Ninth Meeting: 9th January, 1889. W. M. Maskell, F.R.M.S., President, in the chair. New Members.—H. Taperell, W. Herbert, H. W. Robinson, and George Denton.

Papers.—1. “A Note in reference to a Paper which appeared in Vol. xx. of the ‘Transactions,’ on ‘Gravitation,’” by T. Wakelin, M.A. Abstract. Lord Grimthorpe says that he copied the figures as for an iron jar from a well-known paper by Baily, P.R.H.S., who gave 6·8in. as height of mercury for glass jar. He subsequently worked out Baily's paper, and found a great mistake, which he says he has corrected in the new edition of the “Encyclopædia Britannica.” This, however, is a mistake: the figures 6·8in. are uncorrected. The height should be 8½in. to 9in. 2. “On Sanitary Sewerage,” by H. P. Higginson, M.Inst.C.E. (Transactions, p. 369.) Mr. Maxwell considered that one of the chief merits of this scheme over others that had been proposed was that it would obviate the necessity of having contour-sewers at great depth, passing through private property, and causing great inconvenience and expense; and another advantage was that the ejectors could be placed in duplicate. Sir J. Hector had always favoured this scheme. It dealt with what was absolutely necessary, and nothing more. There were, comparatively speaking, no gases given off as in the old system, and the drains were self-cleansing, and did not require to wait for a flood to wash them out. The perfect tightness of the drains was also a great recommendation, and the ease with which they could be laid without going to any great depth. It was a pity more information as to comparative cost had not been given. He had explained this system to the engineers in Melbourne, where it seemed unknown, and in which city the drainage was very imperfect. Mr. Hughes did not think the cost of this system would be so much less as at first appeared, as there would have to be a separate system for surface-drainage. He was doubtful whether the houses would be entirely free from the return gas, as stated. The Hon. R. Pharazyn did not think gas would escape. The separate drains for rain would not be expensive. This system seemed to have great advantages over, and to do away with many objections to, old drainage-plans. There would be no difficulty in procuring information as to the cost of establishing such a system in Wellington. The thanks of the public were due to Mr. Higginson for this practical paper. Mr. Richardson thought it would be a good plan to try this scheme on a small scale before finally deciding as to its merits. He thought it would answer admirably. Mr. Higginson, in reply to Mr. Maxwell, stated that the “Shone” system, applied to Wellington, would avoid the annoyance and expense attendant upon interference with private properties, as the sewers could be constructed entirely upon the street-lines. Mr. Clark's high-level contour-sewer, which for the greater part of its length passed through private land, would entail a heavy outlay for compensation. In answer to Sir James Hector, the author said it was now accepted as a fact that the “separate” system enabled the size of the sewers to be properly proportioned, and avoided the necessity for constructing huge brick sewers in order to carry off an exceptional rainfall, the result being that in dry weather the flowing contents were represented by a