534 Proceedings. 
Mr. J. P. Maxwell asked if the cost of the sewage farm at Croydon, which was stated 
to be about £1,000 per annum, included interest on the outlay incurred in carrying out the 
drainage of the town? He thought it did not, but that it was in addition to interest. 
It was important to make this doubtful point clear. The table attached to the paper 
gave the cost of irrigation at Banbury, a town of 12,000 inhabitants, at about £150 
per annum. This of course could not include interest. 
The Hon, Mr. Waterhouse thought Mr. Thomson’s paper of great value. In spite of 
Dr. Newman's P seas he believed the time was not far distant when people would look 
back with surprise at the present extravagant and wasteful system of dealing with 
sewage. He thought the chief objection to sewage farms was the small scale on which 
they were managed. Not being large enough, they very soon became “ manure sick," and 
consequently proved a failure. 
The Chairman said he thought it could not be said there were two systems of sewage, 
the wet andthedry. There is a certain quantity of water brought into a town clean, and 
nearly the same quantity goes away foul; it is necessary to have a system of sewers to 
carry it. As the water-closet ejecta only constitute one per cent. of the nastiness of 
sewage, there is no advantage in having a separate dry system for the sake of it, and if 
there is one it does not lessen the need of having a wet system too. All the dry systems are 
objectionable on account of smells, and should be as much as possible avoided. The 
value of sewage for agricultural purposes was nearly nil, and none of the chemical pro- 
cesses, and not even the irrigation process, d get what there was out of it. The 
effluent water was quite as valuable as the s He therefore recommended when 
possible to throw sewage into the sea. As regards the sewage of Wellington, he thougbt it 
would be waste of money to incur cad expense in taking it to the sea, as it would not 
create a sensible nuisance in the harbou 
Mr. J. Thomson, in reply, gels that the subject could not be done with, but 
would call for continuous attention. With regard to excreta as a manure he could bring 
forward 17 years' experience in support of its value, as he had seen it used and applied by 
the Chinese in Eastern Asia. He could not agree that no improvement had taken place 
during these-last ten years in sanitary science, the better condition of cities being the 
proof to the contrary. He had indicated where the separate systems were applicable, 
and held a different estimate of the value of the labours of the Glasgow deputa- 
tion to what one of the speakers did. Even that gentleman had supported their deduc- 
lions in reference to the utilization of sewage. The evidence was that the poorer classes 
of Europe could not be brought to use the water system; it conld therefore not be 
universal. At Crossness he found the water of the Thames very filthy. He agreed with 
Mr. Carruthers in his report as to the outfalls for Wellington, viz., that they should be at 
points in the harbour not over one mile from the outskirts. But in his paper he purposely 
avoided bringing in local topics, as tending to deteriorate from an unbiassed position. 
Eigara Meetme. 11th January, 1879. 
A. K. Newman, M.B., Vice-president, in the chair. 
New Members.—J. Brown, W. France, G. J. Binns, George Ashcroft. 
1. “ List of Plants collected in the District of Okarita, Westland,” by 
A. Hamilton. (Transactions, p. 485.) 
2. “Notes on Mr. Hamilton’s Collection of Okarita Plants," by T, Kirk, 
= 2 F.L.S. (Transactions, p. 489.) 
