The Press.
London, England, 1858-07-03 00:00:00

STATE OF THE THAMES.

A PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE assembled on Tues-
day to pursue the inquiry into the state of the river
Thames, Mr. Kendall in the chair. Among the
members present were Sir John Shelley, Lord John
Manners; Nlr. Joseph Locke, Mr. Roupell, Sir J. Y.
Buller, Mr. Akroyd, Mr. Cayle,y, Mr. Tite, Lord
Uoderieh, the Hon. Jocelyn Percy, Mr. Alderman
Cuhitt, Lord Pahnerston, Sir B. Hall, &e.
The witnesses examined were Mr. Walker, en-
gineer to the Thames Navigation Company, and Dr.
Lewis Thompson.
The former gentleman did not consider Mr. Gur-
ney's plan would stand as a permanent work, and if
it could be made permanent it would seriously inter-
fere with the navigation of the river. He thought
one channel in the centre of the river would do the
duty assigned by Mr. Goldsworthy Gurney to two. He
considered the river ought to be confined to a nar-
rower stream, and deepened to increase the scour of
the stream. Ile would bring the river uniform
first, and then put. in wharf walls where they were
required. if Mr. Gurney's plan were carried out, it
would deprive the channel of some of its water; and
if two channels were formed, they would most cer-
tainly silt up.
Dr. Lewis THOMPiON had examined the state of
the river Thames. Consiihred the cause of the pre-
sent stench of the river to arise from the mud, end
when that is exposed to a temperature of from 65 to
75 fermentation sets in, and as soon as the water
begins to flow the mud if, disturbed, and the noxious
gases are liberated. In answer to Lord Palmerston,
witness said " the fermentation does not begin in the
river only at a temperature or upwards of 70 deg.
Fahrenheit, and that heat is rarely attained. The
mud is most offensive where it is mew. disturbed,
and that is generally at places where steamboats
laud their passengers." He said that if a tunnel
was formed to take the sewage away, so that it would
not come back to the metropolis, we must go to the
seashore. He had found the river to he of the tern•
perature of 72, but the mud on its banks at e. tentpe-•
rature of 120. There would always, to some extent,
be an offensive odour so long as the Thames is used
as a common sewer. Ile bad noticed a black
cloud on going up and down the river, and con-
sidered it produced by the sta,e of the river.
He had found animal matter among the mud.
If the sewage was conveyed to the sea, in conse-
quence of the specific gravity of the salt water it
would not mix with the wager, and would he brought
back again. lie attributed the increased evil which
we now experience to the increase of mud. He
attributed the stench of the mud to a change in the
character of it rather than to any increase in its
bulk. There could be no doubt that son e portions
of the soluble matter would go into the sea and mix
with it, but the insoluble pens of the sewage would
always come back again. He considered Mr. lint-
ney's plan t'or burning the foul gases was a good one.
The fluid from deodorized sewage would be most
beneficial to vegetation when thrown over the land.
In other cases the deodorized water must be passed
into the Thames, and, although it might still retain
the smell of the sewage, he did not think it would
be injurious to the river, as it would be mixed with
so large a quantity of fresh water. He had ex-
amined water taken from the docks, and found that
it was much purer than water in the sewers. He
took that water from just below the Thames Tunnel.
The temperature of the sea was always lower than
the water of the river. lie thought if flushing of
the sewers was suspended, dangerous consequences
would ensue, as the odours would wake their way
up the gully•holes and into the houses.
After some other evidence to the same effect had
been given, the Committee adjourned.
The Committee reassembled on NVedneeday at
twelve o'clock; Mr. Kendall in the chair. The other
members of the committee pre-ant were—the Hon.
Percy Jocelyn, Mr. Alderman Cubitt, Sir John Yarde
Buller, Sir Sohn Shelley, Mr. The, Mr. Roupell, S r
Benjamin Hall, Lord Palmerston, Lord John Man-
ners, &c.
Mr. GOLDSWORTHY GURNEY was called and ex-
amined by the Chairman : lie wished, before giving
any evidence, to express a hope that the public press
would deal fairly, and give the evidence iu favour of
his plan as welt as that given against it.
Mr. GEORGE Bleeen. the celebrated engineer, was
then called and examined by the Chairman, who
stated part of Mr. Uurney'a plan to be this :—lle
intends to form two channels 30 yards wide tied
3 yards deep, with an average distance of 50 yards
from the wharf walls, with a slope of 1 iu 12, by
which means he considers that the mud which is
now cast upon the banks of the river will be re-
moved, and so get rid of the nuisance. Did Mr.
Bidder think, it' he eneceeded in dredging channels
of 30 yards wide and 9 feet in depth, which are sup•
posed to receiv•t a scouring power, that these chan-
nels would keep themselves clear without any
material expenses in dredging ?
Mr. BIDDER could nut tell whether the expenses
would be material or not, but they would require

dredging, as the bed of the river was composed of
gravel, and that is moved by the current of the river.
When the old London.bridge was removed, a great
change took place, for both Bled:friars and West-
minster bridges were affected by it, and recently the
Vanxhalbbridge piers had to be encased with stone-
work. He thought the question as to whether these
slopes would retain the mud at the inclination pro.
posed must greatly depend upon the locality, as the
mud remains on a slope at Blackwell with an incli-
nation of lin 5. Taking the upper part of the
Thames generally, he did not think that a slope of
lin 12 would prevent the deposit of mud. If all
the outlets of the sewers were taken down to low
water mark it would be beneficial to a certain extent,
and the noxious gases would be arrested, but no
other adventaire would arise from it. He agreed
with Mr. Bazalgette that the sewage lodging on the
mud banks is the rause of great evil.
Mr. Ilouret,r.: You say that the gravel in the river
is liberated by the current or stream of the river;
is not the motion a slow motion, and, if it is so,
would not the gravel he carried down the river?
He did not think Mr. Gurney's plan a feasible
plan at all. He would not recommend adopting a
pert of the scheme. Be had no scheme of his own,
nor had he given an opinion upon any other scheme.
If these channels were made and were silted, the
expense of dredging them would depend entirely
anon the time they took to fill up. It' they required
dredging once it month, of course the expense would
he very great ; but he would undertake to say they
would fill up. A general slope of lin 12 would not
answer : he had alluded to Blackwell. where the mud
accumulated on a slope of lin 6. Was not aware
that great damage had been done to harbours and
other places by embankments of rivers. Gravel had
a constant tendency to travel towards the centre of
the river. He approved slopes, if made of a sutfb
cient incline, but (lid not think that the mud could
he washed off with an incline of I in 12. Also tip
proved the plan of sending the contents of the sewers
by means of closed channels into the river at low
water mark, for the same reason as be approved of
removing mud from the banks. The cutting of a
channel on each side of the river had never been
heard of before, and would never be heard of again.
Any rational man would carry a channel to the
centre, and not en each Ride of the river.
Mr. JAMES LAwEs thought that the deposits on
the mud banks of the Thames were the great cause
if the nuisance. Ile agreed with Mr. Gurney that,
whatever distance they carried the sewage down the
river, it would come back again. If Mr. Gurney's
plan would get rid of the mud banks and a great
deal of the sewage which is floating about the river
it would be a great improvement ; but he could not
say that his process would do that.
The CHAIRMAN : If the sewage were discharged
at Barking-creek, do you think that it would return
to London ?
Mr. LAWES : I think it would. A considerable
part of it would return.
The CHAIRMAN : Would it return in such a form as
to he injurious to the inhabitants of London?
Mr. LAWER : I think it would. It sewage deodori-
zation works were to be established at Barking. creek,
I do not think the value of the manure would be
found.
By Sir B. HALL: I am not able to say from actual
experiments what part of the sewage will return to
the metropolis. I have made no experiments of
that kind.

Sir B. HALL: Can you give any idea of the effect
of the limo which is now thrown on to the mud
banks ?
Mr. LAWES : It will arrest the nuisance to a certain
extent, hut I think it will have a prejudicial effect on
the navigation of the river, as for every ton of lime
thrown in you get four tons of deposit, and if you
throw in NO tons a week that may prove a very
serious matter. All the Sedimentary matter goes
down to the bottom by the action of the lime, and if
the practice of throwing lime into the river went on
long enough the navigation would be choked up.
Sir B. HALL: Suppose a large quantity of lime to
he thrown into a sewer where the current was slow,
what would be the resnd ?
Mr. LAWES : It would choke up the sewer. There
WRS no doubt that the lime would cause a large
amount of deposit.
By Lord PALMERSTON : Suppo,.ing all the sewage
of the metropolis to be discharged into the stream of
the river, and retained there for some little time
before it was carried down the river, BEd there was a
certain am nut of temperature, it would emit noxious
and disagreeable gases ?
Mr. LAWES : The tiver would be dangerous when
the temileiature was from 68 deg. to 70 deg. The
temperature of the atmosphere would then be about
I'2o deg. 'I here would always be a great deal of
noxious exhalation during summer. To secure
London from the inconvenience to which it is non
subject, and to remove the sewage to the lower part
of the river, and to prevent its coming hack within
11-4 limits of the metropolis, they must destroy that