923

the Conservators spent £1000 a year in dealing with the pollu- tion in the upper reaches of the river and that that sum was Inot sufficient for excessive law costs or to pay a very large IIstaff. The witness, however, considered that the conditionof the river "as proved by analysis" had become through their exertions very satisfactory. I

In answer to the CHAIRMAN the witness said that there had been complaints about the stream at Stratford. There weresome very old mill-streams there ; the streams were said tobe a nuisance and they undoubtedly were so. They wereflushed with water which had come from Lee Bridge weir.A nuisance was caused by an eflluent from Walthamstow, byan effiuent from Leytonstone, and by the sewage from WestHam which goes into Bow Creek. A nuisance was alsocaused by the London County Council outfall at Bow. Therewere tide gates at Old Ford and all the back streams mixedat a common level at certain states of the tide.

In answer to Major-General SCOTT the witness said thatthey had served Walthamstow with a notice with regard totheir effluent. Leyton had also applied for an injunctionagainst them and Walthamstow was now under a sequestra-tion order of the Chancery Division of the High Court. The

sewage effluent from West Ham, which had a population offrom 250,000 to 300,000, goes in at Bow Creek. The WestHam Corporation said that they did not pollute.In answer to Major-General SCOTT the witness said that the

sewage was treated by being placed in black ash waste, butthat it was not put on to a sewage farm. In two years’ time, ,,

however, the West Ham sewers would be connected with the metropolitan system. The Conservancy had been at theexpense of dredging in Limehouse Creek because of the

deposit which had occurred there. During the last three yearsthey had spent about £1000 in this way and had removedabout 10,000 tons of mud. They had also dredged belowthe London County Council outfall for two or three years andfor this work the County Council had hitherto paid, but forsome reason they had objected to pay during the presentyear. The witness understood that the County Council weregetting "scientific evidence " and "expert evidence" to saythat there was nothing but surface-water coming out to theseplaces, but the witness knew better than that and anyonecould see it. i,The CHAIRMAN remarked that the Limehouse Cut seemed

to be an eligible place for residence with the County Councilon one side and West Ham and Stratford on the other.

In answer to the CHAIRMAN the witness said that the EastLondon Company proposed this year to make reservoirs ofsuch capacity that they might be able to send down an extraquantity of water during a drought, using part of theirreservoir capacity as a compensation reservoir ; but with

regard to this help from the East London Companyif the Lee Conservators insisted on their legal rights andtook the amount of water to which they were duly entitledthere would be no need of compensation or help from any-one else.The CHAIRMAN at a later part of the proceedings remarked

that he did not wish to say anything against the integrity andsincerity of the Lee Conservancy Board, but it was obviousthat they were dependent on the water companies.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS OFLONDON.

ELECTION OF PRESIDENT.

AN extraordinary meeting of the Comitia was held onMarch 27th, Sir SAMUEL WILKS, Bart., President, being inthe chair.On the nomination of the PRESIDENT Mr. Charles Alfred

Cripps, Q.C., was elected the standing counsel of the Collegein the place of Mr. T. T. Bucknill, Q.C., who has beenappointed one of Her Majesty’s Judges.A letter was read from the Lord President of the Council

asking the College to name a Fellow to represent the UnitedKingdom at a Congress to be held in Berlin in May todiscuss " The Prevention of Tuberculosis as an EndemicDisease." The PRESIDENT nominated Dr. Pye-Smith, whowas accepted by the College.The PRESIDENT then delivered the annual address. He

first intimated to the Comitia that he did not desire

re-election. He then referred to the principal matters con-tained in the registrar’s report. After detailing the increase-or decrease in the number of the Fellows, Members, andLicentiates respectively he mentioned the Royal favours anddistinctions which had been granted to Fellows during the-past year. He also referred to the gifts to the College,.laying special stress on that given by Sir Herman Weber-to commemorate his jubilee as a Fellow, and he sug--gested that the example was an excellent precedentto be adopted by other Fellows. The lecturers then,received their due meed of praise. Sir Samuel Wilks also-dwelt on the cordiality of feeling which existed between’their College and the Royal College of Surgeons of England.A proposal had been made that the College should take-immediate steps to attempt to bring about an alteration in..the Vaccination Act, but he thought that a year should beallowed to elapse after the passing of the Act so that more-facts and statistics might be collected. One of the mostimportant matters which had been before the College was theproposal that the College should relinquish their disciplinarypowers over their diplomates, but this proposal had beemfirmly declined. The President then read obituary noticesof the Fellows who had died during the past year, detailingthe principal scientific, literary, and clinical achievements ofeach. The names mentioned were seven in number:—SirWilliam Jenner, Dr. Munk, Dr. C. J. Hare, Dr. A. A. Kanthack,.Dr. Cole (of Bath), Dr. Henry Stevens, and Dr. Arkle.

Sir SAMUEL WILKS then delivered up the insignia of office,.thanking the Fellows and more particularly the Treasurerand the Registrar for their loyalty and deference to the chair’ ‘and for the continuous help which he had received during-the period in which he had occupied the position o’President.The election of a President was then proceeded with,

the registrar having read the laws which govern the pro- rcedure. The following was the result of the first ballot:---Dr. Church, 60 votes ; Sir William Broadbent, 56 ; Dr.Dickinson, eight; Sir R. Douglas Powell, eight; Dr. Hughlings.Jackson, three ; Dr. Pavy, three ; Sir Dyce Duckworth, two ;.and Sir William Priestley, Sir E. Sieveking, Dr. Pollock,and Dr. Barlow one each. A second ballot was therefore*

necessary between Dr. Church and Sir William Broadbent-..the result being that the former received 77 votes and the-latter 67. Dr. Church was therefore declared President of theCollege for the ensuing year and was installed by the SeniorCensor, who delivered to him the insignia of office, and Dr.Church duly " gave his faith " to the College. The latter part.of the election and the installation of the President wereconducted under some difficulty, the electric light suddenlyfailing and leaving the Comitia in darkness relieved onlyby the glimmer of a single lamp.-Dr. CHURCH in a fewwell-chosen and dignified words thanked the College for- °

the honour which had been conferred upon him.Some formal business was then proceeded with, the-

chief item of which was a report from the Midwives Bill-Committee. Sir JOHN WILLIAMS proposed, and the SENIORCENSOR (Dr. Cheadle) seconded, its reception, but discussion,on the matter was postponed.

Dr. Corfield and Dr. Poore were deputed to represent,the College at the Annual Congress of the Sanitary-Institute to be opened at Southampton on August 29th.The College accepted with acclamation a photo-engraving

of the portrait of Dr. James Andrew by Collier (presentedby Dr. Church) and one of Dr. Munk (presented by the.Treasurer).The PRESIDENT then dissolved the Comitia.

NEW HOSPITAL FOR TOTNES.-At the meetingsof the subscribers of the Totnes (Devon) Cottage Hospital’held on March 22nd under the presidency of the Mayor (Dr.G. J. Gibson) the Duke of Somerset’s offer of a site for a-,

new hospital at Bridgetown was gratefully accepted,and it was decided to advertise for plans for the new-building.THE LABELLING OF POISONS.-At the Bristol

Police-court on March 22nd a druggist was summoned for-selling a preparation containing morphia without having a.

poison label affixed. He had made up suppositories fromthe prescription of a medical man and as the patient.knew how to use them he did not think that a poison,label was necessary. The magistrates inflicted a fine of£2 and costs.