§ MR. DIMSDALE, in rising to call the attention of the House to the operation of the Lea Conservancy Act, 1868, and to the heavy pecuniary burdens its provisions impose on the residents in the towns and villages situate on the 954 banks of the Lea and its tributaries, said, that in this case he had on three separate occasions—once in 1870, and twice in 1871—drawn the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the pollution of the river by sewage, and in reply had received the statement that the Government were giving the matter their attention; but nothing had been done by them to remove the grievances under which the residents of the places he had referred to were suffering. He was very much impressed with the idea that the small Conservancy Boards were very unsatisfactory; but now that it had been suggested in the Public Health Bill that the question of the pollution of rivers should be referred to the Local Boards, he could not see how the general measure which had been promised could be framed. The origin of the Lea Conservancy Board was owing to an idea which became very prevalent, that the outbreak of cholera in a portion of London in 1866 had been caused by the polluted condition of the water supplied from the Lea River; but Dr. Letheby, after a careful examination, had been unable to trace any portion of the disease to the use of the water. The result of the investigation, however, that was made about that time, had been that the Lea Conservancy Act of L868 was introduced, under which the residents on the watershed of the Lea were forbidden to drain into the river. The residents in Luton, Tottenham, and West Ham had, however, been treated very differently under that Act, for the towns above the intake of the water companies, with the exception of Luton, and Luton above the intake, were forbidden to deposit in the river any sewage matter, while the towns below it were allowed the benefit of special clauses; the Act thus throwing a very heavy expense on the former, and the landowners of the locality. In saying what he had said, he must not be represented as objecting to the water companies enjoying large dividends, or to the East-end of London obtaining pure water, but it was not fair that the cost of this should be thrown on third parties, and he was of opinion there should be a re-construction of that portion of the Act. Another hardship arising under the Lea Conservancy Act was, that it contained no standard of purity, and the Board had refused to 955 receive deputations, or to state what conditions would satisfy them, their arbitrary attitude contrasting strongly with the courtesy displayed by the Government authorities. No less than 98 notices had been issued by the Board to the towns and landed proprietors in the district. As there was no such standard laid down, the towns concerned would have to embark in an unknown expenditure. It was said that there would be great difficulty in laying down a standard of purity; but there were such standards laid down for the Thames in the Report of the Water Supply Commissioners of 1868, and in the Report of the Rivers Pollution Commissioners, presented to Parliament in 1870. The hon. Member quoted at length the standard of purity laid down by Captain Burstall in his evidence before the Water Supply Commission in 1868, laying down a definite standard of purity, the efficacy of which was guaranteed by Dr. Letheby, Dr. Odling, and Professor Frendland. He also read a quotation from the Report of the River Pollution Commission of 1870, laying down another and more stringent standard of purity, and argued from that it was quite possible to lay down such a standard without difficulty. The town of Hertford having been thus placed in a difficulty, had applied to the Conservancy Board time after time for an extension of the period for completing their works; and ultimately had to appeal to the Home Secretary. They asked for permission to borrow £3,000 for deodorizing works, such as would enable them to conform to the standard of purity of the Rivers Pollution Commissioners; but the Inspector sent down by the Board, had recommended them first of all to apply under the 77th section of the Local Government Act for a Provisional Order fixing a standard of purity as a rider to the Lea Conservancy Act. Relief in that or some other way ought certainly to be afforded them. Further than this, he wished to say that the constitution of the Lea Conservancy Board was faulty. He had been a member of that Board for two years, and he could say that there never was a more unmanageable Board constructed under an Act of Parliament. It was too small for representation, and too large for the transaction of business. The Lea Conservancy differed from the Thames Conservancy in this respect— 956 upon the former there were four members who represented the water companies; but there were no such representatives upon the Thames Board. Upon the Thames Conservancy Board the members were paid by the companies themselves for looking after their interests; but upon the Lea Board only the representatives of the water companies were paid, so that the members of the Board were partly paid and partly unpaid. It was also provided in the Lea Act that there should be five representatives of the riparian proprietors; but the result of the first election, so ill was the system framed, was that five traders were returned as representatives of the landed interest, and there was not a single landowner on the Board. Every land owner having two acres in land within 100 yards of the Lea and its tributaries, was entitled to a vote; but no proper safeguards were provided for ensuring a proper registration. In consequence, many bad votes had been placed on the register roll. The constituency was an unwieldy one, and its representative body was not accustomed to act, and the result of the election was, as he had described, altogether to nullify the intention of the powers of the Act. Hertford was especially hardly treated. Under the old system the Mayor of Hertford was ex-officio a trustee of the Lea navigation, but under the present system he had only one vote for a representative. Again, the chairman of the Local Boards returned one representative, but these chairmen were not in the habit of acting together, and it was really a matter of hap-hazard who was returned. As a remedy calculated to lessen the evils of which he complained, he wished—first, that a definite standard of purity should be fixed; next, that some security should be given that the water companies should contribute to the expenditure for their benefit; and, lastly, that the Local Board should be re-constituted.
§ MR. H. COWPER, in supporting the views of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Mr. Dimsdale), said it was the duty of the Lea Conservancy Board to forbid offensive matter going into their river, but they gave no standard of purity for the effluent water; so that it was in their power to throw back such water upon any town, notwithstanding that the towns had constructed 957 works at great expense. What the towns concerned in the question wanted was, that something definite should be laid down for them, and that these enormous powers should not be held by the Lea Conservancy Board, or that the Government should step in and take them wholly away. The whole Board was re-elected every two years, so that they had no continuous existence, and it was not pretended than the members had any great scientific knowledge, or that they knew more of the requirements of modern science that the parish vestries and Local Boards with whom they were brought in contact. Another thing required was, that some person in authority should go down and sanction the local works which ought to be constructed. Hertford received £600 a-year from the New River Company, and nobody said that that was too much; but Ware, Stortford, Waltham, and Cheshunt were in a worse position, for they had the same task imposed upon them, but got no money at all. The towns were prepared so to conduct their works that the river should not be a nuisance; but if the interest of other people required it to be of higher purity, then they contended that those other people should pay for it. He thought it looked very like a hard case, if poor inhabitants of small villages were to be the first pioneers in river purification, as it seemed likely to be, if it was true as he understood, that the same system that was applied to the Lea River would some years later be applied to all the rivers in England.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he hardly knew how it was that he found it necessary to answer the observations of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dimsdale), because he had supposed that last year the question was transferred from his care to that of the President of the Board of Health. The Act complained of was introduced by the Board of Trade, and the Home Secretary was only introduced into it for two or three special purposes—such, for instance, as being arbitrator between the local authorities, and to extend the time for the completion of works to purify water passing into the river. This subject was one of the greatest importance to the inhabitants of London, because the two companies that supplied water from the River Lea supplied, he believed, no less 958 than half the population of London. The complaint made by the hon. Gentleman was that the measures taken by the Conservators for the purification of this water were such as acted arbitrarily and unfairly on the local authorities. Of course those who were not immediately connected with this district would be apt to think that the Conservators or their officers were only doing their duty in exacting a very rigid test of the purity of the water which supplied so large a portion of inhabitants of the metropolis. The hon. Gentleman opposite, moreover, complained both that the Board was not properly constituted and that their proceedings were arbitrary, inasmuch as they had no fixed standard of purity. With respect to the first point, it was thoroughly considered at the time of the passing of the Act, and no change could be made in that respect without giving the notices which were necessary for dealing with the question relating to sewage operations; while with respect to the second, the answer which he would give was very much that which was suggested but not approved by his hon. Friend (Mr. H. Cowper)—namely, that this was one of the first experiments in dealing with large basins for the supply of water. In any future legislation dealing with the subject, measures might be taken in respect to the River Lea. At present, however, it would be premature to make any change. The general question, however, of the pollution of rivers, he admitted, was one which required the most serious consideration of the Government. In respect to the standard of purity, he was informed that within the last nine months an Inspector had been appointed on the part of the Conservators of the River Lea, and that tests of purity were applied by him which experience had shown to be reasonable and necessary. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dimsdale) had referred to the test of purity suggested by the Commissioners on the Pollution of Rivers; but that was a test for water required for domestic purposes merely, and not for drinking purposes. It was the duty of the Conservators of the Lea to keep its waters fit not only for domestic purposes, but also for human consumption. It was not said that the tests applied were too severe; and he had been informed that the measures taken were 959 only such as a person whose duty it was to secure the public safety should resort to. As for the complaint that Luton, Tottenham, and West Ham had special exceptions, the reason of that was, that these places were engaged at the time in carrying out expensive works for preventing the pollution of the river, and the rest of the district was left to the ordinary operation of the law. In his opinion, no case had been made out for the interference of the Government. It was open to those who lived in the district to take any steps that were necessary for their own defence; but the Government had no evidence that the Conservators who were acting in the public interest were resorting to more rigorous measures than it was their duty to do. It was suggested that the water companies who profited so much by the purification of the river should contribute something to the expense. This they already did to a limited extent; but the proper principle was that the water and every stream should be pure enough for the inhabitants to drink, and the companies required no more than that standard of purity which the inhabitants themselves had a right to demand.
§ MR. A. SMITHsaid, that what his constituents required was a standard of purity, for they had been compelled to expend considerable sums of money in purifying the water of the river, and yet they had no means of ascertaining whether they had complied with the requirements of the Act or not. He thought it a great hardship that this expenditure should be incurred entirely for the benefit of the metropolis, and for the water companies, who derived large profits from their undertakings. He thought that some time ought to be allowed to elapse, to test the result of the experiments which were being carried on with the view to ascertain the best plan of dealing with the sewage. The Act compelled them to prevent the sewage passing into the River Lea; but it did not say what they were to do with it, and time ought to be given to ascertain the best means of disposing of it.
§ MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, as he had, on behalf of the Board of Trade, brought in the Bill on the subject in 1868, he wished to say a few words. The Bill was what was called a hybrid Bill, and was afterwards referred to a Committee as a Private Bill. The Com- 960 mittee was composed of 10 Members, five of whom were chosen by the House, and five by the Committee of Selection. Every interest was represented before the Committee, and counsel were heard on behalf of most of them. The Committee deliberated for a considerable time, and if any of the districts did not represent their case, it was their own fault. At the same time he was ready to confess, as he said at the time, that the case of Hertfordshire, of the riparian owners, and the towns on the banks of the river Lea, was excessively hard. The Duke of Richmond and himself had received many deputations on the subject, and while they admitted that their case was a hard one, they did not see how they could get them out of the difficulty. In the first place, they were compelled to close their cesspools, into which they formerly drained, and to drain into the river. That was the recommendation of Chadwick's Commission. Then, according to the recommendation of a subsequent Commission, they were prevented from using the river at all for such purposes. They asked what, under the circumstances, they were to do—and they were recommended by some to purify their sewage by various expensive processes, or to take sewage farms. Other suggestions were also made, but in the present experimental stage of the sewage question, he thought it would be dangerous for Parliament to commit itself to any course of which time had not proved the advantage. It was in consequence of the outbreak of cholera in the East of London, that the Act was passed, and for the sake of the public health it was necessary that the water should be kept pure. The case, as he said, was one of considerable hardship; but if it were possible, as was now proposed, to fix a standard of purity for the water, without insisting upon any particular works, that would be very reasonable.
MR. BRANDsaid, he would also suggest that the standard of purity should be fixed. The inhabitants had no desire to shirk their responsibility or their duty—all that they asked was that they should be distinctly informed what they were to do in order to comply with the requirements of the Act. He hoped that some further consideration would be given to the case of those who were admittedly subject to a great hardship, 961 and that, at least, the Act would be so amended as to enable them to appeal to some central authority.
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHthought that, in legislating for the conservancy of rivers, it was desirable that they should have a clear idea what object they had in view. They might have one of two objects—they might merely intend so to purify the matters thrown into the river as to render the river decent in appearance, free from offensive odour, and capable of supporting the life of fish; or they might aim at making the water of the river potable. It was admitted by his hon. Friend (Mr. Brand) that in the case of the Lea, it would be impossible to prevent the effluent matter from the sewage of Hertford, and other places, from ultimately reaching the river. Under these circumstances it was a mistake to give the water companies of London a representation on the Lea Conservancy Board. Such an arrangement was based on a wrong theory. For no efforts of these companies could render the water of the River Lea fit for drinking after it had passed through towns; and river water polluted by sewage had, according to the reports of Dr. Simon and other authorities, been a means of bringing cholera into London in the epidemics of 1854 and 1866. The Conservators should not be bound to do more than carry out the recommendations of the Rivers Pollution Commission, who reported that after river water had thus been made inodorous and clear, it would still be unfit for human consumption. He hoped that the House would some day come to the conclusion that the water supply of a great city should be obtained either from the head-waters of rivers or pure springs.
§ MR. AYRTONhoped it would not go forth that the inhabitants of the metropolis were in danger of being attacked by cholera in consequence of drinking the waters of the River Lea. As Chairman of the Committee on the River Lea Bill, he had heard all the evidence that had been given by the medical men and others, and the conclusion of the Committee was, that if reasonable care and precaution were taken, the water of the Lea was perfectly fit to drink, and that there was not the least necessity to go to other sources for supplies. It was a great mistake, he might add, to suppose that any injustice was done by the Bill 962 either to the towns or the landowners of Hertfordshire; nor could he conceive any better mode of obtaining an intelligent Board than by having its members elected by the chief gentlemen of the county; and the result was, that the Board was fully qualified to take all the accessory precautions to prevent any sewage from being unnecessarily let into he river. The water companies, moreover, were represented at the Board for he reason that they had placed a very large sum of money at the disposal of he Conservancy, and had therefore a right to see that the money was properly expended. The three towns referred to by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Dimsdale) had taken steps to prevent the pollution of the river; but the other towns of the district had taken no trouble whatever to prevent the flow of sewage into the river, but left the matter to the ordinary operation of the law. Those towns and the towns on the Thames were placed precisely on the same footing, and there was not, therefore, the smallest reason for supposing that the water of the Thames was not fit to drink. On the contrary, it was peculiarly fit to drink; and he could conceive nothing more injurious than that a contrary idea should be spread abroad by those who wanted them to go for their water supplies to the lakes of Cumberland or Wales. One of the objections to that course was, that the metropolis might, by a casualty to the aqueduct, be deprived of water for drinking or for any other purposes. That would be a catastrophe of a most alarming character. The present system was infinitely better than such a suggestion, and afforded an assurance against an interruption of supply. The evidence was pretty clear that the cholera was brought into the port of London from Amsterdam, and that it was in no way to be attributed to the water supply of the metropolis.