46 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[February, 



sewer the preference ought to be given ? then why oppress the 

 builder by compelling him to construct such expensive sewers as the 

 Westminster Commissioners require ? Why not, as we said before, 

 give some encouragement ? Nay, we would create every inducement 

 to the builder of small tenements to construct sewers, and we feel as- 

 sured that if the expense of building sewers could be reduced to 10s. 

 per foot, making the charge for small houses of 15 feet frontage on 

 tach side of the sewer under four pounds, that every builder 

 would adopt sewers in preference to building cesspools, as the diffe- 

 rence in expense would then be so trifling; but on behalf of the 

 builder, we contend for a still smaller form of sewer than even 

 the second size oval sewer, for in many cases where the distance 

 required to be drained is not above 20U feet from a main sewer, with 

 a good fall, we would allow an oval drain of half the altitude and 

 breadth of fig. 5, to be constructed with a half-brick rim, or an 18 inch 

 barrel drain, with manholes every 50 feet ; the expense of such drains 

 would be 21. 5s. for houses on each side of the drain for the 18 inch 

 barrel drain, and 1/. 10s. for the small oval form; this form of drain, 

 is amply large enough for 25 to 30 small tenements, including the 

 surface drainage ; therefore, why put the builder of small tenements 

 to the vast expense of erecting "second-size sewers, enabling two 

 workmen to pass each other," when "the ordinary sewage rarely rises 

 above the invert," for which the Westminster Commissioners charge 

 10s. per foot for houses on each side, or 71. 10s. for a fourth-rate 

 house. 



We have dwelt more particularly upon sewers for small houses, as 

 it is to these houses that a cheap form of sewage is wanted, for the 

 expenses attending upon sewers, forming roads, paths, paying fees to 

 district and paving surveyors, leases, and a variety of other incidental 

 charges, which do not immediately belong to the construction of the 

 house, fall almost equally the same on the small as on the. large house, 

 and raise the cost of the latter so enormously, that much higher rents 

 are obliged to be obtained from the small tradesmen and operatives 

 than woidd otherwise be required if these charges could be reduced. 

 We could give an instance at the present moment, where parties who 

 have built some fourth-rate houses immediately contiguous to a main 

 sewer of the Westminster Commision, will not incur the expense of 

 the sewage by paying 10s. per foot, but prefer constructing cesspools. 



It will be a question well worthy of inquiry to ascertain what num- 

 ber of houses there are on each side of any of the sewers that have 

 been built or rebuilt by the Westminster Commission, and see how 

 many of those houses have taken advantage of the sewers. We are 

 fearful the return would show very few. If this be the case, it will be 

 the best proof that the enormity of the charge of 10s. per foot de- 

 manded by the commissioners, is of an oppressive nature, and if 

 they continue to make this demand, we are fearful that very few 

 houses in poor neighbourhoods will ever have drains to enter the 

 sewers, and that all the calamities pictured in the report on the 

 sanitary condition of the poor, will still rage with fearful violence. It 

 is not for surface drainage that new sewers are so much wanted as to 

 get rid of the nuisance of building cesspools under the basement, and 

 in the close and confined yards at the backs of the small houses. 



We cannot allow these observations to close, without offering a few 

 remarks on the regulation for constructing drains. We believe all 

 the Commissions compel each house to have separate drains, no 

 matter how far the house may be from the centre of the sewer. We 

 recollect, a few years since, seeing the ground opened to the distance 

 of at least GO feet long, and 10 feet deep, opposite to every house in 

 the Grand Junction Road, Paddington. Now, if the commissioners 

 would have allowed a 15-inch drain to have been constructed from the 

 sewer for every three houses opposite the centre house, with a 

 branch drain, nine inches clear, at the end next the houses, there 

 ■would have been a saving of 100 feet run of digging and making 

 good roads, and a drainage equally as effective, if not more so; for it 

 is not so likely that the single 15 inch drain would have got choked as 

 the three 9 inch drains. And again, why not allow a 12 inch drain to 

 be constructed opposite the party wall, between two houses, for the 

 drainage of the two, some compulsory law might be made for com- 



pelling both owners, if there should be two, to contribnte their share 

 to the repair or cleansing the drain, if it were required. By some 

 modification of this nature, a vast expense would be saved both to 

 builders and owners of houses, as the principal expense in carrying a 

 drain into the sewer is generally the opening of the ground and mak- 

 ing good the roadway. 



We have, in the present notice carefully abstained from entering 

 into an examination of the Flushing apparatus, the feasibility of 

 cleansing the streets by means of the sewers, and also the considera- 

 tion of uniting the paving of the metropolis with the sewers under 

 one commission, the same as is now done in the City of London, for 

 all these points require to be gone into at considerable length at some 

 future opportunity. We hope we have been successful in establish- 

 ing that sewers may be constructed far more economically, and equally 

 as effective, as the present form of the Westminster sewers, and that 

 considerable improvements might have been adopted in rebuilding 

 and relieving the old sewage, and at the same time increased to a 

 large extent the sewage, without any additional expense, and if we 

 have done so, satisfactorily, it then behoves us to press upou the 

 government to take up the inquiry on a broad scale, employ com- 

 petent parties to report upon the subject, and see how far a grand, 

 measure might be laid down for the improvement of the whole of the 

 first metropolis in the world. 



CONCRETE, ITS INTRODUCTION, COMPOSITION, USES, 

 AND COMPARATIVE EXPENSE. 



Concrete was first used in this country by Sir Robert Sinirke,at the 

 erection of the Penitentiary at Millbank, afterwards at the under- 

 setting of the walls of the New Custom House, and has been generally 

 used by the above named architect in the public buildings since erected 

 under his care, especially at the club house of the Oxford and Cam- 

 bridge University in Pall Mall, where the whole area of the building, 

 and to the extent of two feet beyond the line of the lowest footing, 

 was covered to a depth of 2i feet, the depth being increa5ed to 4 feet 

 under all the walls that rise to the roof; in the specification of the 

 last named building it is thus described. " For the grouted stratum 

 clean river gravel is to be provided, and mixed with lime ground or 

 pounded to a fine powder ; it is to be well mixed with the gravel, twice 

 turned over before it is wheeled to the excavation, and it is to be 

 thrown from a height of not less than (3 feet in every part. A man to 

 be kept treading down and puddling the mass as it is thrown down ; 

 the proportion of materials to be 6 parts of gravel to one of Dorking, 

 Merstham, or Haling stone lime." It has now become, in the present 

 day, the most favourable expedient resorted to for artificial foun- 

 dations. Mr. Ranger, of Brighton, improved the above hint by using 

 hot water to facilitate the setting, for which he took out a patent for 

 making artificial stone. A detailed account of the application of Mr. 

 Ranger's artificial stone to the building of docks and river walls at 

 Chatham and Woolwich, is given in the 1st vol. of the Journal, being 

 a paper by Lieut. Denison, from the Papers of the Corps of Royal 

 Engineers. Analogous to concrete is beton, from which it differs, in 

 broken stone being used instead of gravel, in the proportion of two of 

 stone to one of lime or pozzolana of Italy, a description of which, 

 taken from the Franklin Journal, appeared in Vol. 3, page 2ti5, 

 of your valuable periodical. Since the introduction of concrete, some 

 little difference of opinion as to the proportions of materials and man- 

 ner of mixing them has arisen among engineers. I therefore give the 

 composition from several specifications: — No. 1. The concrete to 

 consist of 5 parts of clean gravel, perfectly freed from loam or clay, 

 with a proper proportion of small gravel and sand, as well as large, 

 and one part of lime measured dry, the lime to be mixed into a per- 

 fectly smooth uniform paste, as for the mortar, but with more water, 

 and then thoroughly mixed with the gravel. — No. 2. The concrete to 

 be composed of sandy gravel and well burnt lime, in the proportion of 

 3 of the former to 1 of the latter. The gravel to be free from all 

 earthy matter, and the pebbles not to exceed one inch ill diameter. 



