The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-29 00:00:00

LONDON, TIJESDAY EVENING, JUNE 29, 1858.

STATE OF THE TBAIVIE2.

TO THE. EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Six,—On Friday, June 18, the state of the Thames
was brought before the House of Commons, bat wi bout
much result. Sydney Smith said there.would be no end
of railway accidents till a bishop ins killed ; end in like
manner there will be nothing done to clear tie Thames
till either the Speaker of the House of Commons dies
of typhus, or twenty thousand of the ordinary citiz no
fall by the edge of peAileoce. The LibrarAof the House
es' Comm] s on Thursday was worse than a disc' (Ong_
room, and I saw men waving cloths, understood to be
wetted with chloride of lime, in hopes to disinfect.
A man was asked why he never washed Lis bands ;
and he replied by asking what he was to do with the
dirty water ? This is something like the dilemma of a
portion of the citizens. They say they might be washed
by the Thames, but then the Thames is made FO dirty ;
and therefore they propose that they shall not Els washed
at all.
The case admits of compromise, and to all appearance
cure. But, then,
.there is the expense. Ten milli ,ns
are talked of as the price of preserving the metropolis
from pestilence. If the money could have been saved
which gentlemen with architectural tastes have exoended
on what would be quite as well away, it would have
gone half-way ; but gentlemen cannot eat their cake
and have their cake. But it does not follow that there-
fore the metropolis must be left to sicken. A wicked
war the less will pay for all ; the first step which
would be to strike off all the men wh) draw
salaries under the title of agents abroad, as performing
no end in society but what Irishmen in a fair
are said to execute by dragging their great-coat after
them that somebody may tread upon it.
Somebody said it was a wonderful dispensation of
Providence, that wherever there was a capital. there was
always a river. Entirely agreeing that the coincidence
of capitals and rivers is advantageous, it remains to be
seen how the river can be best turned, to the use for
which it is so manifestly arlapted,4 A 'metropdlis which
...

1 _ . . ...
has grown and is growing out of all cesirlike London.
And here the first "great fact" is, that considering
the number of sources from which matter it would be
desirabl, to rim v-3 mu,t ar se, there are i t lest 2,000
tons per diem which ought to be removed. That is to
say, if all this could be put into a seventy-four gunship
daily and let go at the Nore, the metropolis would be a
place to live in. Can human art, therefore, do nothing
towards producing the same effect ? I ver;ly believe a
lieutenant-colonel who was ordered to clean his post for
the general's inspection this day twelvemonth, would
find the way to do it.
Two things are evidently necessary. First, that the
unhealthy matter should be collected into sewers,
ending in one main trunk to carry it to a competent
distance below the town ; and, secondly, that it should
only be discharged into the river at high water, or from
that to quarter ebb. Ask any Waterman, whether a
drowned man so treated would ever find his way to
London-bridge. It might be an accessory qu- stion,
whether it might not be desira, le to have a reservoir
of water for the purpoPe of occasionally washing
out ; which mutt be supplied by a water-course con-
nected with the river above the town. All .these
would involve curious questions of level ; but there is
no reason in despairing without knowing why. A rcheme
was once on foot for making Paris a seaport; and it was
to be effected by making two mounds of earth, whioh
must have been like what the world has since been fami-
liar with in railways. Railways might perhaps be com-
bined with the upper part of the process ; though there
might be objections to the neighbourbo )d, if it was pro-
posed to make use of them below. If levels fail, there
are great powers of raising fluids in the present day by
the application of steam. If anybody will carry away
sewage at their own expense for manure, let them ; but
do not be poisoned for 20 years, waiting for somebody to
carry away the sewage. If anybody can ehew reason-
able damages from any part of the process, compensate
them in reason ; but do not give up the process. When
Prometheus made a man, he did not allow him to die
because no part of his body would be the locus of a
sewer.

The simple tru th'is that the metropolis is in the con-
dition which a stric`ly philosophical inquiry would show
to be the phenomena attendant upon a r 11412 who never
washes himself. The dirt accumulates till it falls off; and
there is a certain maximum quantity dependent on the
adhesive powers of the matter c mcerned, in which he
moves and has his being. It is a mere guess ; the data
not being at ;laud ; but it is not improbable that six
days' dirt, being to the amount of 12,000 tons, is always
washing up and down under the noses of the intelligent
cit'zens. More than this finds its way into the sea, upon
the same principle that the man who never washes him-
self is not coated above a certain thickness.
Yours sincerely,
T. PERRONET THOMPSON.
Eliot-vale, Blackheath, June 23, 1858.

PARLIAMENT4'RY COMMITFEE,

THE STATE OF THE RIVER THAMES.

This Committee met yesterday, to pursue the
inquiry into the state of the river Thames, Mr.
Kendall in the chair. Among the members present
were Sir John Shelley, -L-'rd J. Manners, Mr.
Joseph Locke, Mr. Roupell, Sir J. Y. Buller, Mr.
Akroy d, Mr. Cayley, Mr. Tite, Lord Godericb, the
Lion. Jocelyn Percy, Mr. Alderman Cubitt, Lord
Palmerston, Sir B. Hall, (to.
Mr. Walker, Engineer to the. Thames Navigation
Committee, examined. He said--I do not think
Mr. Gurney's plan would stand as a permanent
work, and if it coral he mlde permanent it won►cl
seriously interfere with the navigation of the river.
I think one channel in the centre of the river
would do the duty assigned by Mr. Goldsworthy
Gurney to two. I consider the river ought to be
confined to a narrower stream, and deepened to
increase the scour of the stream. I would bring
the river uniform first, and then put in wharf walls
where they wore required. If Mr. Gurney's plan
were curled me, it would deprive the channel of
some of its water ; and if two channels were formed
they would most certainly silt up.
Sir J. Shelley—Do you think tbat any good
results are to be derived from lime being thrown
on to the mud.banks of the Thames?

Mr. Walker—That is a nice question, and I
think it better to leave Mr. Gurney to give an
answer. If my plan WAS to be adopted, there
would be no necessity for dredging so deep in the
centre of the river as in the silo channels proposed
by Mr. Gurney. Mr. Gurney's plan for dredging
would not affect the natui al fall of the liver. Ido
not propose practically to narrow the stream of the
Jiver, but merely to fill up the recesses. Ido not
think if the north side of the Thames was embanked
that it would affect the wharfage on the south side
of the river.

Mr. Tite—Having read Mr. Gurney's report,
what is your opinion of his plan ?
Mr. Walker—l think it would be a complete
failure. It would lead to deposits of impure water
in docks. Mr. Gurney proposes to discharge all
the sewage at low water, which I do not think
would be a desirable plan in present state of
the river. It would be desirable to discharge all
the sewage at high water. My opinion is that if
my plan was ad.)pted it would get rid of a good
deal cf the present evil, but it would not render an
intercepting sewer unnecessary. If these two chan-
nels were formed, they would improve the stream
of the river, but I do not think they would be we-
ful, or that they would stand. If they could be
made to stand, they would materially interfere with
the navigation of the river.
Dr. Lewis Thompson, examined by the Chair-
man—l have examined the state of the river
Thames. I consid,r the cause of the present stench
of the river arises from the mud, and when that is
exposed to a temperature of 65 to 75 fermentation
sets in, and as soon as the water begins to flow the
mud is disturbed, and the noxious gases are
liberated.

Lord Palmerston—Supposing the contents of all
the sewers of London were discharged into the
river at mid-channel, so that the water there
should approximate the c mdition of the water in
the sewers, would not that water emit injurious
and offensive gases I
Dr. Thompson—Most undoubtedly.
Lord Palmerston—Therefore the effluvium would
not be confined to the mud which was left dry on
the banks or beach of the river at low water, but
would be emitted from the mid-channel.

Dr. Thompson—The water would be affected,
but not in the same way as from mudbanks, as the
water does not attract the action of the sun, as the
mud and the water are constantly in motion.
Lprd Palmerston—Bat is not the water in the
river subjected to the action of the sun more likely
to emit gases than the water ur the S 3 wors, which
the sun never reachesy

Dr. Tho:npfon—The fermentation does not
begin in the river only at a temperature of upwards
of 70 deg. Fahrenheit, and that heat is rarely at •
tained. The mud is most offensive where it is moat
disturbed, and that is generally at places where
steamboats laud tin ir passengers.
By Mr. Akroyd—lf it was possible to keep back
the mud from going into the Thames, you would get
rid of the question.
By Mr. Cayley—lf a tunnel was formed to take
the sewage away, so that it would not come back
to the aietiopoli).you must go to the sea shore. I
have found the river to be of the temperature of
72, but [ have found the mud on is banks at a
temperature of 120. Thera will always, to some
extent, be an offensive odour so loug as. the Thames
is used as a cowmen sewer.

By the Ron. J. Percy--I hive noticed a black
43114, va siDg up 044 down the 4)1)1'3 awl I con-