The Press.
London, England, 1858-07-17 00:00:00

STATE OF THE THAMES.

THE Parliamentary Committee reassembled on Mon-
day last at the usual hour. Mr. Kendall in the
chair. The other members present were—Sir Ben-
jamin Hall, Mr. Tite, Mr. Roupell, Mr. Alderman
Cubitt, Mr. Akroyd, the Hon. Percy Jocelyn, Lord
Palmerston, Mr. Robert Stephenson, Sir John Y.
Buller, Lord John Russell, Mr. Joseph Locke, Sir
John Shelley, &c.

As this committee goes on, the number of persons
present increases rather than diminishes, and as the
windows are kept closed the heat of the room was
almost insupportable.
Mr. HAWKESLEY, civil engineer, was the first witness.
His evidence is so important that we give it in
extenso. He said :--

I have given considerable attention to the sewage of
London, and the state of the Thames in connection with it.
I have in conjunction with Mr. Bidder and Dr. Letheby
made experiments and observations. During the hot days
of June I made many experiments in company with Dr.
Letheby, who took samples of the Thames at various points
and during various stages of the tide. The general results
of those experiments and observations were these : —ln
consequence of the extraordinary long dry weather and the
small supply of fresh water from the upland districts the
Thames had become offensive. There was not more than
six or seven times the quantity of fresh water over the
sewage in the Thames. In consequence of the accumula-
tion of sewage to so great an extent in the Thames sulp'nu-
rated hydrogen was omitted from it. I found the water
of the Thames at 73 Fahrenheit, a higher degree of tempe-
rature than I ever found it before. The colour of the water
was very black in consequence of the large additional
quantity of sewage passed into the Thames. The mud on
the banks was in a decomposed state, but the offensive
odour of the water was not confined to the backs, and was
uniformly distributed all over the river. The state of the
water was more fetid than any I had hitherto met with in
the river. The smell of the sewage water extended from
Woolwich to Chiswick at spring tides. On Sunday fort-
night I came up from Gravesend, and at nine o'clock at
night, when off Woolwich, the stench was very great in the
centre of the river. Below that point lower down the river
the sewage was completely deodorized. Off Blackwell the
smell increased; off Greenwich it was very noxious ; off
the Tunnel-pier the odour was less distinct. At London-
bridge the smell was scarcely perceptible. At Waterloo-
bridge the smell was not to be perceived at all. Off the
Houses of Parliament the smell became very intense. At
flood tide the smell was most offensive off Waterloo•bridge,
extending from Blackfriars-bridge towards Chelsea. Dr.
Letheby, at the request of Mr. Bidder and myself, had
made analyses of the water, and he found a great decompo-
sition of organic matter. On the 21st, 23rd, aril 25th of
June and other days experiments were made, and the
general results of them were, from the water taken at mid-
stream at low water, a total quantity of 67 grains of im-
purity to a gallon. In that quantity of impurity the
alkaline chlorines were 24 grains. On the same days
water was taken from the midstream at London-bridge,
and that gave a general total of impurity of 29 grains, of
which only four were alkaline chlorine. At Blackfriari-
bridge the total quantity was 271; at Hungerford-pier, 24 ;
at Westminster-bridge, 26 ; at Ohelsewbridge, 291 • at
Isleworth, 19 grains ; at Teddington-lock, 114 ; at Kew-
bridge, 1h ;at Hammersmith-bridge, 19f ;at Wundaworth,
21 ; at Vauxhall-bridge, 291. The impurity off Greenwich
was 66. The Thames was quite clear of sewage below
Woolwich. When the sewage passed Woolwich, it became
completely deodorized. When the sewage gets below
Woolwich it can never come hack in a state which could
he followed by decomposition. The London sewage which
goes into the river either at Woolwich or any other part
would come back again, but it would never come back again
in the form of sewage. When it came back it would alto-
gether cease to be noxious to the inhabitants. I know of
no means of purifying the river than by removing the cause
of impurity, and that is only to be done by preventing the
sewage from going into the river by means of intercepting
sewers. I would construct two sewers on each side of the
river, one a high level, and the other a low level sewer.
The high level sewer would takeoff the rainfall and sewage
from the higher districts, which would save a large amount
of pumping, as it could he discharged by gravitation at high
water. The other sewer being on a low level must, of
course, be discharged at low water mark. I would have
the means of deodorizing sewage if necessary, hut I have
no hope of making it profitable as a commercial specula-
tion. The manure when deodorized loses its fertilizing
qualities—its character then altogether becomes changed..
It would be hopeless to attempt to make a profit by it, as
it would not pay the expense of carrying it far three miles.
It would not he possible to perfectly cure the present state
of the river, even if intercepting sewers were constructed,
unless that plan were accompanied by an embankment,
with vertical walls continued to low water mark. It would
be impossible, even with intercepting sewers, to prevent all
the sewage from passing into the river; and as instances
of that, I may mention the docks and tlse Isle of Dogs ;
but the evil might be :net if the sewage were to be deodo-
rized in hot weather.

The CHAIRMAN: What is the nearest point in the
river tc Lnndon that you think that, with safety to
the inhabitants of the metropolis and those living
on the banks, the sewage might be discharged ?
Mr. HAWKESLEY : Not nearer than Barking-creek,
as there is no place nearer where works could be
erected.
By Mr. ROUPELL : if the Thames is not embanked
there will always be offensive exhalations from the
mulbanks. I think, even if the sewage is diverted,

~ f"

690

the mud•bsoks should be obliterated, either by cover-
ing them with water or by means of an embank-
ment. I think the nearest point that can be ob-
tained on the north side of the Thames as a point
of discharge for the sewage would be at Barking.
creek. It would be there carried into the river with-
out danger to the inhabitants of the metropolis.
By Mr. TITE : I do not think deodorization would
be necessary at all times of the year. lam ac-
quainttd with other prolesses of deodorization than
by lime. I have seen deodorization by sulphuric
acid, and the deodorization is complete, but it is very
expensive. I have seen the sewage deodorization at
Rugby, and there it is carried on by the admixture of
ashes and clay, and the liquid sewage is pumped on
to the land. As a commercial speculation the works
at Rugby are a failure, as the sum obtained for the
sewage is just sufficient to cover the expenses, and
nothing is gained. There are pipes, to which a hose
is attached, and the liquid is then distributed over
land. Ido not think the water in the sewers could
be deodorized in the sewers themselves—it would
be impracticable. Neither could it be done at the
mouths of the sewers, as there would he an immense
amount of deposit. It would be possible to convey
the sewage when deodorized away in barges ; but
that would render it necessary to have numerous
depots on the banks of the Thames. with tanks and
steam-engines to lift the water into the tanks, while
other steam engines would be required to pump the
sludge into the barges. Slush could not be conveyed
away to the country in pipes, as the precipitation
would soon stop up the pipes. Ido not think deodo-
rization could be applied to the Fleet-sewer or to the
mouth of the large sewer passing down King
William•street, London-bridge. The ordinary sewage
of London amounts to 80,000,000 gallons per annum,
and it would not be possible to deodorize such a
quantity by means of caissons or vessels in the river.
I. see no remedy for the purpose of cleansing the
banks but by the construction of an embankment
and then filling up the space beyond IL I consider
an iron sewer all but impracticable, as it would not
bear external pressure. If the iron sewer were of a
semicircular form and a flat top there would be an
irregularity of pressure which I have no doubt would
lead to a fracture. Any sewage that might pass
Woolwich would never be injurious on its return up
the river.

By Mr. AKROYD : There is no deficiency at present
in the scour of the river. The difficulty is because
the water can never get out, continually oscillating
backwards and forwards with the tide. There is a
great scour in the river, and in some parts the bed
of the river has been deepened four feet- If the
sewage were discharged at Barking creek it would
be in much the same state as it is now, but the effects
would not be the same as they are now, for then it
would be mixed with a larger volume of water. Some
years ago water was pumped from the Thames in the
middle of the stream which is now so offensive, and
was fit for drinking, in consequence of the sewage
being mixed in the large quantity of fresh water;
and so it would be if it were discharged at Barking-
creek, as there the volume of water would be so great
that it would deodorize the sewage.
By Sir B. HALL : I consider the two works desire-
able for the improvement of the Thames would be
intercepting sewers and an embankment, but I do
not think they need both be carried on simulta-
neously. If there was a perfect system of intercep-
tion the quantity of sewage which would get into the
Thames would be so small that the river would then
be rendered as pure as it was twenty or thirty years
ago, and under those circumstances I. do not think
it would be absolutely necessary to carry on with the
system of interception simultaneously a plan of
Thames embankment. A large population would
be benefited by the construction of the high level
sewer, but it would be essential that the low level
sewer should be carried on simultaneously with it,
so as altogether to remove and prevent the sewage
from falling into the Thames. If a low level sewer
was constructed, a great many of the existing sewers
draining into the Thames would require to be
reversed so as to drain into the intercepting sewer,
instead of into the river. If no embankment were
made, and we had discharged the sewage from the
high and low level sewers, a difficulty would arise on
the north side, as it would be attended with consider-
able risk to construct a large sewer through the
streets as to the security of the houses; but such
would not arise if there was an embankment. On the
south side there would not be any great difficulty, as
the sewers there were many of them without any fall
whatever.

By the Hon. PERCY JOCELYN There would be no
difficulty in the construction of tramways from the
wharfs to the river on the embankment. If there
was to be an embankment it would not alter the
level of the water. The level of the water would be
regulated by the height of it at the Nore at high
water.

By Lord PALM ERSTON The passage of the sewage
downwards is ouly half-a-►vile in twenty-four hours-
Therefore, if all the river could be stopped for

6kiMlimmi•••=u