The Sun.
London, England, 1864-10-08 00:00:00

THE GRANITE FOR THE THAMES EMBANKMENT.

The CHAIRMAN drew attention to a correspondence he
had received from Mr Thomas Scott, of 35, Old Jewry, and
he wished the Clerk to read it to the Board.
The Clerk then read the correspondence to which the
chairman referred. It contained an allegation that thq (AL
cers of the Board had ordered the contractors for the Thames
Embankment to use granite from a Certain quarry, for the
facing of the embankment, to the exclusion of that from
other quarries which was of a better quality. It also com-
plained that six samples of granite had been sent in to the
Board for examination and approval, and that only three of
them had been tested:

Mr BAZALGETTE, the engineer, in explanation, said he
had adopted the same course in choosing the stone for the
embankment that he had on other occasions. He had de-
clined, to have any, correspondence whatever with 1 he owners
of quarries, and had told them that he could only receive
specimens of stone from the contractors and decide upon
them without knowing who were the owners of them. He
had not had any interviews or treated with anybody on the
subject. He then read a correspondence from Mr Ritson, in
which he stated that gentleman completely contradicted
Mr Scott with regard to the stone, for it showed that he
(Mr Ritson) had submitted other portions of granite, and
that he had entered into no contract for the supply of tha
article. He had examined specimens of stone from Ireland
and had submitted them and others to be tested by Professor
Tennent, and he had reported that the granite from Kirk-
connel and Dalbeattie were the most uniform in their com-
ponent parts, and therefore likely to be more durable than
the others. He had been accused of having received six
specimens of granite, and tested only one of them. The fact
was that he had received only four from the contractors,
and those he had tried. His office was inundated with gra-
nite samples, and it was unreasonable to expect that he
should test them all.

Mr ROCHE asked whether the engineer had not ordered
Mr Ritson and Mr Furness to take a particular stone.
Mr 13A.ZALGETTE said the contractor had sent to him
granite from the Downahire, Dalbeattie, and Kirkconnell
quarries, and, as he considered the two latter of supErior
quality, he wrote to say that he might go on using the Dal-
beattie and Kirkconnell granite.
Mr ROCHE said the question was of great importance,
and he wished to know whether the contractors were not
ordered to supply that granite.
The CHAIRMAN said they were not. They had submitted
different qualities of granite, and the engineer had simply
approved one of them.
Mr ROCHE thought they ought not to be bound. by the
opinion of Professor Tennent or any other person. In build-
ing the House of Commons they had made a great mistake
in selecting the stone, and if the Board were not very care-
ful they would fall into a similar error with regard to the
Embankment.

The CHAIRMAN reminded Mr Roche that the engineer,
after he approved the samples of granite sent to him, took
the precaution of not relying on his opinion, but obtained
that of Professor Tennet, which supported his own judg-
ment. The engineer had not ordered the atone to be used,
but had only given his consent.
An animated discussion then ensued, at the conclusion of
which a motion was made that the whole question should
be submitted to the Thames Embankment Committee for
consideration and report, However, it was not pressed, and
the subject dropped,