535

classical writers. The first papyrus of medical interest is

No. 39, which is from the military archives of Oxyrhynchus,and is the certificate for the release from army service of one

Tryphon because of defective eyesight. It reads thus :

11 Copy of release, dated and signed in the twelfth year ofTiberius Claudius Csesar. Release from service was grantedby G. Vergilius Capito, prefect of Upper and Lower Egypt,to Tryphon son of Dionysius, weaver, suffering fromcataract and shortness of sight, of the metropolis of

Oxyrhynchus. Examination was made at Alexandria."Another papyrus gives an account of a lawsuit relativeto the identity and the custody of an infant who

had been placed with a baby farmer. Papyrus No.51 is the report of a medical officer upon a case of

suicide and is dated A.D. 173. A similar document is to be

found in the large collection of Greek papyri in the BerlinMuseum. The present one is as follows: I I To Clandianus,strategus, from Dionysius, son of Apollodorus, son of

Dionysius of Oxyrhynchus, public physician. I was to-dayinstructed by you through Heraclides, your assistant, to in-spect the body of a man who had been found hanged, namedHierax, and to report to you my opinion upon it. I therefore

inspected the body in the presence of Heraclides at thehouse of Epagathus in the Broad-street quarter and foundit hanged by a noose, which fact I accordingly report."

THE trustees of the Reid Trust for the Education of

Women have decided to offer a scholarship at the LondonSchool of Medicine for Women in memory of their

co-trustee, Miss Bostock of Penmaen, Glamorganshire, latelydeceased. The value of the scholarship will be q60 a year,tenable for from two to four years, and will be awarded onthe result of the preliminary scientific examination of theUniversity of London. The Bostock scholar must read forthe London medical degree. Further particulars may beobtained from the honorary secretary of the Reid Trust,Bedford College, York-place, W.

THE Royal Agricultural Society of England, with the objectdirectly of assisting dairy farmers in meeting the presentrequirements of sanitary authorities and indirectly of pre-venting the spread of tuberculosis through dairy products,has issued a small leaflet full of wise suggestions to all whomit may concern. Copies of this leaflet may be obtained freeof charge on application to the secretary of the society at13, Hanover-square, London, W.

WE regret to announce the death of Dr. Arkle from

pneumonia after only three days’ illness. Deceased had justresigned the vice-deanship at Charing Cross Hospital MedicalSchool where also he was Lecturer on Biology and JointLecturer on Practical Medicine.

THE explanatory memorandum of the Army Estimateshas been issued. There is an increase of <BI0,OOO for themedical establishment, coinciding with provision for 18additional officers and 150 men for the Royal Army MedicalCorps. -

SiR JOHN STIRLING MAXWELL, BART., M.P., has consentedto preside at a festival dinner in aid of the funds of

University College Hospital to be held at the Whitehall

Rooms, Hotel Metropole, on Thursday, June 15th.

DR. J. M. Ross, until now medical officer of the county of

Dumfries, has been appointed county medical officer of healthfor Wiltshire.

THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE METRO-POLITAN WATER-SUPPLY.

THE fifty-second sitting of the Royal Commissioners was-held at the Guildhall, Westminster, on Feb. 14th. TheChairman (Lord Llandaff) and all the other Commissionerswere present. The witnesses examined were Mr. Frank

Henry Wybroo, Mr. Mathew Wilson Hervey, respectivelysecretary and chief engineer to the West Middlesex Water-works Company, and Mr. Frederick Tendron, chairman of theGrand Junction Waterworks Company.A number of statements were put in referring to the works

of the West Middlesex Company. These included a,

description of the engines and of the pumps, a table

showing the freehold and leasehold land used by thecompany, and statistics extending in some cases as far backas 1851 referring to the amount of water supplied, to the

population, and to the number of houses supplied. Constant

supply was first given to 326 houses in the year 1873.This number amounted to 0’7 of the entire percentage ofhouses supplied. At the end of last year the number of

: houses under constant supply numbered 74,692-89-5 of the: total number of supplies given. The daily amount of waterl supplied per head has increased somewhat irregularly. In

the year 1852 it amounted to 27’5 gallons per head daily ;in 1862 to 30-7; in 1872 it was rather less-28-9; in 1882,25-4; in 1892, 311. In the year 1898 it was 34-9. Thetables put in give full details with regard to the pumpingcapacity and to the length of the mains. An esti-mate was given of the future capital expenditure of the’company-that is, the amount which it was supposed willhave to be spent in order to carry on the undertakings up tothe year 1937. Tables were also given showing the grossand net profits and other financial details.

Mr. WYBROO in answer to the CHAIRMAN explained thatthe net profits fell in the year 1895 because of the expenditurewhich it was necessary to make as a result of the effects ofthe frost. There was a diminution in the net profits in th eyear 1894 which was due to a " rebate " to the water con-sumers. Discussion arose as to the meaning of the word" rebate " and as to the propriety of its use.In answer to Mr. MELLOR the witness said that every

consumer in the company’s district had his water rents-reduced. This was a statutory reduction because the com-pany were able to pay their shareholders 10 per cent.Mr. BALFOUR BROWNE preferred the expression "reduction

of charges." "Mr. PEMBER thought " rebate " a good word.In answer to Mr. MELLOR the witness said that a rebate-

of five per cent. was allowed upon all water rents fromMidsummer, 1887. It was not allowed before that timebecause back dividends had not been paid.

In answer to the CHAIRMAN the witness said that it wasnot true that the poorer classes paid more than the richerin the districts supplied by the West Middlesex Company.On the contrary, the poor paid less than the rich.The CHAIRMAN said that Mr. Gomme of the London

County Council had pointed out that the expenditure of thecompany went up considerably after the year 1887-that isto say, as soon as the company had paid its back dividendsand could therefore divide amongst themselves only 10 percent. by way of dividend. The witness said that the annualamounts put down for maintenance in the tables which hadbeen put in were correct. The expenditure for the years1886 and 1887 was due to the fact that a greater amount wasspent on filter beds. Money was spent at that time becauseit was necessary ; the work was not done before because itwas not required. In the years 1887 and 1888 new filter bedswere constructed at a cost of 21,000. The payment of thatsum was spread over two years.

In answer to Mr. DE BOCK PORTER the witness said thatbetween the years 1878 and 1887 there was no exceptionalexpenditure.

In answer to the CHAIRMAN the witness said that therewere no new works during those years and the extra workswhich were done were paid for out of revenue.The CHAIRMAN examined the witness with regard to the

revision of the capital of the company which took place inthe year 1852. The company claimed that at that time theircapital amounted to 830,000. ,

536

The CHAIRMAN asked how it was that Parliament loppedoff the difference between 506,697 and 830,000. Thewitness explained that although some of the capitalof the company was raised at par and the shareswere fully paid up some other capital was raised at no lessthan 70 per cent. discount. At one time the authorised

capital was .B400,000, but to get .6400,000 the companyissued 8300 pound shares for which they only got .8396,000.Parliament allowed them to fix as their capital the actualamount of money which had been received for the shares.Mr. PEMBER read extracts from the Act of 1852 which he

remarked "put it as clean as a whistle." He also inserted

interpolations of his own and the CHAIRMAN remarked thatwhen counsel interposed observations of his own in readingthe text for the first time it was extremely difficult to follow.Briefly the fact is that the amount allowed by Parliamentwas the sum which had been actually subscribed by theshareholders plus the amount which they had spent in theworks and part of which was paid out of their dividends.(During the early struggles of this and other companies theadventurers instead of paying a dividend often used theirprofits for the maintenance or extension of their works. Seehistory of the Lambeth Company, THE LANCET, March 13th,1897, p. 757.)In answer to the CHAIRMAN the witness said that the

’Vestry of Paddington had applied to a magistrate in theyear 1888 to fix the charge for water supplied for municipalpurposes. At that time the price charged by the companywas 9d. per 1000 gallons but the magistrate altered therate to 8.

In answer to Sir JOHN DORINGTON the witness said that hecould not tell on what grounds a magistrate in such a casegave his decision.

Mr. CLAUDE BAGGALLAY said that he had had to argue acase just before Christmas and that he was unable to saywhat the guiding principle in the decision was.Mr. PEMBER suggested that the magistrate acted as an

arbitrator and not as a lawyer, but Mr. BAGGALLAY saidthat the magistrate gave reasons for his decision, but that itwas very difficult to apprehend them and he could not

attempt to explain them. Mr. LEWIS asked whether the- decision of one magistrate was respected by another

magistrate. Mr. BAGGALLAY said that he was unable toanswer that question.With regard to the effect of the decision of the House of

Lords in the case of Dobbs versus the Grand Junction

Company the witness said that the company revised theircharges after this decision. In some cases the charges werelowered, in some cases they were raised. In a great manycases the company was charging on a sum less than therateable value of the property. The result of the revision ofthe water rents of the company was favourable to the

’company.The UHAIRMAN suggested that they were obliged to

reduce some of their rates but screwed up all the others, butthe witness pointed out that they had not raised them as’much as they had a right to do for it happened that when’Torrens’s Act was passed and rateable value was made thestandard on which water rents were charged there wasanother revision which resulted in a further increase to their’revenue. The decision of the action in the case of Dobbsand the Act of Torrens were both favourable to the revenuesof the West Middlesex Company.With regard to the question of meters the witness said

that the cost of supplying meters to the whole of Londonwould amount to about 1,500,000 and the cost of fixingthem would amount to &pound; 1,000,000 more if they were placed- outside the houses. If they were placed inside the housesthe cost would be less but special legislation would be neces-sary. It would also be necessary that a scale of chargesshould be fixed to produce incomes equal to the present onesreceived by the companies and in addition a meter rentwould have to be charged.The CHAIRMAN thought that there was nothing absolutely

sacred about the present net income of the companies, butMr. PEMBER expressed the hope that the 10 per cent. was inthe canon.

Mr. BALFOUR BROWSE referred in some detail to clausesxelating to the fixation of the capital of the company in theyear 1852 and pointed out that the words of the Act were thatcapital should be taken as .B506,300 divided into 8300 sharesof <B61 each and that the nominal value of the existingshares of the company was to be reduced from &pound; 100 to 61each.

Mr. HERVEY, in answer to the CHAIRMAN, explained thetables which had been put in with regard to the statistics ofthe expected increase in the population supplied by the WestMiddlesex Company. He said that according to LordBalfour’s estimate the company would in the year 1937require 10,000,000 gallons a day more than at present. Thiswater they hoped to get from the Thames and the cost ofdoing so and of making the alterations requisite for itsdistribution would, he thought, amount to .Bl,250,000.They would require a new covered reservoir which wouldcost about .S50.000, new filter beds costing ,6160,000, newmains costing 300,000, and engines, boilers, and buildingsamounting to 200,000.The CHAIRMAN referred to a proposal which had been

made to divide the undertakings between the county ofLondon and the county of Middlesex so that each of thesedistricts might have an independent supply. The witness

replied that that would be a very difficult thing to do andwould entail a large expense the amount of which it wouldnot be easy to estimate. Several of the reservoirs belonging tothe company which are situated within the county of Londonsupply districts outside the county of London ; and, again,reservoirs situated outside the county of London supply dis-tricts inside that county. All the mains are laid down soas to give a supply most conveniently under the existingconditions ; if those conditions were altered it would neces-sitate a double series of mains in a very large number ofplaces. The arrangements for the purification of the waterare situated in the county of Surrey ; all the water passes toHammersmith whence it is pumped to the districts supplied.Roughly speaking, about a quarter of the water is suppliedin the county of Middlesex and the other three-quarters inthe county of London. If a complete severance of the

arrangements for the purification and distribution of thewater were made the subsidence reservoirs would have to bedivided. At present the water passes to the pumping stationsat Hammersmith in a common tunnel and a fresh tunnelwould have to be made. The pumping station at Hampton isin the county of Surrey; if a complete severance of the

supplies were made there would be a difficulty as to themains from Hampton to Barnes. Filter-beds would alsohave to be separated and divided between the county ofMiddlesex and the county of London. The whole of the

distributing mains would have to be remodelled so as to

pump direct to the county of Middlesex without interferingwith the mains supplying the county of London.

In answer to Major-General SCOTT the witness said that itwould be extremely difficult to divide the filter-beds and theengines between two authorities assuming that the severancetook place on the lines suggested by Sir Alexander Binnie.At the present time the filtered water is collected into oneshaft from which it is passed through a tunnel under theThames to Hammersmith.The CHAIRMAN questioned the witness as to the expe-

rience he had had with regard to the deposit of mud in thereservoirs. The witness said that 18 months ago they hadcleaned out a reservoir for the first time for a period of30 years. This reservoir which was situated at Barnesreceived water pumped directly from the river. The accumu-lation of 30 years amounted to an average of 8’42 of liquidmud ; of this a large proportion, certainly 50 per cent., waswater.

In answer to the CHAIRMAN the witness said that in floodtime the water was much more foul and contained more solidmatter in suspension than when the river was not in flood.

i In answer to Mr. MELLOR the witness said that in theyear 1866 they cleaned out four acres of filter beds whichhad been constructed in the year 1852. The interior of thebeds contained a certain amount of coloured matter but it wasfound that practically the whole of the matter in suspensionin the water had been arrested at or near the surface of thebed. During the process of filtration a film is formed on thesurface of the filter. This film is visible to the naked eyeand does not require a microscope or any other scientificapparatus to detect it. During the summer time when thewater is good the film on a filter bed which has been atwork for a couple of months does not amount to more thanthe eighth of an inch in thickness. In the winter when thewater contains more suspended matter the film is formedmore quickly but it has the same appearance.

In answer to Major-General SCOTT the witness said thatbefore the reservoirs were made at Barn Elms the companyhad to deal with water which was more or less muddy. Thiswas passed through subsidence reservoirs before filtration.

537

When the water was more or less muddy it was found thatafter filtration the colour was not so good as the filtrateof water which was not originally muddy. Flood waterwas always coloured and the colour could not be eliminated.

Major-General SCOTT suggested that the quality was notas good when they had to deal with flood water as when theyhad to deal with water in its best condition. The witnessadmitted that he did not see how it could be so good becausethe river water at its best was practically chalk water.Under the Staines Reservoirs Scheme water derived fromthat source would be treated by subsidence before it wasfiltered. The arrangements of the company were such thatit could not possibly be used otherwise. The witness thoughtthat it was desirable that flood water should always passthrough subsiding reservoirs. If the water were not allowedto subside a larger number of filters would be necessary.

In answer to Mr. MELLOR the witness said that the first

sign of the choking of a filter was that the water passedthrough the sand less rapidly; therefore if the water wereallowed still to flow on to the filter bed at the same rate thelevel of the water on the bed would rise. A filter-bed mayremain in an efficient condition without becoming chokedfor a week, a month, or two months, according to the qualityof the water filtered. It was the duty of a man to watch thefilter night and day.In answer to the CHAIRMAN the witness said that in the

case of flood water the water after filtration was alwaysmore coloured in the winter than in the summer time. Thedifference could be detected in an ordinary bath.

Sir GEORGE BRUCE said : "If you notice it in a bath youwould not notice it in a tumbler."

In answer to Mr. MELLOR the witness said that thecoloured water did not necessarily imply that the water wasof a bad quality and he gave the Glasgow water as aninstance.Mr. PEMBER suggested that it was very like the difference

between diamonds of different water. It made a greatdifference to the value per carat, but nobody but an expertwould know it and Mr. BALFOUR BROWNE agreed that thevalue was very much affected.

In answer to Major-General SCOTT the witness said thathe did not attach much importance to the possession of arecording apparatus to show the rate of filtration. He wasaware that such arrangements were in general use in Berlin,but the manner in which water was to flow on to the filterbed must be controlled by the individual in charge and theonly use of the arrangement was that it gave a record ofwhat was actually being done.

In answer to Mr. MELLOR the witness said that there wasnot the least objection to the apparatus.Mr. FREDERICK TENDRON said that he had been chairman

of the Grand Junction Waterworks Company for two years.He did not think that the people of London would gain bybuying the water companies’ undertakings at any rate for thepresent. With regard to the company in which he was con-cerned he would say, Leave the undertakings in the handsof the company and they will obtain their 10 per cent. imaximum and possibly also their back dividends sooner than Iany public body purchasing the undertakings could arrive atthe same financial point, therefore the consumer wouldbenefit more rapidly if things were left as they are than ifthe company were transferred to a purchaser.

The fifty-third sitting of the Royal Commissioners washeld at the Guildhall, Westminster, on Feb. 20th. TheChairman (Lord Llandaff) and all the other Commissionerswere present. The sitting was occupied in hearing theevidence of Mr. Frederick Tendron and Mr. Harry Wilkins(secretary to the Lambeth Waterworks Company). A largenumber of documents were put in during the sitting. The

appendix to the shorthand notes which contains these con-sists of no less than 60 pages. Amongst these papers thereis a statement with regard to the present condition of theGrand Junction Waterworks Company and a number oftables giving particulars with regard to the Stock Exchangevalue of the stocks of the company at different periods andas to various financial and other details. There is a state-ment containing particulars with regard to the estimatedfuture capital expenditure which will be necessary andstatements with regard to the statutory limits of the supplyof the company. These tables cannot be reproduced inTHE LANCET.Mr. TENDRON at the beginning of the sitting made a

correction with regard to some evidence which he had given

concerning back dividends and the examination which im-mediately followed had reference to the increase of popula-tion which would probably take place within the GrandJunction Company’s area of supply. The witness said that,taking 22-3 per cent. as the decennial increase of the popula-tion within the company’s area, in the year 1937 the popula-tion would amount to 920,800 and he proceeded to give anestimate of the amount which, in his opinion, it would be

necessary for the company to expend in order to supplythis population with an average quantity of 35 gallons perhead per day and in providing that a quantity of 42 tgallons per head daily should be supplied occasionally. Thewitness estimated that the amount which the companywould have to spend would only be <81,063,420, but thiswas on the assumption that they would be allowed to obtainwater from the Thames and that the flow of the rivershould, if necessary, be reduced to 100,000,000 gallons perday.Mr. HARRY WiLKiNS stated that the company which he

served did not wish to sell their business and that hewas present at the interview which took place between SirArthur Arnold on behalf of the London County Council andvarious representatives of the metropolitan water companies.It may be remembered that Sir Arthur Arnold at the nine-teenth and twentieth sittings of the Commission gave hisimpressions as to the result of this interview which were tothe effect that the representatives of the water companieswould be willing to sell their businesses. The witness saidthat on behalf of the Lambeth Company he did not,at that interview either agree that the company would’be willing to sell their undertaking nor did he givehis assent to any particular terms on which purchase-might be effected. At the present time the companydo not assent to the arbitration clauses suggested bythe London County Council. Mr. Banbury’s scheme 1 would,in his opinion, require considerable modification before it,could be accepted by the water companies.

In answer to Mr. DE BOCK PORTER the witness said thathe could not say how long it would be before the companywould be likely to reduce their water rents. The witness

thought that the companies ought not to be prevented frompumping dry the wells which belonged to other people, andpractically he gave it as his opinion that the companiesought not to be placed under any rigid control with regardto their arrangements as to their future supplies. He gaveit as his opinion that the provisions of the sinking fundclause were atrocious.

1 Mr. Banbury’s scheme for the purchase of the Metropolitan WaterCompany’s undertakings was given on the thirtieth sitting of theRoyal Commission, which was held on July 18th, 1898. (SeeTHE LANCET, July 23rd, 1898).

THE PLYMOUTH POLICE SURGEON.-At a recentmeeting of the Plymouth Town Council the Watch Com-mittee reported that as the result of correspondence passedbetween Mr. Wolferstan, police surgeon, and the town clerkwith regard to the duties and office of the police surgeonthey had resolved that Mr. Wolferstan be requested to resignthe office at the termination of the current financial year.After a considerable discussion the council negatived theminute of the Watch Committee by 30 votes to 11. Mr.Wolferstan who has been police surgeon in Plymouth for 25years is to be congratulated upon this result.

VACCINATION IN BARTON REGIS (EXETER).-Atthe meeting of the Barton Regis Board of Guardians held onFeb. 17th the clerk stated that the particulars of the returnrespecting the vaccination of children from Jan. lst toJune 30th, 1898, in the vaccination districts of Clifton, St.Philip and Jacob, Ashley, Westbury, Stapleton, Winter-bourne, and St. George were as follows : number of birthsreturned 1570, successfully vaccinated 619, insusceptible 3,dead not vaccinated 137, and " conscientious objections" 58.The number of these births which on Jan. 31st, 1898,remained unentered in the vaccination register was asfollows: postponed by medical certificate 84, removed todistricts of which the vaccination officer has been apprised107, and removed to places unknown 30. The number of thesecases remaining on Jan. 31st, 1899, neither duly entered invaccination register nor temporarily accounted for in the

report book was 532