13 



I have seen these locahties myself and have made 

 analyses (which agree as well as can be expected with those 

 made by Mr. Birtwistle). I fonnd in 1913 a mean of 21,000 

 organisms per mussel from samples taken from the Training 

 Wall; and 19,000 per mussel from a sample taken from Church 

 Scar in 1916. The conditions that may be seen in the Channel 

 adjacent to the Training Wall do not suggest pollution at 

 all : the ^\ater, and the banks, &c., exposed on the ebb tide 

 look clean and healthy, and this was also the opinion expressed 

 by Mr. Scott, a\ ho has had very much experience of this kind 

 and is a highly competent judge. The Royal Commissioners 

 on Sewage Disposal say much the same thing. " Oiir general 

 impression," they wrote, "' of the whole Ribble Estuary was 

 very favourable. In spite of the extensive and populous 

 district draining into it, and the varied industries contributing 

 their trade effluents, no marked indications [of sewage] are 

 to be found, even a few miles I)eloM' Preston, Avhile at Lytham 

 all signs have disappeared."" (Rept. \'., App. VI. cd 4284. 

 1908.) 



But the impression that one obtains by personally 

 examining Church Scar is different. There is evidence of 

 recent and immediate sewage jjollution ; there are jOTvies 

 actually discharging on the Scar itself, and there are two large 

 outfalls of crude sewage about a mile and a quarter away from 

 the centre of the mussel bed. The latter may smell offensively, 

 and in addition to all that, there is the general pollution of 

 the Ribble. Whatever value the fishery on Church Scar may 

 have cannot be much, but much or little, it seems reasonable 

 to urge that mussels taken from this bed should certainly not 

 be marketed for human consumption without being relaid, 

 or otherwise purified. If that is impossible, then the fishery 

 had better be prohibited. 



