View report page

33
before them. There are, however, in the enquiry two points?
which rather hang upon one another, and about which wo wish
the Commission had told us a little more. These are:—
(1) The effect which might be expected upon the Thames
of taking double the present quantity of water direct
from the river during periods of drought,
(2) The amount of storage space to be provided above the
intakes in order to make the taking of any more of this
water unnecessary.
It is obvious, from the evidence of the late Mr. Hawksley and
others, that the water passing the intakes is purest when the
river is lowest. In their report (paragraphs 73 to 78) the
Commission deal at length with Mr. Peregrine Birch's proposal
to take vast quantities more of this water when needed, and
with the antidote Mr. More suggested, in the interests of
navigation, in case another 100,000,000 gallons should be
required from the river in the driest times. They say: —
"The trouble resulting from additional abstraction, if any,
would commence then below this (the new Richmond) weir;
and what this would be, and how simply it could be remedied,
has already been explained by reference to Mr. More's evidence.
After carefully considering the evidence of Mr. Hawksley, Mr.
Marten, Mr. Baldwin Latham and Mr. Birch we are of opinion
that Mr. More's suggestion is a practicable one, and that no
good reason, from an engineering point of view, has been
adduced why it should not be carried into effect. But strong
local objections would probably be raised against such a scheme
and we do not intend to recommend it, as the sequel of our
report will shew.”
Mr. More's suggestion was that a lake of 25 acres be
excavated in the Old Deer Park at Richmond to hold 8 feet of
tidal water between high and low water marks; that this should
be filled by the rising tide and discharged during the three or