§ MR. TATTON EGERTON (Cheshire, Knutsford)I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called by the Official Examiner to the condition and quality of the water supplied by the Grand Junction Water Company; whether he is aware it is the worst sample delivered by the company during the past 12 years, that it contains 50 per cent. more volatile matter, 300 per cent. more saline ammonia, and 250 per cent. more organic ammonia than the water supplied on the same day by the Chelsea Water Company drawing from the same source, and that it also exhibited marked browning on ignition of solids; whether the information now in his possession confirms his statement of 31st July, 1890, that there is "no abundant vegetation or cut grass, &c., spread about the Thames Valley," to account for the condition of the water; whether his advisers are still prepared to deny contamination with sewage, and will certify that this water is fit for human consumption; what position does Dr. Tidy hold with relation to the Local Government Board, 466 and by whom his salary, as water examiner, is paid; how many weeks' supply is stored by the Grand Junction Company; and what steps the President has taken to compel the company (after his answer that the filtration power was deficient) to create a larger storage and filtration?
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE, Tower Hamlets, St. George's)My attention has from time to time been called by the Official Examiner to the condition and quality of the water supplied by the Grand Junction Water Company. When a question was asked in the House on the 31st July last with regard to this company, I stated that the attention of the Directors had been repeatedly called to the necessity for increased filtering area, and that they had recently intimated that the construction of additional filters would be undertaken without delay. The Directors in accordance with this undertaking obtained plans and estimates, and in the autumn of last year entered into a contract for the construction of filters, having an area of about six acres. The works were unfortunately interrupted by the severe frost during part of November, December, and January. Work has since been resumed and is now making active progress; but as a matter of fact so far as the means at the disposal of the company for filtration are concerned, the company are at present in precisely the same position as in July last, when I gave the answer referred to. The sample of the water delivered by the company to which my hon. Friend refers, is, I presume the sample which is referred to in the Report of an analysis by Mr. Cassal with which he has been so good as to supply me. This sample appears to have been submitted to the analysist on the 30th January. I am not in the position to make any statement as to the accuracy or otherwise of the analysis referred to. But I may state that I am advised by Dr. Frankland that the proportions of volatile matter, saline ammonia, and organic ammonia, furnish no evidence of sewage contamination. Analysis of a sample of water that was taken by Dr. Frankland on the 22nd January last showed that the water delivered by this company was the best of the Thames derived waters. After notice was given of the question 467 of my hon. Friend, I arranged for further samples to be taken, and to be analysed. These samples were obtained on the 5th February, and Dr. Frankland, in his Report, states that they both contained a very large proportion of organic matter, chiefly of vegetable origin, and that during the 23 years in which he has submitted the waters delivered by the eight companies supplying London to the same process of organic analysis he has never met with a sample so strongly contaminated with organic matter, and that only on one occasion, in 1868, was there a near approach to this degree of pollution. The water is described as being repulsive both to the eye and palate, and he states that its supply for human consumption was undesirable. But he says that the excess of contamination is due to the presence of an altogether abnormal amount of vegetable organic matter in solution, that the Thames always contains some soluble constituents of sewage more or less changed by various processes of purification, and that he could find no evidence of any additional amount of these constituents in the two samples of the company's water sent to him for analysis. He thinks that in Mr. Cassal's analysis there was nothing to justify the assertion that sewage contamination exists. As to the circumstances which would account for the condition of things referred to, I am informed that in consequence of continuous rain on the 29th January, the first subsequent to the breaking up of the frost, the Thames was in an exceedingly muddy and turbid condition on the 30th January and following days; and owing to the fact that the filters were covered during the frost with ice of about a foot in thickness, there was great difficulty in cleaning them, and they were not in good condition at the time mentioned, and were incapable of dealing with the water turned on to them. The considerable difference in the qualities of the Grand Junction and the Chelsea water on the occasions referred to is accounted for by the fact that the Chelsea Company have a larger Storage than the Grand Junction Company, and can discard the flood water, which the latter company are not able to do. The storage and settling reservoirs of the Grand Junction Company do not contain more than three and a half 468 days' supply of water, those of the Chelsea Company are capable of containing 15 days' supply. Dr. Tidy holds no position in relation to the Local Government Board. I believe that he is the chemical adviser to certain of the Water Companies, and is paid by those who employ him. As I have already stated, the filtration works to which I referred in my previous answer are being proceeded with; but I cannot but add that I regard it as extremely unsatisfactory that water of this character should have been supplied, and further that the difficulties on which the company rely as an excuse, ought not and would not have occurred if they had had a proper storage and filtration area.