View report page

164
the owner to cut-off the water supply, for which he was liable
under " Forrest Fulton's Act."* The order, given on 13th
April, and executed on the 21st, gave rise to an abominable
nuisance by the choking of the water-closets, the pans of which
became full and overflowed. The matter was brought to the
attention of the sanitary committee, who directed the issue of
two notices; one requiring the owner to lay on the water, and
the other requiring him to unstop the choked water-closets,
within two days. The surveyor was instructed to have these
closets unstopped, in the event of failure on the part of the
owner, the cost of the work to be charged to the owner, who,
as owner, was liable for the abatement of the nuisance. Whether
the owner could have been made to restore the water supply
is doubtful. Had the tenants been in legal possession, the
company could not have deprived the houses of water had the
owner failed to pay the rate. Forrest Fulton's Act would have
prevented this. Having regard to the circumstances above
set out, I hoped that the company would have turned on the
water for the use of the people for the short time they were
likely to remain in the house ; the cost to them of such an act
of benevolence, not to say humanity, would have been infinitesimal
and inappreciable. But they refused, the secretary
stating that " the withdrawal of the supplies by the company,
on the order of the owner,was undoubtedly legal, having regard
to the provisions of' Forrest Fulton's Act.' " The owner did
not discharge his liability to the Company, and the water
was not turned on. As the result of proceedings threatened,
the owner managed to get the people out, and the dwellings
were closed, and pulled down to make way for so-called
" mansions."
The " Water Famine " in East London.—During the
summer, and for many weeks, complaints loud and persistent
were made of deficiency of supply in the district of the East
* The Water-Companies (Regulation of Powers) Act, 1887, is commonly known
by this title.