64 T'ransaetions,— Miscellaneous, 
This was so patent to ourselves that we had scarcely anticipated a most 
distant demur from any quarter. Leaving this portion then, and proceeding 
to what we suggest as being the vital point of misunderstanding between the 
Thames Conservancy and Metropolitan Board, viz., the interruption of navi- 
gation, we will tarry a little to examine it. 
The official surveys, admitted to be correct by both parties, show changes 
going on in the river-bed near Barking Creek and Crossness, but that it has 
shallowed cannot be stated. 
The cross-sections at Crossness show a bank as increasing on the Kent 
side (that is the side at which the sewage falls); and at Barking Creek, a 
bank inereasing on the Essex side (that is the side on which the sewage 
there falls). But in both cases a deepening to an equal extent has taken 
place at the opposite sides of shallowing. The section lines are given for 
the years 1861, 1867, and 1876. At Crossness the soundings of 1861, on 
the Kent or outfall side, show a decrease of 10 feet, more or less; but on 
the Essex side an increase in like quantity. At Barking Creek, similar 
changes have taken place, but to a less degree. Thus exact data do not 
indieate danger of closing to the channel of the Thames, but only alteration 
of its bed. That this alteration is due to the new influence brought to bear 
on it, viz., the issue of large quantities of drain detritus, we think will be 
admitted by all unprejudiced persons. 
But that the navigation of the Thames will be affected from the issue of 
the drainage of a district at points higher or lower, or the converse, we are 
not prepared, beyond a certain point, to admit. If the present drainage 
were not issued at Barking Creek and Crossness, it would have issued above 
-and below London Bridge, carrying with it the same quantity of matter and 
sediment into the river, and in an equal degree, and no more ; depositing the 
heavier partieles in the beds or along the banks continuously; but at the 
same time continuously aeted on by floods and tides, spreading it out from 
landward to seaward in that equilibrium due to the natural forces at work. 
Thus, in the interests of Thames navigation, the question of outfall at 
London, or at Crossness, 14 miles below it, is of very little consequence. 
If one deteriorate passage of shipping, so would the other; but if either can 
be proved to do so, then the City of London would be bound to seek another 
area for the deposit of its offal. This contingeney appears not yet to have 
arisen. 
In prosecuting my enquiries, on the 2nd August last, I proceeded to 
Abbey Wood, near to which is the outlet of the South London drainage, on 
& point of the river called Crossness. I arrived there at about noon, and was 
taken over the works by the manager, The works are situated on a raised 
