57 



that question, but he wished the paper had given a few 

 more definite facts. The Corporation of London had 

 appointed a committee to consider this question, and they 

 were now fighting the Metropolitan Board about it. They 

 had not yet found a remedy, but they agreed it ought not 

 to go in. He had seen the water running into the river at 

 Aylesbury perfectly pure after the solids were taken from 

 it, but the question was at what expense it was done. He 

 was of opinion that no corporation ought to look for a 

 profit in getting rid of its sewage ; they got no profit from 

 sweeping the streets or clearing the dustbins. It was not 

 a question of profit, but of getting rid of a nuisance ; and 

 people were prepared to pay any reasonable sum, but they 

 must not pay too dear for their whistle. Only last Friday 

 he went down the river with some other gentlemen to see 

 the state of it, and for miles below Crossness it was 

 polluted by the sewage. It cost a large sum of money to 

 send it into the river, and this, of course, ought to be 

 deducted from the cost of this process, which yielded, he 

 understood, a manure which was worth 3 a ton. 



Mr. SMITH thought there was a little omission on the 

 part of the reader of the paper in not referring to the 

 important duties of the Thames Conservancy. They had 

 instituted proceedings, and fined various people for putting 

 sewage into the Thames above London, and it would be a 

 great anomaly if the Metropolitan Board were allowed to 

 discharge sewage into it whilst the people at Paddington, 

 Richmond, Windsor, Oxford, and other towns up the river, 

 were being bound to carry out expensive works to prevent 

 it. The question had been asked, whether any municipality 

 had the right to put sewage into a river. He thought it 

 would be admitted that when the drainage from the 

 Metropolis was under consideration, the Metropolitan Board 



