The Sun.
London, England, 1855-12-05 00:00:00

METROPOLITAN SE WEBS COMMISSION.

Yesterday a Court was held at the principal office—
Mr. Jebb presiding.

COMBINED HOUSE DRAINAGE.

Mr. WARD moved—" That, in the opinion of this
Court, the drainage of houses in groups or blocks of
houses by combined works of tubular drainage is, as a
general rule, the system which unites the greatest degree
of efficiency with the greatest degree of economy, and
that consequently an order of Court be made that, where
it is practicable, combined drainage be required." He
observed that all he desired to have affirmed was that,
where it was practicable and economical, sewers should
be made to run beneath the soil, and not immediately
beneath the house, and be had modified his motion in
order to suit the views entertained by some of his col-
leagues, and thus insure unanimity, if possible.
Mr. OFFOR seconded the motion.

Mr. PASCALL did not think that the Court should now
attempt to force their judgment upon their successors.
Mr. Ward might say " no ;" but what then was meant
by his motion ? As far as he could see, the resolution
meant to dictate to the vestries what they were to do,
and this was what he (Mr. Pascal]) objected to.
The CHAIRMAN could not admit that there was any
principle involved in this case. He fully believed that, in
some instances, combined tubular drainage was the sys-
tem which ought to be adopted, and in other instances
separate drainage ; and he thought it would be extremely
unwise to lay down as a rule and a principle that which
was incapable of being reduced to either. He would con-
clude by saying that he was a friend to combined drain-
age in its proper place.
Mr. HAWES thought that each case should be left to
stand upon its own merits, and considered that the com-
mission ought not to encumber their books with a mo
tion which was useless.
Dr. SAYER was not prepared to lay down such a prin-
ciple as that specified in the motion. No doubt where it
could be beneficially carried out the court would adopt it.
Mr. THWAITES remarked that, by its acts, the court
had arrived at the conclusion that combined drainage
was very much preferable, and having come to this con-
elusion it was clearly their duty to register their opinion
for the guidance of their successors. Every sanitary law
should induce the court to avoid carrying a drain beneath
a dwelling. Such a resolution would be a hint to their
successors that the experience of this commission proved
that this mode of draining was the best, and lie sub-
mitted that there would be nothing dictatorial in regis-
tering their opinion upon the matter.
Sir J. SHELLEY had some difficulty in coming to
decision on this question, for it was quite clear that if
passed the motion would be far from being unanimously
carried, an.:, under all the circumstances, he hoped the
motion would be withdrawn, and allow the vestries to
come to their own decision upon the matter. Certainly
he should not like to have such a resolution directly
negatived.
Mr. HonGsort agreed with Sir John Shelley. If the
resolution merely declared that the combined drainage
was the most economical, he should heartily accede to
such a proposition, but he could not say that it was the
most beneficial.
Mr. WARD said that he would withdraw his motion
with the consent of the court, inasmuch as several mem-
bers who were desirous of voting were absent.
A reply from the chief engineer to the response of Mr.
Grant, the district surveyor, on the subject of the alleged
failure of pipes, was read. The document was extremely
voluminous, and the statements of both parties have
already appeared in this journal. A copy of the state-
ment was directed to be handed to Mr. Grant, who
will have the right to reply. The matter gave rise
to a short discussion, in the course of which many com-
missioners expressed their conviction that the con-
troversy ought to cease, and should never have been
permitted to arise, or at least encouraged by the
Court.

The Lords of the Treasury have issued a minute sanc-
tioning the extension of the privilege of landing and
bonding wines and spirits in cases or in casks, subject to
such regulations as may be deemed necessary by the
Commissioners of Customs for the security of the re-
venue, to such of the present Brat-class sufferance wharves
in London as have obtained the additional privileges
granted by an order of the 28th of February, 1841, upon
their affording proper security and accommodation, and
to such vaults situated within a radius of 500 yards from
any part of the north-side of the river, between London-
bridge and the west-side of the Tower-wharf, adjoining
Brewer's-quay, as shall afford proper security, and as
shall be capable of accommodating not less than 400
es of wine.