The Sun.
London, England, 1863-12-12 00:00:00

THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS,

The usual weekly meeting of the Board was held
'yesterday at the office in Spring-gardens; the
::airman, Mr. J. Thwaites, presiding.

ST. THOMAS'S HOSPITAL AND THE PROPOSED SITE

AT STANG AT E.

The Engineer (Mr. Bzaigette) reported to the
Board that he had been requested by gentlemen
conn::eted with St. Thomas's Hospital to make affi-
davit as to the healthfulness of the site at Stangate,
which the Governors had agreed to purchase of the
Board, subject to the decision of the Court of Chan-
?eery. Dv) evidence he proposed to give was con-
tained in the following facts :—That, by July next,
the greater portion of the main drainage works for
the draining of the metropolis will be completed,
and then the sewage of the metropolis, instead of
being discharged, as it now is, at low water around
the metropolis, and so mixed only with a small
volume of water, will be discharged during high
water at Barking, which is about 13 miles below
London-bridge, where it will be diluted with a

maximum volume of water, and carried by the ebb
tide to about 26 miles below London bridge ; and
it was the intention of the Board to carry oat great
improvements on the banks of the river by embank-
ing, when the land on the shore of the Thames
would form a good site for any public building—
more especially as the several noxious trades now
carried on in the locality would be removed.
Mr. PHILLIPS moved that the engineer should be
allowed to make an affidavit in accordance with the
facts stated. _ .

Mr. DIXON said that there could be no doubt of
the healthfulness of the river shore, for down by the
docks and by the banks of the river in the nei hg-
bourhood of Limehouse and Bermondsey the people
were very healthy, and so much so that a doctor
could not make a living there. (Laughter.)

After some further remarks,
Mr. LOWMAN TAYLOR observed that the Board
ought not to commit itself to any statements the
engineer might make. The officer of the Board
might be compelled to give evidence, but it would
not be right for the Board to be mixed up in the
matter.
This part of the subject then dropped.
The Solicitor brought to the notice of the Board
that at a previona meeting a resolution Was passed
relative to obtaining an act in the ensuing session
of Parliament that the Board might acquire addi-
tional lands at Stangate for the purposes of the
Southern Embankment of the Thames scheme, and
he now needed further instructions, the preliminary
steps for obtaining such an act having been taken.
It was moved and seconded that steps should be
taken for obtaining the necessary powers.
Mr. ROCHE desired to know why the Board should
go to Parliament at a great expense in order to have
powers to purchase a piece of land, if that land was
afterwards to be sold for St. Thomas's Hospital, as
he understood it was to be. The land was either for
the purpose of the Board or for St. Thomas's Hos-
pital, and he wanted to know whether the hospital
authorities would pay the expenses the Board would
go to in obtaining this act if the land was for them.
Mr. FREEMAN answered that the site as it
stood at Stangate was not perfect, inasmuch as
roads would have to be made, and the purchase of
the lands treated of in the proposed bill was neces-
sary to make the site perfect; and then, if the site
should not be used for the hospital, it could be
sold for some other purpose. The Act was not for
St. Thomas's Hospital, but for the Board.

Mr. DERMER asked who would pay the expense.
The governors of the Hospital had voted £95,000,
and the answer was in the negative, so if the board
expected to get any of these expenses it was mis-
taken.

The CHAIRMAN said the purchasers of the site
would pay all necessary expenses.
Mr. COLLINSON stated that at a meeting of the
Governors, which was reported in the Times, the
question was asked if there would be any expenses
required for the she beyqnd the £93,000, and the
answer was in the negative, so if the board expected
to get any of these expenses it was mistaken.

An amendment was moved that the whole ques.
tion be referred to the Thames Embankment Com-
mittee, but this was negatived by 28 against 7, and
the original motion was carried.