All the instances of communication of cholera through the medium of water, above related, have resulted from the contamination of a pump-well, or some other limited supply of water; and the outbreaks of cholera connected with the contamination, though sudden and intense, have been limited also; but when the water of a river becomes infected with the cholera evacuations emptied from on board ship, or passing down drains and sewers, the communication of the disease, though generally less sudden and violent, is much more widely extended; more especially when the river water is distributed by the steam engine and pipes connected with waterworks. Cholera may linger in the courts and alleys crowded with the poor, for reasons previously pointed out, but I know of no instance in which it has been generally spread through a town or neighbourhood, amongst all classes of the community, in which the drinking water has not been the medium of its diffusion. Each epidemic of cholera in London has borne a strict relation to the nature of the water supply of its different districts, being modified only by poverty, and the crowding and want of cleanliness which always attend it.
THE EPIDEMIC OF 1832.
The following table shows the number of deaths from cholera in the various districts of London in 1832, together with the nature of the water supply at that period. (See next page.)[[11]]
This table shows that in the greater part of Southwark, which was supplied with worse water than any other part of the metropolis, the mortality from cholera was also much higher than anywhere else. The other south districts, supplied with water obtained at points higher up the Thames, and containing consequently less impurity, were less affected. On the north of the Thames, the east districts, supplied, in 1832, with water from the river Lea, at Old Ford, where it contained the sewage of a large population, suffered more than other parts on the north side of London. Whitechapel suffered more than the other east districts; probably not more from the poverty and crowded state of the population, than from the great number of mariners, coalheavers, and others, living there, who were employed on the Thames, and got their water, whilst at work, direct from the river. There were one hundred and thirty-nine deaths from cholera amongst persons afloat on the Thames. The cholera passed very lightly over most of the districts supplied by the New River Company. St. Giles’ was an exception, owing to the overcrowding of the common lodging-houses in the part of the parish called the Rookery. The City of London also suffered severely in 1832. Now when the engine at Broken Wharf was employed to draw water from the Thames, this water was supplied more particularly to the City, and not at all to the higher districts supplied by the New River Company. This would offer an explanation of the high mortality from cholera in the City at that time, supposing the engine were actually used during 1832; but I have not yet been able to ascertain that circumstance with certainty. I know, however, that it was still used occasionally some years later.
TABLE II.
| Districts. | Population. | Deaths from Cholera. | Deaths from Cholera in 10,000 living. | Water Supply. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| St. George the Martyr, Southwark} | 77,796 | 856 | 110 | Southwark Water Works, from Thames at London Bridge. No filter or settling reservoir. | |
| St. Olave’s, Southwark} | |||||
| St. Saviour’s, Southwark} | |||||
| Christchurch, Southwark | 13,705 | 35 | 25} | Chiefly by Lambeth Water Works, from Thames opposite Hungerford Market. No filter or settling reservoir. | |
| Lambeth | 87,856 | 337 | 38} | ||
| Newington | 44,526 | 200 | 45} | Chiefly by South London Water Works, from Thames at Vauxhall Bridge. Reservoirs. No filter. | |
| Camberwell | 28,231 | 107 | 37} | ||
| Bermondsey | 29,741 | 210 | 70} | South London Water Works, & Tidal Ditches. | |
| Rotherhithe | 12,875 | 19 | 14} | ||
| Bethnal Green | 62,018 | 170 | 27} | 42{ | East London Waterworks, from tidal part of river Lea at Old Ford. |
| St. George-in-the-East | 38,505 | 123 | 31} | ||
| Poplar | 25,066 | 107 | 42} | ||
| Stepney | 78,826 | 225 | 28} | ||
| Whitechapel[[12]] | 52,848 | 470 | 88} | ||
| Clerkenwell | 47,634 | 65 | 13} | 34{ | New River Company, from various springs, and river Lea in Hertfordshire; and occasionally from Thames at Broken Wharf, near Blackfriar’s Bridge. |
| St. Giles | 52,907 | 280 | 52} | ||
| Holborn | 27,334 | 46 | 16} | ||
| Islington | 37,316 | 39 | 10} | ||
| London City | 55,798 | 359 | 64} | ||
| East and West London | No return. | } | |||
| St. Luke’s | 46,642 | 118 | 25} | ||
| Strand | 9,937 | 37 | 37} | ||
| Hackney | 7,326 | 8 | 10 } | New River and East London Water Companies. | |
| Shoreditch | 68,564 | 57 | 8 } | ||
| Westminster | 124,585 | 325 | 26 | Chelsea Water Works, from Thames at Chelsea. Reservoirs and filters. | |
| St. George, Hanover Sq. | 58,209 | 74 | 12} | 15{ | Chelsea Water Works and Grand Junction Water Works, also supplying water from Thames at Chelsea, and having settling reservoirs. |
| Kensington | 75,130 | 134 | 17} | ||
| St. Marylebone | 122,206 | 224 | 20 | West Middlesex Water Works, from Thames at Hammersmith. Settling reservoirs. | |
| St. Pancras | 103,548 | 111 | 10 | West Middlesex, New River, and Hampstead Water Works. | |
THE EPIDEMIC OF 1849.
Westminster suffered more in 1832 than St. George, Hanover Square, and Kensington, which at that time had the same water. This arose from the poor and crowded state of part of its population. The number of cases of cholera communicated by the water would be the same in one district as in the other; but in one district the disease would spread also from person to person more than in the others.
Between 1832 and 1849 many changes took place in the water supply of London. The Southwark Water Company united with the South London Water Company, to form a new Company under the name of the Southwark and Vauxhall Company. The water works at London Bridge were abolished, and the united company derived their supply from the Thames at Battersea Fields, about half a mile above Vauxhall Bridge. The Lambeth Water Company continued to obtain their supply opposite to Hungerford Market; but they had established a small reservoir at Brixton.
But whilst these changes had been made by the water companies, changes still greater had taken place in the river, partly from the increase of population, but much more from the abolition of cesspools and the almost universal adoption of waterclosets in their stead. The Thames in 1849 was more impure at Battersea Fields than it had been in 1832 at London Bridge. A clause which prevented the South London Water Company from laying their pipes within two miles of the Lambeth Water Works was repealed in 1834, and the two Companies were in active competition for many years, the result of which is, that the pipes of the Lambeth Water Company and those of the Southwark and Vauxhall Company pass together down all the streets of several of the south districts. As the water of both these Companies was nearly equal in its impurity in 1849, this circumstance was of but little consequence at that time; but it will be shown further on that it afterwards led to very important results.