such as he never
saw before ; it appears as if bea:en by the goldsmith.
The holes adjoining that it was taken from are pay-
ing wonderfully well—four or five ounces to the tub,
and more at times; there was a rush commenced
there, and some fifty drays were flocking in to-day
from Forest Creek and other neighbourhoods.

IT is expected that before the 20th of next month
every available man in the United Kingdom belong.
ing to infantry regiments of the line will have em-
barked for the seat of war.
AN EXTENSIVE BULLION ROBBERY was effected in a
very mysterious manner, the property being in
transitu from London to Paris. The crime was evi-
dently perpetrated by persons who were acquainted
with the extent and the mode of the consignments.
The gold, in bars and American coins, amounted to
between 13,000/. and 14,0001. The bullion had been
deposited in three boxes, which were separately con-
signed to Paris from the bullion brokers, Thomas,
Bult, and Speilman, and were taken in the mail train
of the South-Eastern Railway, which set off from
London at half past eight o'clock on the evening of
Tuesday, the 15th inst., to Folkestone, whence they
were to be taken, via Boulogne and the Northern
Railway of France, to Paris. It was found that the
three boxes—which were, when delivered in London,
hooped and sealed—had been reopened and plun-
dered, and then re-hooped and re-sealed. The de-
predators left in one of the boxes between 6,0001. and
7,0001. worth of gold, as it is conjectured, because
they had not materials at command to supply the
deficiency, the place of the gold which they took
being supplied by lead shot of equivalent weight.
The fraud was not discovered until the arrival of the
boxes in Paris. The French, as well as the English
police, are engaged in the investigation of this
robbery.

SATURDAY,

6iltresponlitutt.

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT BILL.
TO THE EDITOR OF " THE PRESS."
Sir,—ln a letter officially addressed to Lord
Palmerston in 1853, and laid before Parliament,
being as stated " in accordance with your own instruc-
tions," and from the engineer to her Majesty's
Board of Works, after urging the dangerous state of
the Thames, it is added that—
A practice which poisoned the water supply and injured
the channels of the river by the accession of so great a
quantity of solid material might have been arrested in
!inane by an energetic Minister of the Crown.
Lord Palmerston, accepting the invitation, told the
Lord Mayor, the Conservator of the Thames, at a
civic banquet, that the translucid wave of the
Thames " shone not like a broad mirror," and he
hoped that the metropolitan members would aid him
in transforming its present state of liquid mud and re-
storing its sparkling water (1) ; and when the question
of enabling the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers
to raise 200,0001. for the construction of new works
was before the house, Lord Palmerston was recom-
mended to take up the question—
As no man was more able to do so, and by applying his
masculine mind to it complete the conception of some
plan by which the metropolis might be relieved from the
stigma attached to it.
His lordship replied that—
He perfectly agreed with those who said that nothing
would be satisfactory until some general system of drain-
ing the metropolis should be decided upon, which should
relieve the Thames from the ignominious duty of being
the common sewer, instead of the ornament of London.
He should consider it his duty to see that no works were
undertaken which 'were not in the first place approved by
those two eminent men whose names he had men-
tioned. (2)
Sir Benjamin Hall suggested at the same time
that—

The Commissioners of Sewers should at once be directed
to have a plan prepared, on which they should delineate
their propositions, and that it should be put forth in such
manner as to be accessible to the ratepayers. He was
convinced that this would prove a great facility to the
operations of the noble lord.
Sir John Y. Shelley stated that he would, in so far
as engineers were concerned, "prefer leaving the
case in the hands of Mr. Stephenson." (2)
The Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers there-
upon matured their scheme for the main drainage of
the metropolis, and strongly urged its very prompt
execution, at a cost of 1,050,0001., it being publicly
stated that the five reports describing the proposed
work "had been adopted, and a number ordered to
be printed, and a copy sent to every parish '• " and
that " they had been most carefully considered and
unanimously approved and adopted by the Com •
mittee." (2)
At the commencement of the following session
Lord Palmerston therefore informed the House of
Commons that the Commissioners of Sewers had
matured a plan. (3)
This plan, which was also approved by the vestry
of Marylebone on the 14th of February, 1854, is be-
fore Parliament by four distinct sessional papers of
1854, being returns made by the Metropolitan Com-
missioners of Sewers, from which the following are
extracts :

The Hackney Brook, or Northern High-Level Intercepting
Sewer, is one of those urgent works for the immediate execu-
tion of which you have recently applied to Parliament for
power to borrow money; nor can the importance of this
sewer, in considering the drainage of the metropolis, be over-
estimated. (4 )
I beg to say that I entirely concur in that report. (5 )
I have to express my entire concurrence in the views
conveyed in both these documents. (6)
And of the southern scheme it is said :
Now, looking to the fact that no real benefit can be de-
rived till the plan be fully carried out to the extent only as
herein contemplated, and that the sooner it can be done the
better, the question is can 750,0001. be raised forthwith to
complete the arterial drainage.(7)
And the Chairman subsequently wrote to Lord
Palmerston as follows :
The works in question are two. They comprehend, on
the north side of the Thames, the Hackney Brook, to cost
about 300,0001.; on the south the works now proposed con-
sist of two sewers uniting at Deptford Creek. The cost is
estimated at about 750,0001. (8)
And again, eight months afterwards, he states
these "to be the works proposed by the Commis-
sioners to be accomplished within the next twelve
months, if they be allowed to raise a further loan of
300,0001."
The Commissioners, baying obtained these powers,
and having succeeded in borrowing the money, first
intended to proceed with the construction of the
works, bat some of their body being about to retire

(1) Mansion•house, July 23, 1853—(2) Hansard, Aug. 9, 1853
(3) Hansard, March 2, 1854—(4) Sessional Paper, 1854, No. 84,
pp. 14.19—(5) Ib., p. 21—(6) Ib., p. 22—(7) Ib., p. 28—(8) Ib.
No. 180, p. 162.

Mkt. 26, 1855.

they deferred their operations ; and the new Commis-
sion, which was opened on the the 29th of November,
1854, was congratulated on coming " into office with
important advantages, in possessing plans that had
been approved by the highest engineering authorities
of the day, and also by having a well-filled trea•
sury." (9)
For the southern scheme a bill was prosecuted by
the Commission, and it passed the second reading on
the Bth of February, 1854, "as a very important
measure," but was not further proceeded with.
Nearly 2,0001. have been spent in commencing works
on the north side, and which will be totally useless
unless the whole be executed. The Chairman had
repeatedly told the new Commission that they might
contract for the whole on that very day, and there-
fore all the expense of working drawings had been
incurred. The new Commission was also informed
that the late Commission " advised that 110,0001.
should be applied to the Hackney Brook, and
190,0001. to drainage on the south of the T hames." ( 10 )
The new Metropolitan Commission of Sewers has,
however, not proceeded with the construction of the
main drainage works, considering that its powers are
to be transferred to the proposed Metropolitan Board
of Works to consist of members locally elected by
various district boards. The 300,000/. have, how-
ever, been specially reserved by the Commissioners,
because, as Sir John Shelley informed Parliament on
the 7th instant, the money had been "granted for a
specific purpose, for the main arterial drainage of
London, by which the Thames would be purified, and
which he trusted would not be interfered with." (11)
The correctness of this statement may be established
by reference to the speech of Lord Palmerston on
the 27th July last, in which, after referring to " the
construction of the great trunk lines, which were to
carry off the general sewage of the whole metropolis,"
he added that the 300,0001. were

To enable the Commissioners to commence the con-
struction of the two great outfall drains, one for the north
aid the other for the south side of the river—works which,
as the honourable member for Lambeth well knew, were
of great necessity, and if the bill were not agreed to they
stottld be delayed for another year. (12)
Surely there is then a specific defined plan—" the
two great outfall drains." Surely, as eleven years
have elapsed since the Health of Towns Commission
made their report, and as since 1847 there have been
eight royal commissions appointed for improving the
drainage and the Thames, we are not now to be told
that an efficiect and specific remedy has still to be
devised. In 1840 the Commissioners advertised for
plans for several months. They have fully matured
all that has been advanced, and they have decided on
works for first and immediate construction at a cost
of 1,050,000/. ; and six months afterwards they
adopted additional works, increasing thereby the
total cost to 3,000,000/. ; and, at a special court on
the 15th instant, a resolution proposed was for the
purpose of "considering the means for raising the
money required for the great works for the intercep
tion and delivery of the sewage," the capital being
assumed as 3,000,0001. or 3,500,0001. The paper
read by the mover of the resolution was ordered to be
printed. (13) Surely these confirmations—that which
have been quoted from five official parliamentary
papers, emanating from the Commissioners of Sewers,
and the extracts from Hansard—will satisfy the

veriest sceptic.
The question of execution remains to be considered.
The Metropolitan Local Management Bill proposes
that the " Metropolitan Board of Works shall have
full power and authority to make such sewers and
works as they may think necessary for preventing
the sewage within the metropolis from flowing or
passing into the River Thames in cr near the metro-
polis." The approval of the plan is to rest with
her Majesty's Board of Works; and when so ap-
proved. her Majesty's Treasury may advance the
money, which the Commissioners may also other-
wise borrow, mortgaging the rest.
But all these powers are merely permissive, and
three-fourths of the elected members will represent
districts, which, being able to pass their sewage
into lower localities, will have no immediate interest
in deciding upon the execution of works which are
to increase their sewer rates. In fact, the proposi-
tion contained in Sir B. Hall's bill possesses all the
elements of delay, and the probability of total abor-
tion, in so far as the Thames and arterial drainage
are concerned.

Is farther delay safe in the fate of that which
occurred in the House of Commons on the 24th of
July last, and at the Mansion-house on the 13th of
August 1
In the latter case the Lord Mayor was informed,
and it had also been brought under the notice of
Lord Palmerston, that all the efforts made by the
London Dock Company to wash out and to improve
their dangerously polluted water, had proved to be
entirely useles, "the dirty offensive condition of the
river " making it quite impossible to do so ; and the

(9) Greek-street, N0v.16, IRS4—(10) Greek.street, Nov. 29,
1854—(11) Morning Papers, May e, 1856—(12) Hansard, July
27,1854; Chroniele, Daily New, and Advertiser-03) Iduruing
Papers, May 16,1855; Greek-streets May IL

THE PRESS.

Lord Mayor recommended that the matter should be
brought before the public press. (14)
The other circumstance is the following. In
answer to a question from the late Lord Dudley
Stuart, respecting the noxious effluvia pervading the
house on Thursday " and Friday last," her Majesty's
Chief Commissioner of Works informed the house
" that the stench was excessively offensive a week
ago, pervading not only the house, but also the ad-
joining courts of law. (15) Indeed, he w►s informed
that in consequence of the disagreeable stench the
Judge of the Queen's Bench had adjourned his
court;" and the Chief Commissioner of Works con•
eluded his report by saying that,
He feared all he could do would have very little effect
so long as the Thames was the cloaca maxima of this great
city. The smells came into the house with the external
air. The only way of excluding them would be by pre-
venting the admission of the external air; and if such a
remedy were adopted he feared that during the present
month its effects would be to stifle all the members.
There could be no doubt that these odours were very in-
jurious to health, and the most effectual remedy he could
recommend was that the sitting of Parliament should be
brought to a close as speedily as possible. ( hi)
This is the fifth time that the subject has come
before the house, and yet the 200,000/, granted by
Parliament in 1853 for dispolluting the Thames
have been spent for its further pollution, and Parlia-
ment has lately sanctioned that 25,0001. out of the
300,0001. granted in 1854 should be similarly spent
to increase the evil.

Lord Palmerston's, Sir B. Hall's, and Sir John V.
Shelley's recommendations, in respect to a new
drainage plan, have been complied with on the part
of the Commissioners of Sewers. Compulsory
powers to buy land for outfalls could have been
secured at any time during the last four months.
The Commissioners' plan was published on the 21st
of Oct., 1853. Its cost is 1,050,00(1/. Why is it not
promptly executed, seeing that it is so highly recom-
mended; that it is before the house by so many
official documents ; and seeing that Father Thames,
who washes the walls of the House of Commons,
pollutes its atmosphere and remains a national
disgrace?—l am, sir, your obedient servant,

THE PITT CLUB.
TO THE EDITOR OF " THE PRESS."

Sir,—l beg leave again to call upon the directors,
or committee of management, of the " Pitt Club,"
for an explanation of their conduct in discontinuing
the annual dinners and triennial festival, without the
sanction of the members generally. At the present
titre a meeting of the club might be productive of
the best results ; and I, therefore, through the
medium of your columns, publicly ask what has
become of the fund in hand, and why the committee
and the secretary take upon themselves to treat the
members so very uncourteously ?--I am, sir, your
obedient servant,
AN OLD MEMBER OF THE PITT CLUB.
May 23, 1852.

A RETTTEN MOVED FOR BY SIR B. HAIL, M.P., shows
that with a population (in 1851) of 2..363,405, and in-
habited houses to the number of 306,088, the rate-
able value of the property assessed in the metropo-
litan districts exclusive of the City of London to the
property tax amounts to 13,462,0671.; and the value
of that assessed to the country rate to 9,224,299/. In
the city of London the population is 127,889, the
number of inhabited houses 14,590, the rateable
value of the property 1,584,351/. In Westminster
the population is 241,811, number of houses 24,756,
and rateable value to the property tax 2,420,1161. In
Marylebone the population is 370,957, number
of houses 40,513, rateable value to income tax
2,510,1671. In Finsbury the population is 323,830,
number of houses 37,353, rateable value 1,887,7631.
In the Tower Hamlets the population is 539,111,
number of houses 75,710, rateable value 1,665,4291.
In Southwark the population is 172,863, the number
of houses 23,751, rateable value 677,8261. In Lam-
beth the population is 258,808, number of houses
40,317, rateable value 1,170,2221. In Greenwich the
population is 99,365, number of inhabited houses
14,383, rateable value 353,8001. In sundry other
places in Middlesex, Kent, and Surrey, comprising
Chelsea, Kensington, Fulham, Hampstead, Clapham,
Tooting, Streatham, Battersea, Putney, Charlton,
Lee, Eltham, Lewisham, tkc., the population in 1851
was 228,991, the number of houses 34,714, and the
rateable ♦alue to the property tax 1,392,5821. With
reference to the claim for parliamentary representa-
tion, it may be stated that the population of the
Middlesex districts without boroughs amounts to
142,223, that of the districts in Surrey to 51,933, and
that of the districts in Kent to 34,835. The total
population of all the Surrey districts is exceeded by
that of Chelsea alone, the population of which is
56,538, and nearly equalled by that of Kensington,
which is 44,053.

(14) Morning Papers, Aug. 12, 1854—(15) Queen's Bench, Tine;
May 29, 1855—(16) Morning Papers, July 26, 1854.