The Sun.
London, England, 1856-10-15 00:00:00

LATEST BETTING.

CAMBRIDGESHIRE.
4to 1 agst Vengeance (taken)
14 to 1 agst Polestar (taken)
15 to 1 agst Malaccar(taken)

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS.
(This Day).

THE SEWERAGE QUESTION.

This afternoon a special meeting of tte members of

the Metropolitan Board of Works was held in Council
Room No. 1, at the Guildhall, Mr. Thwaites in the
chair, to consider the Metropolitan Sewerage question.
Mr. CRELLIN moved, " That the plan No. 1, in the
engineer's report, suggesting the deodorising works be
added at the Barking and Woolwich outfall, be adopted.
The works without deodorising would involve a total
expenditure represented as capital of 2,955,0761., and
that the addition of deodprising works would involve an
expenditure represented as capital at 4,228,5561. He
asked the board to adopt this plan on its merits, and be-
cause he believed it was the best that could be adopted
under the circumstances. There could be no doubt but
that
value.
sewage would ultimately acquire a high commercial

Mr. CAIIIIIIIAEL seconded the motion.

Mr. LESLIE asked if the question could be put, the
Government having rejected a former plan for discharg-
ing the sewage at Barking Reach I He thought the
chairman would have found out that bef6re and have
informed the hon. member of .

The CHAIRITAN said that there had been anything to
find out no doubt he should have done it. He thought
there was a difference between discharging sewage and
purified water into the Thames at Barking Creek.
Mr. SNOW considered the duty of the Board was only
to provide sewerage for the metropolis, and not to estab-
lish commercial works by the construction of deodoris-
ing works.

Mr. OFFER thought it would be better for the Board
fir3t to decide on an outlet, with the consent of the
Government, and after that consider the propriety of
establishing deodorising works. He moved the previous
question.

A division then took place, when Mr. Offer's motion
was agreed to by a large majority, and, consequently,
Mr. Crellin's motion was not put.
Mr. BIWITOWE then moved,
" That before deciding upon any of the plans sub-
mitted to the board, s communication be addressed to
the chief commissioner of public work', requesting an
interview with him by a deputation from this board and
the engineer, at the earliest possible opportuaity."
Mr. WILYINBON seconded the motion.

Mr. TURNER objected to the resolution as affecting

their independence, and the Government conceiving the
board felt pressure would obtain popularity at the ex-
pense of the board, by compelling them to adopt a plan
that would subject the metropolis to a heavier rating
than was desirable to obtain fur Greenwich and other
towns on the Thames what all desired, ♦iz., the purifica-
tion of the river.

Mr. Deputy HARRISON thought the adoption of the
resolution would place the board in a humiliating posi-
tion. The board had already decided on one plan. The
beam' had the power of determining on the works neces-
sary for the metropolis without interference. His idea
was that they should negative all the plans, and that if
the Government wanted the drginage carried beyond
the limits of the metropolis, they should assist them
from the Consolidated Fund. (Hear.) Then it would
be necessary to have a conference with the Government
and the members of the metropolis, but he objected to
being placed under the direction of Sir Benjamin Hall.
Mr. DIFFANGER objected to the resolution, and sug-
gested that they should act independently, according to
the terms of the act, and not become the tool of any
president of the Board of Works.

Mr. OFFER supported the motion, which would show
Sir B. Hill that their engineer and the hoard possessed
superior information to that of the Board of Works.
The effect would be to induce the Government to get
rid of the flimsy objection to the outlet at Barking
Creek. He (Mr. Offer) would go to him and press that
the outlet should be at Barking or Plumstead.

After some further discussion the resolution was lost
by a large majority.

Mr. TURNER moved—

" That the third mode suggested by the engineer, in
his report of September 25th, for disposing of the
metropolitan sewage, namely by discharging the sewage
into the river at Long Reach, be adopted by the board."
He moved this not from a feeling that this was the best
plan, but because the board had to a certain extent de-
cided that the outlet should be beyond Half-way Reach,
and as Long Reach was upwards of five miles lower
down the river there would be no chance of the sewage
being brought back by the tide within the extreme
limits of the metropolis on the smith side, except on
two or three days in every month owing to the irregularity
of the tides. The only part that would be inconvenienced
by it would be Gravesend, and other places below, and if the
Government compelled the board to go to the sea, they
should asssist in the construction of the works, and not
compel the rate-payers of the metropolis to pay for the
convenience of those places.

Mr. DALTON seconded the motion that it might be
quashed. (Laughter.) •
Mr. DOULTON said the difficulty in the sewerage bad
been of the Board's making, in not submitting a plan
in the firsl-, instance to the Government, in accordance
with the terms of the act of Parliament, that " the
sewage should not be discharged in or near the metro-
polis." They had to decide a question of fact, and the
only objection to the outlet at Sea Reach was its ex-
peive. Economy was a tangible argument, but in this
instance the public voice, as expressed by vhe newspaper
press, was not to spare expense and adopt a plan on
account of its economy, but to construct a drainage that
shall answer all the requirements of the metropolis, and
be for the public benefit. The difference of expense be-
tween Long Reach and Sea Reach involved only a rating
of a penny in the pound, and he argued it was not worth
their while to higgle about that, but do that which
would be a credit to them, and a lasting honour to the
country. He moved as an amendment that the engineer
be authorised to prepare plans, sections, estimates, &c.,
for draining the metropolis by two main sewers, one on
each side of the river, having their oountftahlles
paetpSeerafßoreatchhe.
amendment Mr. TAYLOR contended the amendment could not be
considerationp u
rt,iie
CHAIRMAN there
u Ibeingß
othei,N d wholespecificceidei cit
could
im uost
siLc
The e

Mr. WARE seconded the amendment, which he said
he considered the preferable mode, lie objected to
their tunnelling the Thames
,to connect the two sewers
a; propos3d by the engineer s plan. He thought, how-
ever, the Government ought to assist in carrying the
outlet to Sea Reach.
Mr. DIFFAICGER said he had no doubt owners of pro-
pertyl
uvetse end,Erith, and other places, would
towards the removal of this nuisance
downrloeawdeirlyaetGravesend,
°n contribute
the river. The board had no right to
remove the nuisance from their own doors and place
it at the doors of others. He doubted if sewage
could be made a profitable article, and, if they
chic ?prised it, injurious qualities would remain in
the water. They all knew that the clearness of water
was no test of its purity, for although clear it might
contain deleterious elements. Re strongly supported
the amendment.
Mr. CEELLIN and Mr. DIXON having addressed the
Board,
Mr. CAIIPMALL said the act of Parliament under
which they were formed was
exceedingly ambiguous. He
charged Mr. Doulton with inconsistency of conduct.
On a former occasion he moved a resolution iu favour of