The record-union., 1894-05-22


sion, not yet entirely exploded, that
liquid sewage could be made a source
OF sufficient profit to pay for the eXpen-
Slye and costly machinery OF dlstrlDu-
ton. The proposal was to pump the sew
age out into the country TO radius of
fifty miles from London. The farmers
and market gardeners, who were expected
to be eagerly awaiting the offer, did not
manifest any enthusiasm. The residents
of the city objected TO the gigantic cess
pools. and so the sump system was ex-
tingnished.
Tie third commission was appointed
October s, 1919, and included for the first
time some men capable o. understanding
and deciding upon great practical en-
gineering question, and included Robert
Stephenson, James NJ. Rendel, 5. More
ton Peto, and Phillip Hardwicke, the
eminent architect. and if the commission
had been limited to these gentlemen, with
the assistance of the five City Commis-
sioners = the Lord Mayor, Aldermen
Laurence, Geacocke, Harrison and lay
lor, who were sound men Of business-it
might have worked out some practical
and extensive plan i'll spite Of the in
cum brance of the Chairman, Lord
Ebrington, and such royal engineers as
Colonel Anderson and Captain Netch. y
competently educated engineer, Frank
Forster, was appointed. The plans sent
in we're classified aud reported on by
Robert Stephenson, James Rendel and
the three military engineers-none OF
them were practicable, and Mr.. Forster
was instructed in November, lS49. to pre-
pare plans for the main and intercepting
drainage of both sides of the Thames.
IN August, 1850, he laid before the COM
mission scheme for the helnterception ofthe
sewage from the south side OF the Thames
Which was approved and ordered TO be
executed at once, and Mr.. Forster was i'll
structed to avail himself of the assistance
of Mr.. Haywood in the preparation of
similar plans for the north size of the
Thames. This report, with plans, was
laid before the commission on the 3lst of
January, 1851.
But the Chadwick party, controlling
the Board of Health, etlectually blocked
this work by refusing 10 sanction the ex-
penditure. In October, 1851, Il new COM
mission was appointed from which Lord
Ebrington's name was omitted, bat the
power OF the commission to raise money
was limited to three pence on the pound,
which was quite inadequate for executing
anything in the shape OF q comprehensive
main drainage plan. Disguised and worn
out by the internal and external attacks
10 which he WAS subjected, i'll January,
1857, Frank Forster resigned his Office and
soon after died prematurely, the victim
Of the rancoroEs attacks OF Mr.. Chad
wica's friends.
After the death of Mr.. Forster the chief
engineership appears to have been put in
commission for time. But the Com
missioners found ample occupation while
the intercepting drainage plans were
under consideration, IN repairing and
remsklng the cheap and nasty work Of
house drainage executed and boasted of
so loudly by the first and second Com
miSsiouerS over which Mr.. Chadwick
ruled. What may be called the Chad
wick system of town drainage consists in
the employment OF earthenWare pipes of
extremely small dimensions, varying
from three to fifteen inches, but chiefly
four and six inches diameter ior public,
ana three inches for private sewage; also,
in making a second SET OF drains running
parallel to the backs OF houses; combin
ing houses i'll blocks, so That when one
stops all are affected; III providing third
class OF drains for carrying oil surface and
storm water where old brick sewers are
not already provided and available for
that purpose.
III Will be seen that Chadwick anticl-
pated the Waring system by good
many years. These drains described and
quoted as models of economy and eiii-
cheney failed by whole streets at Il time.
In y pril, 1852, in consequence OF the re-
peaied failure OF comblned pack drain
age, it was ordered that, as general rule,
Il separate drain or sewer should be con-
Stltcted for each house. On the list OF
June, 1852, Sir Morelon Peto, in the
House OF Commons, speaking for Sir
William Cubitt, Robert Stephenson and
himself, said that they felt it their duty
to resign from The Metropolitan Commits
sion because there was no prospect of
their being permitted TO carry out the
work they considered of furgent necessity.
And Sir William Cubitt and Robert
Stephenson, IL reporting on ridiculous
syphUn scheme, allude to the parlia-
mentary intrlgues which gave them Office
without power-"All the efforts OF our
selves and those with whom we acted
were crippled by events which we do not
deem it proper to describe"
After The resignation of these gentle
men Il reconstruction OF the board was in
eyitabIe. Accordingly III July. 1892, Il
fifth commission MAS issued which in
cluded some thoroughly practical Inen-
John HaWkshaw, an engineer of emil
nence. George baker. builder and con-
tractor, II. Hunt, surveyor By this
commission Sir W. Cubitt and r. Steph
enson were appointed consulting engi-
neers. and j. w. Bazalgette engineer-in-
chief.
1t was in 1923 that the Great London
Drainage Company deposited plans and
proceeded to Parliament for powers TO
execute Il scheme OF drainage intercept
tion combined with a manufacture of
sewage into manure, and claimed on the
asserted merits of their plan to return 3
per cent. per annum on the cost OF the
work. On this scheme MesSrs. BaZai
geue, Haywood and the consulting engl-
neers gave evidence before the commits
sion and before the House of Commons,
aud it was very properly thrown out, be-
cause it would have charged the pubic
not only for doing in very incomplete
manner very small part of the work,
but il would also have effectualiy pre-
vented any really complete scheme from
being executed.
In 1854 under the fifth commission a
plan of sewerage was laid out by Messrs.
bazalgetIe aud Haywood, which divided
the METROPOLIS into separate and distinct
zones, according 10 the natural fail OF
the land, and treated il as a collection OF
seperete towns, each with It's own hills
and valleys. Main sewers running par
al.el with the I names were designed for
the purpose of intercepting the rainfall
and sewage from the upper districts, at
a point where it could flow away by the
force OF its own gravity. to the points
selected on the banks OF the Thames,
twelve miles below London Bridge, at
Barking Creek, on the north ana Plum
stead marsh or the south size. This plan
at the same time protected the sewers OF
the lower districts fron being gorged,
and materially diminished the amount of
sewage TO ue pumped up from The level
OF The Thames TO @ point above high
water mark The area below high water
mark on the south side of the Thames it
was proposed TO EIainlaln in uninter-
mitting now, aud 10 drain dry the sab
SOL now saturated by In1iItralion by
steam pumping lower, which, as Cubitt
and Stephenson remarked. would nave
lust the same effect as raising the whole
district twenty feet.
Into the details OF the revised plans Of
the Metropolitan Board of Works it is
not necessary here to enter. 1t is suffi-
cieut 10 observe that according to the