The Press.
London, England, 1858-09-18 00:00:00

THE PRESS, SEPTEMBER 18, 1858

whom she had seen in attendance on the Cardinal, in such a plight, and
uttering a pious ejaculation of surprise, she begged to know of the official
ivhether the holy man had been " larking.' To this that precipitate
individual replied' contemptuously that his captive was nothing but ca
" big
jumper." This impious retort at once led to an explanation, which ended
of course in the release of the consecrated prisoner, and the abject prostra-
tion of his captor. The fbrmer returned to the nunnery and finished his
mass, and the latter is perhaps doing penance to this hour. The funny
elements in this story are—first, that being in the land of true Catholics
INfonsignor did not at once disclose his real character to the "Beak;"
secondly, that the good old lady who invoked the emblem of her faith
when she saw a priest in custody should have so naively inquired whether
his Reverence had been " larking." Is it customary in Ireland for the
members of the priesthood to come home with the milk, to wrench off
knockers, to ring at strange doors under the impression they are at home,
and otherwise to emulate the young gentlemen in the comedy of London
Assurance p What meaning may be attached to the word " larking "in
Ireland we do not profess to know to a certainty : but at least we should
surmise that it must mean something not wholly consistent with the
gravity supposed by Englishmen to be becoming in a clerical gentleman.
That excellent woman, who relieved Monsignor from his embarrassment,
has excited our curiosity very much to know something of the jolly fellows
in question, whom we have read of in "Jack llinton " and " Charles
O'Mally," but had feared were now extinct.

A copious Blue-book has just been issued by the Select Committee on
the River Thames, containing the evidence whereon their Report was
founded. That document was promulgated shortly before the session
closed, and, as our readers may remember, set forth conclusions which,
though not without their value, were chiefly of negative character. In
fact, the Committee could do no more. Their time was limited, while the
range of investigation permitted to them was practically restricted within
very narrow bounds. The special subject on which they were required to
report was the plan proposed by Mr. GOLDSWORTHY GURNEY for the
purification of the Thames; and, being naturally anxious to show some
result of their inquiries before the prorogation, they very sparingly availed
themselves of the license for wider investigations accorded in the permis-
sion to " take into consideration such other suggestions as they might
" deem it expedient to entertain" for the same object.
The net result of their inquiries came to this—that Mr. GURNEY'S
plan for covering the river-side with a sloping bank of gravel, and
dredging out two channels at low-water mark along the river-bed, was
totally ineligible ; and that his scheme for getting rid of foul gases from
the sewers, by burning them in furnaces, was available only to a limited
extent, under special circumstances (as in sweetening the atmosphere
around the Palace of Legislature), but altogether impracticable as an ele-
ment in the general s) stem of metropolitan drainage. Further than this
the Committee did not venture to hazar,l any expression of opinion. The
volume of evidence now published contains many facts and hints of con-
siderable importance, but involving questions which the members avowedly
considered too wide and intricate for adequate investigation in the limited
time at their disposal.
An opportune report on the subject has within the current week been
presented by Dr. LETHEBY to the Court of Common Council. The City
medical officer treats the subject upon scientific principles, tracing by syn-
thetical, or detecting by analytical processes the various ingredients—solid,
liquid, and gaseous—which contribute their several pollutions to the
London river and atmosphere. The total quantities of these various forms
of foulness are formidable enough. Every day, as Dr. LETHEBY calculates,
there are sent into the Thames 152 tons of solid matter as the " ejecta" of
the metropolitan population ; plus 81 tons derived from the streets, and
comprising granite dust, iron from horses' hoofs and wheel-tires, and
leather from the boots of pedestrians; plus 102 tons of saline matters held
in solution ; and plus 152 tons of organic and other matters from various
manufactories and " artistic " establishments. Total, 487 solid tons per
diem diluted with 841 million gallons of water, wherein it appears the or-
vanic substances are either dissolved or suspended in about equal proportions.
But besides this solid or fluid pollution there are various gases which play
a not less important part in the general and most unpleasant result.
sundry gases whose chemical composition and deleterious effects are
minutely analyzed by Dr. LETHEBY exhale from the sewage-water at the
rate of about one and a fifth cubic inches per gallon per hour, by a process of
fermentation which he has discovered continues in almost unabated activity
for nine weeks. He acquaints us also with the agreeable fact that in this
respect the water of the Thames at ebb tide and near the banks is precisely
similar to that in the sewers. As another contribution to atmospheric
impurity, the London gas companies transmit by leakage into general
respiration 380 million cubic feet of coal gas per annum—or say a million
per diem—the gas containing sundry "hydro carbons" of highly poisonous
properties. On this question of gases, Dr. LETHEBY entirely concurs with
the Committee in repudiating Mr. GURNEY'S plan of getting rid of them
y burning. His proposed furnaces, we are assured, would at best very
Imperfectly abate the nuisance, and would cost 80,000/. or even 200,000/.,
It year for fuel. In fine, Dr. LETHEBY'S chief reliance seems placed upon
Charcoal. To that conclusion many other investigators have arrived. And
really, as matters stand, it would appearlthat a solution of the great drainage
problem is to be found, if found at all, in that single word. Charcoal
possesses very singular properties. Alone, among all substances hitherto
known, it exercises a purifying power over matter in all its forms—
deodorizing solids, filtering fluids, and absorbing gases. A cube of
carbon from some porous wood will absorb 100 times its bulk of
Fas, and a thin bed of pulverized charcoal will transmit the most
turbid waters in a pellucid stream, arresting and neutralizing all
the solid impurities that may have been held in suspension. At
the same time it does not, like al most all the chemical
deodorizers, destroy the value as a manure of the organic substances which