View report page

65
architect, and the medical officer to place any information in their
possession at the disposal of the solicitor, and if required, to give
evidence at the enquiry. As it may be necessary to retain Counsel,
to obtain the evidence of experts, and otherwise to incur expenditure
in supporting the Council's views on this important question at the
enquiry, we recommend that the Committee be authorised to expend
a sum not exceeding £250 in connection with the enquiry :—"
This was agreed to, and the Council adjourned.
The result of the first inquiry dated nth November, was presented
to the Local Government Board, and the two Inspectors on page 16
of the report, briefly summarized as follows :—
I.—That the scarcity of water in the East London Water
Company's area during the summer of 1895 was due to the
following causes:—
(a) Exceptional waste, beyond the undue waste of ordinary
years of water owing (1) to non-repair of fractures in the
consumers' pipes, brought about during the unusually long
and severe frost of the previous winter, and (2) to excessive
garden watering during the drought in May and June.
(b) Decrease in the volume of the River Lea due to the
unprecedented drought which occurred during first six
months of 1895.
(c) Means of storage possessed by the East London Water
Company inadequate to enable them to meet the combined
waste and deficiency of water noted under headings (a) and
(b), We would also note under this heading that in our
opinion the inconvenience experienced by consumers was
much aggravated by the want of proper means for domestic
storage of water.
E