410 THE BUILDING NEWS. May 24, 1879, eGooaoeeaesSaoOQnaeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ee of flesh that it is possible to exact under the bond which the hapless victim unwarily signed. Unwarily—we write the word with forethought, for although the more eminent builders of the metropolis have justifiably combined for their own mutual defence, what architect does not know a score of good men, in London as well as elsewhere, ready to sign any contract put before them without taking the trouble to read it? It would be anamus- ing joke to append to a contract a clause that the contractor should, on the completion of the work, be hung from his own scaffold, and the betting would be even that the document would, nevertheless, be duly signed, sealed, and delivered, and the existence of the fatal clause never be discovered by him it most affected, until its fulfilment was insisted upon before the last instalment was paid. Dreadfully unbusinesslike, without doubt, would be the delinquent, and yet it is not architects who should blame him, for blind confidence in one of themselves would be the only excuse that could be tendered. The truth is, that although confidence in the architect should animate both the contracting parties, it is far more often withheld by em- ployers than builders, and yet the former are manifestly unwise to entrust commissions in men upon whose integrity and judgment they do not feel that they can rely. The real reason of the employment of an architect at all, in nine cases out of ten, is that he may be used as a sort of spy upon the contractor, or an engine to compel that functionary to perform his duty, and a thumbscrew when the period for the final settlement of extras and omissions has arrived. Were it not hoped that these useful objects might be obtained by expenditure of 5 per cent. upon the outlay, the builder would gladly be employed without such professional interven- tion and superintendence. To suppose that architects are employed out of consideration for the art they profess would argue an amount of inexperience worthy of Verdant Green himself, for commissions are seldom given without earnest entreaties that that highly unnecessary and supposed expensive luxury should not be indulged in. A recent corre- spondent of the Zimes, who signed himself “District Surveyor,” lamented that a few wilful professional enthusiasts, having got the bit within their teeth, were driving down the reluctant throats of the public a com- modity wholly unsuited to the requirements and feelings of the age, in which assertion we own we believe him to be thoroughly justi- fied. The view of the architect's position taken by the overtrusting builder is that that professional man should not only furnish him with the requisite drawings and directions for the work undertaken to be done, but that he should also, in case of dispute, act as umpire, and protect him against oyer- exactions on the part of the employer. The architect, feeling that he certainly stands as middle man between his employer and contractor, generally tries by a clausein the contract to obtain recognition of himself in that light, and by more or less stringent clauses to enforce deference to this decision by either party. This is somewhat Quixotic on his part, for as soon as a dispute arises, his authority is as frequently repudiated on the one side as it is appealed to on the other; and lawyers, who rule the roast in this merrie land, would, if they could, set aside any judgeship other than their own— only that matters connected with building are so generally beyond their comprehension that they always refer them, and the referee may or may not uphold the decision of the only person who, upon the face of things, is competent to give an opinion about them. By upholding it, however, he deprives himself of having any semblance of jurisdiction, and to do so, therefore, is more than can often be expected from fallible human nature. Out of two references, however, we have recently been acquainted with, one was so disposed of, and in the other the architect's judgment
was, after much long-winded discussion, prac- tically followed. It is well known that, as before stated, the London Society of Builders have endeavoured to substitute another tribunal to refer to in case of differences which, in their opinion, the architect employed is hardly in a sufficiently independent position properly to decide. It is not to be apprehended that this new course will often be followed; but in some cases it will be well that there should be means for so doing. The referee is to be a Fellow of the Institute of Architects, and so far infinitely better than any one who is not so well ac- quainted with the numerous technicalities involved. Practically, in most cases the archi- tect will remain, as heretofore, sole arbiter of disputes as to matters executed from his own design and under his own superintendence, it being tolerably obvious that no other man can be so well fitted for the office; and if his conduct has been equitable throughout, the disputing parties, should they be gifted with any common sense at all, will be willing to abide by what he may consider fair. Architects, however, should be careful as to the exercise of the power so entrusted to them, and it sometimes requires no little moral courage on their part to wield it rightly. It is an easy, if unjust, method of screening any laxity they may have fallen into as to the vexed question of extras, to repudiate having given any orders for such, and, though thoroughly cognisant of them at the time they were being done, at the end to permit some clause of the contract to bar payment for them. If work has been executed, it should, unless there be ex- cellent reason to the contrary, be paid for ; and an architect who allows himself to be used as a thumbscrew to squeeze out of his contractors’ accounts more than should rightly be deducted from them, is but a sorry engine— more suitable to fill a niche in some museum of murderous implements of the barbarous ages than to act as an arbiter of differences between his fellow men. —o—___. THE CONSTANT SYSTEM OF WATER SUPPLY. VV HEN the question of a constant supply of water for London was before Par- liament, the Government ordered an inquiry to be made into the working of that system in towns in which it is in practice, and Mr. William Pole, C.E., F.R.S., was directed to inquire into the working of the system in Norwich, Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, and Leeds. He has visited these places and reported upon them. At Manchester he found that the waterworks belonged to the Corporation, who were the first to carry out the recommendation of the Health of Towns Commission, that the water supply of towns should be in the hands of the public muni- cipal bodies, and not in those of private companies. The water is collected from 19,300 acres of high land imto seven large reservoirs, about eighteen miles eastward of the town, at the head of the river Etherow, one of the tributaries of the Mersey. It is brought to service reser- voirs at Denton, Gorton, and Prestwich, near the town, by gravitation. These reser- voirs are elevated 223ft., 250ft., and 145ft. above the lowest part of the town, and the district supplied is divided off into three zones or leyels, each of which is served by thereservoir corresponding to its altitude. The main pipes, which bring the supply of water into the town, are 36in., 30in., and 24in. in diameter. The principal conduits along the streets are from 28in.. down to Tin. im dia- meter. These are not tapped for any service except fire-supply, and the water is always on in them under pressure. The house services are laid on subsidiary or service mains, branching out from the arterial mains, or principal conduits, and sonnected to them with sluice-cocks, so that they can be shut off in small separate areas,, whenever desired.
(for repairs or for laying on new tenements), without interfering with the general supply. These service mains vary from din. to 3in. in diameter, and are also always charged under pressure, By adopting the Waterworks Clauses Acts the Corporation obtained power to inspect the water fittings in the houses any time between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. by giving twenty- four hours’ notice, in order to examine if there be any waste or misuse of the water, for it was presumed that, the water being con- stantly on under pressure, great and continual waste would take place, unless the imperfect construction of the house fittings then common should be rectified, and if admittance is refused to the inspector, or he is prevented from making the examination, the Corporation have power (and exercise it) to cut off the supply of water. But these powers were not found sufficient to prevent waste, and the Corporation obtained further powers to stop the supply of water unless the house fittings should be of such material and so constructed and used as to prevent the waste or undue consumption of water and the return of foul air into the pipes. This, however, was still not sufficient, for it left a wide opening for dispute as to whether the fittings provided by any customer did or did not conform to the conditions stated, and no means were provided for settling the question. Experience showed that some authority must be named who would have powerto decide on, or still better, to prescribe the construction and quality of the fittings, and it was natural for the Corpora- tion to endeavour to vest this power in them- selves. Accordingly they obtained an Act authorising them from time to time to pre- scribe the size, nature, strength, materials, mode of arrangement, and repair of the pipes, valves, cocks, cisterns, water-closet and other apparatus to be used, and to interdict any arrangement and the use of any pipes or fittings which in their judgment may tend to waste of water, and unless these regulations are complied with the Corporation are not bound to supply the water. No doubt, when the change was first made from intermittent to constant supply, the consumption was very large, but the supply was abundant, and the waste then attracted but little attention ; it was probably thought to be beneficial. In process of time, however, as the population increased, and the demand began to approach more nearly to the limit of capability of the works, it was seen that the lavish consump- tion could not be allowed to go on, and that the powers must be put in force to check the waste. The further provisions, sought and obtained in 1860 against waste, did much good, for although the water-rents increased for some years at the rate of from £3,000 to £4,000 a year, the total quantity supplied remained nearly stationary, or with a very small increase, showing that the effect of the more stringent measures was to diminish the waste by an amount nearly equal to what was wanted for the increase of the district supplied. The average daily supply of water in each year, from 1855 to 1870, has beemas follows :—
Year. Gallons. Year. Gallons.
1855 8.078, 152 il... 1863 10,801,928
4856 8,277,156 1864 40,828,645
4857 9,703,462 1865 11,156,483
1858 10,803,184 ...... 1866 11,281,928
1859 10,553,952... 1867 18,250,000
1860 10,907,183. ..... 1868 12,059,388
1861. 10,716;226 — ...... 1869 18,057,762
1862 10,364,489 -.... 1870 24,315,877
The number of houses supplied in 1870
was 428,371, and the estimated population
685,534, These numbers give an average
consumption of about 21 gallons per head
per day, divided as follows :—
Gallons.
weeewers Pee ths
14
21
Trades and public purposes
Domestic USC ....--revceeeeresereererser men
RL ORL cecoeseeonccnccstseress
