View report page

7
to the river, it would be foreign to my duty to inquire.
I presume it to be meant "that the influence of the
sewage poured into the river is pernicious to the health
of the inhabitants of London." I will not assert that
this influence, if any, is not pernicious to health, but I
do most emphatically deny that any definite proof that
it is pernicious has been produced. The question and
the consequences are too weighty to be decided by
declamation or by prejudice. It must be decided by facts.
Where are those facts ? If the theory be true, we ought
to trace the deadly influence of the river,—1st. and in
the severest degree amongst those who live on its waters.
2nd. in those who dwell near its shores—3rd. we ought
to find comparative immunity from Fever and Diarrhoea
amongst those who live at a distance from the river.
These are points that admit of being determined by
observation; by the comparison of the Returns of the
Registrar-General, and of the weekly register of new
cases of sickness, compiled by the association of Medical
Officers of Health. Chemistry and Microscopy may
indeed prove the existence of a small proportion of
living and dead organic matter in Thames water. This
kind of proof is all that has been advanced in the
elaborate mass of documents that form the appendix
to the Report of the Referees on the Main-Drainage of
the Metropolis. But to prove the actual presence of
this organic matter, is a different thing from proving
that it acts perniciously upon the health of the population.
The effect of the Thames upon the Public Health
is not to be decided by chemical or engineering science.