1790 THE METROPOLITAN WATER-SUPPLY: THE LONDON WATER BILL.

- smoke blowing into neighbouring windows the offenders will%e brought to book on a criminal charge. It is a thousand

pities that the use of anthracite or smokeless coal cannot becompelled in the private dwelling-houses of London and ofthis country. But London and smoke are accepted by a.great many as synonymous terms and not a few on

.grounds of sentiment would object to having this acceptationdisturbed.

___

A WORK OF REFERENCE ON THE PUBLIC

HEALTH ACTS.

LEGISLATION affecting the very wide subject of sanitary.affairs ha.s been so abundant during recent years as to render-a precise acquaintance with all the Acts relating at the presenttime to public health somewhat laborious to acquire. The

’recent issue from the press of " Lumley’s Public Health " intwo volumes will therefore be welcomed.1 The fifth edition

was published early in 1896 and since that date many

important amendments and additions have been made to thestatutes concerning public health administration. In thisconnexion may be mentioned the amendment of the Local

-Government Act in May, 1896 ; the amendment in the PublicHealth Act in August of the same year as regards diseaseson incoming ships and as to ports ; the compulsory notifica-tion of infectious disease, in June, 1899 ; and the importantamendments in the Housing of the Working Classes Act,1890, in August, 1900. Furthermore, new Acts have comednto operation-namely, the Locomotives Act, 1898 ; theElectric Lighting Clauses Act, 1899 ; the Sale of Food

and Drugs Act, 1899 ; and the Factory and Workshop Act,1901. The work, again, is invaluable in presenting typicalcases that have been decided in quite recent times upon

points arising under the old as well as under the new

- statutes. The index is very thoroughly done and altogetherthe two volumes are of the utmost value in facilitating thetask of reference and in placing before those who consult thesections the requirements, meaning, and acceptation of thelaws relating to public health.

THE Honourable Stephen Coleridge brought an action inthe King’s Bench Division before Mr. Justice Grantham on

"Wednesday last to recover damages from the Rev. DavidMacdonald for alleged libels published in the DerbyExpress and the Derby Da ily Telegraph. Mr. Macdonald- admitted the publication of the letters complained of. which.-contained, among other things, the phrase that "lovers of.animals and lovers of truth will have nothing to do with

his (Mr. Coleridge’s) society." The jury stopped the case,being unanimously unable to see anything libellous in Mr.Macdonald’s letters, a view with which the judge agreed.

THE annual provincial meeting of the Incorporated Societyof Medical Officers of Health will be held on Saturday,June 28th, in the Council Chamber, Southend-on-Sea, at12 noon. An address will be given by Dr. J. T. C. Nash- en Matters of Public Health Interest in Southend.

1 The Public Health Acts, annotated with appendices, first edition,by W. G. Lumley, LL.M., Q.C., and Edmund Lumley, B.A., sixthedition, by Alexander Macmorran, M.A., and S. G. Lushington, M.A.,R.C.L. London : Shaw and Sons. 1902. Two volumes, pp. 1710. Price£3 12s. 6d. and £2 19s. 3d. respectively.

LITERARY INTELLIGENCE.—A German transla-tion of Dr. Charlton Bastian’s "Treatise on Aphasia andother Speech Defects," by Dr. Moritz Urstein of Berlin, has,just been issued by W. Engelmann of Leipsic.

THE METROPOLITAN WATER-SUPPLY:THE LONDON WATER BILL.

Lomo BALFOUR of BURLEIGH presided over the meeting ofthe Joint Committee which was held on June 10th. The

numbers and composition of the proposed Water Board wereconsidered. The representation of authorities on the boardas proposed in the Government measure is given in thethird schedule of the Bill. In this schedule it was providedthat the London County Council should have 10 representativesand the county councils of Essex, Kent, Middlesex, Surrey,Hertfordshire, the Conservators of the river Thames, and theLee Conservancy Board one member each. The councils ofthe cities of London and Westminster and the metropolitanborough councils of Islington, Kensington, Lambeth, St.Pancras, and Stepney were to have two representatives each,and the other metropolitan boroughs one member each. Inthe county of Essex the borough of West Ham was to have tworepresentatives, and each of four large urban districts onemember each. In Kent two urban districts were to have onemember each ; in Middlesex four and in Surrey two largedistricts were to have one member each.The time of the Committee was chiefly occupied in hearing

evidence and arguments on a proposal of the London CountyCouncil, the object of which briefly was to diminish thenumber of representatives allotted to other authorities and toincrease the number allotted to itself, so that it might controlthe whole business.The nrst proposal of the London County Council was that

the number of representatives on the Water Board should bereduced to 29.

Sir B. T. LEECH, an alderman of Manchester and deputychairman of the Water Committee of that city, said that thewater-supply of Manchester was managed by a committee of18 members and that he was convinced that a board of 69members was too large ; he also gave it as his opinion thatthe London County Council should have the control of thewater-supply.

Mr. W. ANDERSON, treasurer of the Edinburgh WaterTrust, said that the number of the Edinburgh trustees was 25and lie thought that a managing body should not be toonumerous.

One of the deputy town clerks of Glasgow gave evidenceto the effect that the city of Glasgow comprised an area of 12½square miles ; the total area of the water-supplywas 87 squaremiles, and the boroughs outside Glasgow had no representa-tion on the committee. The Government Bill, he thought,would constitute an unwieldy body. (It may be worth whileto note, without going into detail in the matter, that theevents which led to the possession of their water-supply bythe city of Glasgow have no counterpart in the history of thepresent London water-supply. And this fact must be wellknown to those responsible for the case presented by theLondon County Council.)

-Air. BRYAN, engineer to the East London Waterworks

Company, gave it as his opinion that every municipality oughtto be represented on the Water Board. Members of the

municipal councils had given valuable assistance to the EastLondon Company in times of drought. He thought, havingregard to the amount of administrative work which the water-supply necessarily entailed that the number of members

provided for in the Government Bill was not excessive becausethe details of the work of management would have to bedelegated to committees.On behalf of the Local Government Board Mr. FITZGERALD,

K.C., said that the Mayors of Stepney, of Holborn, of Ken-sington, and of Hammersmith wisned to have an opportunityof stating their views in favour of the Bill as drawn, but hedid not think it necessary to call them as witnesses. TheBill was also supported by counsel who represented re-

spectively the city of Westminster, the council of theurban district of East Ham, the county councils of Middle-sex, of Hertfordshire, and of Essex, and the urban districtsof Hornsey and of Wimbledon.On behalf of the London County Council Mr. BALFOUR

BROWNE, K.C., suggested that the amendment proposed bythat body would lead to the constitution of a Water Boardlike that proposed by Lord James of Hereford (MetropolitanCounties Water Board Bill, March, 1896).Of the two amendments introduced by the London County

Council the first, which proposed that 29 instead of 67

1791METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL SUNDAY FUND.

representatives should sit on the Water Board, providedthat the members elected should be allocated as follows :London County Council, 16 ; the City of London, the

borough of West Ham and the county councils of Essex andof Middlesex, two each ; the county councils of Kent, of

Surrey, and of Hertfordshire, the Conservators of the Thames,and the Lee Conservancy Board, one each. The secondamendment, introduced in case the first was not adoptedand which made provision for the election of 33 represen-tatives, proposed that they should be allotted somewhat

differently. Two additional members each were to be givento the county councils of Kent, of Middlesex, and of Surrey,and two less to the County Council of London.

Mr. WEDDERBURN, K.C., on behalf of the Kent CountyCouncil, supported the Government Bill.

Mr. BLENNERHASSETT, K.C., on behalf of the City ofWestminster, protested against the attempt which had beenmade to deprive that city and the metropolitan boroughs ofthe representatives which had been allotted to them.

Mr. FITZGERALD, on behalf of the Local GovernmentBoard, insisted that it was impossible to force five or sixcounties into a board dominated by the London CountyCouncil.The Committee decided unanimously to reject the proposal

to reduce the number of members on the board to 29, andthey further decided on an equality of votes not to reducethe number to 33. An amendment proposed by a memberof the Committee to increase the number of representativesof the London County Council from 10 to 16 was lost by 7votes to 3. The Committee likewise declined to advise anyincrease to the number (two) of representatives allotted tothe City of Westminster.At the sitting of the Joint Committee which was held on

June llth Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH again presided.Mr. BAGGALLAY, K.C., on behalf of the Conservators of

the river Thames, asked that the number of members

assigned to the board should be increased to three and thatit should not ba prescribed that distinctive representationshould be given to the upper part of the river.

Sir F. DixoN HARTLAND, chairman of the Thames Conser-vancy Board, said that there was no antagonism betweenthe interests oE the lower and upper parts of the river andthat the board, as a whole, was strongly of opinion thatthe value of the additional representation which it claimedwould in great measure be lost should specialised representa-tion be made in the way suggested.The Committee amended the schedule by adding two

representatives to the Thames Conservators but with theproviso that one shall represent the upper districts of theriver. The schedule was further amended by the additionof one member to the urban district of Tottenham and oneto the urban district of Hornsey. In consequence of theseadditional members the total number of the members of theWater Board was increased from 67 to 71.Lord BALFOUR of BURLEICH announced that the schedule

as amended would stand as part of the Bill and that aspecial report would be made by the Committee as to themode of procedure by which its decision had been made.The Committee having settled the schedule returned to

consider Clause 11 of the Bill. This clause deals with the

way in which the expenses of the Board are to be met andthe manner in which the necessary money is to be raised in

"*case the water rents are insufficient for the required purpose.It was proposed by the London County Council that in orderto provide for such a deficiency a rate should be levied inLondon and in such ;of the extra-metropolitan urban andrural districts as are within the limits of the water-supply.This amendment was lost on " an equality of votes." "The Local Government Board, in order to conform with the

wishes of the Corporation of the City of Westminster, pro-posed a provision to the effect that no reduction in the waterrents at present in force should be made if such a reductionwould, or would be likely to, cause a deficiency in the waterfund.The Committee accepted this amendment.

DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS.-The treasurers ofthe Middlesex Hospital have received from Mr. Timothy Beana further sum of one thousand guineas for the purpose ofendowing another bed in the cancer wing, to be known as the" Rebecca Bean " bed ; also a further grant of Z500 from thetrustees of the Smith’s (Kensington Estate) Charity to thegeneral fund.

METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL SUNDAYFUND.

THE following is a record of some of the principal amountsthat have been received in aid of the Fund up to the time of

going to press on Thursday. The total sum then amountedto 20,000. At the corresponding period last year the totalwas .E25,000 ; but this included a donation of 10,000 fromMr. George Herring, who has not yet, of course, been able toadd his generous offer of 5s. in the El on all amounts-

collected in the various churches and chapels. The sum

collected to date is, therefore, most encouraging.