prosecuted for not doing, namely, adopting some system to deal with their sewage. The other town was Henley, from which a very small quantity of sewage found its way into the river, but however small it might be, it was the duty of the Conservators to arrest it, and do everything they possibly could to prevent any pollution, and every source of pollution which had been found above the intakes of the water companies had been stopped.

Mr. HOMERSHAM said he had seen sewage from the outfall at Windsor, of a most disagreeable nature, coming into the Thames. The fact was, every drop of liquid sewage now went into the Thames; he agreed it had passed through some treatment, but if anybody contended that urine, one of the most deleterious matters that could go into water, was thereby purified, he was grossly mistaken. The sewage was purified to some small extent; but to say that no sewage entered the river, when the whole of it went in except some solid matter, was not correct. He should like to ask particularly about Reading as well as Windsor.

Mr. E. K. BURSTAL said he was the engineer who carried out the Windsor sewage arrangements, and after the precipitating process, the whole effluent was passed through land.

Mr. WALKER said he was manager of the Reading Waterworks, and had a great deal to do with the sewage works of that town. The sewage did not go into the river Thames. Reading had expended over £300,000 in diverting the sewage of the town from the Kennet, which was one of the principal tributaries of the Thames. But while Reading had done that, the sewage of Newbury, sixteen miles above the intake of the Reading Waterworks, went into the Kennet, and from thence might find its way into the Thames. From what had passed that day, he felt quite at a loss to know what would be the best source of supply;-one recommended getting it from the chalk, and then they were told the water was too hard; and if they got it from the rivers, that was too soft.

With reference to

the sewage of Reading, he had simply to say that it had not gone into the Kennet for the last seven years.

A GENTLEMAN asked where it did go to.

Mr. WALKER said it went to the "Manor" Farm, and the effluent flowed into the Kennet.

Mr. ROBERT SUTCLIFF said Mr. Denton, in his paper, mentioned some supposed disadvantages attending the adoption of tube wells, namely, that if an accident happened to the pump, the supply was stopped until it was replaced, and that if the supply was insufficient, another well had to be constructed. As these points were important to the system which he had the honour to be connected with, he wished to say a word or two upon them. With regard to the first, if a pump got out of order in in ordinary dug well, as a rule, another pump must be put p in its place, but in a tube well that could be done in a ew minutes. With reference to the supply running short, he could mention one town (Watford) in which some time go they doubled the supply, their dug well having got nto the very position which it was supposed the tube wells night get into, and not giving a sufficient supply; they out down a single tube well of 8 inches, and that gave louble the supply previously obtained. In reality, having o add other tube wells has really in many cases been an dvantage. Sometimes people would say they did not vant to incur a great outlay at present in order to provide for future possibilities, and by having a tube well they could have a supply requisite for the present which could be added to as it was wanted. If more water were equired, all they had to do was to sink two or more tube wells, and couple them to the existing arrangement. Being at the present time engaged in some ten deep Artesian borings, he might make a remark on the general question. There seemed to be a great difference of opinion as to whether water, after it was purified, was prejudicial or not, but he always felt that he would very much rather have water which had not been contaminated, even if the contamination were afterwards removed. His idea was to get

the water pure, and keep it pure, not to allow it to be contaminated, and then put it through a process of purihim to be objectionable and On the banks of the Thames,

fication, which seemed to contrary to common sense. in many places, the sources which supplied the river were beautifully pure, and though he did not approve of shallow sources as a permanent supply, yet, temporarily, an enormous quantity of pure water might be found on the banks of the Thames, which went to add to its volume. In one case, even at Gravesend, within a stone's throw of the river, which was then in a most disgusting state, having put down a tube well, he had water which was analysed, and pronounced to be as pure as that of Loch Katrine. There was a vast body of this water flowing towards the Thames, and if it could be taken temporarily, it would save the water companies a great expense in filtration. This reminded him of the manner in which water was filtered. He did not know whether any of the water companies had tried passing the water up instead of down, but it seemed to him very objectionable to let all the stuff they were trying to prevent passing, be caught on the surface of the filter-beds, and let all the other water go through that. He thought the right system was adopted by one of the filter companies, in which they made all the water pass upwards through the filter, so that any sediment which might be deposited was left at the bottom, and could be easily removed.

Captain DOUGLAS GALTON, said with reference to the observation of Mr. Hogg that cisterns were not objectionable, that, if one thing seemed to have been better established than any other with reference to the water supply, it was the danger of cisterns. He did not say that cisterns might not be kept clean, but the general plan was to leave them for weeks, months, or years, without being cleaned, and then it was undoubted that however pure might be the water put into them, it would become contaminated. All who had studied sanitary matters had come to the conclusion that if possible a constant supply was the

best thing to obtain, and that such a supply would obviate the necessity for house filtration. Those impurities which were now obtained in London water were chiefly owing to the method of storing it.

Mr. HOGG said what he wished to imply was that the water supply was so short that the cisterns were drained dry every day, and therefore there could be no sediment.

Mr. CHADWICK said, living at Richmond, he had seen water running from market gardens into the river in enormous quantities, the colour of coffee, and he had gone to take a bath there, and found the water absolutely smell of manure. Many people forgot that it was not sewage alone, but the surface washings from lands heavily dressed with manures, which polluted the rivers.

Mr. EASTON said he laid so much stress on the evils of the cistern system because, when he investigated the water supply in 1877 and 1878, an immense mass of information was got from the Metropolitan Board which would have been laid before a Select Committee if the Bill had not been stopped at the second reading, and very conclusive evidence was obtained as to the filth in the cisterns. Five of the ablest chemists in England, with the Chairman at the head of them, were engaged for three or four months, not only investigating the quality of water supply in the mains of the different companies, but the mud which they took out of the cisterns, and however difficult Mr. Hogg said it was to find any deposit, he could assure him there was an ample supply of taint from all parts of London -not only from the poorer class of houses, but they found it in places where it certainly ought not to have been found, and where, if the people took proper care of the cisterns, it certainly would not have been found. With regard to the people generally, it was their misfortune that the cisterns were in such a condition; it was a consequence of the intermittent supply that this filth would accumulate. He might add that they were investigating not with a view to prove that the water in the mains was the best, but on behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works, who had a rival

VOL. VIII.-H. C.

2 H

scheme, so that, if they had any bias, it was to show that the water in the mains was bad.

Mr. MACKNIGHT said there had been a great deal of discussion in Edinburgh on this question of cisterns. The Water Trust were under the necessity of bringing in a very large supply of additional water, and it so happened this was from the Moor Foot Hills, ten or twelve miles south of Edinburgh, where there were no springs; and there were loud complaints on the part of the artisans of its impurity. The Water Trust in defence got up a cry about the state of the cisterns, but they were completely beaten. Most of the houses in Edinburgh were what are called self-contained, and all had separate cisterns, which the owner took care to keep in good order, but the bad water sent into them left a deposit. All chemists knew very well that if water had certain mineral ingredients in it, after standing a short time, it would leave a deposit, but that was due to the water, not to the cisterns.