John Thwaites, Esquire, called in; and Examined. 1. Chairman.] YOU are Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works? J. Thwaites, Esq. I am. 2. How long have you presided at that Board?--Four years and a half. 3. Were you a member of the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers before the establishment of this Board?-Yes. 4. And you have been long intimately acquainted with the metropolis?— Yes. 5. Have you paid particular attention to its drainage?—I have paid some attention to it. 6. What portion of the main drainage work is now in hand?-The portion now under contract is the northern high level sewer from Hampstead to the River Lea; the amount of that contract is 152,430 l. The next is the southern high level sewer, the branch from Clapham Common and Dulwich to Deptford; amount of contract, 217,000 l. Then there is the southern outfall sewer, from Deptford to Crossness Point; amount of contract, 300,000 l. Also the middle level sewer, from Kensall Green to Old Ford; amount of contract, 264,533 l. Also the Acton branch, a part of the westerm division, from Acton to Notting Hill; amount of contract, 8,850 l. Then there is Ranelagh Storm Overflow, across Hyde Park; amount of contract, 23,000l. Those are all the contracts let at this moment. 7. What will be the next section undertaken?-The northern branch of the low level sewer on the south side of the Thames, the estimated cost of which is 60,000 l. 8. How do you propose to deal with the northern low level sewer?—There are two courses open to the Board; one to carry it along the Strand and Fleetstreet, and the other along the foreshore of the river. 9. How long would it take to complete, if carried along the streets?—I will give the line which it would take along the streets, from the Ranelagh Sewer, Grosvenor-row, Queen's-road, Chelsea, along Queen-street, Belgrave-place, the Victoria-street Sewer, to Charing Cross, along the Strand, Fleet-street, Crescent-place, Great and Little Carter-lane, Cannon-street, East Cheap, Tower Hill, and thence to Brook-street, along the Commercial-road, to Three Millslane, and under the River Lea to near Abbey Mills: the estimated cost of that is 221,000 l. 5 June 1860. J. Thwaites, Esq. 5 June 1860. 10. What would be the effect upon the traffic in the streets during the operation of carrying out this sewer?-If carried along the Strand? 11. Yes. Undoubtedly the inconvenience to the inhabitants would be great, as well as the interruption to the general traffic. very 12. How long do you think it would take to make?-About two years. 13. What would be the effect upon the older houses during the carrying out of the scheme?-There would undoubtedly be some danger in carying a large sewer through a narrow street, but not to the extent which one has heard expressed in the House of Commons and elsewhere, for instance, that Somerset House or St. Paul's would be let down. It would require very great care in the construction of the sewer past heavy buildings, and that care would involve a peculiar mode of construction, and greatly increase the cost. 14. Perhaps you do not know the dimensions of the sewer?-The engineer will give you those particulars. 15. But in carrying out this sewer as you describe, must not all the part below the Strand be drained back again from the river edge, in order to be carried away, and would not that be rather a difficult, uncertain, and expensive operation ?—Yes; some of those sewers must be reversed, certainly. 16. Would not they all require to be reversed?—Yes; I apprehend a line would be carried along the foreshore, or rather as near as possible, to take up the mouths of those sewers at the outfall, to discharge them into the main line. 17. There would be a double line of sewers, one along the Strand, and another in front of the river, to be carried back again to the same sewer?Yes. 18. What advantage, in respect of drainage, would result by combining the sewer with the embankment of the Thames -The foreshore of the river is undoubtedly the proper place for the intercepting sewer. You would get rid of the objection to which you have referred, in having to reverse the subsidiary lines of sewers; and could take up the whole sewage that flows into the river without any additional expense. 19. Your Board is charged with the improvement of the thoroughfares of the metropolis ?—Yes. 20. With respect to the main traffic coming from east to west, what steps have your Board taken already for dealing with the improvement of the thoroughfares?-We have now three streets in course of formation; Victoriapark approach; a new street in Covent-garden; and one in Southwark. The one in Southwark, from High-street to the end of Stamford-street, would undoubtedly afford some relief to the crowded state of London-bridge, and also to the crowded condition of Cheapside. Much of the northern traffic from the railway stations at London Bridge would pass along that new street, over Blackfriars Bridge, to the northern railways, instead of over London Bridge and through Cheapside. The inconvenience at present felt by the narrow irregular formation of Union-street getting constantly blocked up would be partly removed. 21. That relief would only exist to a moderate extent with respect to Fleet-street and the Strand-I do not know that it would affect Fleet-street or the Strand. I think it would affect Cheapside. A very large portion of the traffic would pass over Blackfriars Bridge instead of over London Bridge; therefore, Fleet-street and the Strand would be subjected to the same traffic as now. 22. Have you had any estimate for widening those thoroughfares?-Our attention has been called to Cheapside and the Poultry. We have had a rough estimate for widening the Poultry. I think it was something like 643,600 ĭ. ; it is a very short street, and would give very little return. l. 23. In improving streets, the recouping does not form a great item in some cases, while in others it may, perhaps, be very large ?-On an average, I should say that the net loss in the formation of a street would be about 50 per cent. 24. Is that generally the loss; do you remember the loss upon Cannonstreet? I do not remember the loss upon Cannon-street; it will necessarily vary; in some cases it will be very much higher; in house property, for example, where you would set back, and have very little to re-let. 25. Through Southwark, where you come through a poor class of property, what will be the loss?—I apprehend about 50 per cent. 26. Would 26. Would the roadway over your low level sewer at all impede its utility, J. Thwaites, Esq. supposing it carried along the foreshore of the river?-Not at all. 27. Would it interfere with the bridges at all?—I think not. 28. But that is rather an engineering question ?—Yes. 29. Have you considered the effect of the embankment on wharf property? -I think from the evidence that I have read, and the various schemes that I have examined, that an embankment might be adopted, which would rather improve than injure wharf property. 30. Have you given considerable attention to that subject?—I have. 31. And various plans have been brought before you?—Yes. 32. The Charing Cross Railway Company purchased a large amount of property at Hungerford Market for the use of stations; will the embankment afford facilities for giving the accommodation required there ?-If Hungerford Market is to be made into a terminal station, and especially for more lines than one, they will undoubtedly require a very much larger area than they possess now. 33. And would there be great facilities offered by the embankment for that purpose?—The ground secured from the river would offer facilities for lengthening the station. 34. There is a large amount of mud bank at present existing between Westminster and Waterloo Bridges, by which there is no useful purpose served, but which is in fact a nuisance?-They are considered to be, and no doubt they are a very great nuisance. 35. What has been the general tenor of the evidence in the possession of your Board as to the effect of those mud banks on the public health, and the condition of the river ?-The general tenor of the evidence in the possession of our Board is decidedly against the continuance of those mud banks, the Board believing them to be most injurious to the public health. All the reports end with a recommendation that something should be done to remove them. 36. Has the Metropolitan Board any jurisdiction over the river?--None whatever. 37. How far does its jurisdiction extend; how near to the river-Only to the bank; over the bed of the river we have no jurisdiction. 38. You can only act in co-operation with the Conservancy Board of the Thames and the Admiralty?—That is so. 39. Are you aware whether your Board entertain any idea of undertaking this work? The attention of the Metropolitan Board has been directed to the construction of the low level sewer, and having regard to the difficulties of the construction of that line along the Strand and Fleet-street their attention has been directed to the foreshore of the river, and necessarily therefore to the question of the Thames embankment. The matter was referred to a committee with power to communicate with the Thames Conservancy Board, the Admiralty, and the Government. A deputation waited upon the Thames Conservancy Board, and in answer to the communication then made we received this letter, signed E. Burstall: "Sir,-Referring to the communication made by a deputation from the Main Drainage Committee of the Metropolitan Board of Works to the Conservators of the River Thames at their meeting on the 31st October last, on the subject of the embankment of the north shore of the river from Scotland-yard to London Bridge as a means of facilitating the construction of the proposed low level sewer, I am directed to inform you that the question has received their full consideration, and to state that (in the absence of definite plans of the embankment, and regarding only the line of sewer as shown on the plan and longitudinal section supplied by your engineer) the Conservators do not object to an embankment on the north shore between Scotland-yard and Queenhithe Dock, provided such be constructed, with reference to extent and direction, to their satisfaction. Referring to a further inquiry made by the deputation, 'whether the Conservators could assist in providing the necessary funds,' I am to state, in reply thereto, that regarding the formation of the embankment as being beneficial to the river, they will be willing to consider whether the value of the portion of the reclaimed land, to which they are entitled, may not with propriety be devoted towards defraying the cost of the work. Beyond this, the Conservators have no funds at their disposal applicable to the purpose." 5 June 1860. J. Thwaites, Esq. 5 June 1860. 40. What revenues are there at present at the command of your Board?— The only revenue at present at the command of our Board is that which results from rates upon the inhabitants. 41. What sum do you raise annually from that source?-We shall this year raise for the main drainage 150,535 l. 13s. 9 d.; for the ordinary current expenses of the Board, including repaying the mortgage debt, 132,087 l. 12 s. 4 d.; making in all, 282,623 l. 6 s. 1 d. 42. Is the whole of that sum available for use?-No; a portion of the latter amount is for repayment of the mortgage debt. 43. What are your chief heads of expenditure?—There was also another expense thrown upon the metropolis; the duties of the Metropolitan Building Office being transferred, the cost, about 5,000 l., would have to be added to the expenses of the Metropolitan Board, by reason of the abolition of that office. 44. What debts did you inherit from the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers-The debt on the 1st of January 1856, when the Board came into power, was 428,689 l. 14 s. 7 d. 45. Your rate, then, is a sewer's rate, which is essentially a landlord's tax? -Yes. 46. Do you reach the tenants as well?--No. 47. Do the freeholders pay in any way?-Those freeholders will pay who do not covenant with their tenants to pay the sewer's rate, and who let their property by the year or quarter; all freeholders who are in the habit of calling upon the tenant to pay all rates, taxes, or dues whatever now imposed, or hereafter to be imposed, do escape payment of the sewer's rate, and it falls upon the tenants. 48. The whole incidence of the metropolitan taxation does not fall upon the beneficial interest ?--Yes, that is so. 49. And your main drainage rate is raised in the same way?-Yes. 50. What is the annual amount ?-£. 150,535. 13. 9. 51. For how long would that be raised ?-Forty years is the time specified in the Act; but from the increased value of property, I should apprehend it would not last longer than 30 years, if so long. 52. Will the reversioners inherit all those magnificent works without having contributed anything ?-Clearly; those freeholders to whom I have referred just now will inherit them in that way. 53. Can you suggest any plan by which they can be reached ?—I think if the same system of collection and charge were adopted in respect to the sewers rate as in respect of the property tax, so that all parties interested would pay in proportion to the interest they might have in any house or property, it would be much more equitable than the present system. Ground landlords would pay in that case in proportion to the rents they receive, and beneficial lessees in the same proportion. 54. What is the value of the property assessed under Schedule (A.) for income tax in the metropolis and the metropolitan counties?-£. 22,385,350. 55. What is the assessment of the United Kingdom under the same schedule? -£. 127,994,288; the proportion contributed by the metropolis being 17 per cent. 56. Mr. Tite.] That is on rental?-Yes, assessment on lands and heredi taments. 57. Chairman.] What is the amount of the property tax charged in the metropolis ?-Under Schedule (D.) the figure for the metropolis is 37,871,644 l. as contrasted with the figure for the United Kingdom, which is 89,198,950 l. ; the metropolis being 31 per cent. of the whole of the United Kingdom. 58. What is the proportion of the rateable value to the poor for the whole rate?-The metropolis will of course include that part of East Surrey, East Kent, and Middlesex, which cannot be excluded. The gross estimated rental is 16,157,320 l.; in the United Kingdom it is 86,077,676 l.; the metropolis being about 18 per cent. of the whole. 59. Do you find any difficulty in raising money for metropolitan purposes?— We certainly do. 60. Can you give any other amount raised for Imperial purposes in the metropolis; take the Customs, for example:-The amount collected by the Customs Customs for the United Kingdom is 24,155,852 l., the amount collected in the J. Thwaites, Esq. metropolis is 12,332,061 . Rather more than one-half the whole amount collected by the Customs is collected in London. 61. What public works have been executed in the metropolis at the cost of the Imperial exchequer during the last 20 years?-I find, by a reference to the Appropriation Acts, that the following sums have been voted for works :--For Battersea Park, from 1853 to 1856, 104,902 7.; Chelsea Bridge, 29,500 l.; the embankment between Vauxhall and Battersea Bridges, 130,753 l.; entrance to St. James's Park, 4,500 l.; bridge in St. James's Park, 3,500 l.; Pimlico improvements, 27,810.; Westminster Bridge, 174,429 l.; approaches to Westminster Bridge, 40,000 l.: making a total sum of 515,394 l. 62. That is within the last 20 years?-Yes. 63. Can you give the Committee any idea of the amount of Imperial contributions to other than metropolitan works?-I find from the same source that, since the year 1840, Parliament has voted sums varying from 175,000l. to 467,000l. annually, making a sum of 6,003,779 l. for purposes of a kindred nature to that of the embankment of the Thames. 64. Will you be good enough to mention some of them?-Port Patrick Harbour, for example, 96,607 l., Donaghadee 25,298 l., Kingstown 314,267 l., Churches in the West Indies 6,000 ., Milford Haven Pier 8,000 ., Roads and Harbours, Howth and Holyhead, 1,275,785 l., Rideau and Ottawa Canals 201,713 7., Buildings at Liverpool 25,000 7., Improving Water Communication Lake Erie to Lake Ontario 358,500 l., Inland Navigation 2,650 l., Employment of Poor in Ireland 40,000 l., Dunmore Harbour 17,500 ., Roads in Galway 18,000 l., Building Churches in Scotland 1,544 l., Pier at Hobbs Point 14,551 l., Improvement of Shannon 27,147 l., Caledonian Canal 290,000 l., Public Walks 5,000 l., Townland Survey, Ireland, 50,000 l., Harbours of Refuge 2,556,000 l., Navigation Works, Ireland, 76,073 l., Works, Isle of Man, 4,050 l., Drainage, Ireland, 33,000l., Lybster Harbour, Scotland, 6,000l., Inverness Bridge 10,700., Menai Straits 6,000 l., Highland Roads 5,000 l., Newhaven Harbour 5,000 l., Crinan Canal 12,000 l., and other small sums, making in all a total of 6,003,7791. And taking the average per-centage of Imperial revenue raised in the metropolis, it would appear that the metropolis has contributed towards this six millions, no less than 1,651,038 l. I have read the amount expended on the metropolis, which has been principally expended in the parks and in building Westminster Bridge, which is part of the general design for the Palaces; that amount is about 515,000 l.; while the metropolis has contributed towards the above total about 1,651,000 7. [The Witness handed in a statement of the same, voted by Parliament for Public Works, as stated in the Appropriation Acts.] 65. Sir John Pakington.] That is the contingent of the metropolis towards the Imperial revenue?—Yes. 66. How is that ascertained?—I previously stated that the metropolis contributed about 27 per cent. of the taxation, taking the property and income tax. 67. Chairman.] Is that for the last 20 years?-No, taking the last return. I was about to give, for the information of the Committee, some figures which I obtained from a return made to Parliament by the Customs. In the ports of London the gross amount of duty collected in 1858 was 12,332,061 l.; at the port of Liverpool it was 3,622,503 l.; at other ports in England it was 3,669,395 l.; at ports in Scotland it was 2,266,440 l.; at Ports in Ireland it was 2,265,453 l. making in all 24,155,852 l. 5 June 1860 Vide Appendix. [The Witness handed in a General Summary, showing the gross amount of Vide Appendix. Customs duty for 1858.] 68. Lord John Manners.] The Committee understand that you do not take into your calculation the figures you have just read referring to the Customs? -No. 69. Sir John Pakington.] I understand you that these figures represent the amount of Customs duties collected in different parts of England?—Yes. 70. They give no information as to the amount of Customs paying goods consumed in different parts of England?-No. |