| No. 1 Rough Contact Bed. | No. 3 Rough Contact Bed. | |||
| Dates. | Gallons. | Dates. | Gallons. | |
| Original water capacity after putting in the coke | 1897. October 1 | 83,300 | 1898. Nov. 21 | 51,800 |
| After experiment | 1899. May 6 | 22,700 | 1900. March 10 | 14,700 |
| Duration of each of above experiments and loss in gallons | 19 months | 60,600 | 25½ mths. | 37,100 |
| Loss in percentage of original capacity | 73 per cent. | 71 per cent. | ||
| No. 5 Rough Contact Bed. | No. 7 Single Contact Bed. | |||
| Dates. | Gallons. | Dates. | Gallons. | |
| Original water capacity after putting in the coke | 1899. Feb. 28 | 53,100 | 1899. March 24 | 75,000 |
| After experiment | 1900. June 1 | 13,200 | 1900. October 20 | 21,600 |
| Duration of each of above experiments and loss in gallons | 15 months | 39,900 | 7 months | 34,100 |
| Loss in percentage of original capacity | 75 per cent. | 61 per cent. | ||
| No. 8 Single Contact Bed. | ||
| Dates. | Gallons. | |
| Original water capacity after putting in the coke | 1899. March 23 | 29,500 |
| After experiment | 1900. June 1 | 9,800 |
| Duration of each of above experiments and loss in gallons | 14 months | 19,700 |
| Loss in percentage of original capacity | 67 per cent. | |
N.B.—The average duration of the above experiments was 14 months, and average loss of capacity about 70 per cent. original water capacity in that period.—A. S. J.
Wrexham sewage farm.
At Wrexham, in North Wales, I had nineteen years’ management of about 150 acres of good land, with a mixed residential and manufacturing sewage of some 15,000 population, with large breweries and leather works. The owner of this land at the termination of lease asked so exorbitant a price for the improved freehold, that the corporation decided to sacrifice the sewage works on his land, and to carry out a scheme of mine for carrying the outfall sewer two miles further to a site of 200 acres, which they could acquire on reasonable terms in the year 1889.
During my management there was no trouble about the effluent, although it was carefully watched by the authorities of the city of Chester, which takes its water supply from the river Dee, some twelve miles below my late farm; and the fact that the scheme which took the Wrexham sewage two miles nearer to the Chester waterworks intake was carried out unopposed is, I think, strong evidence of well-founded confidence in the efficiency of land treatment where the public have the opportunity of observing such results. It is easy to get up a case with expert evidence against any sewage scheme where the land-owners, clergy and others have no means of properly informing themselves, and have a prejudice against sewage which it is very difficult to overcome except by giving the utmost possible publicity to the truth.
The Camp Farm, Aldershot.
Of late years, while working for the War Department, I have found it expedient to be more reticent, but the Camp Farm restoration has in one way or another become known to the public, and there can be no great harm in my now referring to the circumstances as neither martial law nor a censorship has yet been proclaimed in Hampshire.
When Aldershot Camp was first hutted, soon after the Crimean War, a certain Colonel Ewart, R.E., had imbibed true ideas of the separate system through his association with the work of the late Mr. Menzies, the Deputy Ranger of Windsor Forest, who preached and practised that system in the drainage of Windsor Castle and the town of Eton at a time when every other civil engineer scouted the possibility of keeping rain or subsoil water out of foul sewers—they said it was essential for flushing their big sewers.