THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 828, 16 February 1877, Page 2

THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

The Christchukch Meeting.

A public meeting, convened by his Worship the Mayor, in compliance with a requisition received by him, was held on Thursday in the Oddfellows' Hall.

The Mayor, in opening the proceedings, Baid he supposed they were all aware of the object of this meeting, which was to discuss the desirability or otherwise of Mr Carruthers' scheme of draining the Christchurch district, and whether that scheme, as adopted by the District Drainage Board, should be carried into effect or not.

Mr Hobbs read the following letter : " Christchurch District Drainage Board, Hereford street, 15th February, 1877. To his W( rahipthe Mayor of Christchurch, chairman of public meeting. Dear sir,—At a special meeting held this day to consider what steps were deemed advisable for the Board to take at the public meeting to be held this evening re the drainage scheme, it was resolved— That with a view to prevent misconception on the part of the public, the following communication be addressed to the Mayor of Christchurch, and that he be requested to read it in his opening remarks at the meeting to be held in the Oddfellows' Hall. 1, That the Drainage Board have adopted the system of sewers proposed by Mr Carruthers ' for conducting the sewage of the district to 1 one point. 2. That the pollution of the rivers Avon and Heathcote, except by storm oveiflow in cases of excessive rainfall, ia absolutely guarded against, with the exception that a little sewage matter will temporarily flow into the river Avon from a small portion of the district below the city at the Stanmore road. 3. That the Board have neither adopted, nor as yet even considered Mr Carruthers' proposals for turning water closet sewage into the sewers, or for the disposal of the sewage when collected in the outfall drain. 4. That the adoption of the plans for the collection of the sewage has in no way precluded the Board from disposing of it, either by filtration through the sandhills, by precipitation, by discharging it into the ocean, or by any other method which may be decided upon as best after mature consideration. 5. That the Board unreservedly acknowledges its obligation to adopt no plan fur dealing with either of the above points, or with any other question connected therewith which is likely to cause a nuisance or be prejudicial to the inhabitants of any portion of the district. I have the honor to be yours, very faithfully, Fkedk. Hobbs, Acting-Chairman of Drainage Board." The Mayor said he would now call upon Mr Wynn Williams to address the meeting. Mr Williams, who was received with cheers, after remarking on the importance of the question, went on to say that the point they had to discuss was whether the Drainage Board had adopted the best scheme under the circumstances that could be adopted, and whether it was one which the Board had brought before the ratepayers in such a way as to satisfy them that it would be to a certain extent beneficial to the people. Now he would just show them shortly, in as few words as he could, that the report of Mr Carruthers, which he said unhesitatingly was adopted by the Board, following upon his plans, indicated dearly that the system

he proposed was one that was not to be confined to the simple carrying away of water or sewage of that description, but also night soil and house sewage. Mr Carruthers pointed out that for the purpose of surface drainage drain pipes of a certain size only were requisite, but he went on to say there was no reason why they should not combine with that a sewage system of carrying away night soil and sewage from the houses. He showed that large pipes would effectually carry both away. They had heard it stated in the paper by a writer who came forward as the champion of the Board, and although under disguise, no doubt he was on the platform that evening.— [Laughter and cheers.]— they had heard irom that obscure individual— [Laughter]— he did not mean to apply that personally, but as to the name that was put to the letterhe would draw attention to a very remarkable statement made by him, in which he said that the Board had not decided, not even considered, the question of putting night soil in the drains. [Hear, hear] They would find, as he stated before, that Mr Carruthers' scheme was one that was to involve a large expenditure of money for making a sewage system that was to include the night soil, and he contended the Drainage Board had adopted it. If, as they asserted, they had not considered the question of putting night soil into the drains, then why go to the expense of putting in the necessary pipes? There was no necessity, according to Mr Carruthers' report, to have the large sized pipes, and therefore he asked why the Board have adopted them. Mr Hobbs—lt is quite the contrary.

Mr Williams—lt only shows how difficult it is for one to understand this question. [Hear, hear. ] No doubt the gentleman who has been considering the question of drainage for fifteen years past will be able to reconcile the fact. Mr Carruthers says that combining the two systems, the larger pipes will be necessary, and that is his scheme. Mr Hobbs—No.

Mr Williams—And now they were told that the Board had not considered the question of putting the night soil into the pipes at all. He would leave it to Mr Hobbs, who was more learned than himself, and who was continually " Hear, hearing " and interrupting. They must come to the conclusion that the members of the Drainage Board had not maturely considered the whole scheme, part of which they had adopted. That one fact alone was quite sufficient for the ratepayers to ask ; as they would see presently in the resolution, if carried, they would ask the Board to reconsider the whole subject, He maintained that a Board, of whatever character, whether a Drainage Board or other Board, that had the power of raising large sums of money for expenditure, most undoubtedly ought, before setting forth that they had adopted a certain scheme, to say what the cost of that scheme would be before comiDg to a conclusion upon it. [Hear, hear and cheers] In his report Mr (Jarruthera said—" I have not yet had time to prepare an estimate of the cost of the work, nor to define certain of the details, such as overflows, and special flushing arrangements, but the accompanying plans are sufficient to enable the Board to proceed with the construction of the main body of the works." There they had the admission of the engineer himself that he had not had time to prepare estimates of the cost of the works, and yet their representatives adopted the recommendations contained in that report. After the report was read, Mr Duncan moved—" That the Board tenders its thanks to Mr Carruthers for his clear and lucid explanation of the Drainage scheme prepared by him." How could it be said that it was clear and lucid when there was not a single word to indicate to them what it was to cost 1 Was this what the called mature coneideration ? [Laughter and cheers.] Mr Hobbs—lt was not reported. Mr Williams said not one word of Mr Carruthers' report had been contradicted from that day to this by the Board. Mr Hobbs—The question was aßked Mr Carruthers if he could give us an estimate or an approximate estimate of the cost, and his reply was not reported. Mr Williams thought this a most extraordinary statement. The fact was that Mr Hobbß had studied this matter so long that his brains, when he died, would be found to be nothing but drains, and he couldn't contain anything. [Laughter.] No doubt the letter which had been read to the meeting was intended rather as a stopper to the whole proceedings, but the attempt had proved futile, |Hear and cheers.] They had tried to argue that Dr Turnbull was wrong in stating that the scheme they adopted would cost £20,000 a year ; but if they put down interest and sinking fund, they would find that it could not be less than £14,000 a year. \Ut Williams proceeded to criticise the letters signed " Observer," and a great deal of amusement was treated at the running commentary he made upon the assertions of the writer.] The point he wished to bring especially before them was this—that the Board had accepted and adopted the scheme which they now alleged they had partially carried out without considering the cost. When they considered Mr Carruthers' plans, they must see that he put it forth that the night soil, &c, must go into this drain, and says—" I would require that up to enforcing it by legal steps." This came from the Engineer to the Board, and he (Mr Williams) asserted that there waß no provision whatever giving to the Drainage Board the power to make the people drain into these sewers when they were constructed. It was the greatest absurdity in life to suppose that they would do so unless they were compelled. The proposition was for the people to drain down a sloping drain led into their houses and thence to the drain. But what did this mean ? Why, that by doing this, they were introducing into their houses a perfect network of disease. When the drain was finished they could not get tho people to drain into jt, and therefore the Drainage Board would find themselves in this position, that they would have their drain, but no means of making the people drain into it. They would not do so until they were actually compelled, because the gases generated in the drain would, as a matter of course, rise through the conducting drains into the house, generating disease. [Hear, hear.] It had b<en csserted that tho sewage was only taken as far as it was ueceaB.ry to bo carried and left thero without making the slightest provision for deodorisation or ether system of getting rid of the eewage. The Board did not saj what they were going to do with it. By their letter read that evening, they at once said they had not considered this question Well taking their own words, how could they tell what amount the scheme would coat if they did not consider

' what was one of the great points in the scheme, viz, what they were going to do with their sewage. [Hear, hear.] The ratepayers would be perfectly satisfied if the Drainage Board would reconsider the scheme and decide upon what they were going to do with the sewage before incurring a large expenditure on a scheme which had not been considered. [Cheers.] The Board had laid great stress upon respecting the opinion of their engineer, but what did they find 1 Why, that Mr Carruthers, in his report, stated that he intended to carry the sewage into the Heathcote for fifteen years ; the Board now declared, after saying that they would be bound by the opinions of their engineer, that they did not intend to carry the sewage into the Heathcote. But this, he would point out, was after the Board had been pulled up by the newspapers and by correspondents. Beyond this the Board said they had not considered the question of what they intended to do with the sewage. Therefore, the result was this, that the ] Board came before the ratepayers having accepted a scheme without knowing how much it would cost, and without, as they said themselves, having decided upon the one great point in the scheme. After referring to the drainage of Sydney into the harbour, he said the dry system, if carried out properly, would be far better than a half-and-half system of sewerage, with water coming in from all parts of the city. Instead of having one inspector to go to all parts of the city, it would be far better to have a staff of inspectors to see that the sewage and refuse was properly got rid of, and thus allow the Drainage Board time to reconsider and fully think out the scheme proposed by Mr Carruthers. [Cheers] He would tell them further that the Drainage Board were endeavoring to carry out a scheme which by law they could not force upon thejpeople. They must recollect that they had to deal not with Christchurch alone, but with the outside districts, and no one who read the Act would say for one moment that it contemplated the Board undertaking a sewerage system. It waß clear that all they had to do was to carry away the storm water which might accumulate. He would read them section 34 of the Drainage Act, from which they would see that the Drainage Board had no power whatever to compel people to drain their house slops, &c, into the sewers. [Bead.] All that was contemplated by that section was that power should be given to take away water which came in from the Spreydon district, &c. The Boad Board could not come in, and the City Council could not go out, so they joined in together and got the Act passed which enabled them to get the water taken away. The only authority which could compel people to make use of the system after it was provided, would be the City Council, i and even their authority only ex- ' tended to the town belt, and it would be useless only to have a system extending to that point. What was contemplated by the resolution before the meeting was to a3k the Drainage Board, in view of these points, to re-consider the whole scheme, and to pause before committing the ratepayers to a work of such magnitude which it would be almost impossible—or at any rate very difficult—to undo when once begun. [Loud cheers.] He would not say more just now, but would read to them the opinions of some high medical authorities on the subject, quite as reliable, if not more so, than those quoted in his letter by Mr Hobbs —he begged his pardon—" Observer." : He purposed to read a few extracts from the opinions of learned men of the medical profession, some of whom had already been referred to by " Observer." Dr Andrew .Fergus, writing on the sanitary aspect of the sewerage question in 1871, premising that night soil should be returned to the earth, inquired how best to do this, with a due regard to health. He said, " The fact that water and air, oxidised excreta, naturally led to the use of water as a receptacle for excrete, but this was done from superficial knowledge, and in ignorance of the fact that excreta would decompose in the sewers, on its way to the rivers, and give off deleterious gas, which, being in most cases lighter than air, escaped at the highest point; and produced disease in high, any, and presumably healthy localities. Trapping will not prevent this, because even presuming a trap would resist the tension of the foul air, it would escape in larger quantities elsewhelse, and most likely in the poorer districts." It will be observed that Mr Carruthers proposed to admit rain water into our drains, through gratings opening into the streets, and besides these openings there would be the water closet and sink openings to every house; the effect of this would certainly not be difficult to guess at, as the drains would act as chimneys, with the_ gas pouring out of the different openings. Dr Fergus exhibited some pipes which he said had been acted on by these gases, even to perforation on the upper side, thus allowing the gas to escape through the side into the house; and he mentioned a case of enteric fever which investigation proved to him had arisen from the escape of gases, from decomposed excreta through the sides and taps of leaden sewage pipes. Generally he regarded the watercloset system and drainage of cesspools into sewers as furnishing laboratories for the production of gases injurious to health, and he claimed the opinion of Mr Simon in his report to the Privy Council, the researches of Dr Parkes, Dr Acland, Dr Murchison, and Dr Budd in support of his view, because they held that cholera, typhoid, or enteric fever, were produced by taking into the system either through tainted air or water, the result of decomposed human excreta. In reference to the disposal of sewage, Dr Fergus said " he had studied this question most closely, and had come to the conclusion that the system of carrying excreta by water was a great mistake. The refuse was carried away and poured into tlie rivers; and taking the Thames as an example, the result was utter pollution." The best plan, Dr Fergus urged, is to keep the excreta out of the sewers altogether. Under the system in Leyden and Amsterdam human excreta never passed into the drains which carried roof and street water, subsoil water, waste water from manufactories or sinks and bath water ; the excreta are removed by the pneumatic process daily, without offence to the sight or smell, and are utilised. It was claimed for thia system that it was cheaper, and more simple, than any other. In Dra Drysdale and Hay worth's recent work on this question, at page 19, it stated as follows : '' Sewers and drains contain the excreta and infectious particles of disease germs, generated and thrown off by diseased individuals, as well as other matters in a state of putrefaction. These iatter are continually giving off offensive gases, which must aaa wiU

escape somewhere, and carry with them the disease germs; they will force their way out of the drains in spite of any system of traping, and through the best description of traps, even without the assistance of suction, though they will be particularly likely to escape where there is suction. These gases, being light, naturally tend to rise, and, therefore, to pass up the sewers and drains, and thus they exert their greatest force in the highest parts of a town ; and by escaping there they carry disease from the worse to the better parts of a town. This is one explanation of the occurrence of infectious diseases in the better parts of towns, and is one cause of the spread of epidemics.." The same writers observed, a little further on in their book, as follows:—"Since the observations on page 19 were written, and medical officers of health have been appointed in all large towns, and the relations between fever and bad drainage has been clearly demonstrated, the subject of the removal of common excreta has been thoroughly discussed, and a great number of plans have been tried. The result of this is that the plan by means of water closets has been condemned as not only wasteful and expensive, but as also offensive to the senses and injurious to health ; and it is therefore being discarded by the medical officers of health throughout the kingdom, and superseded by what is known as the dry system." In a re-publica-tion of an English work which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of 16th, 19th, 21st, and 23rd of September last, there was an interesting account of the sanitary condition of 163 towns in England. It would be seen that there was a sufficiently wide disparity in the death rate in those towns that commit their excreta to the earth and those which commit it to the water, to lead those who have to deal with the subject to consider carefully before another mistake be committed by trying the experiment which has been made in other countries, and has failed, The following extract was taken without selection from the list of towns referred to : Ashton-under-Lyne Population, 33,000 ; death rate per thousand, 33—water carried drainage directly into the Tame; Banbury—Population, 11,000; death rate per thousand, 19—sewage collected and sold. Bainsley—Population, 23,000 ; death rate per thousand, nearly 27—sewage drained directly into the River Deane. BathPopulation, 52,000 ; death ratejper thousand, 24—sewage drained directly into the Avon. Carnarvon—Population, 9000 ; death rate per thousand, 32—drains into the tidal waters of the Menai Straits. Chelmsford— Population, 9000; death rate per thousand, 21 —sewage screened roughly, and pumped on to the land for irrigation. CheltenhamPopulation, 42,000; death rate per thousand, 19—sewage dealt with by subsidence separation of liquid on grass lands, sludge mixed with ashes, and sold for manure. Coventry— Population, 37,000 ; death rate per thousand, 21—sewage chemically treated and sold. Crew—Population, 20,000 ; death rate per thousand, 20—sewage by irrigation, night soil mixed with ashes. Croydon—Population, 63,000 ; death rate per thousand, 21— sewage separated, irrigation and solid matter Bold. Derby Population, 49,000 ; death rate per thousand, 27—drained into the Derwent. The difference between the death rates of Croydon and Derby is very noticeable. Croydon, with a much larger population, with a death rate from 7 to 8 per cent less. Glasgow —Population, 491,000; death rate per thousand, 28—drained into the Clyde. Hexham—Population, 5331; death rate per thousand, 34.75—drained into the Tyne. Kingston-upon-Hull—Population, 137,000 ; death rate per thousand, 27—the sewage here was direct into an estuary of the River Hnmber. Leamington—Population, 20,000 ; death rate per thousand, 18— sewage pumped on to a farm of Lord Warwick's. So that in every instance quoted the difference in the death rates was most marked, and in every case where the sewage was drained into riverß or estuaries the rate was much higher. There could be no doubt, therefore, that after the experience of the underground system, the result of which was shown in the above extracts, the proposal to carry out Mr Carruthers' system of drains, with gratings for storm water, and pipes to water closets and sinks, would result in the most disastrous consequences to the inhabitants of a perfectly flat town like Christchurcb. [Loud and continued cheers.] He hoped the members of the Drainage Board would agree to reconsider the matter. In that hope he begged to move "That this meeting Jis emphatically of opinion that the solid sewage matter from the City of Christchurch should not be deposited in the Heathcote Estuary, nor in the rivers Avon or Heathcote." "That the proposal of the Drainage Board to carry out Mr Carruthers' plans without first ascertaining the probable cost of the whole system, and without deciding (as the members of the Board now allege is the case) what is ultimately to be done with the sewage, is a very injudicious mode of proceeding to carry out works which must necessarily involve the annual expenditure of enormous sums for interest and sinking funds on loans, and for general working expenses." "That this meeting respectfully requests the Drainage Board to reconsider the whole question of the proposed works as compared with the ' dry system,' and especially as to the entire cost of such works and the supply of water, which is an absolute necessity for the efficient working of underground sewers." "And this meeting is further of opinion that what is known as the dry system, if efficiently carried out, would answer all the necessities of Christchurch for some years, to come ; at any rate until sufficient t.inie had been given tp the Drainage Board, to, prepare an entirely complete scheme, in all its branches, for the consideration of the ratepayers of the whole of the Christchurch drainage district." Mr E, B. Bishop, who was loudly cheered, said he rose to second the resolution, but he would not detain the meeting after the elaborate manner in which the subject had been dealt with by Mr Williams, He might say that he had gone through the Act with some others, and came to the conclusion that the solid sewage question was never intended to be embodied in this Bill, and that the Board had no power to deal with it. Mr John Lee now came forward, and was I received with groans, hießes, and cries of "Sit down," &c.

The confusion continuing, the chairman asked if it was the wish oE thti meeting to hear Mr Loo, and an unanimous " No, no," caused Mr Lee to resume his seat.

Mr Hobbß came forward, amongst mingled demonstrations of applause, hisses, and groans. He said he was very much obliged to Mr Williams and the proposers of this meeting for the courteous manner in which they had spoken of the members of the Boa?d, but he hoped, the meeting would

think twice before they passed the resolution in its present shape. [Cries of " No, no."] He hoped so, because there were several portions of it in which the Board entirely concurred, [" Hear, hear" from Mr Williams]. In the letter which had been read it was frankly stated that they had not yet considered the plans they were asked to reconsider, and that they vere prepared carefully to consider them. [Hear, hear, ahem, oh, oh, laughter, hisses, and a voice: "When?"] He was afraid that the way in which Mr Williams had brought many subjects before them was calculated to mislead. [No, no.] In the quotations he made he had shown that in several towns, by the use of different methods of dealing with the sewage the death-rate was lowered, but he had distinctly forgotten to tell them that, in nearly every case he had quoted this sewage had to be collected in a similar system of sewers before being dealt with, as those recommended by Mr Carruthers. The inference he drew from Mr Williams' remarks was that that gentleman did not think there was any necessity in and around Christchurch for any system of sewers. He would like to ask Mr Williams how the surface water was to be collected and carried away without sewers? The closing of the Ferry road drain afforded a sufficient answer, There it was necessary to open the drain to carry the surface water away, and they all knew that the last winter this temporary drain was most effective in carrying off the water. This was done to give temporary relief until such time as Mr Carruthers' scheme was ready, and he could tell the Board what was required to drain the whole district. The moment they got his plans they felt it their duty to redeem their promises to the people along the drain, and to the Hon John Hall . He wished to point out that they must have sewers to carry off the storm water, which was all the Board at present had attempted. Mr Williamß had spoken a great deal about the removal of night soil, but he (Mr Hobbs) begged to remind the meeting that the Board had not even yet considered the question, Mr Williams had abstained from telling them, even if they adopted the dry method with regard to the night soil, how they were to get rid of their house slops. The most difficult part of the whole business was the removal of the house slops, and the most simple the removal of excreta. This was a fact substantiated by several eminent authorities, and was alluded to in Mr Carruthers' report. Mr Williams said that the size of the sewers was determined on with ga view to carry away the night soil. Mr Carruthers distinctly said the contrary. They would find that Mr Carruthers, in his report, distinctly said that he was obliged to have sewers of such a large size for the purpose of flushing, because he could not otherwise get a sufficient fall, but he did not say he was obliged to have them large for the purpose of carryoff the night soil. He wished to impress upon their minds that what Mr Carruthers said was this—that he was obliged to have the sewers of such a size for flushing purposes. They would answer perfectly well to carry off the night soil, if the Board chose to have that put into them. L oa > on -] Tne Board had full reliance in their staff, and they depended on their engineers to tell them the best way in which house slops and refuse water could be collected and carried away, He wished to protest against assertions, frequently made, that the Board had adopted Mr Carrutherß' report. They had done nothing of the kind, The motion was, " That the plans submitted by Mr Carruthers be adopted." The Board spent two hours at least in looking over the plans, and Mr Carruthers was asked a series of questions—amongst others, if he could give the Board an idea of the cost. He assured them, before the plans were even adopted, that the coat would be quite within their means. [" Oh, oh," hisses, and confusion.] If these questions which were asked of Mr Carruthers by the members of the Board and answered by him had been reported, which they were not [Hisses and uproar.]—the misconception which now existed in the public mind—[Renewed uproar.] It was for them to say whether he should go on or retire. [Hisses and uproar.] He did not come there to amuse them, but to explain to the ratepayers the particulars of the scheme, and they as members of the Drainage Board would be very happy to receive any suggestions from them, and to act upon such suggestions. [Renewed interruption.] He was prepared to give them something like the amount of the cost of the scheme if they would listen to him. [Applause.] Mr Bell had, in a letter written to him (Mr Hobbs) that evening, given a rough estimate of the cost of the scheme for the drainage of the whole district, extending from St Albans lane nearly to the Heathcote, taking in Walthain, Phillipstown, and the southern lowlying portions of the city—a complete system of sewage which would last for all time—amounting to about £155,000. [Cheers and uproar.] The cost of this scheme to the ratepayers would be supposing it to be completed now—and it was intended to spread it over seven or eight years—would at the most only be an assessment of 9d in the £>, [Renewed uproar.] He would ask if any one there who considered the immense benefit likely to accrue to the health of the city and district, would say that the scheme was not worth the money. Cries of "No and cheers ] He would desire now to call attention to some remarks of Mr Williams, as to the dry method being the boot and sewerage systemejworthless, [Mr Williams, " I did not say so.") Now Mr Williams had not told them while he condemned the scheme, how Christchurch and its suburbs were to be drained. [Mr Williams—" That is not my business."] The main object of the Drainage Board was to drain the suburbs, and not to spend large sums of money in the city alone. It was ignorance of the plans which had caused the misconception which had arisen. [Hisses.] The RegistrarGeneral's returns showed that the death rate in Christchurch was exceptionably high, and this spoke volumes. The reason of thiß was that in the winter the whole surface of the district waß saturated with water, and the result was that for sixteen hours out of the twenty-four a fog prevailed which caused consumption and other diseases amongst their children. Now, Mr Carrutherß' plan not only provided for the draining of the water away down to the depth of nine inches, but would drain to the depth of three feet over the whole district of Cln-ifitehurch and suburbs. 1 Uproar.) Ho wbb prepared to prove what he had stated; and the enormous benefit which he contended they would receive by the adoption of the scheme altogether removed it beyond pecuniary considerations. He had been told by two of the wealthiest men in the province that the unhealthinesß of the city prevented them living, in it, The Bjoa

J. B. Acland had told him that if the drainage system was carried out every squatter would have a town house. They would thus have them living amongst them, and spending their money here. This was a matter which affected all their pockets and showed the advisability of having a Bcheme of drainage. He now desired to refer to some quotations made by Mr Wynn Williams, which had had the effect of misleading the meeting. [Uproar and hisses.] The Mayor hoped they would give al sides a fair hearing. He thought that having listened to one side they were bound to hear what Mr Hobbs had to say in reply. Mr Hobbs wished to speak as to the extract from the Sydney Morning Herald referred to by Mr Williams. [Uproar.] He only wanted to put right what was incorrect, and it was therefore only fair for them to hear him. The report there referred to did not condemn the sewerage system, as they had been led to believe by Mr Williams, it simply condemned the pollution of the harbor. This pollution had made Sydney one of the unhealthiest cities in the colony, and had raised the death rate to 30 in 1000. But it must be remembered that in 1853, when this system was first projected, engineers had not got the experience they had since gained, and Mr Carrnthers in his scheme had provided for the avoidance of these errors. Mr Williams had challenged him to prove that the Act gave the Drainage Board power to compel the drainage of the house slops into the sewers. He could tell Mr Williams this, that he was perfectly satisfied that if the Drainage Board had no power to do so as a Drainage Board, it had as a Local Board of Health, and being one and the same body they would see if the sewerage system was adopted that it would be properly carried out. It was all very well for Mr Williams to quote reports as to sewerage causing mortality, but he should also state the special causes which led to it. Mr Carruthers had found out this, and had provided against it here. In Edinburgh, the mortality was caused, according to Dr Muir, by insufficient water supply; Mr Williams had referred to the question of assessment. Now he (Mr Hobbs) would answer this, by saying that the higher the assessment the less the rate. [Uproar.] The Mayor ruled that Mr Hobbs could not enter upon this Bubject, as it was not before the meeting, Mr Hobbs having explained that he meant that a smaller rate would be required when a higher assessment was made, concluded his remarks amid some uproar, which prevented them being heard. Mr J. V. Ross said he desired to say one or two words. The meeting had been called to discuss the drainage scheme, and he had come as a member of the Drainage Board to listen and perhaps be instructed. If the ratepayers came for fun, they did not.

Mr B. G. Wright said he desired to pat before the meeting what was contemplated by the Drainage Board, if they would listen to him for a few moments. The opposition, so far as he could gather, to the scheme was based on two grounds, viz. the pollution of the estuary and the magnitude of the cost. [Hear, hear.] As regarded the pollution of the estuary, he might say at once that he disagreed with the ongineer. As regarded the magnitude of the cost, which was now stated to be something like £155,000, he would point out that extending over a period of years, as was intended, it would only make a rate of 7d or 8d in the £. This he thought very moderate indeed, when they considered the great strides which the city was making, and would make during the time the work would be going on. They must remember that the scheme proposed by Mr Carruthers included not only the city but the suburbs. The rural districts of course were not included ; they would have to be dealt with separately. Though the claims of the rural districts were not specifically dealt with they were not lost sight of, but Mr Carruthers pointed out that for the present this must give way to the draining of the city and suburbs. It would, of course, be manifestly unjust to the outlying districts to have to contribute without any benefit, but it must be recollected that they would be benefitted by the establishment of a system of arterial drainage, which would enable them to get rid of their storm water. It was absolutely necessary that they should have some system to go to work upon, and he would point to the evils arising from the Ferry road drain in the times past as an instance of the bad effects of starting without some system to go upon. If the ratepayers desired it they need not carry out the whole scheme, but limit it to the expenditure of say £20,000 or £30,000; but his firm opinion was, based upon the advance of the city, that they would, before long, require to carry all the scheme out. Mr Carruthera had explained the reason why he had used large pipes was that the fall was not very great. There was no doubt of this, that as the city increased, and consequently the supply of artesian water decreased, they must be prepared to have a system of water supply for flushing their side channels, 6?c, beyond that of artesian wells. He did not known that he had very much more to say; but he was thoroughly convinced that it would be to their welfare to have this scheme carried out, and the rapid increase of population would so reduce the rateß that it will be nothing more than they would very well bear. They must have an efficient system of drainage, and like any Other luxury they must pay for it. It was stated that every householder would have to pay £2O for a water closet, At the present time he paid 23s per annum to get a pan emptied, and he had to get a new one every two years. [No ; no. | This was according to information obtained from the inspector of nuisances. It represented a very good interest on the coat of their water closet and attendant works. If anyone viewed the future of this place in its proper light, he would not advocate the laying of drains which would have to be pulled up in a few years owing to insufficiency of their size. [Hear, hear.] If anyone doubted the future of this place, let him go through the country, and see the immense progress that agriculture wag making, and three-fourths of the Canterbury Plainß had never yet been stirred by the plough. [Hear, hear.] Then they cuuJd estimate to some extent what the future of Ohristchurch was to be. He thought the proposed rate was nothing more than they could fairly bear, and a trifle in comparison to the benefits they derive from the scheme. (Hear, baas, and cheers.] Mr Alport, D,r Turnbull, Mr, Harman, and Mr Jacobpen, having addressed, the meeting^

The resolution was then put and carried unanimously, amid, loud coeere, J

i - j 1 1 Dr Frankish said he begged to move— That a copy of the above resolutions, signed by his Worship the Mayor on behalf if the meeting, be forwarded to the Drainage Board." Mr Alport seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. On the motion of Mr Wynn Williams, a vote of thanks was passed to the Mayor, and the proceedings terminated.