View report page

113
We may now turn to the consideration of the recommendations
of the conference of the surveyors and engineers,
which, together with the report on the conference, was
referred to the Sanitary Committee, who approved the first
and third recommendations* which, in effect, aim at securing,
by multiplication of surface ventilators and upcast shafts,
the desideratum already specified, viz., the flooding of the
free space in sewers with fresh air. It is a question whether
this object might not be more effectually accomplished by the
method of Mr. Parker's expired patent, which is alleged to
secure the admission of air to the sewers by the elevated
shafts (inlets), the surface openings acting mainly as outlets.
The subject is, perhaps, still one for experiment; and for experiment
on the lines indicated by Mr. Parker, no better field
could be desired than the Council's Counter's Creek sewer
in this parish. But the Sanitary Committee recommended,
and it was resolved—
"(a) That the Council be requested to adopt the remedy
for sewer emanations advocated by their Main
Drainage Committee, and supported by the Engineers
and Surveyors in the Metropolis, in respect of the
Counter's Creek Sewer in this parish, numerous
complaints having been received, from parishioners
and the sanitary inspectors, of offensive smells from
sewer ventilators in streets in the line of the said
sewer.
*The Committee disagreed with recommendation 2 and expressed the
opinion, "That the proper system to secure the efficient circulation of fresh
air in the sewers would be by the abolition of all intercepting traps, and the
ventilation of the drain of each house by means of a pipe to be erected at
the front, side, or rear of the same, and that where the intercepting trap is insisted
upon, then a ventilating pipe should be carried up from the sewer side of the
interceptor." Whatever the value of the above opinion, it is obvious that the
system of ventilation suggested does not admit of general application in a London
district.