167

Essex water authority representing the part of Essex withinthe East London Waterworks Company’s limits of supply.The Council were of opinion that an authority constitutedby the Essex County Council would not fairly represent theurban area of the district and they therefore submitted thatif a water authority were formed it should be composed ofpersons representing the consumers directly and should be apopularly elected administrative body, and they suggestedthat the members should be elected from the several districtsinterested in proportion either to the population or to therateable value of the districts supplied. If it were decidedto allow the local authorities to obtain a sufficient water-supply for their own requirements the council were preparedto obtain such supply or to purchase water in bulk.In answer to Mr. ROBERT LEWIS the witness said that the

South Essex Waterworks Company obtained part of their

supply from a well at Grays. The water supplied was allwell water.Mr. ALFRED PLANT, accountant to the East Ham Urban

District Counncil, in answer to the CHAIRMAN said that thedistrict of East Ham joined the county borough of WestHam. It was in the area supplied by the East LondonWaterworks Company. The population, which in 1891 was32,713, was now estimated at 70,000. The area of the district was 3266 acres and the number of houses 14,500.The requirements of the district were similar to those of thecounty borough of West Ham. The area of supply of theEast London Waterworks Company was confined in thisdirection to the districts immediately adjoining the metro-polis, and the East Ham District Council were in favour of ajoint Water Trust being formed for that part of Essex whichwas within the metropolitan area of water-supply, but theythought that the trust should be distinct from the LondonCounty Council. With regard to the difference of the

charges of the East London Water Company in their metro-politan and extra-metropolitan districts tables were handedin showing that the charges made in East Ham were greaterthan those made in the case of similar cottages and houseswithin the metropolitan area.Mr. C. G. MUSGRAVE, chairman of the Leyton Urban

District Council, in answer to the CHAIRMAN, said that thedistrict which he represented adjoined the metropolis andWest Ham and was separated from the former by the riverLee. The whole of the district was within the area of

supply by the East London Waterworks Company. Thepopulation of the district was nearly 90,000, comprised anarea of 2491 acres, and contained about 15,500 houses. Inthe opinion of the Leyton UrbanDistrict Council it would notbe possible for the Essex County Council to fairly representthem with regard to management of their water-supply.Should a new water authority be constituted the councilwere of opinion that-

1. Such authority should be constituted of persons directly repre-senting the consumers. 2. That the supply of water should be directedby a popularly elected administrative body. That, in the event ofLeyton being able to obtain a supply sufficient for its own purposes, thecouncil would be prepared to acquire such supply, or as the supply iswithin the district of Leyton the council would be prepared to purchasewater in bulk at cost price and distribute. 3. That in the event ofLeyton being unable to obtain such supply limited to its own districta body should be elected from the various districts for which suchsupply is required in proportion to population of the districtssupplied.The witness said that his district suffered in the same way

as West Ham from the overcharges of the East LondonWaterworks Company. They had also to complain that thesupply was not constant. Last year no water could beobtained in the case of a fire. The East London WaterworksCompany’s officers had suggested that the fire brigade didnot know their duty. The witness was of opinion that thefire brigade was an extremely efficient one and that therewas no water available at the time of the fire.

Sir JOHN EVANS, K.C.B., in answer to the CHAIRMAN,said that he was vice-chairman of the Hertfordshire CountyCouncil, He had been desired by the Parliamentary Com-mittee of the council to lay before the Commissioners astatement as to the best method of dealing with the question(If the water-supply in the interests not only of the Countyof London but also of the outside areas. His statementdea with the questions of the advisability of purchase orontrol, as to how control might affect the question of thequality and the quantity of the water supplied and also itseffect on the charges. Purchase and control were consideredas they affected the outside areas. In addition to this hehad dealt with the question as to what additional powers ofcontrol were needed, as to the control of the abstraction of

undergound water, and finally he made suggestions as to anew Waterworks Clauses Act. There were also notes on theexisting acts for the control of the water supply in the metro-politan water area.

In answer to the CHAIRMAN the witness gave evidencewith regard to the effect of pumping by the New RiverCompany. In the opinion of the witness the effect of theuncontrolled pumping by the New River Company had been(1) that wells in Ware in summer are frequently pumpeddown ; (2) that the springs and streams in the neighbour-hood of the Amwell Marsh and Amwell Hill pumpingstations are pumped dry by those wells when working ; 9(3) that the water which stands in the ditches and

ponds in the Lee Valley is affected by the pumpingfrom the companies’ wells ; (4) that the well at

Haileybury College is pumped down; (5) that the well atBeaumont Manor was pumped dry; (6) that the BarnetWater Company find the water in their well falling off

yearly; (7) that the Cheshunt District Council’s well has

given out; (8) that the flow of the Ash, Rib, Quin and Beanetributaries of the Lee has fallen off ; and (9) that the flowof the River Lee has been insufficient for the East London

Company. The witness thought that no well ought to besunk by a water company except under the authority ofParliament contained in a special Act. In his opinion anAct ought to be passed which provided that all companiesproposing to construct and obtain their supplies from wellsshould be under an obligation to afford supplies of water tothose in the neighbourhood of the proposed wells whose

water-supply might be affected by pumping from them. He

thought also that companies ought to be controlled by beingcompelled to afford a sufficient supply of water at a reason-able rate, so that the water consumers might get the benefitaccruing to the companies by reason of the practicalmonopolies which had been conferred on them and hesuggested as the lines upon which a solution of the presentdifficulties might be found : (1) a careful reconsiderationof the existing powers to charge for water which are inthe hands of the companies with a view to ascertainingwhether those powers might be modified in such a way asto secure lower water charges and uniformity of charge overthe whole of the metropolitan water area; and (2) a recon-sideration of the limitations under which the companies arenow required to issue their capital and the amount ofdividends which they may pay.The next sitting will be held on Monday next, July 18th,

at the Guildhall, Westminster.

MEDICAL REFORM AT LEWISHAM.

A WELL-ATTENDED meeting of the medical profession ofLewisham and the neighbourhood was held at the Infirmary,Lewisham, on July 6th to hear an address from Mr.

R. B. Anderson, as representative of the Corporate and.Medical Reform Association, Limited, on " PracticalMeasures for the Prompt Attainment of Corporate andMedical Reform and for the Maintenance of the Rights andPromotion of the Honour and the Interests of the MedicalProfession." " Dr. F. S. Toogood, medical superintendent ofthe Infirmary, presided.

Mr. ANDERSON’S address dealt with what he considered tobe the principal evils and abuses which afflict and injure theprofession and the public, and showed them to be due to theexclusion of the body of the profession from influence in andcontrol of the corporations, a position which he said couldbe remedied only by combined action of the profession andthe public for obtaining from the State facilities for the self-government of the profession.

It was moved from the chair, seconded by Mr. F. S.BARNETT (Lewisham), and carried unanimously :-That this meeting of registered medical practitioners of Lewisham

and the neighbourhood, constituents of various medieal corporations,supports the principles and policy of the Corporate and MedicalReform Association, Limited, and will cooperate collectively andindividually by every constitutional means in promoting its measures,particularly combined action of the medical profession and the publicto effect the reforms desired.

It was then moved by Mr. F. S. BARNETT, seconded byDr. J. P. HENRY, and carried nem. con. :-That a provisional committee of members of or joining the asso-

ciation be appointed, with power to add to its numbers, to act with theassociation m approaching public men and public bodies, medical and

168

lay, to invite cooperation in the south-east district of London and’throughout the county of Kent in organising a county of Kent branch.A local committee was then formed with Mr. F. S. Barnett

’(Lewisham) as local hon. sec.The meeting terminated with votes of thanks to Mr.

Anderson and to Dr. Toogood for receiving the meeting andpresiding.

___________

MEDICAL REFEREES UNDER THE WORK-MEN’S COMPENSATION ACT.

THE following is a list of medical referees who havebeen appointed by the Secretary of State for England andWales for certain county court circuits in respect of which’the arrangements are for the present complete :—

Circuit No. 1.-Dr. George Hare Philipson, Dr. Frederick Page, andDr. George Halliburton Hume, Newcastle-on-Tyne; Mr. Charles ClarkeBurman, Alnwick; and Dr. William Bertie Mackay, Berwick-upon-’Tweed.

Circuit No. 2.-Dr. Selby Wetherell Plummer. Durham; Mr. Thomas.Alexander McCullagh, Bishop Auckland; Dr. James Murphy, Sunder-land ; Dr. Robert Anderson, Seaton Delaval; Dr. William Mearns,’Gateshead; and Dr. Frederick Hughes Morison, West Hartlepool.

Circuit No. A -Dr. James Arthur Rigby and Dr. Edwin Moore,.Preston; Mr. Arthur Stanley Barling, Lancaster; Dr. Leonard Green-bam Star Molloy, Blackpool; Dr. John Michael Harding Martin,Blackburn ; and Mr Oswald Samuel Wraith, Darwen.

Circuit No. 6.-Mr. George Gibson Hamilton and Mr. Joseph D. Craw--ford, Liverpool; Mr. Robert Meredith Littler, Southport; and Mr.Charles Stuart Pethick, Woolton, Liverpool.

Circuit No. 7.-Dr. George Harry Cooke, St. Helens; Mr. DamerHarrisson, Liverpool; and Mr. Joseph Collier and Mr. Herbert Lund,Manchester.

Circuit No. 11.-Dr. James Mackenzie, Burnley; Mr. William HenryEIIlis, J.P., Shipley ; and Mr. William Henry Horrocks, jun., and Dr.Henry Johnstone Campbell, Bradford, Yorks.

Circuit No. 12.—Dr. Thomas Michael Dolan, Dr. John CrossleyWright, and Dr. Alfred Mantle, Halifax; and Dr. Thomas Kilner’Clarke and Mr. Peter Mac Gregor, Huddersfield.

Circuit No. 17.-Dr. William Arthur Carline and Mr. William John’Cant, Lincoln; Dr. George Skelton Stephenson, Grimsby; and Dr.Arthur Tuxford, Boston.

Circuit No. 20.-Mr. Claude Douglas, Mr. Frank Montague Pope,- and Dr. Thomas William Gordon Kelly, Leicester; Mr. Joseph Balm’Pike, Loughborough ; and Dr. William Newman, Stamford.

Circuit No. 21.-Mr. Harry Gilbert Barling and Dr. William Turber-ville Farncombe. Birmingham.

Circuit No. 23.-Mr. Henry Hammond Smith, Stourbridge; and’Mr. John Lionel Stretton, Kidderminster.

Ctrcuit No. 24.—Dr. William Taylor and Dr. Charles Tanfield Vachell,’Cardiff ; Mr. Octavius Edward Bulmer Marsh and Dr. SamuelHamilton, Newport. Mon. ; Mr. W. Edwin Williams, Abertillery,Mon.; and Dr. William Dyne Steel, Abergavenny.

Circuit No. 31.-Dr. James Fenton Stamper, Pembroke Dock; andMr. Evan Evans and Mr. David James Williams, Llanelly.

Circuit No. 32.—Dr. Michael Beverley and Dr. Hamilton AshleyBallance, Norwich.

Circuit No. 35.-Mr. Walter Gifford Nash and Mr. Edward ColbySharpin. Bedford; and Mr. George Borthwick Mead, Cambridge.

Circuit No. 42.-Mr. James Berry, 60, Welbeck-street. Cavendish-square, W.; and Mr. William Bruce Clarke, 51, Harley-street, W.

Circuit No. 43.-Mr. Christopher Heath, 36, Cavendish-square, W.;nd Dr. Herbert Campbell Thomson, 34, Queen Anne-street, W.

City of London.-Dr. William Murray Leslie, 23, Fenchurch-street, E.C.

_______________

METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL SUNDAY FUND.

THE following were among the principal amounts received.at the Mansion House up to Wednesday last in aid of thisFund. The total now amounts to £37,000 :-

-- -

Public Health and Poor Law.REPORTS OF MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH.

Birmingham Sanitary -District.-Dr. Alfred Hill is, in histwenty-fifth annual report, in no sense enthusiastic as to thesanitary progress of the city of Birmingham-that citywhich has ere now been held up as a pattern of municipaladministration. The general death-rate is not, Dr. Hill

considers, at all what it should be in relation to that of theother large towns, in spite of the fact that at one time thesanitary activity of the corporation led to a very markeddiminution in the mortality. This is well shown by thefollowing figures ;-

* Enlarged city.

In 1873 Dr. Hill was appointed medical officer of health, andit is to the sanitary progress which took place in the decadefollowing the appointment that this reduction in the death-rate is probably in large part due. During the past fifteenyears, however, despite the extension of the city boundaries,there has been no reduction in the death-rate, and Dr. Hillrefuses altogether to accept the position that no furtherreduction can be effected. He points out in opposition tothis view that if other large towns can have death-rate.-.below 20 per 1000 he sees no reason why Birminghamshould not do the same. When, for instance, the last

quinquennium is compared with the preceding decennium itis found that Blackburn has reduced its death-rate 4,Huddersfield 4, Halifax 3-8, Cardiff 3-8, Oldham 3-7,Preston 3’4, and Manchester 3’3 per 1000, while Birminghamhas been practically at a standstill. If the mortality of Bir-mingham is to be reduced, it is essential, Dr. Hill thinks, tocontinue the improvements which were followed by such goodresults after he first took office. The sewers should be

thoroughly examined as to their soundness, courts andterraces should be paved, pan-privies should be done awaywith, and the water-carriage system of excrement disposalgenerally adopted ; scavenging of refuse should be improvedand more air-space about dwellings insisted upon. The isola-tion hospital accommodation of Birmingham is, too, not whatit should be, and those who do not already know it will be very

surprised to hear that there is no provision either for diph-theria or enteric fever. In reference to this latter disease wenotice that as a matter of precaution against the specificcontamination of the public water-supply Dr. Hill wrote toevery medical officer of health having jurisdiction in thewatersheds from which the supply is drawn requesting to beinformed of any cases of enteric fever which might occur,and in addition to this it was determined to make monthlvbacteriological examinations of water taken from each of thethree zones of supply. Diarrhceal diseases exacted an

enormous toll in Birmingham during 1897, no less than 1444deaths having been attributed thereto. Of this number asmany as 1150 occurred during the third quarter of theyear, and as regards age distribution 1074 were undertwo years of age and 930 under one year. Into thecircumstances connected with a large number of thesedeaths Dr. Hill has gone very carefully and he

found that overcrowding and insanitary yards and privieslargely obtained; in fact, his observations have led himi to agree entirely with the late Dr. Ballard as to the

, influence of fouled soil and accumulations of excreta and

refuse. There are, we are told, still 30,000 pan-privies in

; Birmingham, and it is easy to understand that as long’ asi these remain in existence no great progress is likely to be

made. With regard to ensuring the free dilution of pollutedair among and within dwellings, a point upon which

Dr. Ballard insisted so strongly, Dr. Hill advises that stepsbe taken to reduce the density of the buildings in the olderparts of the city. He thinks that a great deal may be

3 done by pulling down under the Housing of the Working