534 Proceedings. 



Mr. J. P. Maxwell asked if tlie 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 remarks, 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 v/ere 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 and the dry. 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, could get what there was out of it. The 

 effluent water was quite as valuable as the sewage itself. He therefore recommended when 

 possible to throw sewage into the sea. As regards the sewage of Wellington, he thought it 

 would be waste of money to incur great expense in taking it to the sea, as it would not 

 create a sensible nuisance in the harbom-. 



Mr. J. T. Thomson, in reply, stated 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 sj'stems were applicable, 

 and held a different estimate of the value of the laboiu's of the Glasgow deputa- 

 tion to what one of the speakers did. Even that gentleman had supported their deduc- 

 tions 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 oonld 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. 



Eighth Meeting, lltk 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. 435.) 



2. "Notes on Mr. Hamilton's Collection of Okarita Plants," by T. Kirk, 

 F.L.S. [Transactions, p. 439.) 



