View report page

229
against the Canal Companies for creating a public nuisance,
by their neglect of the proper management of their canals and
basins within the metropolis"? Mr. Poland, in due course,
stated his opinion that " the canals are 'premises' within the
meaning of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891," but that
this is " not a case in which the Government would be likely
to instruct the Attorney-General to take up the prosecution,
until after every effort had been made to put a stop to the
nuisance under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891." Mr.
Poland came to the conclusion, moreover, " that the Council
cannot pay the expenses of a prosecution by indictment out
of the County Fund," and he suggested " that at a convenient
opportunity the Council should obtain from Parliament the
power of spending money for this salutary purpose." He was
further of opinion that " so far as the Grand Junction Canal
is concerned " (this being the one in which we are interested)
" there is no case against the Canal Company, having regard
to the printed report" of the Council's Medical Officer of
Health, referred to above.
METROPOLITAN SEWAGE.
In previous annual reports I have referred to the question
of sewage-disposal as one of interest to all Metropolitan
Sanitary Authorities ; and last year I had the satisfaction of
reporting completion of the precipitation works at Crossness
-^-the works at Barking had long been in operation—with
consequent improvement in the condition of the river
Thames. The Main Drainage Committee of the County
*
Council stated in a report, dated in May, and the fact appeared
to be beyond dispute, that " the condition of the river
continues to be in every way satisfactory." They added that
" the analyses of the samples collected at high and low
water off the outfalls, show that although the quantity of
sea water present is steadily increasing, and therefore the
daily downward movement of sewage matter proportionately
decreasing, still the aeration is high and the evidence of
pollution low."