The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-21 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

Sir, —lf anything would lead us to doubt the
value of a legislative body, when any really practi-
cAl measure is to be carried out, it would be the
conduct of the House of Commons with regard to
the "Main Drainage of the Metropolis Bill." The
subject bas been debated by the houses year after
year. It has been subj-cted to every kind of in-
quiry. Commission after cominLision has been
formed, each only to undo the work of its prede-
cessor. A Board of Works was formed for the ex-
press purpo.te of performing the Augeau task. It
rais :Id our
.rat-s, produced its own scheme, as its
predecessors had done, but came to a dead lock
when the work was to be performed.
Then came the filthy swell of the riv,r, tilling:
the Legislative Palace with an unendurable odour.
The judges threatened to leave Westminster, and
seek a purer atmosphere for the administration of
justice. Fear for a time stimulate I our legislators.
A practical suggestion was made. Lime was thrown
down the sewers, as a temporary remedy. The
Government had a favourable opportunity of gain-
ing the gratitude of at least three millions of people.
fall of rain diluting the sewage with river water
has rendered its smell less intolerable, and the Go-
vernment and the legislature have taken a cold fit
and strive to shirk the respons:bility of interfering
to prevent the growth of. a most gigantic evil.
They strive to evade the quest'on by a mere money
grant. They say to the Board of Works : " You may
spend three mill'ons of money in any way you like
on the drainage of the metropolis ; only don't
plague us with any discussion as to the way in which
the money is to be spent." Had the Board of
Works advocated a scheme, or originated one, in
any way likely to effect the object of secarin2; the
river Thames from pollution this might have been
a very reasonable course ; but the Board of Works
has only been distinguished for its advocacy of,
perhaps, the worst scheme which could well be
devised.

The- sum of money granted is very significant.
Tee Legislature say ifl effect to the Board of Works:
" We have nothing to do with your schemes ; we
take away every veto which will prevent you from
exercising your own wisdom ; but we give just so
much money as will onaLle you to carry your sewage
as far as Erith on one side the river, and Barking
ou the other." There can be little doubt how the
Board of Works will spend its money. The three
millions will be spent in making two brick tunnels
or main arteries, one on either side of the river,
communicated with by divers other smaller tunnels.
More than this the three millions will not do. The
deodorisingschernes must be provided forafter wards.
We all know how actively the executors of
works, especially gigantic ones in brick and
mortar, enlist recruits for any scheme which
will afford them, employment ; how skilfully
they can marshal their forces, and how effectu illy
they can manoeuvre even a minority in the pre-
sence of an ill-disciplined and disjointed majority.
Knowing thig, there is little difficulty in believing
that the Board of Works will readily spend the
whole of their money. The ratepayers of the me-
tropolis, who are to be taxed for the rayment—out
of whose pockets it will come—who will be forced
to pay it by the act of the L-gielature—have a
right to demand " that those who compel them to
pay should at least take some lite° pains to inquire
whether the work on which it is expended will
really bo serviceable or not."
Why should not the House of Commons say to
the Board of Works :—" What plan do you pro-
pose, and what will be its cost ?" On a subject of
such vital importance it is a shame for the legisla-
tive boly of the nation to shrink from its positive
duty. Why do they do so ? Because they feel
assured that the Board of Works would bring for-
ward a scheme which will not bear discussion. The
work in accomplishing which three millions are to be
spent, is so utterly inadequate that it is felt neces-
sary in the debates to cast it into the background.
When brought forward it is only by some damaging
remark on its efficacy. Indeed, no one seems bold
enough to advocate it in open discussion.
Surely the millions of inhabitants of the metro-
polis, whose health and whose wealth are so con-
nected with this matter, will not suffer any wild
scheme to be carried out without having some as-
surance of at least a prospect of an amelioration of
the evil from which they are suffering. The Le-
gislature has converted a tidal river into a common
sewer by compelling. the inhabitants of the banks
to cast all their filth into its stream, before any
means were devised for getting rid of the noxious
addition to the water. Now, what is the effect of
the tide on the waters of the river ? The tide
caused by the sea rushing into the river, not only
stopping the flow of the fresh water into the sea
but driving back the current of fresh water which
would have flowed into it during its rise.
It is found that in the deep water of the river at
Rotherhithe salt water may always be discovered.
During high tides or strong easterly winds it may be
detected above London or even Blackfriars-bridge.
Now, if the sea water is carried by the tide some
48 miles up the stream from its mouth, how-far
back will the sewage matter, which is intermediate
in specific gravity between the river and sea wa' or,
be carried up the stream, if discharged into it at
any intermediate point between London and the
mouth of the river If the sewage be poured into