HC Deb 06 August 1883 vol 282 cc1623-6
MR. BROADHURST

asked the President of the Local Government Board, If he has noticed in Lieutenant Colonel Bolton's last Report, that the number of services on the constant supply, in the New River Company's district, is only 19,404, out of a total of upwards of 200,000; whether that constant supply is practically limited to the City of London and the parish of Shoreditch; and, whether he has any power to compel the Metropolitan Board to exercise the powers they possess, and to require a constant supply throughout the whole of the New River Company's district?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

The last Report of Colonel Bolton shows that the number of services of the New River Company on the constant supply system is 19,464, out of a total of 138,650. The constant supply by that Company is practically limited to Shore-ditch, and parts of the City. All new houses in this district are, however, required by the Company to be provided with water fittings adapted for the constant supply system. The Board are not empowered to compel the Metropolitan Board of Works to exercise the powers they possess in this matter. It may be mentioned that the total number of supplies to houses, &c., by the London Water Companies is 653,000, and that the houses served on the constant supply system are about one-third of that number—namely, 213,000.

MR. BROAD HURST

asked the honourable Member for Truro, If it is correct that the Metropolitan Board of Works (of which he is Chairman), being the authority which by "The Water- works Act, 1871" has the power to require the various Metropolitan Water Companies to give a constant supply, has never exercised that power; whether, when the Board was requested by a Metropolitan Vestry to make such requisition, it refused to do so; if so, will he state the reason for such refusal; and, whether he is aware that the Vestry alluded to (that of Shoreditch) obtained the good offices of Lieutenant Colonel Bolton, and, by those means, obtained a constant supply from the New River Company?

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

The hon. Member is correct in his suggestion that the Metropolitan Board has not exercised its power under the Water Act of 1871 in regard to constant supply. The reason why the Board has refrained from calling on any of the Companies to give a constant supply is, that such a supply can only be given subject to regulations which the Board has always considered to be unnecessarily expensive and harassing to the owners of houses. At the same time, the Board has never offered the least obstacle on objection to a Water Company introducing the constant system into its district, whenever the circumstances of the district appeared to render it desirable, As regards the last part of the Question, I believe the Vestry of Shoreditch did obtain a constant supply without the intervention of the Board.

MR. FIRTH

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the fact, recently restated by the analyst to the Local Government Board, that the water supplied to the Metropolis by five of the London Water Companies consists of Thames water mixed with the sewage 01 more than half - a - million of human beings; whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence showing that the extent of the cholera epidemics of 1849; 1854, and 1866 in London was largely due to the presence in the water of organic matter of sewage origin, which propagated this disease; whether he is aware that Dr. Frankland, the analyst to the Local Government Board, state: the opinion that minute organisms, calculated to propagate zymotic disease are to be found in the water supplied by the London Water Companies, and that in order to avert another epidemic o: cholera, "the rivers Thames and Lea must be wholly abandoned as sources of water supply;" whether he will take means to apprise the inhabitants of London of the danger of the present water supply; and, what he proposes to do in the matter? The hon. Member added that a further Question must be asked on the subject—namely, whether the Local Government Board accepted the necessary conclusions that, in the event of a cholera outbreak amongst those 500,000 people, choleraic germs would be distributed by this water?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Sir, the Local Government Board are not aware that Professor Edward Frankland, the analyst of the Board, has recently restated that the water supplied by five of the London Water Companies consists of Thames water, mixed with the sewage of more than 500,000 human beings; but a statement to this effect appears in an article in The Nineteenth Century, which bears the name of "Percy Faraday Frankland," not of Professor Edward Frankland. As regards the facts, I would draw attention to the following statements in the Report of the Conservators of the River Thames for the past year:— The Thames and its tributaries within 10 miles of the river are placed under constant supervision, in order that any effluent, consisting of sewage or of offensive and injurious matter, may at once be detected and stopped. The towns on the Thames above the intakes of the Water Companies which supply the Metropolis with drinking water, having spent large sums of money in diverting their sewage, that part of the river is now practically free from sewage pollution. The Board are aware of the evidence upon which the intensity of cholera epidemics in particular localities in London in 1849, 1854, and 1866 has been associated with impurity of water supplies delivered to those localities. Defects in the purifying processes of one or other Company were then in question. The Board have referred to the annual Reports made to them by Dr. Frankland for several years past; but they do not find in any of those Reports that he has stated that— Minute organisms, calculated to propagate zymotic disease, are to be found in the water supplied by the London Water Companies, and that, in order to avert another epidemic of cholera, 'the Rivers Thames' and Lea must be wholly abandoned as sources of water supply. He has, no doubt, on several occasions expressed an opinion in favour of a water supply for the Metropolis other than that from the Thames and Lea. The Board find, however, that in 1882 on two occasions only were living organ- isms found by him in the water examined; and he states that— This indicated that the Companies drawing their supplies from rivers have of late years exercised increased care in the treatment and filtration of water. As regards the question of organic pollution, the following extract from Professor Frankland's Reports may be quoted:— Monthly Report for June, 1883. — The Thames water sent out by the Chelsea, West Middlesex, Southwark, Grand Junction, and Lambeth Companies was again unusually free from organic matter. With the exception of that supplied by the Grand Junction Company, which was very slightly turbid, all the water was efficiently filtered before delivery. The water drawn from the Lea and distributed by the New River and East London Companies was also exceptionally free from organic impurity, the New River Company's supply being chemically but slightly inferior to the best of the deep well waters. The danger which, at the present time, is most to be feared is that resulting from want of proper care on the part of householders with regard to the state of the cisterns or butts in which the water is stored; and it will be satisfactory to the House to learn that the Water Companies, on the suggestion of Colonel Bolton, the Water Examiner, have arranged to give notice to every householder as to the importance of the cisterns, &c., being properly cleansed; 650,000 notices are now being printed for this purpose.

MR. J. R. YORKE

Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the Mr. Frank-land, who wrote the article in The Nineteenth Century, is a near relation of Dr. Frankland, and assists him in his laberatory?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

I asked whether that was so or not this afternoon, but was not informed. I thought he was some near relation. In any case, the statement that the sewage of 500,000 people comes into the Thames above the intake is one which I cannot in any way accept.