The Sun.
London, England, 1857-10-15 00:00:00

METBCPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS.

7.kIAIN DRAINAGE OF THE METROPOLIS.
A meeting of the Board was held yesterday in
the Council chamber, Guildhall, to further consider
)he communication received from the First Corn-
.aissioner of her Majesty's Works, Szc., in relation
to the main drainage of the metropolis ; Mr.

L'hwaites in the chair.
After some explanations on certain engineering,
points had been given by Mr. Bazalgette, the en-
eineer of the Board,—
Mr. CA.RPNIA.EL rose to move that the reports of
the board submitted to the Commissioner of her
Majesty's works and public buildings, also the re-
port of Messrs. Galton, Simpson, and Blackwell,
be referred to two eminent engineers, and the en-
gineer of the board to report thereon at their ear.
Lest convenience. The chief commissioner had re-
turned the plan B* submitted to him by the board
accoinpanied with a report which had been pre-
pared under his direction by three eminent engi-
neers, and he had invited the board to well con-
sider that report. It would appear from that re-
port that those eminent gentlemen by whom it was
prepared w;:ra of opinion that the board had not
arrived at a \vise and proper conclusion on the sub-
ject. But in order to ascertain the value of the
propositions of those civil engineers it was desirable
to see first wherein those gentlemen differed from
the board. They started with stating that they
themselves bad based their plans upon the same
principle as that adopted by tha engineer of the
board ; and theyfurther stated that no other prin-
ciple could with propriety be used in carrying out
this great work. The board therefore was justified
so far as the principle of their plan was con-
cerned. Subject to certain suggestions and modi-
fications, they' Jikewi-e approved other portions of
the plan propounded by the board ; especially
that of having a high-level sewer on the north
and south sides of the Thames. They agree as to
the expediency of a low-level sewer on the
southern, but they differ as to the propriety of
having a low-level sewer on the north side of the
Thames. They also agree to the want of two middle-
level sewers, but they. propose to have these con-
strnced so as to get the benefit of a larger area,
and to carry the sewage into the Thames by the
simple act of gravitation. They propose to carry
the sewage across the Thames at Battersea, there to
be raised by artificial means into a southern high-
level sewer, so as to arrive at the Thames by gravi-
tation. In these several respects the Board and the
referees were laigely agreed. It must not there-
fore be supposed that because Sir B. Hall had sent
back the plan B* he disagreed with it in toto, be-
cause his own engineers did not do that. He
belicved that the plan of the Board had come back
from the First Commissioner stamped with a deg. ea
of credit that no engineering plan of like dimen-
sions had ever before received. It had not only met
with the approval to a great extent of those three
eminent referees themselves, but it had also the
support of Mr. Foster, Sir W. Cubitt, and Mr.
Stephenson, who were formerly Commissioners of
Sewers, as far as regarded the principle upon which
that plan was based. Was the board then prepared
at once to accept the engineering propositions of
Messrs. Galion, Simpson, and Blackwell He did
not believe that any man would do so. But, if not,
was the Beard prepared, on the other hand, to take
the responsibility upon them of rejecting those pro-
positions without making any engineering inquiry ?
He thought not. The First Commissioner had re-
quested the Board to take the report of the Go-
vernment referees into consideration, not because
he himself approved their suggestions—for in regard
to them he had expressed no opinion—but because
it was, as he believed, the wish of that right hon.
gentleman to have s• great a national work exe-
cuted in the best possible manner. AM the proposi-
tions of the referees depended upon the possibility
of their having one outfall sewer, 18 miles long,
with a fall of six inches a mile. If they could not
carry out that portion of their plan, then all those
parts of it which had reference to a larger area, for
the purpose of conveying the sewage by gravita-
tion and to a larger rainfall, must fall to the
ground. It wag, therefore, to that point—
namely, the practicability of such an outfall sewer
—that he invited the attention of the Board.
The proposition was this the formation on
either side of the Thames of an open cutting which
they called the main outfall channels. Etch cfithese
channels was to be 16 feet deep and 38 feet wide,

with a general fall of 6 inches iii a mile. This would
be able to carry away an enormous amount of sew-
age and rainfall. The report of the referees, though
exceedingly voluminous on matters of information
which anybody might have collected, was very mea-
gre when it came to practical facts. It was not
known whether those three eminent engineers pro-
posed to have gates at the and of their outfall chan-
nels or not. They stated that the cuttings would
commence near Barking on the north side, and near
Woolwich on the south side. The top of the chan-
nel on the Woolwich side would be level with
Trinity high-water mark, and the top of the north
side cutting would be 6 inches above Trinity high-
water mark. It was said that these cuttings would
extend to Sea Reach with a fall of 6 inches a mile ;
but, strange to say, when they came within four
miles of Sea Reacb, the fall was at the rate only of
1 foot 6 inches per mile. The consequence of this
would be that from 10 to 13 feat of water would be
constantly lying at the bottom of the sewer, and be
washed up and down with the tide for a distance of
12 miles. These channels would, moreover, be
tide-locked, for there were inverts 28 feet on one
side of the river and 29i on the other side below
Trinity high-water. As shown by their owsa diagrams
and sections, the low-water mark was from 10 to 13
feet above the inverts. The consequence would
be that the sewers would never empty themselves.
But then these gentlemen proposed, in order to in-
crease the current, to take water in from the river '
at high water and from the reservoirs to be
constructed at the upper end into their outfall
channels. First, then, it was proposed by them
to take water into the reservoirs and then to let the
water in the reservoirs run intothe channels. But
the report was silent altegeiler as to the depth of
these reservoirs. The engineer of the Board had
here detected a great fallacy on wh;ch these gentle-
men had founded their scheme. The whole ques-
tionrested upon this,—what were to be the size and
depth of the reservoirs 1 At present the top of the
outfall channel on one side was on a level with
Trinity highwater mark, and on the other side six
inches above that mark. Now, the spring tides at
Woolwich were coincident with Trinity high-water
mark. It was quite clear, therefore, that they
could not take in any water at high-water mark
—that was to say, at spring tides. The neap
tides were sometimes lower than Trinity high-
water mark, and sometimes as much as five feet
higher. When lower than high water mark the
depth of the outfall sewer must be considerably
reduced. But the whole fallacy of the plan was
fancying that it was possible for them to get an al-
titude at Woolwich with a constant higher head of
water than they had in the river here, from which
they had to derive it. It was quite clear, in an
engineering point of view, that if they had an al
titude affording a high head of water they would
always drive out every particle of sewage from the
open channels. But, as they were dependent upon
the Thames for obtaining that altitude, they could
only only get it as the Thames could bring it to
them, and the Thames could not bring them a
constant head of high water under any circum-
stances whatever. Supposing the reservoirs were
deep enough' to keep up an altitude of held
water at spring tides, and supposing that
they had no gates at the outfatls' the tide
would rise to the same height in the
outfall sewers as it did in the Thames ; an I the
sewage would flow just as freely in the Thames as
in the outfall channels ; there would be no head
water in favour of those cuttings. Bat, although
he was himself convince I by these reasonings, yet
he did not expect the board t.) adopt his conclu-
sions without inquiry. He cau'd not ask them to
come to a resolution that the scheme propounded
• by the Government referees was based on a fallacy.
He could only ask them to call iu further profes-
sional aid, who would investiga'e the soh rine and
"Pert whether the engine3rs who had propounded
it were right or whether what he had been stating
was correct. The plans of the beard had been re-
commended to them by their own engineer, for
whose skillan
tainhaei(Virgmeent he entertahied the highest
respect,
those plans 47eniael) having himself in-
vestigatediii.ttehad aniv, d at the con-
vict'on that Mr. Baz
knowledge in details,- anrsessed. more practi-
calb tier acquaint, d
with principles having reference to
hparticular
qv estion, than any other man new living.
(e ire rs. )
He was delighted to hoar that a copy ,
the engineer of this board had been sent bypthaleltof
fez ees t f the Government to all the dior ct
nee; s for th r opinion as to its efficacy in r..f,retic;
to their particular districts, and that out of the 40
gentlemen, all men of talent, who c mstituted that
body, not one had objected to the broad principle
of the pan. (fl,ar.) Seven of the number hat rot
given any answer to the circular ; six had suggested
certain alt rations in details for the convenience of
their particular districts ; and 26 of those gentle-
-111311 had entirely acceped the plan, saying that, in
their opinion, it was amply sufficient to carry out
the great work of the hoard. He would ask them
whether it was not the fact that their plan had
come back to them with a degree of credit and of
stability with which no plan of any former engi-
neer had ever been honoured. Under these circum-
, stances he submitted that the only proper course for
the board to take was, since their- plan had been re-
turned, together with a report,from the 3 engineers
to whom its consideration had been referred by Sirß.

Hall, to call in further professional skill ; and should
the persons so called in concur with what he had
now stated it would then be the duty of the Board
to wait upon Sir B. Hall. and state to him , that
they adhered to their own plan, and would leave it
for him to decide whether be would support the
recommendations of his own referees or the plan
which the Beard then submitted to him. The hon.

gentleman concluded by moving the following re-

solution :

" That the reports of this Board submitted to the Corn-
mi-sioners of her Majesty's Works and Public Build-
ings, also the; report of Messrs. Galton, Simpson, and
Blackwell be referred to two eminent engineers and the
engineer of this Board, to report thereon at their early
convenience."
Major LYONS seconded the motion. He could
scarcely do less, seeing that it was precisely to the
same effect as the motion he himself proposed as
long ago as February, 1856. The loss of all the
time that had since elapsed was much to be re-
gretted ; but it was now inevitable, and the only
course the Board had to pursue was that now pro-
posed by his hon. friend. It was impossible for
the First Commissioner to accept a plan which three
professional gentlemen to whom it had been re-
ferred found wanting. Neither Parliament nor the
country would have been satisfied had the First
Commissioner given his sanction to the plan of a
single engineer. Having a very important work in
hand which, when completed, would last for hund-
reds of years, he hoped the Board would, even at
the expense of a little of their official dignity, ac-
cede to the motion, in order that no more valuable

time might be lost.
Mr. WRIGHT rose to lay a counter proposition
before the Board. Agreeing as he did with many
of the observations made by his friend Mr. Carp-
mael, still he thought the course he had pro-
posed was not the best that could be adopted.
He apprehended that the first duty of the Boaad
was to ascertain how far the two schemes differed.
He believed that on examination it would be found
that they differed in few particulars in which an
engineer could help them. The most important dif-
ference arose as to the point to which the sewage
should be carried down the river. The Government
engineers required the Board to take it down to a ,
point which the Board had all along admitted was
advisable, and to which point, it they had had
money, they would have carried it. This was not a
question to be referred to two eminent engineers.
The next point of difference was the extension of
area. The Government engineers recommended a
larger area, but the Board had no power under the
act to adopt the recommendation. It was true they
might go to Parliament for an enlargement of their
powers; but the public would look with great jea-
lousy if such step were taken by the Board.
Having disposed of these two points, there were
only three other points of difference to be consi-
dered. One of these was the carrying the drainage
across from the Middlesex to the Surrey side of
the Thames. His own private opinion had always
been favourable to such a scheme, although he had
not before declared it. But it might be a fairly con-
tested point with engineers whether it was wise and
advisable t a make a drainage large enough to carry
the sewage through the hear ef the city of London.
Another point was the proposed increased dimen-
sions of the sewers. Hitherto the sewers had been
considered by many engineers too large; by others
they were thought to be the right size ; but now,
for the first time, theywereheld by the Government
engineers to be too small. The object of enlarging
the sewers was to provide for an increase of rainfall;
but that was not an engineering question. The only
advantage to be gained by the enlargement of the
sewers to include more storm waters was that it
would prevent the overflow of the storm waters into
the river on from 10 to 12 rainy days in the year
more than by the plan of the Board. But this he
repeated was entirely a business matter, and not
one to be referred to an engineer. There was one
other point of difference. The Government engi-
neers intercepted the metropolitan sewage by gra-
vitation fron4a larger area, and at a eonsiderably
lower level. That was certainly an engineering
question, but fortunately the plan by which this
was proposed to be done was so impracticable that
no question would be raised upon it ; for no man
would tell him that it required an engineer to decide
whether there should be open or covered sewers.
He had thus noticed all the points of difference
Let ween the Board and ilie Government engineers,
and he believed that if they went about the matter
like men of business they would have no occasion
to refer anything to professional engineers. He
thought it would be much better to have an inter-
viw with Sir B. Hall to ascertain whether the few
points of diffetence might not be arranged and ad-
justed in an amicable spirit. The Board owed a
duty to the public. Every district board was at
the present moment actively at work putting fresh
soil into the river Thames. The tidal power of the
river was not larger, though the quantity of sewage
was becoming larger every day. No doubt certain
classes of disease were increasing. The cholera
was travelling through Sweden, Denmark, and
Hamburg, and nothing was so likely to engender
diseases of that character as the particular miasma
arising from sewage-water surging up the Thames,
especially at this season of the year when the air
was so moist. Every hour was of importance, and
he therefore begged to move the following resolu-
tion, which, if carried, would require the appoint-
ment of a committee to carry the object of it into
effect :

"That this Board regrets that the First Commissioner
of her Majesty's Works has rejected the Plan We with-
ont communicating to the Board the reason for its
rejection.
" Tilsit this Board, with the assistance of its engineer,
considered the scheme proposed by the referees ap•
pointed by the First Commissioner so far as the materials
furnished have enabled them, and that, while entertain-
ing great respect for the eminent enginee,s consulted by
the First Commissioner, it has arrived at the contusion
that the scheme proposed by tam cannot be adopted by
the Beard.
"That this board while it regrets the further delay in
,carrying out the great sanitary work of the main drain-
aee, is gratified to find by the report of the referees that
they have adopted the principles of the plan of this Board
ai a basis for their scheme, notwithstanding the latitude
of investigation given to them in their instructions by
the First Commissioner, and that the differences upon
this important question are now reduced to a few
tengihle points, viz.:—
" Recommendations which this Board hes no power
to carry into effect.
" Recommendations of works the expense of which it
has been admitted by the First Commissioner that the
Beard cannot wit justice be called upon to defray out of
the metropolitan rates.
" Differences of on engineering and sanitary character
upon the following points :
" Open sewers, with diminished falls.
" The western sewage carried on the Surrey aide.
" A large increase in tLe dimensions of sewers to pro-
vide mainly for an increased area and rainfall."
Mr. TURNER seconded the amendment and
thought it possessed a great advantage over the
course proposed by Mr. Carpraael. The objections
that existed against open sewers he deemed to be
condemnatory of the whole plan of the Govern-
ment referees. The points of difference between
the two plans were not very serious, but still they
were such as he thought might he made the nth.
ject of conference with Sir B. Hall.
The original resolution and the amendment
having been read by the secretary.
Mr. Deputy HARRISON pointed out the passage
in the amendment in which it was stated that the
Board, with the assistance of its engineer, had
carefully considered the scheme proposed by the
referees, and had come to the conclusion that it
could be adopted. What sort of examination had
the Board had with the assistance of the engineer ?
To a question put to Mr. Bazalgette the other day
as to whether he had examined the plan or not,
his answer was that he was not able to do so, be-
cause he had not any information upon the subject.
It was from a full conviction that it was the duty
of the Board to examine the plan of the Govern-
ment engineers with the greatest possible care that
he most readily supported the original resolution.
The Act of Parliament distinctly said that the
Board must initiate a plan. At present the Board
had no plan to submit to the First Commissioner,
and he very much feared, unless they immediat dy
set about preparing one, the conclusion of the public
mould be, that they ha-I not the capacity to prapar
a plan at all.
Mr. Hows had no apprehension that Sir B. Hall
would think the Board had not the capacity of
(healing with t'!is great question ; he was of opinion
that the Board had already shown its capacity for
t' •e task. Had Sir B. Hall possessed the advantage
witch that Board enjoyed of having a legally ap-
pointed engineer, he did not think there would
hive been any reference to three eminent engineers
Mr. CeteeetN was opposed both to the resolution
and the amendment, and cont,nded th •t it was
the duty of the bo ird to institute an inquiiy as to
the preeticabdity of converting
'narks able manure. the sewage into a
Me. DENNIS supported the original motion. As
1 to 'Yen sew,rs, they would never be tolerated. He
I believe' that before the main draina4e of the me-
tropolis was fully carried out it w mid co et in round
numbers not less than 10,000,000/. of money. theSoli-
e future two
poe:inoddhitacvheestuwbeere
Soli-
posing
-hat would make up the 10,000,0001.
made
covered they
over, w oatlul (di
Mr. H. L. TAYLOR thought it would be unbe-
coming the dignity of the board to adopt the pro-
position of Mr. Wright. They had been humiliated i
enough by the right hon. gentleman at the head of
tha Board of Works. Sir B. Hall was at present on
the horns of a dilemma, and he wished to keep him
there, because ho had been the grand instrument in
deferring the main drainage of Loudon to an indefi-
nite period. Thera could be no doubt that althoirgh

the board had been constituted through the instru-
mentality of that gentleman for the purpose of car-
rying out the main drainage scheme, yet the course
he was pursuing had virtually for its object the
taking it out of the hands of the board, it was a
course not author ised by Parliament, not justified
by a right and just discrimination, but was one dic-
tated by an overbearing will, and carried out by
overbearing conduct, such as every right-minded
man must condemn. He was a second Nana Sahib.
(Laughter.) The question before the board was
somewhat difficult to deal with. The best course
they could pursue was to retrace their steps, and
endeavour to do their duty in that way which Par-
liament had enjoined upon them, and which no
other body had the privilege to do—namely, by
initiating a plan, for at present they had no plan
before thorn. Upon the whole, thinking it prefer-
able to have the opinion of three eminent engineers
upon all the plans, he should votein favour of the
original motion.
Mr. WILKINSON supported the amendment. He
did not approve the strong language which had
been used in reference to die conduct of the First
Commissioner, who, as it appeared to him, had
simply done his duty
Mr. DOULTON had failel to discover anything to
induce him to assent to the course which Mr.
Carpmael had suggested. If the reports were re-
ferred to three engineers, it was reasonable to
expect that they would not make their report be-
fore eight or nine months had expired. The labours
of Parliament would be then just about drawing to
a close ; and if they found this great question ne-
glected the probability was that Parliament would
not separate without first separating that Board.
This was a time when they had an opportunity of
merging small matters of difference in effecting a
great principle. He accepted the amendment of Mr.
Wright because it was the first step for bringing
about a decision which it was most desirable to ar-
rive at. He was opposed to uhe motion of Mr. Carp-
mel because it would occasion great delay.
Col. KENNEDY was anxious to support the amend-
ment for one very distinct reason—viz., that he be-
lieved they had received from their own engineer
all the adviee that could be obtained upon the sub-
ject. Professional opinion was essentially critical ;
if, therefore, they ware to consult three other pr
feseional gentlemen, it would only be adding to
their present difficulties. From much experience on
boards he was of opinion that if any number of per-
sons ware made referees, the instruction to them
should be to examine the subject matter together,
but each to make a separate report. He never knew
a collective report which containel the entire opi-
nions of any one of the parties making it. There
were givings and takings by which the whole effi-
cacy of every individual opinion was destroyed.
The Board had the ablest men to assist them, and
they did not require any other assistance. He gave
Sir B. Hall great credit for the course he had taken.
If he had intended absolutely to reject your plan,
what was his object in referring it to three engineers I
It was a project of enormous magnitule, and it re-
quired to be scrutinised. Every engineer ought to
work in conformity with the laws of nature as far as
it was possible to go ; and he traced in Mr. Bezel-
gette's plan those principles, but he traced in the
suggestions seat back by the referees the greatest
hostility to the laws of nature.
Mr. Waßnstipporteel the amendment, and thought
it would be perfectly competent for the Board to
come to an arrangement with the First Commissioner
without any previous reference of the plans to other
engineers. He denied that in so great a work as that
with which the Board had to deal no unnecessary
or undue delay had taken place iu their proceedings.
Mr. D'IFFANGER rose to correct what he consi-
dered an error. It had been said by one or two
gentlemen that the Board had no scheme before
them. How could that with any accuracy he said
when the plan which had been sent by Sir B. Hall
to the Board was the very plan, with certain modi-
fications, which was prepared by Mr. Baz ilgette,
their own engineer ? He thought it was the duty
of the Board to have an interview with Sir B. Hall,
to ascertain what modifications he would be willing

to agree to in the plan prepared by the Govern-
ment engineers, and to consult with him generally
as to the best means of carrying out tit's great work.
That would not in any degree compromise the
dignity of the Board, the primary duty of which it
was to consult the best interest; of the public.
After a few observations by Mr. CA,RMAEL in
reply, the motion was put, when there were on a
division 8 for, and 20 against it.
The amendment was then put as an original
motion, when there were on a division 18 for, and
9 against it.
Mr. - Alderman Cuotrrr said the idea of open
sewers was one that never could be tolerate‘l, pub-
lic feeling would revolt against it, and public
opinion would emphatically pronounce against it,
and he was satisfied that Parliament would never
permit it to be done. He therefore begged to move,—
" That this Board considers that the open sewers pro-
posed by the plan of the referees of the First Commie-
sioner are altogether inadmissible, and is of opinion that
it wonld not be jastifkd in carrying out any scheme of
which such open sewers formed a parr, but that the
other points of difference appear to be fair subjects
for discussion and arrangement."
Mr. BRISTOW seconded the motion, which was
agreed to unanimously.
Mr. BRISTOW then moved

" The appointment of a committee for the purpose of
drawing up a written communication to be made to the
First Commissioner, based upon the preceding resolu-
tions, preparatory to a conference with him on the
.subject."
Tue motion having been seconded, was strongly
opposed by Mr. HAWKES, Mr. LESLIE, and Mr. H.
L. TAYLOR ; but on the question being put the
motion was carried without a division.
The following gentlemen were named as the com-
mittee :—Mr. Bristow, Mr. Wrigtt, Mr. Alderman
Cubitt, Mr. Doulton, Mr. Turner, Mr. Offor, Mr.
Dennis, Colonel Kennedy, and Mr. D'lffanger. •
The Board, after sitting 5 hours, adjourned.

REFUSAL OF SHELTER TO THE HOME-
LESS POOR.-DISRRESUNG CASE.

Yesterday afternoon Mr. Wakley, coroner for
West Middlesex, held at the Elephant and Castle,
King's-road, Camden-town, au inquiry touching the
death of Elizabeth Hughes, aged, 47, who it was
alleged had died from cholera. It was further stated
that the poor creature, after " tramping" all the way
from Birmingham, had been refused admission a few
hours before her death for a night's shelter at Is-
lington Workhouse, notwithstanding the weather
was exceedingly tempestuous at the time.
The evidence of the deceased's husband, a miser-
able-looking being, went to prove that he and the
deceased, after walking all the way from Birming-
ham, on the night before her death, as it was rain-
ing very fast at the time, applied for a night's lo 'g-
ing at the Islington Workhouse. They were re-
fused admission, and sent on to St. Pancras Work-
house, the Islington officials telling them that the
latter place was only 10 minutes' walk, whereas it
was more than an hour's walk. After waking
through the drenching rain they arrived at St. Pan-
cras Workhouse at 8 o'clock p.m., and were admitted
at 9 o'clock. They were then separated, and he be tr.l
nothing more of his wife until he was informed of
her death the next morning, she having died about
2 o'olock a.m. After his admission he had nothing
given him to eat until breakfast time the next morn-
ing, when be was supplied w;th some " skilly,"
which was a kind of gruel given them for breaktas'.
Mr. Coster, the workhouse surgeon, said that
supper was invariably supplied to all tramps on al-
-1 mission.

The witness reiterated his statement that he had
nothing until breakfast time the next moraine'.
Mr. C.)ster, upon this, observed that he 'Lust
have been admittel after supper hour.
The witness further said that it was put to him
whether he would remain in the workhouse a month
bre.akingstouesand picking oaku ca, or be discharged.
He of course adopted the offer of remaining in the
house, for he belonged to that parish.
The corner considered, from the wretched man's
debilitated and worn appearance, that he was n
fitted for such work as st ,ne breakAag.
The workhouse task master replied that the wit-
ness had not been put to stone bre iking. It was
not likely they would send such a wan to the stAre
yard.
The witness, in answer to the coroner, said it w is
true he was not put to stone braking, but he hid
been picking oakum.
Mr. W. T. Costar, on being sworn, deposed that
shortly after the deceased's adivis-ron on the night
preceding her death, she was seized wi h violent
vomiting, cramps, and all the appearance of cho-
lera. She was removed to the Infirmary, where
everything was immediately resorted to save He,
but she died shortly after 2 o'clock the next mo.n
lug. Upon making a post naortem examination, lie
iound extensive disease of the heart, liver, lungs,
and other organs, which, with a severe attack of
dial-Aiwa, had proved fatal, and the die-eased la id
not died from cholera, as was at first suspected.
The Coroner said it 'ryes satsfactory that they
had arrived at the procise CAUS3 of death, but he
took occasion to comment upon tie tre.i.tinent of
the vagrant poor, wl.O it seemed wi re bandied shout
from one workhouse to another without their 'ob-
taining proper relief.
Mr. Coster explained that in St. Pancras there
were reception wards for such cased, and the conse-
quence was that the adjoining parishes got rid of
this particular class by sending them there, as they
had no such accommodation fir the poor creatures
themselves.
The Coroner considered the system should be al-
tered, and it was then further stated that the co-
- operation of other parishes were being sought by