View report page

46
analogy ends. The Lea, on the
other hand, received not the sewage
of the metropolis: it certainly,
mainly as an inland stream, was
polluted by some towns on its banks,
especially its tributaries, like all the
rest of the rivers in connection with
the water supply about London,
and like all the rest of the rivers
throughout England. Its wellknown
self-purifying property
greatly, however, removed this evil
by the time it reached Lea Bridge
and Old Ford and after the usual
filtrations, becoming fit for use,
would, and generally did, bear a
fair comparison with the other supplies
of the metropolis. Dr.
Letheby's evidence is sufficient on
this point.
This pollution was bad enough, nobody doubts; yet I am told, on good
authority, that others about London are at this time many degrees worse,
but have passed unnoticed because the epidemic made itself felt chiefly in
the East, and there alone was attention directed to the sources of supply.
This is said, not to defend the water, but to disprove the analogy.
The charge against the Company was first in using water from 2 uncovered
reservoirs, unfiltered, in what were regarded as emergencies, on two occasions,
towards the end of June and beginning of July, and because its
chemical character was not so good as that from the covered reservoirs, the
ordinary source of supply, the impure water was said to have brought on the
Cholera. But when these covered reservoirs subsequently were emptied in
February, I8G7, there were discovered leakages from a foul source, probably
the adjoining Canal, a branch of the Lea, into this water of daily distribution.
This was a contamination far worse than that from the uncovered
reservoirs, and if in the distribution mischief could arise at all, it would have