The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-20 00:00:00

TO TDB EDITOR OF THE TIMES,

As;however, Mr. Hawksley, in his letter which
appeared in your impression of the 18th, cannot
yet restrain himself from wandering into inaccura-
cies and untrue statements of what has really oc-
curred, we must again ask your permission for
space to set him right.
the misstatements we refer to are that the lakes
in Buckingham Palace Gardens and St. James's
Park are intended by our proposed arrangements
to be replenished by the overflowings of the Ser-
pentine. Now, as our various reports and letters
are before the public, we ask Mr. Hawksley, or
any one, to point out in which of them we have
mentioned such an arrangement. We may here, per-
haps, be permitted to remark that the suggestion of
such a proceeding—viz., that of pouring clean water
into a dirty basin, and then allowing the overflow
to pass into other two basins at present clean—is
too much like a portion of Mr. Hawksley's plan
for it to have originated elewhere than in his own

brain.
We believe that when the Serpentine shall have
been thoroughly cleansed and concreted, it may not
be found objectionable to allow the whole water
supply to pass through it, but we provide, by
separate pumps attached to our engine, for three
separate supplies to the Serpentine, Buckingham
Palace Gardens, and St. James's Park.
The second portion of what Mr. Hawksley calls
first t
fo sightr form
a not
portionto needot .
the sequence of our arrangements may appear at
onloatui c; e fromwe m
uusst,
naesvietrdthoees
n-
a p
our
less quote it-1 ia.,
" 2. This water is to be discharged into the head of the
Serpentine, and to be two months in making its passage to
the overflow, during which time it will have received the
washings of 120,000 bathers, and have become clouded with
vegetation and effete organic matter."
We ask, who that perused Mr. Hawksley's state-
ment of Monday last in your columns, that at the
present time "the water of the Serpentine'does not
hold much organic matter in solution, but, on the
contrary, is essentially clear, sweet, and inodorous,"
but must wish that the quality of the Serpentine
water could as easily be changed in reality as it has
been changed upon paper in only four days by Mr.
Hawksley, for the , purpose of colouring an argu-
ment ?
With reference to the difference in the figures of
our two reports, we reply simply that our report of
the sth inst. was written immediately on hearing
of the vote having passed, and for the express pur-
pose of affi)rding the Chief Commissioner the oppor-
tunity of a direct comparison between the relative
expense of the two plans.
As to Mr. Hawksley's last inaccuracy, that for
the supply of the quantities he names to the three
lakes our estimates will be found to exceed his by
sums which he hesitates to mention, we have only
to refer to our offer of guarantee, and to say that if
he be right and the cost should exceed our estimate,
the loss will fall upon us, and not upon the coun-
try.

We feel strongly that the thanks of the London
public particularly are due to you for the means
you have afforded for thoroughly ventilating this
important subject. We can have no interest in de-
siring to prolong the discussion, and we can as-
sure Mr. Hawksley that we hold it to be quite un-
necessary on our part to offer any remark upon
his opinions so long as he will confine himself to
truth in his premises. We are certain, however,
that we carry with us-the hearty assent of all Eng-
lishmen when we protest against any man publicly
basing arguments on a public matter upon a false
statement of facts.

We have just seen Sir S. M Peto's communica-
tion in the Miles of this morning, and we open
our letter to add a few words.
In accordance with the promise we made you in
our last letter, we shall allow the question of whe-
ther the lake in St. James's Park does or does not
hold water to remain as it at present' stands.
On the matter of the Serpentine supply, Sir S.M.
Peto quotes from our report to the Chief Com-
missioner of the 10th inst, that " We are willing
to obtain this quantity of water (1,000,000 gallons)
for the sum of £7OO per annum." This is quite
true : if, however, Sir S. M. Peto had continued
reading this same report he would have found that
in the next paragraph we say :—" We are satis-
fied that the 1,000,000 gallons per day will be
sufficient, but should it be requisite to work the
machinery by night in the summer, it could be
done for 40s. per night, and thus give 2,000,000
gallons per day, instead of 1,000,000."
Sir S. M. Peto says that he had only just perused
our report, and we are willing to think that he did
so hurriedly, for, from what we know of his cha-
racter, we do believe him to be incapable of know-
ingly suppressing a portion of our statement for
the purpose of drawing an unfair deduction.
The uninviting suggestion that the same water,
shall be used a second time to supply the Queen s
garden and St. James's-park does not, as we have
shown, emanate from us.

We are willing to undertake to put the bot-
tom of the Serpentine into the same state as
that of the lake in St. James's-park, and
that the cost of the whole to the country
£33,000 beyond the present grant
of
shall x. cee (i
'There have been many exaggerated
estimates made of the cost of this operation ; Sir S.
M. Peto to-day says it will amount to £BO,OOO or
£90,000. We can see no occasion for this state-
ment, because it has never yet been suggested that
we are incompetent to fulfil our engagements.
Sir S. M. Peto would be rather surprised if we
were publicly to state our opinion that a railway
which he had contracted to construct for a given
sum of money would cost a great deal more than
that sum ; and we feel sure that after the above
figures he will see that it would be equally unrea-
sonable on his part to say anything more of the
necessity of spending £BO,OOO or £90,000.
In the year 1844, when we suggested the erec-
tion of the Government waterworks in Orange-
street, Leicester-square, the Treasury were in-
formed that we did not know what we were about,
ani that we should not obtain the quantity of
water we stated. We met this by at once offering
to enter into a contract to execute the works for
the amount of our estimate, and to work
them for seven, fourteen, or twenty-one years for
the annual sum we had named. This silenced all
opposition ; both the Treasury and Office of Woods,
Forests, &c., expressed themselves perfectly satis-
fied •, our offer was accepted, the works earned out,
and have since been worked by us under contract.
In 1849 the works were extended by us, and a
new working contract
made ; and it is worthy of
remark that since that time w
ing six times the quantity
of water vweebaetenfirssutpcpolny:
tracted to obtain.— We are, Sir, your obedient ser-
vants,
EASTON, AMOS, AND SONS.

...p(Trnii
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,.. t me to correct the effect of the mis-
placement of the word "only" (my own error) in
the letter you did me the honour to publish in the
Times of yesterday. When speaking of the exca-
vations at the Victoria Docks I intended to convey
the following information :—The quantity of water
found in the gravel was at first immense, and I had
to put down two very large engines to with-
draw it : after, however, the accumulated
water had been pumped out, the influx was
found to be so inconsiderable that one
engine, worked only occasionally, and then at half-
speed, was sufficient to remove it.—Your very
faithful servant,

S. MORTON PETO.
8, Great George-street, Westminster, Aug. 19.

CHARGES IN INDIA.--In the year 1857-58 the
charges of the civil and political establishments of India
amounted to the sum of £4,051,675 ; the judicial and police
charges to 2,657,214 ; buildings, roads, an public works to
£2,666,818; military charges to £15,467J,094; the Indian
navy and other marine charges to £1,171,706 ; Mint
charges to £145,514; and the interest on the debt to
£2,196,672. The gross total amou'at of all these charges
in India for the seven years from, 1851-52 to 1857-58 (both
inclusive) appears to have Veen £147,581,257, making,
with the charges in England for the same septennium, a
grand total of £170,345,917- The charges in England for
1857-58 amounted to £4A9,2,469, and for the seven years
to £22,764,660.

Sir,—We think your readers must have observed
that in the share we have.taken in this controversy
we have abstained from advancing any theories of
our own, and also from giving our opinion upon
those advanced by others, except so far as we have
done so by the statement of absolute facts, and we
do not intend to depart from this course. We have
endeavoured to deal as far as possible with facts
only, and in the one point where we have started
an opinion—viz. that the works we propose can be
carried out for the amounts we name—we have re-
duced our opinion as much as we could to a matter
of fact by offering to make ourselves pecuniarily
liable for the result.
We feel that every man has a right to his opi-
nion, and that Mr. Hawksley's statements and ex-
planations of his plan may fairly be left to form
the measure of the amount of reliance to be placed
by the public upon his views of this matter. We
are content, therefore, to give Mr. Hawksley the
full benefit of any weight that may be attached to
his opinions by allowing his statements, so far as
they are based upon truth, to pass without remark
from us.