WESTWARD HO! – THE DRAINAGE QUESTION: On Monday afternoon a lively but extremely erratic meeting of the Drainage Committee and the inhabitants of Westward Ho! was held Adams’s Baths, for the purpose of taking into consideration the drainage question, and of adopting the best scheme for carrying out the same. General Hutchinson was called to the chair, and there were also present — the Rev. I H. Gosset, (vicar of Northam,) Colonel Wheeler, Captain Molesworth, Dr. Hemmings, Mr. Pynsent, Mr. Price. Mr. Sangster. Mr. Ellis, Mr. Prior. Mr. Adams, Mr. Henderson, Sergeant Murray, Mr. Beer, Mr. Mill, Mr. Cawsey, and Mr. Bazeley (honourary summoning offices). Mr. Bazeley opened the proceeding by stating that that meeting had been called to consider the amended plans of Mr. Ellis (of Exeter) for draining to the eastward, in accordance with a letter read from the Clerk to the Northam Local Board to obtain the views of habitants of the district upon the subject. An amended report had been received from Mr. Ellis, but the amended plan to which that report referred had not come to hand. He had two in his possession at the present time, but they did not tally with the report. He had that morning been to the offices of Messrs. Hole and Peard solicitors, Bideford, and was there informed that the two plans were to be taken together; but it was his opinion that there “was a third, for he did not see how the report could correspond with the others. Mr. Pynsent enquired why it was that several gentlemen including two of the largest farmers of the district had not been summoned to attend the meeting. Mr. Bazeley said he hardly knew in what position he stood in regard to the whole question. He had given his services as summoning officer for several years and had received no acknowledgment my kind. If any gentleman had not received notice of the meeting, he was sorry for it, but at the same time he did not think it right that the blame should be cast upon him, for he could not be expected act as errand-boy. Mr. Price said that be represented the largest amount life in the parish, and yet he had never been summoned to attend any of the meetings which had been held to consider the drainage question; He had always been somewhat of an intruder, but they had been kind enough not to kick him out. Mr. Bazeley repeated that it was not his fault that anyone had been passed over and added that it had been the custom for the Secretary at the Hotel Company to call the meeting, and that on that occasion he had requested him to send the notices round. Mr. Pynsent farther said that in 1870 it was decided that the drainage works of Westward should be carried out by a joint committee, consisting of three members connected with the Local Board and three landowners and he complained that they had not been summoned separately. Mr. Bazeley said he had been informed at Mr. Hole’s office that Mr. Pynsent’s name did not appear on the books at all.
Mr. Pynsent said that he was appointed on the committee when the money was nearly all spent. The other day he was summoned by Mr. Hole to attend a meeting of the joint committee at Northam, which was to be held at half-past ten. There was a meeting of the Local Board at eleven o’clock in the same room, and as an official was ten minutes late there were only 20 minutes allowed for the discussion of the subject. As to Mr. Bazeley’s remark that he had never been paid for all the trouble he had taken, he most look to the “obstructives” for it, for he would never get it from the district. Capt. Molesworth said that Mr. Bazeley had never been actually appointed summoning officer: and the Chairman observed that he was sure that the remissness complained of must have arisen from mistake, and not from any dishonourable intention. Mr. Bazeley said he did not think there was any question involved the legality the meeting, for that was not an element of it at all, it being simply held for the purpose of obtaining the views of as many of the ratepayers as possible. The Rev. I. H. Gosset thought that in the absence of the proper documents it would be perfectly futile to go into the question. He had read Mr. Ellis’s amended report carefully and it appeared to him certain that it referred to a plan which had not yet come to hand. But which had evidently been at the office of the Local Government Board. He therefore proposed that the matter be adjourned until Friday, and that the adjournment be notified to Mr. Hole Clerk to the Northam Local Board, with the expression of hope that he would procure the amended plan by that day. Mr. Pynsent protested strongly against the adjournment and denounced the persistent opposition which had been manifested towards the improvement of the drainage of Westward Ho! for nearly two years, for nearly so long ago as that that Mr. Ellis was first called in. He asked what was the state of the Burrows at the present time? Why, in June last the Medical Officer of the Northam Local Board made an examination, when he pronounced that there existed a most dangerous nuisance; and that nuisance had obtained ever since, for at every meeting which had been called with the view remedying it, obstructive policy, has been advocated and supported by some gentlemen.
In June of 1876, the Northam Local Board opened 220 feet of drainage on the Burrows, at which time an action was pending; they opened a new 220 feet, in order to form an open gutter, and it was within a month from that time that the medical officer reported the presence a most dangerous nuisance. The Board also took up pipes which exposed an additional 100 feet of sewage, and then at the end of this there was a natural gulley 198 feet long, and 198 feet long and from six to seven feet in breadth, so that there was at present 580 feet of open sewage drain the Burrow. Then after the sewage passed from the drains, it flowed into two large pools, called the Goosey Pools, the acreage which he could not exactly give, because it depended upon the inroad of the sea and the water which came down from the hills. That was the present of Westward Ho! Captain Molesworth (interjecting): It is not in Westward Ho! Mr. Pynsent: I say it is. We pay no rates, and it is not in the parish of Northam, but in the district of Westward Ho! Captain Molesworth repeated his assertion, when Mr. Pynsent begged to say, subject to the interruption of Captain, that it was composed of lodging-houses, the inhabitants of which had complained greatly of the offensive smell to which they were exposed but had been afraid to say too much because it might injure the reputation of their houses. Continuing his observations at the point which he was interrupted, Mr. Pynsent said that the services of Mr. Ellis were brought into requisition in December 1874, after the things he had been describing had been going on for three years and he, Mr. Ellis, recommended a plan for draining into the sea to the westward, which was violently resisted by an organised opposition. He was quite ready to grant that the people of Westward Ho! might have felt that they had a grievance, for they perhaps feared that the scheme, if carried out, would be prejudicial to their health. But however, that might be, they succeeded in overthrowing it, he and wanted to know why, having carried their point in that instance, they persisted in opposing everything which had been suggested since. Mr. Ellis had since brought forward two other schemes for draining to the eastward, and they, were met by the same spirit of antagonism, which-seemed to have had the effect of suppressing one of the plans. Mr. Gosset solemnly denied that the document had come hand, and said that if it had, he should not have moved for an adjournment.
Mr. Pynsent continuing, read an extract from the report of the directors of the Hotel Company, dated August 1871, in which they congratulated the shareholders on th drainage sewage works having been carried out beyond the Company’s estate. He complained that the nuisance had actually been deposited at other persons’ doors, including his, a cesspool having been made in front of his house. Capt. Molesworth: You are mistaken. Mr. Pvnsent: Indeed, I am not; I can swear to it. Capt. Molesworth: It was your own cesspool. It was there before you came. Mr. Pynsent indignantly re-asserted that his statement was correct and read a letter from a reverend gentleman in which testimony was borne to the extreme offensiveness of the nuisance which arose from the sewage exposed in front of the Pebble Ridge Hotel. Capt. Molesworth: The smell came from your own drains. Mr. Pynsent: I can take my solemn oath it did not. The Chairman here interposed with a suggestion that all were satisfied that the drainage was in a very bad condition, and that what they were met to consider the best means of remedying it: the origin did not signify. Mr. Gosset begged to protest against Mr. Pynsent’s insinuations that he was actuated by any spirit of opposition. It was not a question of obstruction at all, and his sole object in making the proposition on that occasion was because he thought it would be a waste of time to attempt to argue the question out from the documents before them. Mr. Pynsent: What objection is there to Mr. Ellis’s second plan? Mr. Gosset: It was objected to at a previous meeting. Mr. Pynsent: It is prepared by a competent man. Mr. Bazelev: It does not appear that the district is satisfied as to his competency. The plan has been objected to by the landowners and other ratepayers of the district. The amended report of Mr. Ellis was then read by Mr. Bazeley, and it appeared theretofrom that he proposed to carry the sewage to the eastward into the deep part of Goosey Pool, but not to extend it so far as Pimpley, as had been contemplated in plan No. 2. Mr. Wren added his testimony to that of Mr. Gosset and other gentlemen that the report did not refer to either of the plans before the meeting, and he mentioned that the Northam Local Board had had the proper one before them.
Mr. Pynsent produced a bottle nearly fall of a thick black liquid, which he said came from one of the tanks, and grimly invited any gentleman who did not choose to take his word to the offensiveness of the effluvium arising from the tanks to smell or taste the contents of the said bottle — an invitation the generosity of which was evidently not appreciated, for it was not accepted, notwithstanding that Mr. Pynsent repeated it more than once. Dr. Hemming said it was quite certain, from having inspected Mr. Ellis’s plans, that the sewage would have to upon a still higher level than he had recommended. Irrigation had been approved of by Local Boards of late, and that was the only system of deodorisation which he believed to be effective; and in order to ensure its effectiveness the filtration should be deep as possible. If they took sewage to Appledore it must be deodorized before it got there, or else the inhabitants would turn round upon them and compel them to take it elsewhere; and, having taken independent view of the whole question, he believed that both plans should be adopted: id they were able to carry out both, so much the better, and if not they could carry only one them, he would suggest that a Committee be formed of gentlemen who were favourably disposed towards the various schemes, and that the matter be left with them, to construct a system of works which he hoped would give satisfaction to all, interested. He was certainly of opinion that they must have a higher level than that proposed by Mr. Ellis. Mr. Pynsent said that according Mr. Ellis’s second plan the works would cost £579 5s; and by his last plan, which was following the same route, but only going part of the way, the cost would be £375, to meet which there was the sum of £360, which had been in the Bideford Bank since 1870, when it was borrowed for the special use of the Westward Ho! district. He was of opinion that they should carry out the plans before them far they went, and if they were not effective, they could be improved upon. He proposed “That this meeting, after a long discussion, has come, to the determination to recommend that either Mr. Ellis’s second plan of draining to Pimpley, or his amended plan of taking the sewage to Goosey Pool, be carried out, whichever meets with the approval the Local Government Board.”
In reply to the observation that the plans had already been disapproved of, Mr. Pynsent said that the disapproval was only expressed of a point of detail, and not as to the line of route. Capt. Molesworth quite agreed in the observations which had fallen from Dr. Hemmings with reference to irrigation and said that that was the principle which they had always advocated. Mr. Latham proposed scheme of irrigation to the Northam Local Board some years ago, but it was not adopted, and he remembered remarking at the time that either Mr. Pynsent or someone else, would agitate for something being done. The plan of Mr. Latham, who was one of the best engineers in London, was approved of by the Local Government Board and by the Committee of the Local Board, and he wanted to know what reason there was as to why it should not be carried out now. He had been requested to write the Local Government Board, informing that body of the opinion of the inhabitants, and he intended to write them to the effect that they were favourably disposed towards Mr. Latham’s amended plan; that the plans of Mr. Ellis were incomplete, complicated, and expensive, and made no provision for Westward Ho! and that the only scheme which really met the requirements of the district was Mr. Latham’s.
In conclusion, the speaker remarked on the advisability of Westward Ho! having a Local Board of its own and managing its own affairs. Mr. Pynsent expressed himself as being averse to the separation of Westward Ho! from the parish. Mr. Wren, referring to an unpleasant reflection which had been made upon the Northam Local Board, of which he was Chairman, said that they were quite as interested the matter, and equally anxious to deal with it in the most effectual manner, as any gentleman present; but their difficulty was to fix upon the most suitable method of disposing of the sewage; and it must not be forgotten that the responsibility connected with the subject was cast upon them and not upon meetings such that. After Mr. Beer had indulged in quite a variety of forcibly-expressed vituperations against the inefficiency and the prejudices of the Local Board, Mr. Price seconded Mr. Pynsent’s motion, and at his suggestion the motion was altered, as follows “That this meeting has come to the determination to recommend that either Mr. Ellis’s second plan of draining to Pimpley, or his amended plan taking the sewage only to Goosey Pool, be carried out, whichever meets with the approval of the Board; and that if the levels could be taken rather higher it would be still better.” Capt. Molesworth moved as an amendment that Mr. Latham’s plan be adopted, and stated that did so, amongst other reasons, because Mr. Ellis’s scheme did not deal with the lower level houses; that it would necessitate there being a number of cesspool pits on the Burrows, which now caused the effluvium; and that a great deal of building land would not be available for the future drainage of the place. Mr. Beer the amendment, which was supported Mr. Gosset, who said that very recently he was reading a book upon drainage by an influential man, of some years standing, who advised that in all matters of drainage one must endeavour to follow Nature. Nature said as plainly as possible — “Drain in the direction of the pool down into the estuary, and if the fall is not sufficient the only thing you have to do is to increase the outfall.
A good deal of ridicule had been thrown upon the present system of drainage, but he maintained that there was no occasion for it, and if there had been a proper outfall, he believed that it would have answered perfectly. A remark had been made that a large quantity of water from the Burrows would damage the channel; but he was of a different opinion, because why should not the water destroy the pool at the present time? The water would run up a little quicker, but it would scour it and keep it open, and all that would be necessary would be a few occasional repairs. He therefore thought that the way suggested by Nature as the way to be improved upon by Art was to carry the drainage to the eastward into the estuary. He believed that method was agreed to by all parties some years ago, and even the parish of Northam gave its consent, but at the last moment it turned round upon them and threw some obstacles in the way. He looked upon Mr. Ellis’s plans as being, so far as he understood them, miserable plans. He considered the proposal to have a number of disinfecting tanks in the Burrows a despicable one. If it were, necessary to have a disinfecting tank, let; them have one, and let the water go into the deepened pool. It would then be out of the way, but to have a number of them scattered about he looked upon as a simple absurdity. The expense would all fall upon the North Local Board, and he certainly should not recommend that body incur liabilities for which there was no necessity. As to the remark that Mr. Ellis was a good engineer, certainly he had no high opinion of his ability. He had sent them report after report written in bad English and failing to explain himself all; and could only say that had never seen such reports turned out of any one’s office. They had apparently been copied by a clerk, who had not taken the trouble to punctuate them, so as to make them legible. Mr. Pynsent protested against a man of Mr. Ellis’s ability and experience being spoken of in such terms as those employed by the reverend gentleman; when Capt. Molesworth denied Mr. Ellis’s title to be called a man of experience, and said he was only a mason. Mr. Pynsent again raised his protest, and Mr. Price said that they had seen enough of Mr. Ellis know that he was a man of ability.
Mr. Price made the following addendum to the motion of which he was seconder: “And that the plan of tanks be modified according to the suggestion of the Local Government Board.” The amendment was then put to the meeting and carried, the-voting being as follows: For: The Chairman, Rev. I. H. Goseett, Col Wheeler, Capt. Molesworth, Dr. Hemmings, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Prior, Mr, Adams, Mr, Henderson, Mr. Beer, Mr. Bazeley, and Sergt. Murray: Against — Mr. Pynsent, Mr. Price, Mr. Sangster, Mr. Mill, and Mr. Cawasy. Mr. Pynsent requested Mr. Bazeley to record the names of the gentlemen who voted, which he was proceeding to do when, Mr. Pynsent accused him of putting down the name of Mr. Ellis having voted for the amendment, when he did not hold up his hand; This accusation Mr. Bazeley warmly resented, and on Mr. Ellis being appealed to, he said that he did hold up his hand. Mr. Price boasted that if he had had information of the meeting sooner than did, he could have packed the room so as to carry his point, which opinion Captain Moleeworth with equal confidence disputed. After the division Mr. Sangster, who had not previously raised the question, said that the meeting was illegal because the whole of the inhabitants had not been summoned to attend, and that therefore the amendment could not be said to represent the opinions of the inhabitants of Westward Ho! No notice was taken of the objection beyond the Chairman pointing out that it would only have been fair if Mr. Sangster had mooted the point before the division. The proceedings then terminated with a vote of thanks to the Chairman for the impartial manner in which he had acted as President, proposed by Mr. Pynsent.
Transcribed in whole or part from scanned originals: Presented with or without modified text and punctuation. For absolute accuracy refer to the original newspapers. Source: The British Newspaper Archive.
Referenced
GRO0835 Hennock: Thomas Pynsent: 1808 – 1887