MANCHESTER AND THIRLMERE.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR.1 SIR,—Will you allow me a very few lines for a reply to " J. C.'s " second letter ?
As to my assertion that the Thirlmere Bill did not pass on its merits being a quibble :—The preamble of the Bill, as intro- duced by the promoters, based the case of necessity upon the wants of 800,000 persons living in Manchester and its immediate neighbourhood ; the preamble, as transformed by the Committee, upon the wants of a population which may, within their definition of its limits, be twice as numerous. The Bill was sanctioned by the Select Committee on the merits of the altered preamble, not on the original one. The area of supply, as defined by the Corpora- tion, was not found sufficient as a basis whereon to ground the case of necessity requisite to justify the granting of the powers sought for. I quite understand the provision made for the sufficient supply of Manchester itself, but this provision cannot alter the significance of the change made in the preamble. I believe that I understand the difference between " contour" and " level." I know that the contour of Thirlmere will be much injured by the proposed alteration of its level, whatever landscape gardeners may think about the matter.
I am familiar enough with the calculations made as to- the
effect of drawing off so much water in such a time, but this de- pends in practice on the available rainfall, and the amount of compensation water which will eventually have to be given, and on both these points persons well able to judge think the promoters have reckoned without their host.—I am, Sir, &c., R. C.
Previous page
