The Sun.
London, England, 1856-12-10 00:00:00

METROPOLITAN BOAIW OF WORKS.

A special meeting of the Metropolitan Board of Works
was held yesterday in the council chamber, Guildhall ;
Mr. J, Thwaites in the chair.
The meeting was called for the purpose of further con
sidering the report with plan by engineer, upon the
points of discharge for the drainage of the metropolis,
suggested in Captain Bursters letter, and approved by
the First Commissioner of her Majesty's Works, &c.
After a short conversation between the chairman and
Mr. Nichol:ly relative to the late deputation to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, the business of the day
was proceeded with.
Mr. CARPMAEL, being called upen by the chairman,
said it was not his intention to trouble the board with
any lengthened ohkervations. He reminded the board
that the plan agreed to by them on the 22d of October
had been sent back to them, and unless they took some
action upon the question of the sewerage of the metro-
pHs, it would lie in abeyance, since her Majesty's Board
of Works had no power to originate drainage measures.
He would not no tv refer to bygones, inasmuch► as he
thought that all these had been condoned for by the last
interview with the First Commissioner of Works. There
were two courses open to the board ; first, to adhere to
their determination of having the outfall at B ; and,
secondly, to revoke the resolution in favour of plan B,
and throw open the question of outfalls. He thought
that the reasons which should induce the board to adopt
this latter course were so evident, that he should not
waste the time of the board by tetailing them, but
would simply move "That the resOlution of the board of
the 22d of October last; adopting the engineer's plan
marked Bin his report, dated 25th September, 1856,
and directing the same to be presented to the Commis-
siocer of•her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings, be

revoked."
Mr. SAVAGE seconded the motion, and said if such a
motion were not adopted the works entrusted to the
board would come to a dead lock.
Mr. H. L. TAYLOR inquired whether, if this resolu-

tion were carried, the entire question of outfall would
be thrown open ? (Yes.) If so, then he could readily
conceive why a certain section of the board should be
willing to adopt the proposition. But Mr. Carpmael
proposed to follow up his motion by another in favour of
plan B (1. That being the case what possible advan-
tage would accrue from going one mile nearer to Erith.
In his opinion there would be no possible equivalent for
expending 103,0001., necessary for carrying the sewage
from point Bto B (5). If it could be shown to
him that any advantage would result from such
an increased outlay he would be willing to pocket
the affront of revoking the resolution for which be
formerly voted. Ho wanted to know if those gentle-
men who went up to the Chief Commissioner had
made any compromise with him, as the letze.rd was
not represented ? Many of the representatives of
the largest parishes were not there, and notwith-
standing that there was a complete bandying of compli-
ments, and all went merry as a marriage-bell, there must
be no compromise upon this matter. He considered
that if they took the outfall to the point at B (*), it
would be more objectionable than stopping at point B.
If they were required to go below that, the Government
ought to pay the expense.
Mr. WILKINSON said if they sent up a plan for the
outfall at B (5), they would adopt a plan which would
satisfy no one ; but they must look at the position in
which they were placed, and if the plan was objection-
able, they must throw the responsibility upon her Ma-
jesty's Commissioner. Still as they could not proceed
without his sanction, although he agreed in all that had
been stated by Mr. Taylor, he should support Mr.
Carpmael's motion.
Mr. BURSLEII opposed the rescinding of this resolu-
tion, and having voted against a similar motion, he
should bo consistent and vote against this one.
Mr. WRIGHT believed that the scheme A was the best,
both in a practical and sanitary point of view, and yet
he had voted for the resolution, making that the
point of outfall, being rescinded. Although he was etil
of opinion that the outfall would be better at A than B
or B still he could not forget that there was another
that could control their acts, and if they had adhered to
their former resolution it must inevitably have the effect
of bringing the board to a dead lock.-
Mr. Rows supported the resolution, and said if they
took the course recommended by Mr. Taylor, it would,
as stated by Mr. Wright, inevitably bring the board to a
dead lock, and involve them in difficulties from which
they would never be able to extricate themselves.
Mr. Deputy HARRISON asked to have read the resolu-
tion formerly agreed to, and which was now proposed to
be rescinded.
Mr. WOOLRYCH read the resolution, which was to the
following effect :—" That the engineer's plan marked B
in his report, dated 25th Sept., 1856, be now adopted
and presented to the Commissioner of her Majesty's
Works and Public Buildings, and that it be intimated
to them that this Board have also under their
consideration other plans for discharging the sewage
into the river below Gravesend ; but that it appearing
that such extension would add between 1,000,0001. and
2,000,0001. to the outlay, and that this sum would be
spent, not to the benefit of the inhabitants of the metro-
polis, but to meet the wishes of the people of Kent and
Essex, who reside on the banks of the river, this board
has declined to entertain any such scheme. Neverthe-
less, if it should be the opinion of her Majesty's Govern-
ment that such an extension is desirable, this board will
readily undertake the work, the Government providing
such additional outlay out of the national revenue."
Mr. Deputy HARRISON said it was quite clear that the
board had no desire to rescind the latter part of this
resolution.
Mr. SEELEY said there was no difficulty about the
matter, for the deputation had laid the latter part of the
resolution before Sir B. Hall, and that they could not
now rescind it. They had merely to rescind the propo-
sition for forming the outfall at point B.
Mr. TURNER suggested that the motion should be
altered, so as to rescind as much of the original resolu-
tion that committed the board to plan B.
Mr. CARPMAEL at once adopted the suggestion as being
the meaning of his own resolution, but the latter clause
of the resolution had been retained by a mere accident.
The original resolution was then altered in the manner
suggested.
The CHAIRMAN then 'put the motion, when there ap-
peared—

For the motion..
Against it _

. 33

Mr. CABPMAMELajosariidty, in rising to move "—Th3a the
report of the engineer in respect of the outfalls at B (*),
suggested in Captain Burstal's report, and approved by
Sir B. Hall, be adopted," he would admit with the hon.
member for the City of London that he was guilty in
some degree of inconsistency, as he was still of opinion
that point A was the proper point, and the one that
ought to lie carried out. Still there was another body
that must be consulted, and until .the two bodies were
agreed upon some plan nothing eould be done,
whether that plan was to make the outlet] at A, B,
or B (*). If, however, as a professional man, and
holding the opinions he did he was asked if he would re •
cgrainend the board to go to B (*), he would at once
express his willingness to do so rather than at once throw
this subject in abeyance for some indefinite period. lie
found,from the public prints that certain questions would
arise on different schemes, and therefore he should have
to deal with them at some length. He then referred to
Mr. M'Clean's plan, and said he had read the letter he
had written to their chairman in answer to some obser-
vations he had made on his scheme at a former board.
He found that Mr. M'Clean by his scheme proposed to
continue the engineer's plan oni tehneninngotrotoh,saidnodotfhtohsee.
Thames ; but on the south side he made no provision
Idoirstrtihcetssemwuasgtei in casespnlw ionf h and
heavy rains be completely
flooded before he could get his sewage to his pumping
station at Southwark-bridge. (flear, hear.) He then
proposed to carry it by means of iron pipes over
Southwark-bridge, but he had not stated what the
Southwark-bridge Company would charge for such
a purpose. However, to get it over Southwark
Bridge he must pump up the sewage 60 feet—a much
greater elevation than was proposedplabny
wthoeuilrd ownm
oerne-
gexinpeeenrsaivteabnyy P4ol,onofOtil.,e lininge.oing Hisrom Wanstead, eight
miles from London, than the cost of the plan of their
engineer for taking it to B (*). As to the plan of Mr.
Leslie for dividing the rainfall from the sewage, he
would 'observe that this board had no power for any
such purpose ; but if they had that power, what had
they been doing for the last 13 months ? Why, over and
over again they had sanctioned the districts in making
sewers which should bring down sewage and rainfall, and
yet they had never heard a word of objection on the part
of Mr. Leslie as to their doing so. Their engineer had told
them that the pumping power in the sewers must be
equal to a quantity of sewage delivered from the metro-
polis when it was increased in population to 3,500,000,
and would allow the reception in the sewers of 18,000,000
cubic feet— a provision which put Mr. Leslie's
scheme quite out of the question. A great deal had
been said as to what the board intended to do, and
its eflect on Erith and Gravesend. He was one of those
ready to state that the board had no right to pour into
the river what would be a greater nuisance than at
present. Let them, however, examine the question for
themselves, and not be frightened at the proposition,
in the way tbat an hon. baronet had been endeavouri
to frighten the people of Erith and Gravesend. There
were 25 miles of river in the metropolis, and if 50,000
cubic feet of sewage is poured into it daily, it becomes
mixed with a large quantity of water, the sewage being
one in ten of the whole. Was that a state of things
to be continued, to pour into the river one in ten