XX111 



sense, and he believed the great Roman Cloaca was not built for a 

 sewer, but to drain the Pontine Marshes and other low ground. But if 

 water-carriage was the best system it was none the worse for being anti- 

 quated. In Torquay and Brighton,in England, and at Porto Bello, near 

 Edinburgh, the whole sewerage was poured directly into the sea. 

 What they had to discover was whether Mr. Mault was on 

 the right track — whether he was advocating the right system — 

 and not the details. He believed Mr. Mault had not taken 

 the outlets sufficiently far out into the stream, and in their further 

 extension, but there would not be any difficulty in discovering 

 that point. At Adelaide, £350,000 had been spent upon underground 

 drains, and Adelaide was now the best drained city in Australia, where 

 outbreaks of typhoid similar to those in Melbourne were never 

 known. It was true that Adelaide had secured her boon at a 

 great expense, but it was a much larger city than Hobart, and was not 

 nearly so favourably situated in physical facilities. Correct tracings 

 of the currents in the Berwent could be obtained to guide the designs 

 of such a work, but he could not say that he had witnessed what was 

 described as the present state of the beach at Sandy Bay. The chief 

 thing to consider was the physical characteristics of a locality. The 

 Hobart sewerage could not be discharged on the land in the vicinity 

 except at a very great cost, and Manchester could not discharge hers 

 into the sea. Sir R. Rawlinson and other authorities had declared that 

 it was better in some cases to pour the sewerage into the sea than on to 

 the land. This was done at Liverpool, and the circumstances of 

 Hobart were more like those of Liverpool than Manchester. 



Br. Hardy, who was heard by special leave as he was not a Fellow, 

 said it was a question upon which men were divided, and each side, 

 like politicians, was little likely to see any virtue on the other side. 

 Personally he was not biassed, but prepared to alter his opinion, which 

 Was at present in favour of the system advocated by Mr. Mault, 

 if good reasons could be given to him. He felt very strongly 

 that all existing cesspits should be abolished. Adelaide was 

 growing more healthy every year since the deep drains had been laid, 

 but previously it was such an unhealthy city that he had refused a 

 practice there. Manchester was an unfortunate place, for, having 

 nothing but a small river, she was forced to seek for some system to 

 meet her circumstances ; but London was a marvellously healthy 

 city with a relatively smaller water supply than Hobart, and yet 

 carries her drains into the river. People talked of the pollution of 

 our noble river. As it did not pollute the Thames and the 

 Mersey to any dangerous extent, it certainly could not affect the 

 Derwent. He knew the drains in some parts of Hobart were at 

 present very bad, and people who had come here to reside had left in 

 consequence. He had made it a personal practise to avoid certain 

 streets on account of the drains. The pan system had not remedied 

 this in Melbourne, and had not proved a success there. 



Br. Bingham Crowtheb said he had a great deal more sympathy 

 With the dry earth system ; it was importing a large amount of manure 

 into the colony to fertilise our impoverished lands, and if we could 

 dry our sewerage, and by chemical action make such a manure of it 

 that the farmers would take it, we would be adding to the wealth of 

 the colony. Underground drainage would cost an immense amount 

 of money, which the people were barely prepared to pay at the 

 present time. He attributed the typhoid fever at Launceston more 

 to the cemeteries existing in the town, and the wretched cesspit 

 system, more than the drainage. 



Mr. Saville-Kent stated that at present the sewerage flowing into 

 the river did not affect the fish detrimentally, though the tar 



