1 66 



NA TURE 



[June 19, i< 



as they are, we cannot here enter. We notice merely Mr. 

 Bevan's argument against the compulsory sale of water 

 by meter. He contends that it would " simply result in 

 the greatly decreased use of the water, very much to the 

 detriment of cleanliness and godliness." Surely this 

 hypothetical objection can count for little when weighed 

 against the illogical rating system, which makes a man 

 liable to pay more for his water-supply because his rent 

 and taxes have been raised, i.e. because he is poorer ! 

 Mr. Bevan, in concluding this chapter, expresses the hope 

 that " either from the operation of purchase, control, or 

 competition, the water question will soon reach a fair and 

 equitable level to both consumer and supplier." 



We come now to the main question : Is the existing 

 water-supply satisfactory in quality ? and, granting this 

 point, is it not self-evident that, as Mr. Bevan puts it, "it is 

 impossible that the enormous drain upon the Thames can 

 be kept up without its showing signs of exhaustion." The 

 existing supply must, therefore, be supplemented by some 

 new source. Now, in spite of the alarmist speeches, papers, 

 and letters, some of them by authorities of eminence, we 

 still hold that the waters of the Thames and the Lea are 

 not contaminated in such a manner as to render their use 

 inadmissible. It is perfectly true that the country along 

 the Thames and its tributaries above the points where the 

 water companies take in their supplies is inhabited by a 

 large population, whose drainage, not always purified, 

 finds its way ultimately into the river. Now, the late 

 Royal Rivers Pollution Commission, upon what to us 

 seems very scanty evidence, committed itself to the dogma 

 that, "if a river was once polluted with sewage matter, 

 the water of that river was for ever unfit for dietetic pur- 

 poses, and no practical distance of flow would render such 

 a river safe." 



On the other hand, the Royal Commission on Water- 

 Supply (1869) declare in their report (§ 1S0) that "the 

 organic compounds dissolved in water appear to be of very 

 unstable constitution and to be very easily decomposed, 

 the great agent in their decomposition being oxygen, and 

 the process being considerably hastened by the motion of 

 the water. This purifying process is not a mere theoretical 

 speculation ; we have abundant practical evidence of its 

 real action on the Thames and other rivers." 



Further (§ 193), "These analyses of Thames waters 

 made for the Commission (by Drs. Frankland and Odling 

 jointly) are sufficient to show, not only the absence of any 

 increase of objectionable matter in the river from Lechlade 

 to Hampton, but that the variations in quality which com- 

 mence at Lechlade, after showing several temporary 

 changes in many parts of the river's course, fall at Hamp- 

 ton in general to a point as low as at Lechlade (no miles 

 up stream), and in one respect, viz., the organic nitrogen, 

 to a point even lower.'' 



One more extract may be permitted (§ 214) : " Having 

 carefully considered all the information we have been able 

 to collect, we see no evidence to lead us to believe that the 

 water now supplied by the companies is not generally good 

 and wholesome." 



It may be urged that these conclusions being based upon 

 evidence obtained in 1869 may not be strictly applicable 

 at the present day. To this the reply is very simple : the 

 results obtained by Messrs. Crookes, Odling, and Tidy in 

 1 88 1 and subsequently "are in complete agreement with 



those of the Commission on Water-Supply." Further, 

 certain improvements have since been effected which must 

 lessen the contamination of the Thames above Hampton. 

 We need merely refer in passing to the corroboration 

 which the views of the Water Supply Commission have 

 received from the recent analyses and observations of 

 Dr. F. Hulwa on the Oder at Breslau, of Prof. Leeds on 

 the Brandywine and Passiac Rivers at Paterson, Jersey 

 City, and Newark, or of Delalande on the Vesle at Rheims. 

 All these chemists agree that, since rivers have a self- 

 purifying power, this power, if not interfered with by the 

 continuous introduction of pollution along their course, 

 restores them, not indeed to absolute purity, but to a con- 

 dition fit for all practical purposes. The public are apt to 

 forget that pure water is a mere abstraction, like the lines 

 and points of the mathematician. It has no existence in 

 nature, and were it procurable might prove ill-adapted for 

 domestic and dietetic purposes. 



Taking all that has been said into consideration, we 

 think that all judicious men will be slow to abandon the 

 present supplies of water. There is one especial reason 

 against such a change, which, though not of a sanitary 

 nature, cannot in these days be left out of sight. In such 

 a vital matter London must not make itself dependent 

 upon any one source. Let us for a moment suppose that 

 the alarmist succeeds in prevailing upon us to abandon the 

 Thames, the Lea, and the other gathering-grounds in the 

 neighbourhood of London, and that our entire supply is 

 conveyed from Wales or Cumberland by a gigantic 

 aqueduct. Would it be possible to guard all points of 

 such a line, so as to be safe against the outrages which 

 seem now the order of the day ? A quantity of nitro- 

 glycerine, which a man might carry in a carpet-bag without 

 exciting suspicion, would suffice, if skilfully applied, to 

 cause a breach in some part of the structure. And then ? 

 How long it might take to make good such a rupture we 

 cannot estimate. In a railway accident, materials, tools, 

 and workmen can be run along the line to the spot where 

 they are required. An aqueduct would present no such 

 facilities. It may be said that a reservoir might be con- 

 structed at the London end of the line of sufficient size to 

 tide us over such a possible calamity, but the size and 

 strength of such a store-tank would have to be enormous, 

 and this in itself would present another element of 

 danger. 



But whilst it might thus be perilous to supersede the 

 present supply, an addition to our resources will ultimately 

 become needful. Of course, with Mr. Bevan, we can only 

 hope that the additional supply will be the best procurable. 

 But the author here reminds us that, "however pure may 

 be the water at the outset, no power on earth can prevent 

 careless, wilful, or accidental pollution in some part of its 

 long course." In fact, experience tells us that no water- 

 course, exposed to the air for any distance, will contain 

 less than about o'o6 to C07 parts of " albuminoid am- 

 monia " per million. The excellent waters of Manchester 

 and Glasgow — the former collected on the barren and un- 

 peopled moorlands of North Derbyshire, and the latter 

 drawn from Loch Katrine — contain this proportion, and 

 the New River water shows no more ! It is, therefore, quite 

 an open question what" we should gain by going so far 

 afield. 



There is another very grave consideration : the soft 



