But the best of land cannot go on for ever doing its duty if by systematic neglect and ignorance the essential conditions for successful purification are year after year violated; and the great pity is that the Local Government Board, after deciding in favour of land treatment, did not systematically superintend this operation. It may not have had the power, but it is quite evident that had it done so, things would not have drifted from bad to worse, until local authorities, driven to despair by the apparent failure of land and not discerning the right cause, refused altogether to be ruled by what seemed to them a very unfair and absurd restriction.
It was at this time that Mr. Dibdin, who, on behalf of the London County Council, had been carrying out a set of valuable experiments, came forward with his application of well known theories to sewage operations on a large scale. As I pointed out at the time, Mr. Dibdin’s experiments proved beyond a doubt that the application of sewage to suitable land was right in principle and that the failures were brought about by the non-observance of the rules laid down by this gentleman—that, in fact, sewage irrigation was the only natural method of sewage purification and that all the other methods were artificial. I described land treatment as the natural self-purification of sewage and the oxidation or contact bed system as the artificial self-purification of sewage.
But the swift current of public opinion had set very strongly against sewage farms, and nothing but the contact bed treatment would do. A large number of experimental plants on this system grew up like mushrooms all over the country, and the waves of enthusiasm seemed at one time to engulf even the Local Government Board itself with its “antiquated notions,” until Parliament came to the rescue and appointed on May 7, 1898, a new Royal Commission to study the question of sewage purification.
This Commission consists of nine members,[4] i.e. six professional men and three laymen. Of the professional men, one is a biologist, one a chemist, two are medical men in administrative positions, and two are engineers likewise in administrative positions. Of the laymen two are members of special boards for the prevention of the pollution of rivers.
So far the Commissioners have issued an Interim Report dated July 12, 1901, a volume of evidence and a volume of appendices. Quite lately, it is stated, they have issued a further Interim Report, to which are attached separate reports on some special subjects by their officers, but this report has not yet come to hand.[5]
At the time of their first Interim Report, July 12, 1901, the Commissioners had held altogether thirty-five sittings, the first of which was on June 22, 1898, and the last on May 22, 1901. The period thus covered is nearly two years, and out of the thirty-five sittings thirty took place in London, and five in the provinces, viz. at Leeds, Ripon, Manchester, Accrington and Reigate.
On these occasions, all in all, fifty-eight witnesses were examined, who may be grouped as follows:
| 1 | Zoologist |
| 1 | Botanist |
| 2 | Laymen |
| 3 | Bacteriologists |
| 5 | Lawyers |
| 7 | Medical men |
| 11 | Patentees |
| 14 | Chemists |
| 14 | Engineers |
58 witnesses in all. | |
Out of this number twenty-five were officials, viz. five lawyers, six medical men, six chemists and eight engineers. Four officials were further managers of artificial sewage purification works, but not one single manager of natural purification works, i.e. a sewage farm manager, was called, the term “sewage farm manager” being used here to indicate an official whose sole duty it is to manage a sewage farm.
The entire absence of this latter class of official is so striking that it cannot be due to accident, but must be the outcome of a settled policy not to reopen questions conclusively settled by previous inquiries.