The Express.
London, England, 1864-11-15 00:00:00

OF FOWLS.

Sir,—We have carefully examined the report upon the
utilisation of sewage which has been published by the Coal,
Corn, and Finance Committee of the Corporation of the
City of London, and as this report, which cannot fail, if
uurefuted, to may,: great weight with the Metropolitan
Board, is due ct!y opposed to the fundamental principles of
our scheme, we teel it to be our duty to point out, without
the kr. of a single day, that the report is based upon •
series of fallacies, and it the letter of Baron Liebig ap-
pended to it is contrary to fact. In the first place, it is
clear from the language of the report that the whole subject
was entirely new to the Coal, Corn, and Finance Com-
bo:tee. .1t the acme time, no one eau for a moment
q..estion the perfect hood !hits with which they entered
upon their inquiry, and they adopted the readiest and most
natural means of getting trustworthy information by
luvitoog the co-operation of Dr. Brady and Lord Robert
Montagu, the chairman of the two select committees of the
House e; Commons that sot upon the question in 1562 and
Reit. But in applying to these two gentlemen (if we may
my no without infnugirg on the privileges of the house)
they, es it happens, ettectually shut out one aide of the ques-
tion, and debarred themselves from hearing an impartial
statement of the case. We believe that Dr. Brady makes
no sort of secret of Lis disbelief in our scheme and in the
priuciples on which it is founded, cr of his entire concur-
rence in the views of Mr. Edis, and his enthusiastic belief
in that geutlemati's sanguise anticipations ; and though we
have hitherto carefully abstained from all personal allusions
and mention of names, we think the time has now come I
when we can no longer do so. But, in sayin--. that Dr.
Brady is an enthusiastic supporter of his friend Mr. Ellis,
we are eusious not to be misunderstood ; we do not desire
for one moment, even in the most distant or indirect mea-
tier, to impute to Dr. Brady' any unworthy motive—we only
wise to say that as Dr. Brady is an enthusiastic partisan,
tire Coal, Corn, and Finauoe Committee could not have
gone to a worse source for • dispaasionate, impartial sum-
mery of the evidence. Lord Robert Montagu, we believe,
shares iu • great nosieure tun opinion of Dr. Brady, and in
Lis exeinivatioo of ourselves showed plainly his strong dis-
approval of our scheme. These two gtutlemen holding
these opinions, so oppornd to our Reticule, and holding these
opinions strongly, would not have been conscientiously dis-
charging their duty as public men had they not done every-
thing in their power to bring the Coal, Corn, and Finance
Committee to their view, which they accordingly have
dune most effectuilly. But, sir, what is a report worth I
which is breed upon the examination of two strong parti-
sena! The Corn, Coal, and Finauce Committee as-ert in
their report that an the result of the parliamentary inquiry
it appears that the sewage of the metropolis le worth
2,51ei,572/., but how this can be stated as the result of the
lad hamerdary it quiry we confess ourselves at a loss to un-
derstand. Such a statement is altogether against the
balance of reliable evidence adduced before both select com-
mittees. The Corn, Coal, and Finance Committee next
pretend to show, from the evidence before Dr. Brady'. corn. I
mitre, that small dressiegs of sewage applied through the
hose and jet are for the snout remunerative, and have
bees eminently successful in the experiments of Lord Essex,
Mr. W. S. Miles. and Mr. Alderman Mechn We say pre-
tend to show, because, as we shall presently prove, such a
statement is wholly at variance with the evidence. In
answer to queation .4, Lord Essex states that sewage is
" undoubtedly more suitable to Italian rye grass than to
anything else." In answer to question 5, his lordship states
that he bad made a great error in trying to distribute his
sewage over too great an area, and instead of applying it to
210 acres, he ought not to have attempted to spread it over
more than tic. In answer to question 32, be state, that be
has contracted the regular application of his sewage to
45 acres, that now and then he applies a little to wheat or I
clover if he has it to spare, but that he " really has it not to
spare," and that he puts "about 5,000 tons per annum upon
the Italian rye grads." Surely, air, the Coal, Coro, and Finance
committee have made their report without reading the evi- I
deuce ! In answer to question 4S, Lord Essex goes on to
say that in hisopinion arid from hie experience there would
be no demand for sewage unless sold under one penny per
too, at from a halfpenny to three farthings, which would
give about S'oo,ooo/. as the yearly value of the sewage of
both sides of the metropolis, instead of 2,899,972 C as stated
by the Coal, ('ore, and Finance Committee. In answer to
question 62, Lord Essex again repeats that " you ought to
calculate for ltaliaa rye-grass," from 5,000 to 6,000 tons a
year per acre." Flow then, sir, can Dr. Brady or Lord
Robert Montage, or the Coal, Corn, and Finance Com-
mittee torture Lis lordship's evidence into advocating the
useless little sprinklings hardly to be termed dress-
ings," which they recommend! They would apply the sew-
age of the entire metropolis to no less than 1)1.0,000 acrea,
which would give only 443 tons per acre, and yet they pre-
tend that this is what Lord Exam recommends, though he
expressly state* that he recommends from 5,000 to 0,000
tone. Let us now turn to the evidence of Mr. Miles, the
second witness upon whose evidence the Coal, Corn, and
Finance Coremittee base their report. Sir Baldwin Leighton
asked thin gentleman (question 4,327), "It is desirable for
us to know as nearly as we can, what the profit and Ines of the
matter ir," to which Mr. Miles very frankly replied, " natu-
rally, that is why I was rather loath to be examined, be-
cause I knew that I could not give it, sad no opinions are
valuable unless they are accurate and exact."
Mr. Caird, in addressing. question 4,353 to Mr. Miles,
said, "Then we shall not be able to place much re-
liance upon your evidence?" to which Mr. Miles candidly
replied, "That is exactly why I del not think that I could
really give any evidence." So much, sir, for the second
authority of the Coal, Coro, and Finance Committee. There
remains Mr. Alderman Mechi. We can well underatataldhat

his evidence would have great weight with members of the
Corporation of the City of London, but, sir, we undertake
to show that Lis evidence is absolutely worthless, and
that he has oo experience in sewage whatever. In answer
to question 1,004, Mr. Mechi states that he distributes his
socalled sewage, but more properly liquid manure, over 170
acres ; but in answer to question ttel, be states that be
only has the sewage of 12 persons at his disposal, which is
mixed with the whole of his farmyard manure, both liquid
and solid. wed (answer 1,030) guano. as well, we "(relieve, as
an occasional dead horse or so. What then has his cape.
rience to do with town sewage? His house sewage of 12 per-
sons is distributed over 17U acres, or at the rate of about
Li acres per head of the residents, that is to nay that the
excreta of each octavo are spread over upwards of 70.010
square yards in the course of the year, or over 191 square
yards per diem. Is it possible that this infinitesimal ap-
plication can produce any appreciable effect whatever? and
is it not mere elute of time to consider such evidence? We
believe that even an alderman (and we e.iy it with all de-
ference) would he overtaxed by so large so allotment of land
to he fertilized daily. But, sir, even Mr. Mechi says repeatedly
(Questions 1,i'34, 1.037, 1.042, I,lllis, 1,12. i) that he consider.
231u0 toss per acre not too much. How then can the Coal,
Corn, and Finance Committee state that he recommends aa
little as 443 tons per acre as the proper quantity ? When
Le talks of 2.000 tons per acre of liquid manure (a very dif-
ferent thing front sewage) Mr. Hecht is talking about figures
within his grasp, and occurring in his own experience, but is
is true enough that when the worthy alderman gets into
figure.. of which he has no experience, he says in answer to
question 1.142. that the sewage of the metropolis*/ suflicient
for 1,004.000 acres, that mat the rate of 260; too. per acre, or
only one-tenth of what he recommends from his own experi-
ence. Again, Mr. Hecht says in answer to question 1,022,
that proceeding upon an "unerring principle' he values the
sewage of London at 2,000,000 f. per annum, that the theo-
retical value would be 4U0,000/. more, but that be cannot
reduce it below 2,000,000/„• which be repe-ita at answers
1.07i-1 and 1,057, but in answer to question 1,024 be states
the value at 24. per ton, which he repeats at questions
1,034, sod 1,003, andlthis, sir, would give only 1,117,1021. ea
the yearly value of the sewage of London, whence we can
arrive at some idea of the value of the "wierriog principle"
upon which he calculated its value at 2,0110.0091., or, more
correctly, 2,400,0U01., that is more than twice es much.
Which is at fault? the aldermen's experience? or his on.
erring principle ? But, sir, in answer to question 1,139, the
alderman values the sewage of 20,000 people at only worth
I,ooof. a year, and this would give only the comparatively