The Sun.
London, England, 1856-12-05 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SIR,—May I ask you to insert in your journal
the following copy of a letter addressed by me to
the chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works?
—Your obedient servant,
JOHN It. M'CLEA.N.

"To THE CHAIRMAN OF THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OF
WORKS.
"17, Great George—treei, Westminster, Dec. 2.
"Sir,—ln the report in The Sun of the 29th ult. of the
proceedings of the Metropolitan Board of Works, held
on the 28th ult., it is stated that you (the chairman)
considered it was desirable the public mini shouk be
disabused on one or two matters which had been misun-
derstood respecting the system of the outfall sewer pro-
posed by Mr. M'Clean.'
" As I am equally desirous that the public should un•
dorstand the subject thoroughly, I feel confident you
will excuse me for endeavouring to remove some of the
erroneous impressions which you have formed respecting
the system referred to.
" You proceed to say that' he (Mr. M'Clean) proposed
to bring all the sewage on the south side of the river to
one great reservoir at the foot of Southwark-bridge. If
I had suggested either by letter or in conversation the
construction of a reservoir at Southwark-bridge, your re-
marks would have been just, as the people of Southwark
ought to be alarmed at any such project; but so far from
having recommeoded a work of that de4ctiptien I have
invariably spoken of the ceutinuous fib e of the sewage
of the metropolis, at all times of tide, without reservoirs,
as forming the leading feature of my plan.
" Agaio, you say tieat the sewage is to be lifted up
70 or 80 feet into tubes, crossing Southwark-bridge, and
dropped again into another sewer, which would carry it
to West Ham, where, again, it would have to be lifted
into a second sewer, and carried dowse to Church River.'
The suggestion I made was to carry the sewage over the
bridge, by means of pipes, and thence into the Aldgate
sewer, which is a high level sewer on the north side. If
you were of opinion that I proposed to pump up the sew•.
age of the sonth side, and then let it down again on the
north side of the Thames, and afterwards pump it again
at West Ham, I need ;lot feel surprised at your opposi-
tion to the project ; but I dim not propose it. The ieeight
(60 feet) to which the sewage will be raised at Souo-
- is sufficient to send it to the sea without
any additional pumping ; and the cost of laying pipes
and enlarging the sewer to West Ham will not exceed
the cost of the main outfall sewer on the south side be-
tween Deptford and Plnmstead.
"Again, you say, `Mr. M'Clean, on being asked
whether he knew that the direction of the sewers on the
south side was from west to east, did not appear to have
entered into that question, or into the question how the
sewage could be collected from all the outlying districts
to the foot of Southwark-bridge.'
" It is true at your meeting I did not enter into de-
tails, which arose, not from ignorance of the direction of
the sewers, but because I considered the inquiries were
oonnected with the internal drainage of the metropolis,
which ought to be carried out by your engineer, and not
by the company who proposed to construct the outfall
sewer between West Ham and the sea. I stated that,
from the information about the levels and direction of
the sewers which I had acquired on a former occasion, I
was prepared to say that the cost of connecting the
sewers on the south side of the Southwark-bridge pump-
ing station would exceed the cost of connecting them
with Deptford pumping• station, as proposed by your
engineer.
"I will now add that the cost of pumping engines at
Southwark-bridge station will not e'acyed the amount
you require for pumping two-thirds of th e sewageth e whole
the south side 38 feet high at Deptford, ant:

sewage—say, 28 feet, at Erith. ';ttle
" The annual cost of pumping may be a A.
greater at Southwark-bridge station than at the tVrt;
other stations ; but from Southwark-bridge statiori
the sewage of the metropolis will be sent out to the
sea, or will be used beneficially for agricultural pur-
poses throughout a district upwards of 42 miles in length
and of considerable width, while from Deptford it will
flow to Erith and into the Thames there, and the cleansing
of the reservoir will be a perpetual cost and nuisance.
" Besides, by placing the pumping station in the centre
of the district, at Southwark-bridge, the south side high-
level sewer may be altogether abandoned, and the saving
applied to the main outfall sewer between West Ham
and the sea, as stated in Sir M. Peto's letter.
" I hope these explanations will remove some of the
erroneous impressions which you appear to entertain
respecting my proposal, and convince you that Sir M.
ou
Pato' had not lent himself to a deceptive scheme, but
had taksn the question up, as y say, from a desire to
promote the general object which the board had to ac-
complish.'—l am, sir, your obedient servant,
" JOHN R. M'CLEAN."
" December 3.
" P.S.—Since writing the above remarks the report
of your engineer on the Government scheme of outfall
has been published.
" The alteration in the quantity of sewage and rainfall
to be provided for is so great that it places the outfall to
the sea in even a more formidable position, when com-
pared with the outfall sewers and reservoirs at Erith and
Rainbow, and before the publication of the report.
" The quantity of sewage and rainfall estimated for
both sides of the Thanes in the former report was
51,000 cubic feet per minute ; it is now reducod to 8,500
cubic feet per minute, consequently the outoll sewer
between West Ham and the sea will not require tote b
more than 10 feet diameter, instead of 21 feet diasn. e
The high-level sewer on the north side, from its junction
to the Aldgate sewer to West Ham, will not require to
be enlarged for the purpose of receiving the whole sewage
and rainfall of the south lido of the Thames, and the
pipes over Southwark-bridge will not require to be more
than three feet diameter instead of six feet diameter.
" As this is a public matter, a copy of my letter is
,nnitted to the public journals.—J. R. WC."

TOLL REFORII.—In pursuance of a resolution pa msed
at a public meeting of .the inhabitants of Camberwell
parish, a deputation of the Toll Reform Association
waited upon the vestry, to present a memorial upon the
subject, the object of which is to obtain the abolition of
the tolls en the trust roads of this parish. The memorial
was approved of, and resolutions were adopted to carry
out the intention of the associaticra.

Sept. 27, Oct. 25, Increase. Decrease.
-- 1856. 1856
£ £ £ £
Bank of England 19,936,303 20,774,309 838,006
Private Banks 3,669,667 3,939,060 269,393
Joint-stock Banks 3,047,901 3,155,106 107,155
--
Total In England 26,653,921 27,868,475 1,214,554
Scotland 4,092,666 4,219,079 216,413
Ireland .. • • 6,346,711 7,241,957 855,246
Waited Kingdom

Showing an increase of 1,214,5541. in the circu-
lation of notes in England, and an increase of
2,286,213/. in the circulation of the United Kingdom,
when compared with the month ending the 27th of
Sept. ; and, as compared with the month ending the
27th of Oct., 1855, the above returns show an increase
of 198,129/. in the circulation of notes in England, and
an increase of 568,215/. in the circulation of the United
Kingdom.
The average stock of bullion held by the Bank of Eng-
land in both departments during the month ending the
of October was 10,080,610/., being a decrease of
1,97.013/. as compared with the previous month ; and
a decrcu'e of 1,560,719/. when compared with the same
period last Tear.
The stock tif specie held by the Scotch and Irish banks
during the moth ending the 25th of October was
4,040,129/., being, a❑ increase of 319,032/. as compared
with the previous reOrn, and an increase of 210,312/.
when compared with the .
corresponding period last year.