322

directed towards the object and focussed upon it. In Bacon’stheory the effort to project a visual ray takes the place of theeffort at accommodation in the modern theory of vision andthe visual ray theory, although incorrect, was distinctlybetter than no theory at all, that is to say better than theview that the eye is purely passive in the act of vision. The.. visual ray " was truly a figment of the imagination andone destined to be superseded when fuller knowledge madethe matter clear. But it was to be replaced, not simplyabolished like an exploded myth and until the more accurateknowledge came it served the useful purpose of preservingfrom oblivion and neglect some of the most important and -interesting phenomena of vision. This is why we havespoken of it as a benignant error. Being an error it gave anincorrect explanation of the facts, yet even so it kept thefacts in mind and classified them and in both these respectsit contributed to real and material knowledge.These specimens must suffice to illustrate the quality of

Roger Bacon’s work. It abounds with points which will

repay study and study the more interesting because it mustbe entered upon with a discriminating mind. At one pointthe correctness of his anatomy will awaken deserved admira-tion and surprise, at another the boldness and felicity of hisspeculations, at a third some instructive error will attractattention and so the work varies not only in degree but alsoin kind of interest from page to page. But in one form oranother the interest is never wanting and there are fewlibraries that might not be rendered the more complete by theaddition of Dr. Bridges’s two volumes.

THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON THEMETROPOLITAN WATER-SUPPLY.

THE sixth meeting of the Royal Commissioners was held inthe Moses Room of the House of Lords on Monday, Jan. 24th.All the Commissioners were present. The County Councilwere represented by Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., and thewater companies were represented as usual by counsel.On behalf of the London County Council Mr. BALFOUR

BROWNE rose to say that the Council had no wish to " makea case." They were represented at the Commission in answerto an invitation they had received in order to give any helpthey could with regard to the inquiry. On their behalf heshould be glad to have any directions from the committee asto what information they wanted; for example, with regard tothe purchase of provincial water companies by the corpora-tion he wished to know whether the Commissioners desiredto have particulars with regard to these cases. It would bedifficult to ensure the presence of the officials who hadnegotiated the transference of the water businesses to thevarious corporations. He therefore asked whether the Com-missioners cared to receive the evidence which had beencollected by an officer of the County Council with referenceto the subject.The CHAIRMAN pointed out that this would be second-hand

evidence, a fact admitted by Mr. Balfour Browne, who statedthat the proposed witness had done his best to get accurateinformation.On behalf of the water companies Mr. PEMBER said that

they would have no objection to this evidence if they had anopportunity of testing its accuracy.With regard to the evidence which had already been

tendered by the officers of the London County CouncilMr. BALFOUR BRowNE said that many things had happenedsince Lord Balfour’s Commission had made their report andthat he was aware that the COUlmIt sioners had resolved notto go behind the report.The CHAIRMAN said that Sir Alexander Binnie had-given

some evidence which did go behind the report.Sir ALEXANDER BINNIE gave the Commissioners a copy of

the by-laws in force at Bradford and added some statisticswith regard to the daily amount of water supplied per head.At the present time it is 17 5 gallons ; but in many cases doesnot exceed 5 7 gallons per head. This is, however, in the out-lying parts of the town where the dry closet system is inforce. After taking over the water-supply the corporationadopted means for checking any waste of water. Meterswere fixed to the chief mains and the amount of waterpassing through was measured every hour of the day. When

a large quantity passed between 1 and 3 A.M. it was con-sidered that waste was taking place and the pipes were over-hauled. Again, if it was found that a large quantity waspassing through the mains to any particular consumer an,officer of the corporation called and made inquiries as to thewater-fittings.

Major- General SCOTT pointed out that meters were largelyused by some of the metropolitan water companies and par-ticularly by the East London and the Southwark andVauxhall Companies.

Sir ALEXANDER BINNIE was unable to state what pro-portion of pipes in the metropolitan area were placed at aninsufficient depth below the surface of the ground. He,however, tendered a schedule which contained an account ofall the pipes belonging to the Southwark and Vauxhall andthe Lambeth Companies which had burst during the lastsevere frost.Evidence was given as to the daily over-draught taken by

the Southwark and Vauxhall Company as follows. In 1892it was on an average 3 6 million gallons ; in 1893 4’5 milliongallons ; in 1894 49 million gallons; in 1895 8 9 milliongallons ; and in 1896 7’5 million gallons daily. A table washanded in showing the average estimated maximum supplyof the New River Company from 1895 to 1915, as given beforeSir Joseph Pease’s Committee. The table is as follows :-

The witness also put in a table showing the probable futurerequirements for the year 1931 :-

I

Sir ALEXANDER BINNIE also gave a table showing the-amount supplied per head in various American cities.According to these statistics the daily rate per head inBuffalo is no less than 325’8 gallons ; in Chicago 190’7gallons ; in New York 103-9 gallons ; and in Toronto 100’3gallons.

, With regard to the large amount of water used in American

323

cities Major-General SCOTT said that in America pipes were,practically allowed to run all day.

Sir ALEXANDER BINNIE said that he estimated the amountwhich would be required per head in London daily at from55 to 40 gallons. This included the amount supplied todrinking fountains. It did not, hovever, include thefountains in Trafalgar- square which had a separate sourceof supply. He did not thirk the cost of connecting the.mains of the different companies would be very great. Thewitness stated that the mains of the East London and NewRiver communicated with one another.In answer to Mr. CRIPPS, Q.C., Sir ALEXANDER BINNIP3

stated that he knew that the Thames Commissioners now hadcontrol of the entire watershed of the river and that they hadanade regulations with regard to the sanitary arrangements onriver boats. He had no complaint as to inemcieicy to makewith regard to the Thames Conservancy Board ; he thoughtthey were doing their work well. In answer to General SCOTT4he witness said that he thought a certain amount of risk wasrun in taking so much water from the Thames and Lee,which were both polluted rivers. He stated that theCharlton well had been given up by the Kent Companybecause it was situated in a polluted area.Major-General ScoTT asked the witness whether in view of

the difficulties which the water companies had it would notbe best to leave them with their own statutory liabilities andthe witness said this view had not occurred to him. Hesummed up the advantages to the consumer of placing thewater-supply of London in the hands of a representative:body as follows : I 1 1. It would put an end once andfor all to the continued inquiries in the London water ques-tion, which have been going on since 1811, carried out byRoyal Commissions and by Parliament ; at the same time itwould carry out the recommendations of the Duke of Rich-mond’s Commission, Sir William Harcourt’s Commission,Sir Matthew White Ridley’s Committee in 1891, and therecommendations contained in the report of Sir Joseph.Pease’s Committee in 1896. 2. It would place London in asimilar position to that which it has been found most expe-dient to adopt in almost all other large towns in GreatBritain and Ireland and which has been found most conduciveto the public interest in the United States of America,and it is a duty which the Government of India places inthe hands of almost all the municipal bodies in their Indianempire. 3. That according to all authorities on the subject,Lord Balfour’s Commission, the recent evidence of the watercompanies, and the investigations of the County Council, the,present water-supply of London must be more than doubledwithin the next thirty or forty years and it is expedient thatthese new works should be carried out by some public body.and not by commercial companies. The supply of waterfrom the present sources may be taken for the year1896 at 198,000,000 gallons a day. This cost in capitalexpenditure 16,531,346 or at the rate of .683,492per 1,000,000 gallons supplied per day. Had these worksbeen carried out by the Metropolitan Board of Works andthe County Council they would no doubt have been treated asthe main drainage expenditure of the metropolis has beentreated, especially when we regard the long period over which’the expenditure has ranged. In the case of the main drainageworks since 1855 about seven and three-quarter millions ofcapital has been expended, of which three and a half millionshas been paid off, so that at the present time the maindrainage debt stands at only about f:4,200,OOO. Under theabove circumstances it is expedient that the large expendi- I,ture which is inevitable in the future should be placed inthe hands of a public body rather than in the hands of’commercial companies."The next meeting of the Commissioners will take place on

Monday, Jan. 31st.

THE WATER QUESTION AT CHARD -The ChardTown Council having proposed to make trials for water uponland which they have agreed to purchase at Combe St.icbola.s, and close to the spring which supplies that villagewith water, the Combe Parish Council has intimated to theOdaid Authority that the surfaca of the ground for a con-Üderable distance around the spring is saturated withanimal excrement, and if the ground is broken up it is mostlikely the spring will be affected thereby and a seriousepidemic break out in the village.

THE SCANDAL AT THE DARENTHIMBECILE ASYLUM.

THE General Purposes Committee of the MetropolitanAsylums Bard have had before them during the week thereport of a Special Committee deputed to inquire into thecircumstances attendant upon the death at the end ofNovember last of an inmate of the Darenth Imbecile Asylumnamed Martha Dickens.The following constituted the special committee: Mr.

R. M. Hensley (chairman), Sir Edwin Galsworthy, chairmanof the Metropolitan Asylums Board; Mr. J. Hardcastle,Mr. J. Hunt, Mr. J. R Hill, M.R C.S. Eng., L.R.C.P. Lond.,Mr. A. C. Scovell, and Dr. W. R. Smith. They examined Mr.A. T. O. White, the acting medical superintendent of theasylum ; Dr. W. L. Andriezen, the assistant medical super-intendent ; Mr. H. A. Good, in temporary medical employ-ment at the asylum ; Mr. Stamford Felce, the chairmanof the Darenth Committee ; Dr. A. H. N. Lewers, obstetric

pbybician to the London Hospital; and Mr. T. DuncombeMann, the secretary to the Metropolitan Asylums Board.The Special Committee did not take into consideration the

revolting circumstances of the pregnancy which led toMartha Dickens’s death, though it is well known to the

public that before her death she had charged a late attend-ant at the asylum with the paternity. Their report dealtonly with the circumstances relating to the unfortunatewoman’s confinement and subsequent death and ran as

follows :-

"1. Inasmuch as Dr. White, the acting medical superintendent, hashad no obstetrical experience since his student days, prior to 1882, wethink that he was very unwise in undertaking what was likely to provea difficult case. We do not find that he ever expressed unwill1ngnessor made any protest. He, however, states that in conversation withmembers ot the committee (whose names he cannot give) he suggestedin the interests of the institution that the woman should be sent awayfor her confinement.

"2. Although Dr. White became aware of the pregnancy onJuly 22nd we find no entry in the case book until after her death,Nov. 30th. Neitner bed-card ncr written instructions as to the conductof the case from day to day exist. In fact, there is a total absence.ofrecords

"3. We do not find any report of the pregnancy among the actingmedicat superintendent’s written reports to the committee.

"4. We do not find that any qualified or experienced nurse was pro-vided to attend the case or that any application was made to the com-mittee by Dr. White for the employment of such a person.

’’5. We find that no commumcatonwas made to the c,.,roner. Thoughnot legallv obligatory, this would, we think, have been prudent underthe sptcial circumstances.

"6. There was no post-mortem examination."

To this they add that-" Dr. White and his assistants appear to have spared no pains and

neglected no attention suggested by their experience for the welfare ofthe patient during her confinement, but we consider the above-mentioned errors ot judgment and omissions of duty so serious on thepa,rt of Dr. White that we feel bound to recommend the immediatetermination of his engagement." Although there id no report by the acting medical superintendent

on the subject of the pregnancy the Darenth Committee were aware ofthe facts, tor in their report of Dec. 13th, 1897, they state that theclerk to the board and the chairman of the committee made minuteinquiries into the facts and a special meeting of the committeethereon was held on Aug. 12th, 1897.

" 1’he Darenth Committee do not appear to have taken into con-sideration Dr. White’s want of experience in confinement cases and itdoes not appear to have occurred to them to provide a qualified orexperienced nurse notwithstanding that the occurrence of a birth in anasylum of this character is so unexpected and exceptional as to bequite unprovided for." The Darenth Committee in the same report give the substance of

the first portion of the reply of the Commissioners in Lunacy ofAug. 25th on this case, but emit any mention of the latter portion ofthe same letter animadverting on the administration of the asylum.

" We consider that in failing to apprehend the gravity of the situa-tion and in neglecting to make proper arrangements for the case bysecuring experienced medical and nursing attendance, and in omittingto report to this Board the full contents of the letter of the Commis-sioners in Lunacy, the Darenth Committee have failed to discharge asthey ought the dut’es entrusted to them."

The Special Committee conclude their report by approvingof the action of a sub-committee previously appointed inobtaining the expert assistance of Dr. Lewers, and by recom-mending that the Managers of the Metropolitan AsylumsBjard should call for the resignation of the acting medicalsuperintendent.The report will be fully debated by the Board next

Saturday, until after which debate it will be well thatjudgment should be suspended. But a circumstance whichhas come to our ears upon good authority should be put onrecord at once. Although Mr. White did not write out the