View report page

212
Process, and the Webster Electrical Process. The two lastnamed
processes are vouched for by Sir Henry Roscoe; the
former as suitable for dealing with the sewage of small towns,
the Webster Process as practicable even as regards the large
volume of London sewage. In summing up my observations
on this system, I stated that it was averred, that "by the
electrical process, the sewage is clarified; the bulk of the
sludge is reduced to a minimum; smell is removed; and
secondary putrefaction is prevented—results that could not
be produced by chemical precipitation—the process being at
once simple and economical. Assuming all this to be true,
and it appears to be justified by the high authority of Sir Henry
Roscoe,* it may be inferred that an approach to a solution of
the question of sewage disposal has been reached, and one in
all respects only less satisfactory than that to which in the end
we shall have to come ; when every other process must give
way to the only rational system—that, namely, of restoring
to the land the valuable organic matters contained in the
sewage."
WATER SUPPLY.
Bills in Parliament.— The water supply of the
Metropolis formed the subject of no fewer than six Bills
introduced into Parliament early in the Session of 1891,
three of which are deserving of mention here. The "London
Water Commission," was a Private Bill promoted by the
Corporation, with a view to the establishment of a commission
to be empowered to consider and submit to Parliament,
Bills dealing with the subject of water supply. Another
measure, "Metropolis Water Stipply," was a Public Bill,
promoted by certain Vestries and District Boards, which
aimed at the purchase of the Companies' undertakings, and
their transference to a Water Trust, but with power to the
* Sir Henry Roscoe's conclusions are corroborated by Mr. Alfred E. Fletcher,
H.M. Inspector under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act for Scotland,