Reports and correspondence respecting the drainage of the new palace at Westminster : January, 1849.

  • London (England). Metropolitan Commission of Sewers.
Date:
[1849]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Reports and correspondence respecting the drainage of the new palace at Westminster : January, 1849. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    21/32 (page 19)
    Mr Austins Observations. obviously never have been into the public sewer at all; and Mr Barry himself now admits this by his proposal for the adop¬ tion of an exclusive system. The drainage should from the first have taken its shorter course directly into the River, where the depth of its outfall would have been quite independent of any data furnished by the Commission of Sewers. Mr Barry objects to the statement that the main sewer is constructed above the floor level of the vaults of the New Palace; as the latter, he says, were not even pro¬ jected when the sewer was formed: and that it is not the fact that it is even now in the vaults of the building, but in “ arched spaces ” ! It would appear to matter little by what term these portions of the basement of the building should be called ; the fact being, that there exists, as shown on the accom¬ panying plan, a perfect communication throughout the buildings by their means; that the whole of these works, whether of “vaults” or “arched spaces,” appears to be of precisely similar construction, and have, I am informed, always been known and spoken of before Committees, and on the works, without distinction, as “ vaults;” and that although open gateways may exist immediately above this part, that the ex¬ posed sewer itself passes within about 12 yards from the basement of the Grand Central Saloon connecting the Houses of Lords and Commons; with the vaults or arched spaces of which there is perfectly open communication, and through which I have myself passed more than once to the sewer. Mr Barry denies that at any part of its length is the main sewer nearly its entire height above the vault-floor level, as stated Mr Barry's Rejoinder. Austin states that the Abingdon-street sewer was at the time of his examination per¬ fectly clean: so far from this being the case, I have the best evidence to prove that very soon after that examination, it was found that the soil which had accumu¬ lated against the flap had been removed from it, and shovelled up in a heap on one side to a depth of about one foot nine inches. That with respect to the equally foul state of the Bridge-street sewer, Mr Austin is silent. That Mr Phillips’s offer of assistance in improving the drainage of the building was not solicited, and was not accepted, as I did not consider any re-arrangement of it to be necessary. That Mr Austin’s re'assertions as to the bubbling and hissing, and foul condition of the sewer, are not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case. That the “ safety flap” which is sneer- ingly alluded to by Mr Austin, but the omission of the mention of which in his Report is not accounted for, is so named for a very different reason than that which he supposes or chooses to infer; but that it did really protect the New Palace from the stench of the public sewer at the time of his examination, I have no doubt. That Mr Austin has unfairly assumed what he is pleased to state I ought to have said, as to the ventilation of the sewer, and has erroneously stated that I have acknow¬ ledged that foul air has escaped into the buildings and courts. That if Members and those engaged on the works have complained, as stated, of the bad state of the atmosphere, the cause is not to be attributed to what Mr Austin is pleased to term the unusual foulness of the main sewer.