referred to did, and frequently killed the fish in the fishing boat wells, 

 besides rendering others unfit for food. He was not prepared to say 

 what the effect would be if the whole sewerage was discharged into the 

 river. He thought Mr. Gharpentier had exaggerated the condition of 

 Sandy Bay beach, for fish ponds situated near there for rearing delicate 

 fish were not affected. 



Mr. Ward thought some provision should be made for settling or 

 precipitating tanks as, owing to a peculiar law, matter held in suspension 

 in fresh water settled rapidly on coming into contact with salt water. 

 In view of this the drains should only be discharged at ebb tide. 



Mr. C. H. Grant said the paper was a valuable one, and the 

 discussion which had followed was also a most valuable one, and for 

 these reasons he would move the adjournment of the debate till 

 next meeting, in order that the society might have the benefit of 

 the views of some gentlemen not present. While doing so, he had a 

 word of warning to give to those who advocated the underground 

 system. He had practical experience of the system in London, 

 and elsewhere, and would warn them that the expense always exceeded 

 the estimate. No doubt the facilities here were better than in Adelaide, 

 but there they had spent £350,000. It would be found, that in Hobart 

 there would be heavy rock cuttings to materially increase the expense. 

 Then there was the private expenditure for branch drains and closets. 

 In his opinion a satisfactory trap for water-closets had yet to be found, 

 and he would advise them to consider well the question of the cost of 

 deep drains before adopting them. 



Mr. Justin McCarthy Browne said he had been a great advocate 

 of the dry system for many years, but he was disposed to pay the 

 greatest attention to the conclusions a gentleman like Mr. Mault, 

 armed with the latest scientific opinions, arrived at. The difficulty of 

 all dry earth closets was that they made no provision for the disposition 

 of fluids. 



THE DRAINAGE OF HOBART. 



By A. Mault, 



Engineer Inspector to the Board of Health. 



Having lately had to report officially upon the sewerage of the City 

 of Hobart, it has struck me that it might be useful to place before 

 the Royal Society some facts and considerations connected with the 

 subject. It is so important that the more it is discussed the better, 

 provided that the discussion leads to the adoption, and the early 

 adoption, of the best means to ameliorate the present condition of 

 things. 



To place the matter before you, allow me to make the following 

 recapitulation from my official report to the Central Board o£ 

 Health :— The area of the city is 1,270 acres ; the population 

 is about 25,000 ; the number of houses is about 4,500 ; the water 

 supply is said to be equal to 65gal. a day to each inhabitant, or 

 330gal. to each house. There are probably 400 houses with water- 

 closets, 600 with privies with moveable pails that are periodically 

 emptied by the nightmen in the service of the corporation, and the 

 remaining 3,500 have ordinary privies, the cesspools of which are 

 emptied at much longer intervals of time. The length of public 

 sewers is not accurately known, but the greater part of the city is 

 without underground drainage. The length of streets is about 37 

 miles. The refuse of the city is at present dealt with cs follows :— 

 The more solid portion of the faacal matter is disposed of in the 

 water-closets and privies above-mentioned ; the liquid portion of the 



