New volumes of the Encyclopædia Britannica > Volume 30, K-MOR

358
LONDON
throughout London; the mileage run of this service in
1898 was 214,677 miles. The Board’s expenditure on the
common charges account was, in 1898-99, £603,686, in
addition to the sums contributed by the various boards
of guardians in London for the maintenance of patients
chargeable to their several unions. It is impossible to
distinguish what proportion of the sum of £603,686 should
be classified as sanitary expenditure and what as expendi¬
ture on poor relief.
The other duties of sanitary authorities, such as the removal
of nuisances, scavenging, the cleansing of streets, and the
like, are performed by the local sanitary authorities. The
efficiency with which these bodies have performed their duties
varies enormously. It is difficult, however, to discover any criterion
by which to gauge their respective efficiency, especially as their
accounts have hitherto not been made up on any uniform principle.
But, speaking broadly, the tendency has distinctly been towards a
better administration of the law. The number of sanitary in¬
spectors appointed has steadily grown, and in 1898 reached 256, an
increase of thirty as compared with the previous year.
The Thames Conservancy Board, originally consti¬
tuted in 1857 and reconstituted in 1866, was further
remodelled in 1894. The Board under the Act
InTy.^' of 1894 (57 and 58 Vict- c- 187) now contains
nominees or representatives of the Admiralty,
the Board of Trade, the Trinity House, the Corporation
of the City, the London County Council, the councils
of the counties and chief boroughs through which
the river flows, ship-owners, owners of barges, lighters,
and tugs, dock-owners, wharfingers, and the metro¬
politan water companies. The Act of 1894 further
enlarged the powers of the Board, chiefly by extending
their control of pollution to the whole watershed of the
river. Much has been done by the Board to purify the
Thames by the detection and prohibition of sources of
pollution. So far has the purification proceeded that a
project has been initiated for the reintroduction of salmon
into the river. The Lea has been similarly improved
under the Lea Conservancy Board. The chief sources of
impurity have been removed by the reception into the
London sewers (under the Lea Purification Act, 1886, and
the Wood Green Sewage Act, 1891) of the sewage from
Tottenham and Wood Green.
See Annual Reports of the Local Government Board. London,
annually since 1872.—Annual Reports of the Proceedings of the
London County Council. London, annually since 1889.—Annual
Reports of the Medical Officer of Health of the Administrative County
of London. London, annually since 1889.
Water Supply.
In spite of the reports of many commissions and com¬
mittees recommending that the water supply of London
should be improved and vested in a body representative of
the consumers, and in spite of various attempts to carry
such recommendations into effect, the eight metropolitan
water companies still maintain their position, and the
Thames and the Lea remain the chief sources of supply.1
In the case of a provincial town the transfer of the water under¬
taking of a company to the corporation is a comparatively simple
matter, even if the corporation is in consequence authorized to
supply water to a small district outside their borough. In London
the problem is complicated by the fact that of the area of 620
square miles within which the eight companies are authorized to
supply water only 121 square miles are within the county of
London, and of the 5,814,219 persons supplied by the companies in
1898 only some 4,526,500 resided in London. Consequently the
efforts of the London County Council to purchase the undertakings
of the companies have been opposed not only by the companies,
but also by the councils of the surrounding counties, parts of which
are within what is known as “ Water London.” These councils
1 A Bill was introduced by the Government in 1902, in order to
constitute a water board, and to transfer to the board the undertakings
of the metropolitan water companies.
demand that, in the event of the purchase by the London County
Council of the companies’ undertakings, not only the means of dis¬
tribution within their respective areas should be made over to
them, but also that a portion of the sources of supply should be
allotted to them, so that they should not be dependent on the
London County Council for their water supply. The London
County Council is pledged, in the event of the Council purchasing
the undertakings of the companies, to make such an apportion¬
ment. But the Royal Commission presided over by Lord Llandaff
reported that “although severance of the works and sources
of supply of the several companies, and the division thereof be¬
tween the councils of the six counties within the limits of supply,
are not actually impracticable, they would be very difficult and
highly undesirable.” Many attempts have also been made to solve
the difficulty by constituting a body representative of the various
authorities interested, but such attempts have met with but little
favour. Lord Llandaffs Commission proposed the creation of a
Water Trust as the only method by which the purchase of the water
companies could be effected. The price to be paid to the com¬
panies constitutes another obstacle to purchase. The companies
contend that they should be bought out on the same terms as have
almost invariably been given to water companies in the provinces,
that is to say, that the price to be paid should be settled by agree¬
ment, and failing agreement, by compulsory arbitration under the
Lands Clauses Acts. The London County Council, on the other
hand, contend that the price so fixed would be exorbitant, and that
in assessing the value of the undertakings regard should be had to
the prospective liability of the companies to provide new works
and new sources of supply, and that no allowance should be made
for compulsory sale. To the present sources of supply objection is
taken both on the ground of the quality and of the quantity of the
water derived from those sources. By the construction of sub¬
sidence reservoirs and filter-beds much has of late years been done
to improve the quality of the London water, and the Commission
presided over by Lord Balfour of Burleigh in 1893 reported that,
though not blind to the fact that the provisions as to filtration and
subsidence differed enormously in different companies, and in some
were quite inadequate, they considered that the water as supplied
to the consumer in London was of a very high standard of excel¬
lence and purity. And this opinion was endorsed by Lord LlandafFs
Commission. Both these Commissions also came to the conclusion
that if the present sources of supply were utilized to their utmost
by the construction of large storage reservoirs, 420,000,000 gallons
daily might be drawn from them, whilst leaving a sufficient
supply of water for the navigation of the Thames and Lea. This
would supply 35 gallons a head to 12,000,000 persons, and would
suffice till 1941. Doubt has been thrown on the conclusions of
the Balfour Commission as to the capacity of the present sources,
but the Llandaff Commission accepted their conclusions. Botb
Commissions pronounced in favour of a scheme for the construction
of large storage reservoirs in the Thames valley at an estimated
cost of from £9,000,000 to £10,000,000. This scheme has already
been begun to be carried out by three of the companies, the New
River Company, the West Middlesex Company, and the Grand
Junction Company, which are jointly constructing large storage
reservoirs at Staines. The London County Council, on the other
hand, is in favour of bringing the necessary additional supply from
Wales, and it has for the past few years yearly introduced Bills
authorizing the Council to acquire two large catchment areas in
Wales, and to impound the head-waters of the Wye, the Towy,
and the Usk. The part of the County Council’s scheme which
would give approximately the same amount of water as the Thames
valley scheme is estimated to cost something over £10,000,000,
but if the accumulated interest during the construction of the
works and for pumping charges is taken into account, it would
bring the cost up to over £15,000,000. This cost, in the opinion
of Lord LlandafFs Commission, was prohibitive.
The system of constant supply has been extended almost uni¬
versally throughout “Water London,” but the droughts in the
summers of 1895 and 1898 compelled the East London Company
to suspend the supply of water between certain hours during
several months in each of those years. As during the same period
some of the other companies had a surplus of water beyond their
own requirements, an Act was passed in 1899 (62 and 63 Viet. c. 7)
providing for the interconnexion of the systems of the various
companies, and for the supply of water from one company to
another.
Parliament has lately imposed stringent restrictions on the
raising of new capital by the companies. Since 1878 the increase
of share capital has in no case been authorized ; further capital, it
required, has to be raised by the issue of debenture stock, the
debenture stock has to be sold by public auction, and the premiums,
if any, realized by the sale applied as capital money. Again,
since 1886 a clause, known as the sinking fund clause, has been
inserted in all Bills authorizing the creation of new capital.
Under this clause a certain percentage on the new capital has
annually to be paid by the company to the Chamberlain of the