THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD. TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1872.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 180, 7 May 1872, Page 2

THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD. TUESDAY , MAY 7, 1872.

We presume that the visit of the “ Under-Secretary of the Goldfields Department of public works,” —a rather long sounding title—is being brought to a close. Yesterday there was a meeting of battery managers and others interested in public works on the goldfield, to confer with the Under- Secretary on the subject of water supply—the ostensible object of Mr Haughton’s presence at the Thames. A full report will be found in another place, by which it will be seen that considerable discussion took place. The result was that a resolution was passed recommending a low level scheme, at a cost of £37,000, which it is said |will give seven million gallons every twenty-four hours, the value of which, at twopence per thousand gallons, would he £18,258 per annum. By this calculation the outlay will he repaid in about three years. We cannot help feeling considerable doubt whether the Government really intends to spends |one single penny on a water supply at the Thames. Mr Haugliton, we have no doubt, will forward a report to the Government, and there we believe the matter will rest, unless our representatives in Parliament, or rather our representative, for we have only one, can bring pressure to bear on the powers that be. There is one thing in our favour, our solitary representative happens to be an engineer who has the reputation of being skilled in hydraulic undertakings. He is, however, unless we are much mistaken, in favour of a much more comprehensive scheme than that recommended, viz., the high-level scheme, which certainly does appear to us to be the best, and it is certainly the most extensive. The old motto of “ cheap and nasty ” perhaps might be applied to the water works as well as many other undertakings. If, however, the Thames people cannot get the larger [scheme, they will gladly take the less as an installment if they can get it. As we have said, our principal fear is that we shall get no supply at all beyond the humble “ squirts ” in the shape of pipes, which are already laid down. If we are mistaken, we shall be agreeably disappointed. An adequate water supply on this field could not fail to increase its prosperity, and be ultimately highly remunerative ; but as there are so many conflicting opinions as to which is the best scheme, and as to the amount of water which would be consumed, and as to the quantity each creek would give, we very much fear that the Government will take advantage of this difference of opinion, and simply do nothing .more than receive the report of the Secretary, lay it before the House, have a debate upon it perhaps, and shelve it indefinitely if they are able, as most likely they will be. They will have plenty of calls before long for their money, and if the Thames gets its fair share it is more than it has ever got before. At the meeting yesterday Mr Grove stated that Mr Goodall, whose opinion is entitled to considerable weight on such a subject, had stated that the low level scheme was a farce, and that Mr O’Neill was in favour of the high level. Between these two stools, the high and the low, we expect we shall come to the ground. It may be, of course, that we are mistaken, and if we are, we can only say we shall be very glad. At a meeting on such an important subject as that under discussion yesterday, we should have expected to see every leading - citizen present, as it is a question which concerns us all, but, from a

perusal of the names, it will be seen how few comparatively were present. This is another point which the Government can take advantage of,' by saying that it showed apathy,*as it undoubtedly did. What with the apathy and want of unanimity on the subject, our prospect of an adequate water supply being supplied at the hands of the Government is, in our opinion, somewhat remote. In this case, as in all others, unity is strength, and there certainly has not been anything like unanimity of opinion expressed. We must try to get what we can out of the Government in the matter of this water supply, and bo thankful for small mercies. We have already had official visits from Mr O’Neill, Mr Carruthers, Mr Blackett, and others in reference to this question, and it still remains in statu quo. If Mr Haughton’s advent alters the position of affairs we shall be greatly surprised, and cordially own hat we have been agreeably mistaken.