such an important one that I think any information or any discussion throwing light upon it ought to be hailed with satisfaction, and if I have succeeded in doing this, even though it be to a small extent only, all my labours are well repaid. I am much obliged to Mr. Mawbey, the present Surveyor of Leicester, for affording me an opportunity of making a few remarks about-may I use that term-a very old acquaintance of mine, the Leicester Sewage Farm, which I have known intimately long before Mr. Mawbey was ever thought of as successor to the late Mr. Joseph Gordon. Indeed I have known this farm from the period, November 1884, when it was first thought of as a sewage farm for Leicester down to the present moment of penning these lines, whereas, to judge from his remarks, Mr. Mawbey has been connected with it "for nearly three years" only, at the end of which he voluntarily resigned his position as Engineer and Manager. Since then, so we must conclude, the farm has been managed by a Committee of the Leicester Town Council, whose Chairman and Vice-Chairman are Sir Thomas Wright and Mr. Alderman Collins, and whose Bailiff is Mr. F. Thurston. It is correct, that when this site was first mentioned for a sewage farm, the late Mr. Gordon did not like it so well as other sites which were in his opinion more eligible though the expression" with a heavy heart" appears to be beside the mark. This can hardly be surprising when we consider that the land at Beaumont Leys is heavy clay land, and that the sewage has to be lifted over 170 feet high; indeed, I don't think any engineer worth that name would have spent the ratepayers' money without any misgivings upon such a venture! When, however, this site was adopted Mr. Gordon was determined to do all in his power to make the farm a success. When Mr. Mawbey took up his duties as Surveyor of Leicester, at the end of October 1889, the plans for the laying out of the farm were complete, and the first contract all but finished. This contract comprised the tanks, the main and subsidary carriers, the pipe carriers, the effluent water culverts, and a road for practically two-thirds or 850 acres of the then extent of the farm of 1,375 acres. The total amount of the tender was £14.351 9s. 6d., and according to the certificate of the 18th October, 1889, the works carried out to about within a fortnight of this date came to £11,028 9s. 11d. Some minor deviations have been made in laying out the remaining one-third portion of the farm, but that perhaps cannot be surprising. As to utilising the effluent from the higher lands on the fields lower down the slopes, this was always kept in view by the late Mr. Gordon, and with a view to convey some information concerning this point to him he asked me to visit the Rugby Sewage Farm, where this principal had for many years past been adopted by Mr. Baldwin Latham. Besides, it is so well known, that at Wimbledon too, this double system of irrigation is carried out, and, further, the considerations which lead up to it are so exceedingly elementary, that I need not say here another word concerning the engineering features involved in it However, it would in my opinion be a great mistake to assume even for a moment, that the favourable purification results, obtained on the Leicester Sewage Farm, are due to this double irrigation. Such an assumption is against what are now known to be the laws of purification of foul liquids. This purification is brought about by bacteria, and it is well known that they carry on their work most efficiently in the presence of a sufficient supply of oxygen, hence, it is a fact that purification proceeds most actively in the pores of an open soil near the surface of the land, but not in dark conduits such as underground pipes, &c. All that can, therefore, be said of the system of double irrigation is that it is a means to the end, not the end itself, and it is most important not to lose sight of this. This being so, there can be but little doubt that the favourable results obtained at Beaumont Leys are mainly due to the management of the farm, and here I think it is but fair to say, that had it not been for the untiring energy of Sir Thomas Wright, the never failing zeal of Mr. Alderman Collins, and the painstaking efforts of Mr. Thurston, the Leicestershire County Council would have spoken out before now with no uncertain voice, as it did formerly. In conclusion I should like to say that the work on the farm is by no means complete, and that the Committee go on with their drainage and other operations from year to year. Indeed, it would be surprising if all the work on so large a farm had been completed in comparatively a short time. It is the essence of a careful management to systematically study for a number of years the behaviour of clay land under sewage, and then to treat it by draining and other operations in the manner which benefits it most. "River Pollution," by PROFESSOR HENRY ROBINSON, In my address as President of this Section at the Congress held in Newcastle in 1882, I stated that "As the various difficulties which existed a few years ago in regard to the purification of sewage have now been diminished by the further knowledge that has been gained, it may be reasonably expected that the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act of 1876 will be made more operative than has hitherto been the case." In the following year I again brought the question of River Pollution before the Congress which was held at Glasgow. The discussions on those papers showed that the necessity was then well recognised for a modification of the Act, to prevent its being (as it was), practically inoperate. It remainded without change, however, until the year 1888, when the Local Government Act was passed, which gave County Councils power to enforce the River Pollution Prevention Act of 1876, and which also enabled the Local Government Board to form joint committees to deal with river pollution. In 1892 the Mersey and Irwell Joint Committee obtained an Act, and this was followed in 1894 by the West Riding of Yorkshire Act, by which powers were conferred upon authorities to prevent river pollution who might be better expected to enforce the Acts than was previously the case. The Rivers Pollution Prevention Bill which was introduced in the House of Commons last Session, extends to County Councils, Joint Committees and Rivers Boards in England, the main provisions of the Mersey and Irwell Act of 1892, and of the West Riding of Yorkshire Rivers Act of 1894. It also prevents the pollution of canals. The Floods Prevention Bill, which was introduced in the Upper House by Lord Thring last Session, confers upon County Councils powers to cleanse water courses and to improve the channels of rivers by removing obstructions. Both these Bills have unfortunately had to stand over to next Session, but it may be reasonably expected that in the near future they will be passed, and will lead to the present gross pollution of the streams throughout the country being abated. Having had to report upon the causes of pollution of many rivers, I have found that in the majority of cases they admit of a remedy. The main sources of pollution, broadly speaking, arise from sewage outfall works, where the system adopted is incapable of producing continuously good results, from manufacturing refuse being passed into streams as the natural vehicle for getting rid of waste products, also from trade refuse and accumulations of filthy matter being allowed to collect close to the banks, and to be washed into streams. As regards the pollutions due to defective sewage outfalls, they admit of being remedied in the light of recent experience, and by the expenditure of the necessary money to produce better results. The unsatisfactory way in which some local authorities have works of sewerage and of sewage disposal designed and executed, and the parsimonious manner in which the treatment of the sewage at the outfall is carried out, are mainly the causes of these pollutions. Means of purifying sewage and sewage effluents are now available that were not known a few years ago, and I have no hesitation in saying that most sewage outfall works admit of modification with resultant advantages, both in simplifying the working, and improving the effluent, thus obtaining "the best practicable and available means," as stated in the Act. The pollutions that arise from manufactories require to be dealt with having regard to the circumstances of each case. The exercise of a little skill and care will enable many such pollutions to be abated by utilizing the waste products, and in other cases remedies can be found without involving an expenditure which would press too heavily upon the industry. A river has for so long a time been regarded as the natural way to get rid of filthy matter, whether from manufactories or otherwise, that those who have, in a bona-fide manner, acted upon this assumption, require some consideration in the enforcement of legislation to abate pollution. The fact, however, that, in the near future, the streams will no longer be able to be the recipients of polluting matters, has already been the means of arresting some mischief. Many are offenders from sheer ignorance. Some from a disinclination to incur expense which would lead to no advantage to themselves, whatever it might do for the benefit of others. As regards manufacturing refuse which now causes pollution to streams, I have, in my own practice, experience of cases where pollution has been arrested even with commercial advantage to the industries concerned. The pollutions due to farm buildings, private dwellings and the like, admit of being diverted, and the filthy ditches which are cleansed by heavy rains washing the filth into the streams no longer continue. The majority of streams are so polluted, that it will take years after the causes of fouling are removed, before they return to a normal condition of purity. I believe that it will be necessary to accelerate this natural, self purifying action by artificial means, and so prevent, or rather lessen the continuance of the mischief. With the improved condition of rivers, a large amount of much needed water will be available for town supply. Their filthy condition has unavoidably led to the exclusion of such waters from all engineering calculations in regard to water supply. With the disappearance of serious pollution this water will become available for storage. The inclusion of the bulk of flood water in reservoirs would enable compensation water to be discharged continuously instead of intermittently, at the same time that the injury arising from floods would be minimised. The objection which at one time existed to the admission into reservoirs of waters not absolutely pure, may be regarded as steadily disappearing in the light of recent knowledge. Dr. E. Frankland (in a Paper at the Royal Institution last February) stated in speaking of storing the Thames water— as regards the quality of this stored water, all my examinations of the effect of storage upon the chemical and especially upon the bacterial quality, point to the conclusion that it would be excellent. Indeed, the bacterial improvement of river water 66 by storage, for even a few days, is beyond all expectation.' Again, he said, that "it is not too much to expect that storage for, say a couple of months would reduce the number of microbes in Thames flood water down to nearly the minimum ever found in that water in dry weather.” In a naturally pure stream the discharge into it of filthy matters has become more and more a cause of its deterioration, one being the increase in the amount of the polluting matter, and the other being the greater abstraction of pure water from the stream to provide for a supply to the populations which require it for dietetic, manufacturing or power purposes. The amount of the abstraction, either permanent or temporary, of water from a river for any of these purposes has been the subject of much strife, and no definite relation between the amount that can be relied upon from the source of supply and that which can be utilised has been established; inasmuch as the conditions which obtain in rivers vary considerably. Hence the controversy that generally arises when water is intended to be abstracted and stored in impounding reservoirs. often leads to compensation water being given to a river at a lower part of it, whereby the upper part is liable to become a dry bed in periods of drought, and consequently riparian owners on the banks of the river there are deprived of water altogether. This The pollution of the rivers of this country was characterised by the late Lord Shaftesbury as a "national evil." Those who have worked, as I have, to bring about a better state of things, will not, I trust, have to wait another fourteen years before a definite step in the direction of the enforcement of legislation. is accomplished. "India's Sanitary Needs," by J. W. PARRY, Assoc.M.Inst.C.E., F.S.I. (MEMBER.) Ir would be quite impossible to take up and discuss all or even many of the subjects embraced under this head, I therefore propose to refer chiefly to questions which concern District Boards-Unions as they are called in the Madras Presidencyand which correspond somewhat to Rural District Councils of England and Wales. |