232 Tlie Future Water-supply of London. [April, 



occasion, shortly before the outbreak in East London, contaminated 

 with some iinfiltered and probably foul water from one of two open 

 reservoirs on the other side of the river Lea. Shortly before the pro- 

 bable date of this contamination (for the exact date cannot be fixed), 

 the first two deaths from cholera in this district had occurred in 

 Priory Street, Bromley, about 600 yards lower down the river. The 

 open reservoirs were close to the river, which in this place is tidal, and 

 the banks which divided them from it were almost certainly porous. 

 It is therefore alleged that some portion of the poisonous (hscharges 

 of the two Priory Street victims, .which were undoubtedly thrown 

 by the sewer into the Lea, found its way into the open reservoirs, 

 and being from one of these admitted into the covered reservou', 

 carried its deadly infection throughout the whole district. Such is 

 the result arrived at by Mr. Eadcliffe from a variety of considera- 

 tions, the chief of which may be taken to be the necessity of some ■ 

 definite cause having been at work to produce so peculiar and well- 

 defined an effect. He establishes with great force the general 

 localization of the epidemic in the sub-districts supplied with the 

 water, and discusses seriatim all the causes which could be con- 

 ceived to have occasioned this locahzation. Altitude, soil, density 

 of population, filth, sewerage, and locality, are all considered in 

 turn, and are all dismissed, either as not having been unfavourable, 

 or as not having presented any marked differences from the condi- 

 tion of other places. By the ajiplication of this method of exclusion, 

 he is led to the adoption of the water-theory which I have stated, 

 and which has received the adhesion of Mr. Simon, as well as of Dr. 

 Farr, who, in fact, originated it. He writes with singular modera- 

 tion and impartiality, and has saved his opponents much trouble by 

 the care with which he has pointed out the weak points of the 

 theoiy. 



It was, of course, not to be expected that views so damaging 

 to vested interests sliould pass unchallenged ; and a keen contro- 

 versy has, in fact, been waged in regard to them, although the bulk 

 of the medical profession has, I believe, accepted the conclusions of 

 the Government ofiicials. The most able collection of arguments 

 thfit I have seen on the other side of the question is from the pen 

 of Mr. Orton, the medical ofiicer of health for the Limohouse dis- 

 trict,* who has suggested some points which, as even Mr. Radclifl'e 

 admits, present grave difiiculties. Ho argues that East London 

 was in a very much worse condition than the rest of London in 

 respect both of filth and of sewerage ; and the picture wliich he 

 draws of the sanitary condition of the neighbourhood is very strik- 

 ing, and is described with unusiial power. The account of the 

 Limekiln Dock Sewer, with its filthy windings, its syphons, or 



* ' Roport to tlie Bnanl nf Wnrks fur tlio T>ini('linnKo Distriot for the veiir cndiiic: 

 I.adv-flay, IHG?.' 



