The Sun.
London, England, 1866-09-26 00:00:00

City Sewers Commission.

Yesterday the City Sewers Commissioners held their
usual weekly meeting at Guildhall, Mr. Deputy De Jersey
in the chair.

Mr. DAVIS called attention to the state of Three King
Court, Minories, and said he had been informed that during
the last week three or four dead bodies had been carried
out of that court. If that were so, ho thought its neglected
sanitary condition reflected great discredit upon some of the
officers.

Inspectors WILLIAMS and PARSONS were called in and
examined. They admitted that the court in question was
in a very dilapidated condition, that its windows and doors
wore brekea, that there were twelve houses in it belonging
to three different landlords, who refused to repair the pro-
perty because they had sold it to a railway company, who
had purchased it for the purpose of pulling it down for
railway purposes, but who had not as yet paid the purchase
money. There were 100 persons inhabiting the houses
but they had only heard of two persons who had died there
during the last fortnight.
Mr. DAVIS said his information was derived from a very
trustworthy informant, who told him ho had seen a waggon
brought up to the court in the dead of the night, and carry
away three or four dead bodies. (Laughter.) He thought
an inspection committee ought to bo appointed to Inspect
the court for themselves.
The CHAIRMAN said he that day received a report from
the East London Union, and that report did not bear out
the statement of Mr. Davis. It admitted that the property
was in a very dilapidated state, but denied that the deaths
were so numerous as had been represented.
Dr. LETHEBY stated that the instructions given to the
inspectors were to attend to every case of complaint in-
stantaneously. No complaints had been received from
Three King-court. If there had, he should have seen
them, for he looked carefully at every return, particularly
at the mortality returns, and if there had been two or
three deaths reportod from any court in any one week,
his attention would have, been called to it as an undue
amount of mortality, but there had been nothing of the
kind. He believed there was an immense amount of ex-
aggeration in the account given by Mr. Davis's informant,
but he admitted that at a time like the present, when there
was an unusual extent of sickness and death, and also an
undue extent of anxiety prevailing upon those subjects, it
was the special duty of the inspectors to make a systematic
report of all the districts of the City.
Kelloway, the superintendent of the hospital of the East
London Union, said that he was in charge of that hospital,
and that no case of cholera had come to it from Three
King-court.

Mr. DAVIS called attention to Dr. Fowler's report, pub-
lished in the papers last week, touching the state of the
Bishopsgate district. He thought that if the inspectors
employed by tho commissioners, who were sufficiently
numerous to attend to the whole of the City, had done
their duty, such a report as that of Dr. Fowler's would
never have appeared. In his opinion, if Dr. Fowler's re-
port were true, the inspector of the Bishopsgato district
should not be continued in office fora single day.
The CHAIRMAN said the report of the inspectors, in re-
ply to Dr. Fowler, would be presented that evening to the
sanitary committee, and that then it would be seen whe-
ther the inspectors were in fault or not.
Mr. DAVIS moved that the matter be referred to tho
sanitary committee.
Mr. RUDKIN secnded the motion.

Mr. CHAPLIN moved, as an amendment, that Mr. Davis
bo respectfully requested to attend before the sanitary
committee that evening, and bring his witnesses with him
to prove his case.

The amendment was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN announced that one of the contractors,
Mr. Starkey, had died, and was to be interred that day, and
that, of course, tho summonses standing against his name
must be postponed.

Mr. Stephens, a contractor, was summoned by Superin-
tendent Kelloway for having allowed a quantity of dust to
remain at a cholera hospital for 11 days, from the sth to the
16th of August.

'This hospital belongs to tho East London Union, and is
situated at 24 and 25, New-street, Bishopsgate.
The CHAIRMA-N thought this a very serious case, seeing
that tho hospital from which the dust ought to have been
removed was a cholera one, a place where, above all others,
cleanliness ought to be observed.

Mr. N IND moved that, under tho circumstances, tho full
ponalty of £2 a day—.£22 in all—ought to be imposed upon
tho contractor.

The motion was agreed to, and the fine of .£22 was imposed.

The CHAIRMAN expressed his approval of Mr. Kelloway's
conduct in bringing the matter before the board, and said
that whenever he made a similar complaint again it should
receive instant attention.

Mr. am, the chief clerk, read a letter from the Great
Central Gas Company, to the effect that the last report of
Dr. Lethoby, in which he complained of an excess of sul-
phur in the gas supplied by the Great Central Company, bad
received the serious consideration of the direciors, and that
they were desirous, if possible, to remedy any complaints,
and with that object they asked the commissioners toallow
Lethoby to visit their works for the purpose of examin-
ing their process of manufacture, and of making any sug-
gestions that might appear to him desirable, which sugges-
tions the company would most readily adopt.
Mr. BAYLIS, the solicitor, thought it would bo very dan-
gerous for the commissioners to give their sanction to any
suggestions of this kind.
Mr. Deputy FARRAR wasof a different opinion. Ho asked
what the Great Central Company could do more than they
had done now. They honestly said " If you think there is
too much sulphur in our gas tell us how we are to remedy it."
That seemed fair and reasonable on their part.
Mr. Cox said he should be glad to sae Br. Lethoby in

communication with them for the purpose of showing how
the sulphur could be reduced.
Mr. PEDLAR did not believe that the chemical officer of
the Great Central Company could be ignorant of the mode
in which the reduction could be effected.
Some discussion ensued, and eventually, at the sugges-
tion of Dr. Letheby, it was resolved that the Central Com-
pany be informed that Dr. Letheby, being an officer of the
commissioners, it would be desirable that some independent
person, such as Mr. Hawksley or Mr. Barlow, should be
consulted on the subject.
Dr. Letheby then read the following report :—" Two
hundred and twenty-eight houses have been inspected
during the week, and I submit a list of 51 places, 30 of
which require improvements in various particulars. I sub-
mit a certificate of the indecent and unwholesome over-
crowding of the houses, Nos. 3, Montague-court, and 5,
Sandys-street, Bishopsgate, and I recommend that the ne-
cessary proceedings should bo taken, and that they should
be registered as common lodging-houses. The markets
and slaughter-houses have been duly inspected, and the
officers have condemned 1,7831 b. of meat as unfit for
human food. It consisted of 7 sheep, 8 pigs, and 7 quar-
ters of beef, all of which has been destroyed. The mor-
tality returns for the last week have been below the average
for the last 10 years. Last week there were 53 deaths re-
gistered in the City, 18 of which wore among children of
less than 5 years of ago, and 8 among persons of GO and
upwards. The chief causes of death were as follows :
Phthisis, 6 ; mesenteric disease, 2 ; bronchitis, 2 ; pneu-
monia, 2 ; continued fever, 1; scarlet fever, 1; measles, 2 ;
cholera and choleraic diarrhoea, 9 ; infantile diarrhoea, 3 ;
making together 8 deaths from mesenteric disease, 4 from
inflammatory affections of the lungs, and 11 from diseases
of a zymotic character."
This report was adopted, and shortly after the commis..
sioners adjourned.

Mr. Ward Hunt and Mr. G. 0. Trevel,yan.

The following correspondence has passed between
Mr. G. Ward Hunt, M.P., and Mr. G. 0. Trove-
lyan, M.P..--

Sept. 17, 1866.
Dear Sir—l have read with considerable surprise, in the
Newcastle Daily Chronicle of the 11th inst., a letter to Mr.
Green of Tynemouth, purporting to be signed by you, in
which appears the following passage :—" I enclose a copy
of a letter which I lately wrote to Mr. Corry. From his
answer, and from an interview I had with the Financial
Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Hunt, I gather with cer-
tainty that their refusal to grant us the boon which we
desire proceeds from the determination to ensure the
country districts from a recurrence of the plague at the
risk of any inconvenience to the towns."
Your interview with me took place about a month before
the date of your letter to Mr. Corry, and I could hardly
have expected any allusion to it in a letter written for
publication, much less an inference based upon it consi-
dering that what passed was entirely unofficial, as I have
had nothing whatever to do with the making or the relax-
ing of regulations respecting the movement of cattle. I
remember that I referred you to Mr. Corry as the member
of the Government to whom you should apply, and, to save
you trouble, I told you what I had understood to be the
intention of the Government with respect to the restric-
tions of which you complained, but I feel certain that no-
thing which fell from me could have justified you in
coming to the conclusion that the country districts were
to be favoured at the expense of the towns.

Mr. Corry, whose attention I have called to your expres-
sions quoted above, desires me to say that his reply to your
letter of 27th August contained nothing which could war-
rant your drawing such an inference.

You appear to be unaware that the maintenance of the
present restrictions upon the movement of cattle (and in
many countries of sheep also) entails enormous inconve-
nience upon the inhabitants of the country as well as of
the towns, and to overlook the consideration that, should
the plague again spread and become general, the conse-
quential riso in the price of meat would soon bring the ex-
tent of the calamity home to the pockets of the dwellers in
towns.

If the " many instances" which occur to you by which
Lord Derby's Government has manifested " a policy" to
"sacrifice the towns to what they suppose to be the jute-
rests of the districts" will stand examination no better than
the ono which has called forth your letter, I think the
towns need not feel much alarm.—l am, dear sir, yours
faithfully, GEORGE WARD HUNT.
G. 0. Trevolyan, Esq., M.P.
I send a copy of this to the Newcastle Chronicle.

Urrard, Pitlochrie, Sept. 22.
Dear Sir,—l received your letter, expressing "consider-
able surprise" at some remarks which I addressed to the
mayor of the borough which I have the honour to repre-
sent. As you have sent a copy of that letter to the New-
castle Chronicle, it may be well if I say sometiling in expla-
nation of a sentiment which ios affected you with a feel-
ing of astonishment not shared by the butchers of North
and South Shields, or by the majority of their customers.
In the hot days of the past summer our tradesmen suf-

fered great hardship and loss from the prohibition to im-
port live cattle from the Newcastle market. When the
late Government relaxed that prohibition in the ease of
Sunderland, we applied for the same boon. The central
authorities soot down an official to inquire into the circum-
stances, and we have reason to believe that the matter was
under favourable consideration when the change of Minis-
try took place.; As the course adopted with regard to Sun-
derland was attended by no recurrence of the disease, we
naturally looked for immediate relief. But our petitions
and memorials produced no effect whatever, and I was
urged to have recourse to other measures. 1 accordingly
asked Mr. Walpole in the house why a distinction was
drawn between the two neighbouring boroughs of Sunder-
land and Tynemouth ? His answer was very courteous, but
failed to satisfy my constituents. About the same time I
had the honour of an interview with yourself, which you
describe as " entirely unofficial." As you have had "nothing
whatever to do with the making or the relaxing of regula-
tions respecting the movement of cattle," I am sorry you
disclaim that which the world considers to be the most
notable achievement of your public life. I consider that
interview to be official in which a member of Parliament
calls, in the office, during office hours, on an official who
does not exchange with him at other times and in other
places the ordinary signs of social recognition.
My constituents now began to evince a just impatience,
which showed itself, among other symptoms, in an appeal
to their late representative, who is a sound Conservative
and an excellent man of business. He tried his luck, and
failed. He, however, accompanied the report of his
failure with the natural observation that if he had been
member for Tynemouth he would not have rested without
obtaining at least an explanation ; and all who know him
believe him to the full. And, therefore, sir, being by ex-
traction a Cornishman, and actuated by our provincial do-
termination to " know the reason why," I wrote to Mr.
Corry, begging him to tell me the conditions under which
Sunderland obtained the relaxation, in order that Tyne-
mouth might endeavour to satisfy those conditions. Mr.
Corry sent me a very civil letter (which I regret to say I
am not at liberty to publish, unless I obtain his leave), in
the last sentence whereof he acknowledges to a fear lest I
should find his reply unsatisfactory, but informs me that
ho has directed Colonel Harness to write me full particu-
lars. Since that day (now a month back) I have not re-
ceived a line in explanation, good, bad, or indifferent. It
was evident that though reasons might be as plentiful as
blackberries within the walls of the Privy Council-office
people outside were to have none but those which they
could find for themselves. I found one accordingly, in a
generalisation about Lord Derby's government, which ap-
pears to have aroused your indignation and astonishment.
It shall, however, serve its purpose, until some member of
that government chooses to provide me with a better.
Sunderland has boon relieved for some two months. No
evil results have followed. Why aro North and South
Shields to be left in the lurch ?
The question of the respective interests of town and
country was argued out in February last by abler wits than
mine. You took ono view ; but men do not forget that
John Stuart Mill took the other. It was the general opi-
nion of the borough members on our side of the house that
the total prohibition of the movement of live cattle by rail-
way was harsh and uncalled for. It was the almost univer-
sal opinion of the county members on your side that that
prohibition was equitable and necessary. The conserva-
tive theory of compensation prevailed against the advanced
liberal theory ; and what was the consequence ? Stockport,
which endured five years of the cotton distress without
making a call upon the rural purse, which now out of one
pocket pays compensation to the farmer in the advanced
price of butchers' meat, has the other emptied by the in-
terest on a vast debt incurred to indemnify the rural dis-
tricts of Cheshire for sacrifices and losses which, if Mr.
Mill had succeeded in convincing your party, would have
been borne by the cattle owners of the United Kingdom,
who in their turn would be as a class indemnified by the
rise in price. lam writing in the Highlands, at a distance
from statistics ; and the inhabitants of Stockport
are too impoverished to penetrate to Killiecrankie on their
autumnal tour ; but those of their friends who have got
thus far are loud in their sympathy. I dare say that the
ratepayers of Stockport would accept the remark which I
have borrowed from Mr. Mill with surprise less consider-
able than you have experienced.
I well remember that you tacked on to your first speech
about the cattle plague a peroration disparaging in strong
terms the general policy of the late Ministry, an attack
which appeared to our side of the house at least as ill-
timed and unfounded as -my observations have appeared to
you. It seems very hard that a north country member
cannot have a quiet grumble with his constituents in the
corner of a local paper without receiving a crushing re-
buke from the Financial Secretary of the Treasury, but
you apparently think that the fountains of vituperation
were dried up upon your own accession to office. Political
invective is one of those games which aro proverbially not
confined to a single player. If it had been the province of
your predecessor, Mr. Childers, to call to account every
Conservative who charged Lordßussell's government with
preferring the interests of the towns to those of the coun-
ties, be would have had scanty leisure for more pressing
business. There is some probability of a revival of the

reform question next session ; and, should you imagine it

to be incumbent on you to express "considerable surprise"
whenevera Liberal member gives vent to the opinion which
has caused you so much umbrage, you will live in a state
of chronic bewilderment hardly compatible with the effi-
cient performance of your official duties.
I shall follow your example in making your correspon-
dence public. lam sorry to find myself engaged in an
altercation with a gentleman of your high character, but I
am sure that you already regret having sent a captious,
personal letter to a young member on account of an expres-
sion of opinion not stronger than much which has been
written and said on both sides during the excitement of
the past session. Such conduct is not consistent with the
traditional courtesy of Conservative statesmen.-1 am, &c.,
G. 0. TREYELYAN.
The Right Hon. G. Ward Hunt, 3Z?.