of seeing these works, and even for those who have had considerable experience there has been something to learn: we have seen something which appears to be novel, and something certainly unique. I do not think that any of us has constructed nobler engines and pumping stations than those inspected to-day.

Mr. JAMES HALL: I may perhaps take it upon myself, as representing the extreme north of England, just to thank you, Mr. President, and to congratulate you upon the work you have shown us to-day. I should just like to know for my own information -and possibly it may be useful information for others—whether, when you designed these works, you took into consideration if it would be desirable to clarify the sewage by passing it through tanks, and utilising a certain portion of the solid matter in a dry state upon the land. It strikes me-though I do not set myself up as a great authority on the subject-that if the solid matter from the sewage had been collected in tanks, it might have been utilised in raising the level of the ground, which I understood from you rendered it necessary for hundreds of tons of foreign material to be brought to the spot. I ask for information, because I am preparing a scheme on a small scale, for a population of 12,000, of the Borough of Stockton. I certainly think that Mr. Pritchard is hard on local boards and corporations, when he says that they cannot manage sewage farms. Corporations and local boards may have failed, but I do not think that it is necessarily so in any case when properly constructed.

Mr. PRITCHARD: I speak from my own knowledge and experience.

Mr. JAMES HALL: I am speaking from my own knowledge too. I know a local board in the north of England-a very small local board-which has a sewage farm that does all that is necessary for the disposal of the sewage, and pays its way with a penny rate in aid. I think that is about as reasonable as you can expect. With respect to Mr. Jerram's remarks about the Oxford tramways, I should just like to make one suggestion. I think if the Corporation came to Stockton and saw the steam trams, they would find they were handicapped by not adopting steam. The gradients in the two towns are very similar, although we have some a little worse than any of those in Oxford, and it is found that steam trams are most economical. On humanitarian grounds, I regret the cruelty which must occur in working horse tramways, but which is entirely obviated by employing steam.

Mr. PARKER: The last speaker has gone into the financial aspect of the matter to some extent. I find that the total cost of the works has been 83,0007., and that the annual cost of pumping is 10007. Mr. Hall has spoken of a town in the north-I did not hear precisely where—which has a sewage farm that is being managed for a penny rate. That must be a very favourably circumstanced town indeed. The repayment of the principal and the interest on the capital expended on the Oxford works, at 31⁄2 per cent., repayable in fifty years, would represent an annual outlay of 32807. which the 10007. for pumping would increase to 42807. This at all events will have to be paid for the next fifty years. Then we come to the profit-or rather, I should say, the adverse balance of the farm; because there is only 5457. to be placed to its credit. That only represents about 10s. an acre. A sewage farm is undoubtedly the best and most satisfactory method of dealing with the sewage of towns; and the effluent water we saw going into the river to-day showed most gratifying results had been obtained. I do not know what the rateable value of Oxford is, but I think it would be interesting to this meeting if the President stated what the cost of the sewage farm is in the pound. On the whole I congratulate you on the success of the sewage farm, and more particularly on the satisfactory character of the effluent water.

Colonel JONES: May I be permitted, as a visitor, to thank the President for the pleasure he has afforded us on our visit to Oxford? I agree entirely with Mr. Pritchard as to the excellence of these works, which I had the privilege of seeing during their construction. The pumping engine is a pleasure to look at, and it works admirably. I do not wish to criticise the sewage farm adversely, but I have already said in public that local boards and corporations do not generally succeed in the management of sewage farms. There are too many cooks, and you know that "too many cooks spoil the broth."

Dr. ACKLAND: Mr. President and Gentlemen-I am much obliged to you for giving to a visitor, who is only here by your permission, an opportunity of saying a very few words. First of all I would thank you, as an old resident in Oxford, for coming to this city, and I do so perhaps with somewhat deeper feeling than may be obvious, at all events, to the younger Members of your Association. I have been in Oxford quite long enough to have seen it first of all a model in a good many things of what unquestionably a thoroughly badly arranged place might be; and I think I could

show by quite certain evidence, not within the recollection of any Oxford resident but myself, by diagrams, and otherwise-for I have had drawings made of these eccentricities-that it was as bad as it possibly could be in sanitary matters, and for house-water supply and sewers, even in the hospital to which I was attached, for thirty years before the destruction of some of these things which it was my great privilege and happiness to have destroyed. I took carefully prepared drawings, to show how bad the sanitary arrangements of our wards could be, under the very eyes, as it were, of persons specially appointed by the country to see things otherwise. This is one thing I have seen in my working life; but I have to-day heard something else. I have heard gentlemen from various parts of England, Members of this Association, say that they have had much satisfaction in seeing the work done here in these directions as well as it can be done. I should have thought it extremely impertinent in me to have expressed in your presence any opinion on this point; but I thankfully echo the opinion which has been expressed from so many parts of the country by yourselves, and I am glad that I shall be able to quote the authority of this important meeting. Any observations which I might make on this subject would not possess that authority which it will have in your names. I will not venture to detain you, but there is one thing I thought would almost justify me in asking you to be allowed to say something. After the interesting observations I have heard to-day respecting Reading, I should have liked to have had permission to say a word, and I should not have contradicted the speakers who attacked the works there. I think it would not be right, in the presence of so many persons actively engaged in engineering operations, requiring the highest intelligence, and essentially a progressive department of engineering science, if I were not to point out to you that this is not a matter merely as regards Oxford, or a matter solely as regards Mr. White our engineer, but it has something to do with the opinion of the whole country. I will mention only two names, the one a colleague almost of my own, and the other had just taken his degreee before I came to Oxford as an undergraduate-Lord Salisbury and Mr. Gladstone. They were students here, and would carry away with them into the country and the Legislature their opinions concerning what was good for a hospital and good for a town, and it was no trifling matter that young men should be educated in this place with an altogether faulty and ignorant estimate of what was due to

the country in their conception of this subject. I therefore felt it to be something of a duty to address you, for the expression of your opinion will justify me in saying, when I send students here intended for the medical profession, Go to Mr. White, who will show you through these works, which will be a sort of standard for you. I assure you, when I first endeavoured to instruct myself on matters of this sort, more than thirty years ago, the only thing it was then in my power to show was what ought not to be done. This is useful in some respects; but it is far better and a much more pleasing task to be able to show, in the town where one lives, what can be done to show one thing more: how by a quiet, modest, manly perseverance by one person, trusted by his fellow citizens, these things can be carried out, under great disadvantages. There is probably no person in this room-certainly not Mr. White-who knows of the sharp contests we used to have in this very room in 1848, the cholera year, to get any attention paid to this subject either by the authorities of the town or the University. Now, in the very same place, I hear you congratulate Mr. White and Oxford on the position in which it is now placed with respect to Sanitary matters, by your President. I regret I was not able to be present yesterday, but now I have great pleasure in thanking you for the words of encouragement you give to us all, through one of your brethren, and that his work, in endeavouring to create a healthy public opinion concerning Sanitation, meets with the approbation of that profession to which I believe you are all devoted. Such an Association as this, no one knows better than yourselves, was not so much as dreamed of twenty years ago. I therefore add my respectful testimony to the value of your labours, and my thanks as a resident of Oxford, for the approval that you have given to Mr. White's work.

The PRESIDENT: It seems a very strange thing to say, but I really should have been disappointed had there been no criticism at all. I am none the less grateful nevertheless to Mr. Angell and other Members of the Association, for the eulogy they have passed on my work. Still I feel there must necessarily be some parts which are more or less imperfect, and which, if I had to do them again, I should do differently. You have, however, been extremely merciful in your criticism, so far as you have gone. As regards the remark made by Mr. Jones, respecting the way in which the works are maintained, I should say that the greater part of the credit is due to the man on the spot-the engineer who has charge

H

of them, at the pumping station. He erected those engines for the company he then represented, and takes a pride in them, and keeps them as well as a man might be supposed to attend to his children. Mr. Gordon referred to the section of the outfall sewer and the peculiar mode of construction to resist the action of the subsoil water. I feel proud that a gentleman of Mr. Gordon's standing in our profession should have thought that system worth a trial, and also that he found it equally successful. Mr. Platt asked that some of the drawings might be reduced, and published in the Transactions of the Association. I shall be very glad to do anything in that way of which the Council and Secretary may approve, and I should be glad if, before he leaves, Mr. Platt will point out the drawings to which he refers. Mr. Platt also asked the cost of pumping per 1000 gallons one foot high. I stated in my paper the cost of pumping annually, but in making the calculation for the purpose of answering Mr. Platt's question, it is necessary to make a little deduction from the sum named, 10007. That includes the wages of the man who regulates the valves on the farm, also coal supplied to the two houses, oil for lighting them, and some other similar items. But if everything be included which is fairly chargeable-fuel, lubricants, wages, repairs, fittings, &c.-the cost would work out to about 4 of a penny for pumping to the full height. This should be taken at 54 feet, and then Mr. Platt's question is readily answered. The cost for pumping 1000 gallons one foot high would be the 54th part of 4 of a penny.

Mr. JERRAM: What do you allow for friction in the mains ? The PRESIDENT: When one engine is working, the resistance due to friction in main is equal to 23 feet "loss of head," and when the two engines are working, the "loss of head" is 33 feet. This is nearly double the theoretical "loss of head." (With both engines running, the increased velocity puts on another 10 feet of resistance, and makes 33 feet "loss of head" due to friction.) Mr. Jerram asked, who looked after us at the sewage pumping station with regard to the action of the sewage overflow. I can only say we are looked after very sharply both there and on the sewage farm. There is a resident Inspector of the Thames Conservancy Board, who is also an engineer by profession, and therefore well qualified to look after this matter, and on the whole he is very well satisfied with our behaviour. It cannot be denied that, when a sudden storm comes down in the night, or even in the day, with only one engine going, there is a slight overflow,