New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-02-23
PURIFYING ENGLISH RIVERS.
HOW pJrpIJC OPINION WAS ROUSED AND
POLLUTION STOPPED.
PROTESTS OF MANUFACTURERS AND "''>iO'
PALrTlEs OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES DIVERTED
FROM THE RIVERS.

FROM THE RIVERS
The. vigorous administration of the Rivers roll
tuition law in England is recent. Except as re-
cards the upper red hes of the Thames no sysle-
matte endeavor was made TO prevent river poi'u-
ton until the County Councils. estaohshed ny '"V
Local Government Act Of 1898, came ihto eN'9'-
once The exception In the case OF lhe lh"Ni's
Was due - the fact that London is oepehue"'
upon the Thames for large part OF JUS "a's.
suon,v and that i'm the sixties the pollution OF
Tho e,ra,-o Nv town sewage had become serious
danger In 1864 the Thames Conservancy Board
wa, authorized by Act Of Parliament 10 uedi
with the pollution, and as result oil us ao'i0"
all the towns on the non-tidal reaches "e'e
ouired to desist from turning their sewage '''o
A.. r;vor and were compelled to devise new
methods Of treating and disposhs oi It, Inv
changes thus enforced in the sixties and the
seventies entaied the expenditure OF large sum
Of money on the part of every town on the river
,,.r, Hon,nton 10 Cricklade. oxford spent
t,oo 600 Reading $4,000. Abingdon f2O'OOo, Elton
20, oon and Windsor $780, 900. all between 1874 ana
1875 in meeting the requirement Of the Thames
Conservancy Board.
r. was A comparatively easy matter TO get
through Parliament the act intrusuhe '"e Ooi-
seryancy Board with powers TO stop poiiu'ioii III
the Upper Thames, because the evil was obvious
and threatening and because no lnous''ia' III
terests were affected by the reform. In thls re-
spect the Thames in its non-tidai Por'iohs VIZ
fered from most of the other Enghsh riVeis'
especialy from those of the manufacturing re-
pions of the Mdands and the North OF Ehsiahu'
The municipalities were the only serious O"e"
49,, :, tho nollution of the Thames. In the
Thames Valley there were neither h'iiie' "o'
manufactures to add their share to the pollution.
q
hotb manufacturers and municipalities were re-
o,sib,e for river pollution. The manufacturers
go the Oldest offenders They had been poiiut-
tho the rivers from the beginning or the manu-
featuring era: and along every river IN industrial
ENGLAND there were scores Of manufacturers VINO
had ALWAYS used the streams to carry OH hluch
of their solid and all their liquid refuse. NJ
merous chemical works and dyeinS factories i"u'
in fact. been established along the rivers Surely
because they afforded cheap and ready means
of getting rid Of refuse
Tho manufacturers were the original Offenders
For nearly two generations they were 'he Only
ones II was not until after the era or SANITARY
reform in the fories and the mites '"a' ''''
MUNICIPALITIES began to use the rivers 10 any
great extent in disposing OF sewage i"e"'
whenever a sewage system was es'aoiis"eu' INV
common practice was to pipe the sewage u inc
ViN and
q away. I'm the Thames Valley the municipalities
were the only serious offenders, and the ou'cry
they raised at the expense about to be thrown
,,no, them went UNDECIDED In view Of the danger
which was threatening Londons water supply
MANUFACTURERS ENTER PROTEST
When In the sixties the opponents OF the HIS
rsa OF the rivers attempted to get Farliai"e'''
ON their side, they Immediately encountered
t,,riV an6t Ia
the opposition of the manufacturing anu 'he II"
a, s.ria, interests 1t was reported by commits
sion Of inquiry In 1851 that more than one nun
dred Of the English rivers were In poisonous
=, rdi,ion With these facts In their possession
Tho ornaments of pollution in 1865 beeought
par,,ament TO establish river protection boards
u oh the watersheds The manufacturers, now
over strenuously opposed the proposition. ana
choir CONSERVATIVES In the House Of Commons
brought about the defeat of the Dill. TWO u
the most prominent speakers against 1t were
the late John Bright and the late w. T. fO's'ef'
MIR Bright seconded the motion Tor the reIe0
ton Of the BILL and in supporting MT brisn''
Mr. Forster made the declaration that English
manufacturers must not be put to any great
eynense In disposing Of their waste olherwisc
they would be hampered In meeting Foreign
connection 1t was contended in snort th"'
mage had given manufacturers vested rlght
in the rivers, and that the rivers were 'heii9
70 a, what they liked with 1t was not denied
u thar scores of the rivers were in filthy con-
dition. and dangerous to health. 1t was admitted
that this was so, and that people were subject
N risk in consequence but it was contender
nv the champions Of the manufacturers that, II
,bere were no manufacturers TO pollute the
e,reams there would be no people 10 suffer
from the pollution.
The idea which the manufacturers sought 10
impress upon Parliament and upon the puDhc
in the sixties was that ar end TO river ponutioh
would inevitably mean an END 10 many MANU-
featuring and mining concerns one MEMBER Oh
tho Uouse Of Commons who took this view as
eured the president Of the Board or TRADE that
If the Watershed Boards were established, ne
would soon find enormous increase IN the
figures collected by his Department cohoei"
ing imports and exports
AN INEFFECTIVE LAW.
From 1865 to 1876 the plea of the manufactur-
ers prevailed. In 1876 however. Parliament at
last passed Rivers Pollution act. The act
proved Of little value. and its weakness soon
became apparent. 1t was left to the municipah-
ties to put the act into operation. and the
Municipality could incur no expense in 80 doing
until II had the sanction of the Local Govern
ment Board. the body in London responsible
TO Parliament for the oversight OF local govern
,nent all over England With these provisions
in IT. all intended to safeguard the interests or
manufacturers. the act Of 1875 might as well
not have been passed. All that can now be
claimed for it is that It gave due warning OF
reform and that twelve years later 1t was con-
venently to hand when the new County Coun-
ellis were intrusted with the work Of purifying
the rivers The municipalities, as has been
shown. were among the worst offenders; in the
manufacturing towns the members OF the mu-
nlcpal councils were, in numerous instances
responsible in their private capacities Tor mucn
of the pollution due to the mines anu iactories,
finder these circumstances, with the inltati|e
left where 1t was. 1t is not surprising that tne
oct NJ 1870 was useless. It's administration was