1 827.] Supply furnished to the Metropolis. 469 



of opinion on a point very fiercely contested is that the impurities do no 

 mischief to health at all. Dr. Turner, in his letter to Mr. Wright [' Dol- 

 phin," p. 79J, in answer to the inquiry, whether the inhabitants of West- 

 minster are, or are not, poisoned into all sorts of diseases by Thames water, 

 states very candidly his opinion, that whether the impure state of the 

 water furnished by the Grand Junction Company (the Thames water 

 this is when most objectionable) has had any influence upon the inhabitants 

 of Westminster, "is a question that would admit of much controversy." And 

 we happen ourselves to recollect rather a curious case in the county of 

 Somerset, where, after examining all the medical men for fifty miles round, 

 a special jury found their verdict, upon a great balance of evidence, that 

 water loaded in an excessive degree with putrid animal matter would pro- 

 duce no ill effect if taken into the stomach.* 



Fact however is better than argument ; and we are content to waive 

 the question of health, and admit the proof of " offensiveness " to be evi 

 dence sufficient : but then it must be understood that, when we speak of 

 " offensiveness," we do not mean to speak of mere '* offence to the imagi- 

 nation/* Of that sort of offence which merely touches the imagination, 



* The case was rather a singular one ; and it is not the least curious point about it, that, 

 although the verdict proceeded upon a principle which persons in general would hardly be 

 supposed very ready to admit, it never if we recollect right came before the superior 

 courts for revision. The circumstances were these. In the summer of the year 1820, or 

 1821, which was extremely hot and dry, great numbers of horned cattle in Somersetshire 

 were attacked with an inflammatory disease, which the farriers of (he place did not under- 

 staud, but which carried the animals off very rapidly, and was believed to be infectious. 

 Among other persons who suffered by this calamity, the defendant in the action, C. D., 

 who had a number of cows feeding in a pasture on the banks of a certain stream, on the 

 banks of which, in another field, some short distance lower down, the plaintiff, A. B. had 

 also a number of oxen feeding lost a cow by the influenza. By the usage of the country 

 if not, we believe, by some statute actually in existence the defendant was bound to 

 have buried his dead cow ; but he omitted to do this, and caused her, instead, to be thrown 

 into the stream which bordered his land; whereby, the water being low, and the heat ex- 

 cessive, great nuisance was produced to the neighbourhood; and, at the end of eight or 

 nine days, the annoyance became so great, that it could not be borne, and the carcass of 

 the animal was obliged, after all, to be taken out of the water and buried. In the mean 

 time, however, the cattle of the plaintiff, which were compelled to drink of the water that 

 ran down from the defendant's land, were seized with the same complaint as that of which 

 his cow had died, and perished in great numbers ; on which the plaintiff, conceiving that 

 they were infected, or poisoned, by the water which the defendant's conduct had rendered 

 unwholesome, brought his action of damages against the latter for their value. When the 

 case came on to be tried before Mr. Justice Best at Taunton, these facts were stated on the 

 part of the plaintiff, and proved by unquestionable evidence. For the defendant, however, 

 a whole host of medical men were called; who swore, that with respect to the charge of 

 " infection" the plaintiff's oxen could not have caught the infection, of which the defen- 

 dant's cow had died, by drinking the water in question ; because it appeared, that the ani- 

 mal had not been thrown into the water until two days after her death ; and, with the first 

 symptoms of decomposition about any animal matter, all power that it might ever have 

 had of communicating infection ceased. And with respect to the charge of " poisoning" 

 the plaintiff's cattle could not have been poisoned by the water is which the defendant's 

 cow lay ; for the drinking of water, in which the most putrid animal substances had been 

 mixed up, could not produce, either to cattle or human beings, the smallest mischief. In 

 proof of which last doctrine, we recollect one of the witnesses stated, that he had himself 

 made the experiment upon his own person, by swallowing a considerable quantity of water 

 from a small pool in which he happened to see a putrid pig ; a piece of evidence, which 

 judging from the event would seem to have made a considerable impression upon the 

 minds of the judge and jury ; though, at the time when it was delivered, it appeared to ope- 

 rate principally in the way of discomposure to their stomachs. 



It would be easy, however, to cite opinions, of the highest authority, that the Thames 

 water is not, in the slightest degree, unfitted for consumption by the impurities which are 

 thrown into it. 



