The Sun.
London, England, 1856-11-13 00:00:00

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS.

Yesterday an adjourned meeting of the board was held
in the Council Chamber, Guildhall, to despatch the busi-
ness specifiedin an agenda paper of formidable dtrnensions.
The oft-debated question as to whether the freehold
property of the board in Greek-street should be selected
as a site for the permanent offices, or whether a locale
should be elsewhere sought, was again renewed. One of
the speakers, Mr. Doulton, pithily stated that the only
ground which the advocates of another eitetlian Greek-st.
could urge in favour of their views was that of privaie
convenience, and he asked the boadd to pause before they
saddled the ratepayers with an outlay of 20,0001. and a
rent of 400/. for such an object. The opponents of Greek-
street urge d that the convenience of public business, as well
as that qt the majority of the meteber4, would be best
consulted by having an office in a more central position,
and that an additional expenditure of moderate amount
for the attainment of this would rather meet with the ap-
prebation than the disapproval of the rateoaying public
These wore the principal arguments addu ,ed on each
side, and after a lengthy discussion the board adopted
the recomm •ndation pf the comtnittte, which was " that
the committee be authorised to treat with the Corpora.
tion of the City of London for a portion of the site of the
former Fleet prison, in Farringdon-street, as a site kr
offices a the hoard," by a large majority, ou the motion
of Mr. See'ey, as against an amendment'moved by Mr.
Wright, that the question be adjourned forsix months.
THROWING OPEN SOUTHWARK AND WATERLOO BRIDGES.
Mr. Deputy HARRISON, in accordance with the report
of the committee, moved that the board agree to the
lowing resolution :—" That before taking any further
steps for such purpose, and ina,much as the committee
have ascertained that the Corporation- of the City of
Loudon have been in negotiation for the put-chase of one
of the bridges, namely, Southwark bridge, the committee
request the authority of the board to place themselves in
communication with the corporation, with the view pf
learning whether they aro prepared to purchase, or to
join in the purchase, of such bridge." It was the opinion
of the committee that the only practical way of throw.
ing open Southwark and Waterloo-bridges was by pur-
chasing the interest of the proprietors. He was of opinion
that the board would not find the City unwilling to co-
operate in opening Southwark-bridge, on proper and
reasonable terms. That such an object was desirable
was very evident, and as this was only an initiatory
step, he apprehended that the recommendation of the
committee would be sanctioned by the board.
Mr. Rows seconded the motion.
Mr. BEAVAN could not easily conceive any benefi

accruing to his district (Bethnal-green) from the open-
ing of Southwark-bri ige to the public. His district was
situated at a considerable distance from the bridge, and
he must protest against any proposition by which its in-
habitants would be taxed for an improvement advanta-
geous only to the Cityand Southwark. Already upwards
of 350,000/. Was to be expended in the construction of a
new street it Southwark, and he thougnt it behoved hon.
members to pay some attention to the requirements of
their own constituents. As regarded Southwark-bridge,
he contended that its purchase ought to be considered
in the light of a special improvement for Southwark and
the City of London, and should be viewed as such by
the board.

Mr. DIFFANGER was in favour of the motion, and
would just rewind Mr. Beavan that unless a bridge were
made or purchased, the new street in Southwark would
be comparatively useless.

Mr. HAwKEs opposed the motion, on the ground
mainly that the benefit to be derived would be almost
altogether of a local nature.
Mr. TAYLOR was rejoiced to see Mr. D'lffanger on the
right ride at last. For his own part he believed that
the City would be disposed to do its duty by offering
every facility and assistance in its power to tbe board in
respect to the throwing open of Southwark-bridge. He
would remind the representative for Bethnal-green that
his constituents would certainly derive some benefit from
a freer communication being established between the
north and south sides of the river. The bridge had been
built at a very large cost, and the original shareholders
had never received a single farthing. Notwithstanding
this, he knew the company valued it at a very large
figure, and 'the difficulty to be surmounted was this, that
the original shareholders expected to be recouped. The
improvement, if it could be effected, would prove highly
advantageous in a general sense, by affording further
facilities to the traffic, not only between the City and

South wark, but between the City and Surrey and kept.
Mr. BIDGOOD apprdved of the notion a throwing open
the two bridges, but wished to call attention to the tact
that, save for light traffic, Southwark-bridge would be
worthless to the public. He trusted that nothing
that emanated from that board would be construed to

---
mean that they intended to purchase the bridge at its
original coat, or even half that cost. (Hear.)
Mr...LEBLIE was desirous of knowing where the funds
required for the purchase of the bridge were to come
from. The bridge itself came'from no place, and went
to no place—(ories of " Oh !")—and he understood from

thep,iitteruents made, that the bridge had never paid the

preference shareholders above 1.1. pe—r cent., yet the price

asked for it way equal to the orign al outlay: -
Mr. COLLINSON replied to Mr. Leslie by stating that
the bridge on one side led into the heart of the City, and
on the other into Southwark and Surrey. He considered
that it was of the utmost importance to facilitate the
communication between those important places. (Hear.)
Moreover, the idea of throwing open this bridge was a
popular one, and had been agitated many years. It was
not merely a kcal improvement, but one which he con•
ceived would materially improve the comfort and conve•
nience of the London public. Look at the relief that
would then be afforded to London-bridge. (Hear, hear.)

Ha approved of the motion.
Mr. WARE also spoke iu favour of the resolution.
Mr. Deputy HAnnisoir, in reply, said the notion had
never been entertained, eitLer by himself or by the
committee, to give the company oythlng like 300,0001.
for the bridge. lie indignantly denier the truth of the
wanted to "hook" the board into the purch.?•BB)
statement made by Mr. Leslie, that he committee
and he

(the Deputy) thought such observations as thb.,se were
ungentlemanly and uncalled for. (Sear, hear.)
Mr. LESLIE remarked that hou, members appeared t'
be particularly thin-skinned just now.
The board then divided, when the motion was carried
(strano to say without a division) by 21 to 3.
Mr. Deputy HARRISON then moved "That it be re-
fereed to the committee to take the necessary steps in
reference to the motion."

Mr. Hows seconded the proposition, which was
agreed to.

BUSTNESS AP. It ANGEMSNTS,

The subj )fined motion, proposed by Mr. BRISTOWE,
and seconded by Mr. SEELEY, was adopted after half an
bour''s discussion :—" That the clerk be directed to sum-
mon the members of the board for 12 o'clock un Tuesday
in every week, at the premises in Greek-street, until
further notice, for the purpose of considering and o: ter-
mining upon the reports of the superintending architect
on application under the Metropolitan Building Act and
the Metropolis Local Management Act."
REJECTION OF THE INTERCEPTING DRAINAGE PLAN BY

GOVERNMENT.
At this stage of the proceedings the President inti-
mated that a communication had been just received from
the First Commissioner of Works, which would be read
by the clerk.
Tae Clerk then, amid deep silence, read the following
official communication, which we print in extenao :
" Office of Works, Nov., 1856.
" Sir,—l am directed by the First Commissioner of her
Majesty's Works, &e., to say that he has considered the
plans of the main drainage of the metropolis submitted to
him on Wednesday last by a deputation from the Metro,
politan Board of Works, in relation to the outfall proposed
at the point marked B in the plan, which point on the south
side, according to the plan, is about one mile from the
eastern boundary of the metropolitan area, and about 22
miles west of Erith.

" The First Commissioner desires me again to refer the
board to the words of the act 18th and 19th Vic., c. 120,
which are as follow : —' And such board (the Metropolitan
Board of Works) shall wake such sewers and works as they
may think necessary for preventing all or any part of the
sewage of the metropolis from flowing or passing into the
River Thames in or near the metropolis, and shall cause
such sewers and works to be completed on or before the
31st day of December, 1860'.
" Ile considers that the plan presented to him, as regards
the outfall, is at variance with the intentions of the Legie-
lature, and contrary to the spirit of the statute. It is,
therefore, with much regret that he feels bound to return
the plan, withholding his approval. The First Commis-
sioner further desires me to state that he finds by the
authorised proceedings of the board, that the same outfall
at B has been several times under their consideration. It
appears, at page 316 of those proceedings, that an outfall
iu Erith marshes has been proposed by the engineer, in a
report presented to the board on July 7; and that, after
this proposition had, been in the hands of the members of
the board for about 14 days, it was moved, on the 22d of
July, that the outfall at Erith marshes, as proposed by
the engineer in his report of the 7th of July, be adopted,
and that the discharge take place only at or after high
water.' To this an amendment was moved, `That the
engineer be directed to prdpare sections and estimates for
extending the main outfall sewer on the southern side to a
point iu Long-reach below Erith, and so as to be discharged
at. and after high water only.'
"This amendment was carried, thus negativing, or at all
events postponing for further information, the plau of the
engineer for an outfall at Erith marshes, as embodied in
the original motion. On the 12th August it was again eon-
sidered, when, after various motions of different kiede in
relation to the main drainage had been put and negatived,
an amendment was moved, That the discharge of the
main outfall sewer on the south side of the Thames be
mede at a, poiet in the river Thames on the Surrey side,
westward of Dith.' This amendment was negatived, and
it was sub,sequentiy resolved, That the report of the en-
gineer be referred back to him, in order that ho may re-
port to the board on the whole question of the northern
and southern drainage of the metropolis.'
"The subject was again brought before the board on
Monday, the 6th of October last, by a motion to the fol-
lowing effect :—'That the resolution of the board of the
Vth. of August, 1856, negativing the following amend-
ment, namely, "That the discharge of the main outfall
sewer on the south side of the Thames be made at a point
in the river Thames, on the Surrey side, westward of
Erith,” be revoked, with a view to the consideration of
all, and the adoption of either, of the several systems of
drainage set forth in the engineer's report of 25th Sept.,
18562 This motion was carried unanimously. The board
were by this time in possession of the report of their eneis
near. They were also in possession of the report of their
legal adviser upon the subject of the outfall at 13, and hay.