View report page

38
assist the Water Company as far as possible by warning the tenants of houses
visited to see that the water is not wasted.
All of which your Committee respectfully submit.
HENRY HULLAND, Chairman
24th October, 1894. T. R. PITT EDWIN REYNOLDS
E. WILMOT M. WOOLLEY
E. B. BISHOP 3. H. BRANSCOMBE
J. R. BARLEY JOHN SHEEHAN
The following is the Section quoted and relied upon by the
Water Company in defence of their action:—
Sec. 15, Metropolis Water Act, 1871.
"Notwithstanding anything in this Act, a company shall not be subject
to any liability for not giving a constant supply, if the want of such supply
arises from frost, unusual drought, or other unavoidable cause or accident."
This failure of the Company to give a constant supply during a
part of the year, when it is most essential, opens up the serious
question whether the present is a proper and sufficient supply for
such a district as Hackney. I think it will be agreed that a proper
and sufficient supply is at least one which will be able to meet a
drought of two years without restricting the supply to the
consumer. This, the East London Water Company has failed to
do. Moreover, the satisfactory working of our present system
of drainage and sewerage is dependent upon an adequate and
unstinted supply of water.
NEW RIVER WATER COMPANY.
CONSTANT SERVICE.
In a report presented to the Vestry in 1892, I called the attention
of the Board of Works to the fact that certain parts of Stoke
Newington and West Hackney were supplied with water on an
intermittent service by the above Company, and pointed out that
owing to the position of many house cisterns, etc., the intermittent
service was a dangerous one to the inhabitants of those districts.
Representations were made at the time to the London County
Council to apply to the New River Company for a constant service,
but as yet the service has not been changed. Very recently, on a