The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-01 00:00:00

SUPPLY OF PURE WATER.

The question how London Fhall be supplied with
water, ample in quantity, and good in quality. as wE.II
as reasonable tin price, is one which interests two mil.

lions of her Majesty's lieges, and may well engage again
the deliberate attention of Parliament. The select com-
mittees which have already had the subject under con-
sideration have shown clearly enough that years ago
London was insufficiently supplied with water, and that
the supply was bad in quality as well as far less than
what the population required. These facts may now be
safely taken for granted, and it would be mere waste of
time to listen to the evidence of a single witness to
confirm them. We want far more water than now is or
can be supplied to the metropolis. Let it be shown
where we can get water enough and good enough, and
howit can be supplied at the cheapest rate, and the ne-
cessity of so obtaining and supplying it will not he dis-
puted. There is no reason to apprehend any
irresistible opposition from the water compa-
nies. They know that Parliament takes quite
sufficient care of " veited interests," and that
whatever alterations may be made in the existing sys-
tem the shareholders will not be robbed; and we suspect
that they have already pretty well made up their minds
that many years will not elapse before they are " com-
pensated.' If not, we weule suggest that their coming
to that conclusion speedily would, probably, not only
save them in the long run a considerable amount of
needless vexation, but also render the settlement of the
amount of compensation to be granted to them more
satisfactory to themselves. When a monopolist offers
to surrender his rights for a round sum without hag-
gling, there is a semblance of' generosity in the preced-
ing ; and, though the monopoly is not worth to him
more than what he makes by it, the purchaser hopes
that it will be worth more to himself: If, how-
ever, the monopolist should insist on his pound
of flesh, he would find a Portia in the public.
Various in detail as well as in efficiency have been
the plans suggested within the last few years for
supplying London with water. The latest scheme
—or rather the scheme which has last come under
our notice, for we dare not pledge ourselves that it has
not already a successor—is that of conducting the water
of the Thames from Henley to West Drayton by means
of a new navigable canal, and thence to Paddington by
the existing Grand Junction Canal. The promoters,
without distinctly crying "stinking fish," 'intimate their
apprehension that the public would grumble at „having
to drink the water of a barge river, by providing for an
addition of 250,000/. to their proposed capital, " if upon
more mature deliberation it should be found expedient
that aseparate channel should be made for the water for the
whole distance." It may be thought easy to show by figures
that " 100 barges a-day can produce no effect upon the
vast body of water in question;" but we should be inclined
to think that a single barge would be objectionable, and
that, though half London may be drinking Thames water
because they cannot help it, there would be a loud outcry
against the channel being used for anything but the trans-
mission of clean water. In a mere engineering point of
view the Henley scheme may be very practicable, and as
a commercial speculation it might prove profitable; but
there are other considerations involved which are of
much more importance to the water drinkers. The
quality of all the water at present supplied to London
by the water companies is, as regards hardness, decidedly
b'ad. Whether hard or soft water be the better for the
health of those who drink it, and what is the degree of
hardness the best for, or the least injurious to, the
human body, are questions yet, we believe, unanswered.
That hard water is decidedly bad for most domestic and
many manufacturing purposes, is a fact not admitting
of a doubt. The hundreds of thousands of pounds which
have been literally " sunk " in boring to the sand or
the chalk under London for a supply of soft water to
breweries, sugar works, and other large establishments,
render an argument on this point needless. We are
by no means inclined to pin our faith to the statistics of
sanitary reformers, who run riot in estimating on guess
the pecuniary value of all the ills that flesh is heir to.
But, without subscribing to the dictum of the sanitary
statists, who put the value of the soap wasted in London
by the hardness of the water at 630,0001. a year, we fully
admit that the loss must be so great as to render it in-
disputable that a very large outlay to secure a supply of
soft water might be a pecuniary gain to the metropolis.
One of the first points, therefore, to be established by
the projectors of the Henley waterworks is, that the
water of the Thames at Henley is of decidedly better
quality than at Brentford, Chelsea, or London. bridge.
In order to establish this point, the difference between
water holding matter iu solution, and water holding
matter in suspension, must be particularly considered.
Matter held in suspension may be cleansed by inex-
pensive filtration; while water may run brilliantly
sparkling from the filter, and yet, by reason of the
matter held in solution, be of a thoroughly bad quality
for domestic or manufacturing use. Another point of
probably equal importance would be, whatever should
bo the source of the supply, to show that the water would
not act on lead. The water at present supplied to London
is understood to pass through leaden pipes and to remain
in leaden cisterns without acquiring any poisonous taint.
The recent experience at Claremont is quite enough to
convince the most sceptical that the introduction into
London of any water, the qualities of which had not been
previously found to be such as to permit its harmless
contact with lead, might be far worse than going
on with the present scanty supply. We throw out
these hints for the guidance o the projectors of
the scheme as well as of Parliament. The sub-
ject is not one which affects the interests of a com-
pany alone, or principally • and though Parliament
ought to facilitate any well-directed private efforts to
increase the supply of water, great care must be taken
that the establishment of a new monopoly ho not per-
mitted, unless it be conclusively proved that the pubic
will be the eventual gainers. The projectors propose to
afford an additi inul supply to the existing water com-
panies, and to enable them to retail it as they do at pre-
sent. It most, however, be considered whether the pre-
sent mode of supplying water to London should be per-
petuated. Modern experience tends to show that
great advantages may result from placing the water
supply and the drainage of towns under the same juris-
diction; and the provisions of the Public Health Act
seem to take this as proved. It does not, however,
follow that private capitalists may not be encouraged
to assist in the performance of such public duties.
Money must be had for all improvements, and it is a
financial rather, than an administrative consideration,
whether it is better to raise it by rates, by borrowing on
the credit of rates, or by the agency of a company and
shareholders—the company being subjected to such con-
ditions as the public good requires. The Thames, the
Lea, the Wandle, the Comae, and the Brent seam to be
the streams to which those who have proposed to sup-
ply London with surface water have chiefly confined
their attention. It may be important to ascertain whe-
ther it might not be advisable, for the sake of obtaining
water of the best quality, to bring it from a greater
distance than has hitherto been contemplated. The
Artesian wells proposal should also receive due con-
sideration, and not the less so because the accuracy of
the assertions as to the possibility of drawing an ample
supply for London from the chalk stratum below it, is
scarcely ascertainable at present by reference to known
facts. The Trafalgar-square fountains throw some
doubt on the denials of the capabilities of deep wells.
We would not prejudge any one of the points which may
be mooted. Toe whole subject requires, and must have,
the most impartial investigation by Parliament, and
every side should have its hearing. Among others we
cannot but hope that the Metropolitan Sanitary Com-
mission will be heard, and that they will not postpone
their report on water supply till the question has been
decided without their opinion being known.— Ti