The Development of Victorian Water Supplies In Blackburn
By Rosemary Matheson
The Development of Water Supplies
An example of the development of early supplies, but not necessarily typical was London, and what London did first other towns often followed. The London Bridge Waterworks was the first company to be established in 1581. Water was taken from the Thames by means of pumps driven by water wheels, but because of the massive amount of water being removed from the river it was endangering navigation through London Bridge. As a result, an Act was passed in 1822 to remove the works and transfer the undertaking to the New River Company, which came into being in 1613.
Other waterworks companies were established, and in London by the middle of the nineteenth century nine companies were in existence. These included the York Buildings Waterworks Company (1691), situated near to the Thames, where water was drawn up by means of a horse driven engine. The Chelsea Company, established in 1723 also obtained water from the Thames by the use of water wheels, which was supplied via a canal into two reservoirs in Green Park, which had been converted from ponds. The Kent Waterworks, established in 1809, was slightly different in that originally it extracted its supply from the River Ravensbourne, but in 1856 sank a deep well on Deptford. At the other end of the scale lay small towns such as Blackburn, with a much smaller population, but with a strong and expanding industrial base.
Blackburn relied mainly on springs, wells and rivers, as well as rainwater for its water supply. Such sources were often contaminated by effluent and sewage. By 1772 these natural sources were no longer adequate, and the town's first piped supply was instituted by the joint Lords of the Manor, Joseph Fielden and the Archbishop of Canterbury. The site was chosen on the steep slopes of Pemberton Clough, to the north of Blackburn and just eight hundred yards from its centre. However, this was still not sufficient to supply the whole town, so other sources in and around Blackburn continued to be used.
The new undertaking comprised four reservoirs which had been on the slopes of the clough. This was done by building up the embankment of a small lake, and by making use of an old quarry on the higher slopes, into which ran the impounded waters of Snig Brook. The other two reservoirs were built lower down the clough, one for filtering and the other for storage. These were then leased to William Townley. The water was distributed via wooden pipes, made from hollowed out tree trunks, to convenient positions in the town, where standpipes were erected. One turncock, an old man named Charles Robinson, sold the water at specific times for a penny per bucketful. The site for the waterworks was well chosen. Not only was the water clean, wholesome and plentiful, the natural environment had also been used so allowing distribution by gravitational methods, avoiding the extra expense of pumping.
Like many other towns, Blackburn had its water sellers. Two of whom J.G. Shaw refers 'Tommy Nowell and Bolton.... got a good living with hawking water from door to door in a big barrel, with spigot and faucet attached', and although they charged a penny 'they did not supply a very big canful'.
As more and more towns developed their own supply using local gathering grounds, it became increasingly necessary to obtain water from much greater distances than hitherto. By 1869, the highly industrialised areas of Lancashire and Yorkshire had few local areas available for development.
Until this time, many water undertakings were on a relatively small scale, but it was Manchester Corporation, in response to the growing needs of its own community, which, having acquired the old Waterworks Company in 1847, obtained the rights to the gathering grounds of Longdendale Valley in Derbyshire approximately ten miles to the east of Manchester. These gathering grounds covered an area of 19,300 acres. The scheme began in 1848 and although it was brought into use in 1855, the entire undertaking, including seven reservoirs, was not officially completed until 1877.
For Manchester, as well as many other towns in Britain, larger and yet more distant schemes were needed to provide sufficient water for their growing populations. Manchester developed two much longer distance schemes. The building of Thirlmere in the Lake District, at a distance of ninety-six miles commenced in 1879, the first of its kind in Britain, was quite a feat when it was realised that the entire flow was brought to Manchester by gravitational methods. It was in opposition to this scheme that the National Trust was founded. The second long distance project was from Haweswater, which is almost the same distance, and this came into service in the early twentieth century.
Liverpool appears to have lagged behind many of the larger industrialising towns in that, until 1849, it continued to depend largely on wells for its water supply. It was not until the Corporation had obtained powers to purchase existing waterworks that steps were taken to provide a larger and more efficient piped scheme. Liverpool's first supply was brought in from Rivington, twelve miles to the north-east of the town. Like Manchester, it too embarked on a second long distance scheme in the 1880s, bringing water from the Vyrnwy Valley to Liverpool from sixty-six miles away. Blackburn on the other hand had its third piped supply inaugurated in 1882.
By the Public health Act of 1848, other Corporations gradually obtained the right to purchase private waterworks companies, although not without opposition and even then negotiations could take many years. The then Blackburn Corporation bought out Blackburn Waterworks company in 1875 at a cost of £342,000.
Glasgow bought out two existing companies in 1855, Rochdale took control over its supply in 1866, Birmingham in 1875, and Sheffield Waterworks was bought by the Corporation in 1888 for £2,000,000. On acquiring the various waterworks companies, Corporations set about immediately improving supplies; and as the century progressed more towns were being supplied with constant water, rather than the intermittent supply of the earlier and more simple undertakings.
Although most of these examples are of the larger industrialising towns in Britain, a similar pattern was followed elsewhere. Blackburn too had a rapidly growing population, which increased from 11,908 in 1801 to almost 37,000 thirty years later, and by 1851 the population had increased to 63,126.
Blackburn's second attempt at providing the inhabitants with an adequate supply of water was affected by the Blackburn Waterworks Company, which was formed in 1845. At this time Blackburn, like many of the smaller towns which had not been incorporated, were often only able to finance the building of new and much larger schemes to meet the ever-increasing demands, through private enterprise and the formulation of joint stock companies. Joseph Fielden, the proprietor of the Pemberton Clough waterworks had been approached about improving the water supply at his own expense, but this he was unwilling to do. A provisional company of thirteen men of the town was formed in 1844 to supply a population of 41.000, including 6,648 houses, numerous mills and other businesses.
The Blackburn Waterworks Company's proposal to parliament was for "An Act for better supplying with Water to the Town and Township of Blackburn, in the County Palatine of Lancaster." The Royal Assent to form a company was given on 21 September 1845. The first directors were William Fielden, William Henry Hornby, Robert Hopwood the younger, James Pilkington, William Hook, William Yates and Thomas Wilson. Thomas Dugdale was later voted in as Chairman and he continued in this office until the company was purchased by the Corporation in 1875. The engineer to the company was John Frederic Bateman, who was one of the leading water engineers and surveyors of his time. Binnie writes of him: "He had a brilliant career, particularly as a dam builder, and the number of dams in the United Kingdom constructed under his supervision far exceeded those of any of his contemporaries or even his successors".
On the advice of Bateman, the Waterworks Company acquired the Pemberton Clough Waterworks from Joseph Fielden, for which they paid the sum of £4000, later abandoning it when the new supply was up and running. The gathering grounds for the new supply consisted of a drainage area of '800 acres of moorland' which was about two miles to the east of Blackburn with the height above sea level varying between 604 feet at Fishmoor and 965 feet at Daisy Green. The first reservoir at Guide was completed in 1845, and the following table shows how the Waterworks Company continued to build reservoirs and hence increase Blackburn's supply during the period it administered the water undertaking.
Name
| Use | Year Completed | Capacity in Million Gallons | Notes |
| Guide | Storage | 1845 | 87 | Still in use. Embankment raised by 3 feet in 1854, increasing capacity to 90 million gallons.
|
| Audley | Service | 1845 | ? | Abandoned c. 1856 for water supply--still in use for other purposes in 1891.
|
| Hoddlesden | Compensation | 1847 | 10 | Still in use.
|
| Pickup Bank | Impounding | 1849 | 31,250 | Abandoned c. 1875.
|
| Daisy Green | impounding | 1849 | 12,300 | Abandoned and Drained , year unknown
|
| Audley New | Service | 1856 | 13,360 | Abandoned year unknown
|
| Fishmoor | Storage | 1866 | 310,000 | Still in use
|
This was only the beginning for Blackburn. When the supply was inaugurated in 1847 there were ten-and three-quarter miles of cast iron mains, which increased to over fifty-seven miles by 1875 when the Corporation took over the supply. What is perhaps more significant is the number of houses connected compared with the number of houses in the area of supply. According to information available, in the first year after the inauguration 29.66% of houses had been connected to the supply, which had risen to 71.57% by 1871.
The Blackburn Waterworks Act of 1875 gave the Corporation powers to purchase the Waterworks Company and to extend the current supply. This was later abandoned in favour of a scheme for a much larger undertaking in the Forest of Bowland in the West Riding of Yorkshire, a distance of twenty-two miles. It is very likely that Bateman, on whose advice the gathering grounds were chosen, used the experience and knowledge gained as engineer for the Longdendale Valley scheme for Manchester. Some of the reservoirs in Blackburn continued to be used, but gradually Audley, Pickup Bank and Daisy Green were abandoned, while Guide reservoir, now 158 years old, and Fishmoor, built in 1865, are still in use today. In the Blackburn Standard in 1865 it reported that there had never been any slippage with the Guide embankment, although from an inspection report of 1933 it states that there had been some movement on the east embankment, which appears not to have caused any great concern because the water bailiff stated in the report that it was in the same condition over thirty years previously. There were however some problems with the Fishmoor reservoir in the early stages of its construction which will be discussed later. Water consumption and the reason for its growth
The opening words of J. F. Bateman to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1855 were:
"Among the many interesting and important subjects to which the present desire for sanitary improvement has recently directed public attention, none have a higher claim upon that attention, none are more intimately mixed up with the health, the comfort and the well-being of our town populations, than the question of an abundant supply of good and wholesome water..... and the purification of the streams and rivers into which the sewage of our towns is allowed to flow."
Bateman also argued that the massive expansion of industry and population created the appalling conditions in which people lived in mid nineteenth century Britain, and that this could be alleviated by providing an abundant, wholesome and efficient supply of water. He acknowledged the difficulties and cost that this would bring, but nevertheless asserted that a system which would enable a constant supply of water to be available at all times would improve the health and hygiene of the inhabitants and the towns, as well as adding to their 'comfort and moral habit'. As a surveyor and water engineer, Bateman was involved in projects throughout Britain, including those of Blackburn, Manchester and Glasgow, and as such had a vested interest in encouraging town and city authorities to improve their water supplies.
One of the results of the massive growth in population was that refuse, vegetable and animal matter increased proportionately. Consequently, with little or no proper waste disposal and drainage systems, the effluent and waste from the inhabitants and the expanding industries were allowed to drain into the rivers, many of which had become open sewers, and the wells and springs which were often used for domestic purposes were also becoming increasingly polluted.
A critical report in the Westminster Review of 1856, referring to the Thames, says that there were "a thousand sewers... pouring their foetid contents and the effluent from industries into the river. Isaac Lloyd writing in 1846 of Blackburn's principal river, the Blakewater, refers to it as,
"That black, murky, slimy, filthy, sink of abominations, egregiously misnamed a brook, that like a poisonous serpent, seems to envelope the town in its sinuous and deadly folds. Well is the town called Blackburn, if the etymology of its name is to be traced to that foul and fetid agglomeration of nastiness - that lethiferous Stygian burn, on whose gloomy margin so many of our inhabitants have the misfortune to be domiciled.... So vast and continuous a collection of filth and putrefaction is literally sufficient to create a pestilence."
A less flowery report can be obtained from the 1868 enquiry into the pollution of rivers. The report states that in 1853 the Blakewater, a tributary of the Ribble basin, was "very filthy (and) the sewage of the whole borough flowed into it." However, the report continues on a positive note, that the river had become less polluted because sewage from the town was no longer being diverted into the Blakewater, although it was still receiving the effluent from the mills on its banks.
In the domestic sphere water consumption increased as people became aware of the need for cleanliness. In 1852 the levy on soap was removed and consumption increased as the wholesale price fell by one third. Although many of the working class were still unable to afford the luxury of the scented toilet soap used by the middle class, attempts were made to teach them how important it was to keep themselves and their homes clean. For those without bathrooms, baths or somewhere to wash their clothes, public facilities were gradually provided, the first of which was established in Liverpool in 1842.
F. B. Smith says that entrance to public baths in the 1850s was '6d at City Road, London and much the same elsewhere, which he argues was a high price even for the middle class. Even when the poorest in society were given soap by charities they had neither the means to wash or bath themselves or to clean their clothes properly, so they would continue to wash only what could be seen of their bodies, and often sleep in the same clothes for weeks. But when considering evidence from Liverpool and Blackburn the situation in both towns was different in that, as already mentioned, Liverpool had its first public bath and wash house in 1842, whereas Blackburn was still procrastinating over the issue in 1853.
Liverpool did charge 6d, as at City Road, and also 1s, but that was for private baths. For the working class a warm bath could be had for 2d, for two or three children using the same water a charge of 2d would be made, and cold baths and shower baths would cost 1d. Rules were quite strict. Those waiting to use the facilities had to sit in the waiting room in the order they had arrived and if any quarrelling (or) improper conduct and conversation took place, the superintendent and matron had the authority to remove the offender. Wash houses were provided at Liverpool, at the same time, and preference was given to those living in cellar dwellings or single rooms, and to large families who had no other means of washing. The charge for the wash house was 1d for each woman up to six hours. The matron would decide what clothes would be washed together and would also ensure that each washer put an appropriate amount of soap and soda into the boiler.
There is no doubt that these facilities were increasingly used. In 1842 the baths were used 11,661 times, increasing to 16,323 times. The largest increase being for warm baths at 3d. The wash house also showed an increase from 9,837 tubs and 19,261 'dozens of clothes' washed in 1842 to 12,067 tubs and 25,435 'dozens of clothes' in the second year. Blackburn however seemed a little slow in providing the inhabitants with such vital facilities. For many the only proper bath they would have would be on a trip to one of the seaside towns on the Lancashire coast.
An editorial in the Blackburn Standard on 14 July 1847 extolled the virtues of public baths and suggested that with the new water supply soon to be completed, it would give the town an opportunity to establish not just public baths and wash houses, but also a swimming pool. This would not only help reduce the fever which was prevalent during the summer months, but would prove beneficial for the cleanliness and health of the townspeople and enable, particularly the young men, an opportunity to have some 'clean, invigorating exercise, which would have a moral as well as physical effect' on them. It would turn their minds away from the beer-shops and produce in them improved health, 'cheerful spirits (and) sound sleep'.
However grandiose and worthy these ideas were, six years later nothing had been done. John Withers in his report in 1853 recommended that these facilities should be provided because, as he says:
"The establishment of public Baths would be a great boon to the inhabitants, and be conducive to their health and comfort, yet, while the necessity of frequent ablutions is so generally recommended, and insisted upon as one of the requirements of health by the more eminent of the Medical profession, there is no facility for the performance of them in Blackburn."
Although it was not until 1868 that the inhabitants of Blackburn were eventually provided with this necessity of life, it was a very fine facility when it did arrive. There were first and second -class swimming baths, each with 'dressing boxes', there were also twenty-nine slipper baths for men and seven for women.
A further point mentioned in the Blackburn Standard editorial was that the new water supply would also be a great boon to the fire-fighting capabilities of the town, and could perhaps encourage the insurance companies to reduce their high premiums, The intermittent supply of water, low pressure and the inevitable use of buckets invariably meant that fire was a great hazard to towns.
John Simon writing in 1890, says that the General Board of Health viewed the water supply provided to the metropolis as inadequate to provide a sufficient supply for extinguishing fires and street cleaning, that about half the water was being wasted and overall water companies were badly managed. Manchester too by the 1800s had become incapable of coping with major fire, and as late as 1909 the Fylde Water Board were meeting to discuss the provision of an efficient supply of water for firefighting purposes. So even during the twentieth century, when it should be assumed that water supplies were sufficient, problems still occurred. In this respect Blackburn was no different from many other towns in Britain. Before the town received its constant supply of water in 1847 it too had 'no efficient means of extinguishing fires'. But the Improvement Commissioners were trying to redress the situation. An Act of 1841 gave them the authority to purchase or provide such Engineers for extinguishing Fire and such Water Buckets, Pipes, and other Apparatus for such Engineers, and such Fire Escapes, and other Implements for Safety or Use in case of Fire, as they shall think fit. But with only 5,546 yards of pipe laid by 1844, over twenty miles of streets and an intermittent supply, it can be seen that efficient firefighting in Blackburn would be extremely difficult.
It was further enacted in the Blackburn Waterworks Act of 1845, that the Waterworks Company was required to fit fire plugs into the main pipes, and any which belonged to the Improvement Commissioners at their request. The cost of preparing, fixing and placing the fire plugs would be borne by the Commissioners, but any future repairs would be the responsibility of the Waterworks Company. All this meant that the ability to fight fires in Blackburn was being improved with the installation of a constant supply of water and development of the water system generally.
As mentioned above, wastage of water was another problem and contributed quite considerably to the amount used. Waste through poor quality or defective pipes and fittings, and abuses of the use of water are areas which have given concern at various times to those who had the responsibility for water supply. The principal area of concern for the Blackburn Waterworks Company in the early 1850s appears to be that water was allowed to flow constantly through water closets. It was suggested by the company that customers might like to purchase a cistern at a cost of 15s, in order to prevent so much waste, and in 1863 one customer was prosecuted for excessive use of water. Unfortunately, the newspaper report gives no other details. The use of hose pipes was another area of concern, and in the late nineteenth century the Fylde Waterworks Company dealt with this by inserting a clause in the Waterworks Bill preventing the use of hose pipes, unless with the prior consent of the Company. This appears to have been successful, because even though there had been an increase in the number of consumers, the consumption of water had decreased immediately the clause came into force.
Even when cisterns were installed the use of water closets still created a huge increase in amount of water required. In 1887 Dr. Stephenson reported that in Blackburn a total of 874,956 excreta tubs and ashtubs were emptied. According to A T Gooseman, Blackburn's water engineer in 1920, each water closet installed would require twelve gallons per day. By using these figures and assuming that all the tubs were converted to the water carriage system, an additional 209,989,440 gallons of water would be required each year for this service alone. The figure would be higher still when taking into account the additional houses that would be built over the years. When compared with the total consumption of water in 1841 of 810,000 gallons and the fact that Daisy Green reservoir contained a mere 12.3 million gallons, it was unquestionable that demand for domestic supplies alone would increase considerably for the foreseeable future.
The health of the public and a clean and wholesome water supply is closely linked, but up to the early years of the nineteenth century, local and national government appears to have little concept of this. According to Walters it was not until the 1840s that there was the first official recognition that water supplies were in such a dreadful condition; and not until the 1847 Waterworks Act and the Public Health Act of 1848 were attempts made to provide the nation with a clean, wholesome and sufficient water supply.
Problems Encountered
According to Walters there are three ways in which rainwater can be collected. Firstly, by impounding streams and storing the water in artificial reservoirs, secondly by pumping water from natural underground reservoirs via wells and boreholes, lastly by pumping water directly from rivers. When designing a water scheme it is important to know the amount of water each source is likely to yield, as well as information on evaporation and absorption, but this had not become a science even by the time of the large undertaking of the Longdendale Valley scheme for Manchester was at the design stage. It was therefore very much a matter of guesswork for Blackburn's water engineer, John Frederic Bateman.
Where water is gathered and impounded into reservoirs, gravity is often used to transport the water to towns, and this is what happened in each of Blackburn's water schemes. The earlier schemes were relatively simple. The water would be impounded into reservoirs, allowed to settle so sediment would fall to the bottom and, although it was not realised until the late nineteenth century, storage would also allow the natural actions of chemicals to purify the water. From the settling or storage tanks, water would then be distributed to the consumer, mostly by wooden pipes, usually elm. Other materials including stone, wrought iron, and later cast iron, which was first used in circa 1746. Lead has an even older history, being in use since Roman times, and until the 1930s it was the only material available for making small bore pipes. As schemes were enlarged or new ones built to keep pace with increased demand, more sophisticated techniques and machinery were developed. These included pumps which were needed in order to reach the higher areas of towns and cities, larger, stronger and safer dams, pipes which would take a much greater pressure of water, fittings, gauges for measuring flow, and many other technological developments, which all helped to increase the efficiency of water undertakings.
The importance of positioning reservoirs and building dams where the water would not seep either through the dam itself or the side of the valley, and of using gathering grounds where rainfall is at its highest, cannot be underestimated. Therefore, taking into account how little was known about rainfall, evaporation and absorption, the fact that early water engineers and surveyors chose the areas they did is nothing short of remarkable, especially when it is realised that over half of the reservoirs in use in Britain today are over 100 years old. For instance, two reservoirs which formed part of Blackburn Waterworks Company undertaking, Guide and Fishmoor, were built in 1845 and 1866 respectively, and Belmont reservoir was built for the Bolton Waterworks Company in 1825, all without the aid of modern-day knowledge and technology.
Nevertheless, this does not mean that all reservoirs were successful or safe. Accidents, slippages and leakages occurred, and many people lost their lives. The worst dam failure in Great Britain was that of the Dale Dyke Dam in Yorkshire, which collapsed in 1864 killing 244 people. It is estimated that when the dam gave way it released 40,000 cubic feet of water per second, destroying hundreds of homes, factories and mills, with thousands more homes damaged by the flood water which created havoc as it travelled the eight miles from Bradfield Moor to Sheffield. Others died later as a result of diseases caught or injuries sustained during the inundation. One mother experienced the horror of having her baby of just a few hours old 'whipped from her arms as she and her husband struggled to escape the flood'. In one instance, three generations of one family lost their lives. There have been other failures and slippages, with some deaths, but not on the same scale as that which occurred in Yorkshire in March 1864.
The result of an enquiry into the disaster was inconclusive, no assurance was given as to whether it was a design fault or poor construction. The jury's opinion was that there had not been sufficient engineering skill and attention given to the construction of the works, which their magnitude and importance demanded. They also suggested that inspections to works of this nature should be frequent, sufficient and regular. Given that this appears to be an obvious way of avoiding further disasters, it was not until a dam failed in Wales in 1925, killing sixteen people that the Reservoir (Safety Provision) Act was introduced in 1930. The Act applied only to reservoirs containing more than five million gallons of water. Quite naturally, towns around the country would have been concerned at what happened in Yorkshire, and Blackburn requested Bateman to inspect their own works for safety. He reported that the works had been thoroughly inspected and reservoirs, discharge pipes and discharging apparatus (were in a) perfectly safe and satisfactory condition. A little ironic when eighteen months later the embankment at Fishmoor reservoir was causing problems. It was not however, unusual for problems and leakages to occur during the building of dams, although following repairs they generally remained stable.
The Fishmoor reservoir was in the process of construction and inspected regularly, whether this was as a result of the collapse of the Dale Dyke Dam, or perhaps because the contractor was way behind schedule and the Waterworks Company was trying to hurry him up is difficult to ascertain. Fortunately, the 'slip' of the embankment was noticed very quickly and the directors took immediate steps to release the water in the reservoir to allay any fears of the local inhabitants, no doubt especially for those living below the reservoir itself. The final analysis was that although the foundation of the banking was good, there was some soft ground well below the original surface and the weight of the embankment forced this to give way. The repair, which as would be expected was substantial, was carried out and great care continued to be taken to ensure that the embankment was well consolidated before the reservoir was finally allowed to fill completely, so averting what could have been a dreadful disaster.
The company having congratulated themselves on the progress of Fishmoor, although two years behind schedule, were no doubt relieved that it was of stable construction, the slippage had been sorted out, and they did not have the problems that so many other companies were experiencing. As Mr. Tiplady, a shareholder, pointed out at a company meeting, reservoirs being built in other parts of Britain were very defective and cost three times the money originally contemplated.
One of the big problems for engineers was to ensure that the dams were watertight. The first earth dams in Victorian Britain were built with a cut-off trench excavated down to bedrock and backfilled with clay, or clay core in the centre of the embankment and gentle slopes on both sides. The puddle core was built by mixing together earth, clay and gravel, and laid in layers of no more than six inches at a time, this would then be worked together by labourers wearing special boots, a practice continued where earth embankments were built.
Fishmoor as an experiment used a layer of concrete both at the bottom and the sides, which having been found to be successful, the design was adopted by other engineers. Binnie says that after it was used on the Fishmoor dam it became 'more or less standard practice throughout the country, and that these recommendations have been responsible, in no small measure for the remarkably good performance record of earth dams with clay cores'. In many instances problems were due to poor construction but it mostly appears to be through lack of knowledge, not necessarily because the engineers were incompetent, but simply because the information was not available at the time and it was a question of learning by experience. Each reservoir and dam built was individual, there was no one design that could be used, geological and meteorological conditions varied from area to area. Competition and opposition came from different industries, local authorities, competing water authorities and the communities where water was to be extracted, for the right to the use of water in a particular catchment area whether the proposal was going through the parliamentary process or discussions at a local level. Negotiations were often intense and lengthy and many delays occurred when agreement could not be reached for compensation without the necessity of going to the legislature. In an attempt to understand some of the difficulties encountered and to throw some light on the problems that the water companies had in providing a supply, consideration will now be given to what happened in respect of the Blackburn Waterworks Company.
A special meeting of the Improvement Commissioners was arranged in August 1844:
"for the purpose of revoking, if it should be thought expedient, that part of an order passed at a late meeting of the said Commissioners, held on the 14th day of June last, by which a committee was appointed with authority to adopt such measures as they might deem expedient for obtaining for the use of the inhabitants, a constant regular supply of water"
From the newspaper report of this meeting, it was obvious there was agreement by all concerned that the Pemberton Clough Waterworks owned by Joseph Feilden, which had partially supplied the town with piped water since 1772 was totally inadequate. A new supply was definitely needed but it was a question of whether this should be managed by the Commissioners, a self-elected group of townsmen, or a private joint stock company.
The Improvement Commissioners main concern appears to be one of finance, and, if managed by a private company, whether or not the scheme would be a success. On the one hand, those in favour of the Commissioners undertaking to provide the supply put the view that Parliamentary authority could be obtained to borrow money and that this capital could then be used to pay off the interest until such time as rates could be levied. The Commissioners also said that the cost of building the scheme would be £20,000 not £40,000 as put forward by the water company and that if this was built by a joint stock company the profits would go to only a few inhabitants of Blackburn, whereas if the scheme were provided by the Commissioners all profit would go to the town. Significantly, the Waterworks Company themselves only borrowed £20,000 initially to build the undertaking and secondly not all the shareholders came from Blackburn, so the Commissioners did have two very valid arguments.
Those in favour of a private company managing the undertaking appeared to have fewer arguments to put forward, but nevertheless won the day. Their main argument appears to be that as a private stock company they would be able to manage the scheme far better than the Improvement Commissioners. There would be no charge at all to the town even if the scheme failed, which was not anticipated, because they said, no private scheme had failed yet. Concern about the cost of water in the case of fire and street cleansing was unfounded because, they argued, Parliament would only sanction schemes where water would be provided free for public use. Also as regards profit, the company said that Parliament would only allow a maximum dividend of 10% and even this sum would not be reached for some years hence. Their argument in terms of who should provide the supply appeared quite strong. When voting for or against the motion, many possibly took into account how little commitment it appeared that the Commissioners had to the town, because as stated in the newspaper report.
"There was an unusually large assemblage of Commissioners, especially towards the conclusion of the business, two-thirds of the gentleman present not being in the habit of attending the ordinary meetings of the Commissioners."
It would therefore appear that the majority of those who did decide to attend the meeting arrived late and were only interested in the result. Also, the Blackburn Waterworks Company, while the Commissioners were still discussing the best way forward, were well ahead with their planning. Background information had been gathered, a survey completed, the projected cost of the scheme, as well as an application for shares, had been prepared and published in the same newspaper and on the same day as the above mentioned meeting was reported. The company had employed Neville, Ainsworth and Beardsworth as solicitors and secured the services of one of the best engineers of the time, John Frederic Bateman. The Royal Assent to the Blackburn Waterworks Act was given on 21 July 1845, but not without strong opposition and competition. In this instance there were two competing organisations, the Lancashire Waterworks Company whose proposal was to provide water to 'Manchester, Salford and other considerable places in the county of Lancaster'. Another scheme was put forward but there is little information available other than it was for 'boring under Revidge', perhaps it was not a very serious proposal. Prior to the 1847 Waterworks Act and the Public Health Act of 1848, private acts of Parliament had to be obtained to provide a supply, and in many of them little or no consideration had been given to the riparian owners who relied on waterpower to run their mills. However, by mid nineteenth century the practice of compensation had become accepted and in Blackburn the Hoddlesden reservoir was built to compensate the Owners and Occupiers of Mills on the Eccleshill Brook and the River Darwen. Even in this there was conflict. The Waterworks Company proposed that the reservoir should have a capacity of seven million gallons, but a counter proposal suggested twenty-five million. The Parliamentary committee came down on the side of the Waterworks Company, although when built the capacity of the reservoir was ten million gallons, whether this was by accident or intent is not clear.
The passage of Acts through Parliament were seldom smooth and the more opposition the higher the cost, as the following figures indicate:
1845 Act for new supply Strongly opposed Cost £3,704 3s 2d
1848 Act to raise £20000 Not opposed £ 465 13s 0d
1861 Act to build Fishmoor Strongly opposed £3,485 12s 7d
In addition to the Waterworks Company's cost, the cost to the ratepayers for the Corporation's opposition to the new supply was in the region of £1,700. The next time there was any real opposition to the Waterworks Company was when the 1861 Act was to go before Parliament to enable the Waterworks Company to build Fishmoor reservoir and all the necessary work connected with it. The Corporation did not object to the Act itself rather there were a few clauses they wanted amended or inserted. The two main objections they had concerned the water rate and the cleanliness of the water in Hoddlesden compensation reservoir, which under the new scheme was also for the domestic supply to the town.
The deputies for the Corporation had proved to the Parliamentary committee that ashes, gas tar and sewage went into the reservoir, and they wanted the water to be filtered before going into the domestic supply system. In answer to this the Waterworks Company said that by the Waterworks Clauses Act of 1847 they were obliged to supply pure and wholesome water to the town and this would do, therefore filters would not be required. However, the 1847 Act also gave mill owners the right to throw ashes into a compensation reservoir and as a vested right 'could not be interfered with'. Nevertheless, a clause was inserted into the Bill and the Waterworks Company were obliged to build a sewer thus preventing any sewage entering into the domestic supply. A further clause that the Corporation wanted to have inserted was to limit the amount of money charged to the consumers. The Blackburn Waterworks Act of 1845 enabled the Company to levy a rate of 10s if payment was made in advance and 12s if paid later, but they had only been charging 6s and 8s and it was the lower figures that the Corporation wanted the rate fixed at. In this instance the Waterworks Company 'successfully pleaded their right' to charge the higher figure. There were other clauses that the Corporation disputed or wanted inserted into the Bill but without success. Although it does appear that they had succeeded in the most important point, that of preventing sewage contaminating the domestic supply.
Throughout the term of the Blackburn Waterworks Company, there were many problems to be overcome and complaints to deal with. On the one hand the company were saying that Blackburn had plenty of water and was better off than other towns in the area yet there were many complaints about the quality and shortage of water, particularly during the early years that the Blackburn Waterworks Company was supplying water to the town. Once the Bill had been through Parliament and work commenced to purchase land and build the scheme, delays occurred when agreements could not be reached with local landholders. In all the cases reported in the newspaper the jury came down in favour of the Waterworks Company although this does not necessarily mean they won every case. In one instance £935 was awarded for land where the owner had demanded £1700 and in another £1400 was obtained 'after some difficulty' when £2000 had been requested by the landowners. This type of delay was frequent and it added to the costs of the Waterworks Company, and in the long term the ratepayer. Nevertheless, despite all these problems and many more which have not been discussed, private concerns and later the Corporations, continued to build bigger, better and more expensive schemes. This was made possible through private finance, development of technology, and the determination of the early engineers, surveyors and water companies to overcome the problems that beset them.
The impact of a constant supply of water
Having traced the development of water supplies to towns, the reasons why consumption increased, and some of the many difficulties experienced by the Blackburn Waterworks Company in particular, now let us reflect on the impact that a good and wholesome supply of water had on towns and their inhabitants. As water became more readily available, and the consumption, as well as its uses increased, towns and their inhabitants became healthier, cleaner, and one would assume, happier. A constant pressure in the pipes ensured that water was readily available in case of fire, reservoirs were beneficial to mill owners as well as helping to reduce the risk of flooding. One of the disadvantages of a constant supply was that until the whole structure of water supply and sewage disposal was in place the developments in some instances exacerbated pollution, and perhaps the biggest inconvenience to individuals was where they had to continue to collect their water from pumps and rain water collected in tanks. For instance, my grandparents lived in Aylmerton, a hamlet in Norfolk, and for some time after the second world war they still got their drinking water from the village pump, which fortunately for them was in their front garden, and the rainwater that was collected in a tank, which was used for other domestic purposes and accessed via a tap in the back yard. This was told to me by my mother, but even as a young child I remember the pump and tap being used, and also the inconvenience of the privy in the back yard. Another instance I recall was in the 1970s. An old lady, who lived in the lodge house of Gunton Hall Estate just outside Thorpe Market, again in Norfolk, had to cross the road to get her water from a pump.
It could be argued that copious supplies of water had the biggest impact in relation to public health, as Buer says 'one of the first requisites of public health and convenience is an adequate and pure water supply' but negotiations and construction work took time, and many people had to wait until well in the twentieth century before they were connected to a constant supply. The larger the scheme, the higher the cost, so even where it was technically possible to provide every house with running water by the beginning of the twentieth century, the cost was prohibitive. It was generally the large industrialising towns and cities with rapidly increasing populations and high death rates that were at the forefront of improvement and although Blackburn was not considered to be among the larger towns, according to McQuay the death rate in Blackburn in 1850 was 50% above the national average although I have found no evidence to support this. When considering the mortality trend in Blackburn the following figures show a decline during the period 1841 to 1894.
Censual Years Death rate per 1000
1841-1850 29.02
1851-1860 29.47
1861-1870 27.83
1871-1880 27.38
1881-1890 23.83
1891-1894 21.30
A number of reasons have been given for the reduction in mortality generally, which includes improvement in towns through paving, drainage, street cleaning and sewage disposal. Advances in medicine have also been put forward, and latterly historians have considered an improved diet as a possible explanation. It could be argued that all these things had an effect but without copious supplies of water it would not have been possible for these improvements to have been made. It was not just the decrease in deaths that was significant, people were becoming healthier and more robust. Cook suggests that
"Providing a clean public water supply had as big, if not bigger, effect on public health than all the breakthrough in new drugs. It virtually wiped-out typhoid and cholera, dysentery, hepatitis, and gastro-enteritis became much more rare."
So, the provision of constant water was of great benefit. It would mean less time away from work due to sickness, hence an increase in the standard of living, and, coming full circle, people could then purchase those things that make for a better and healthier life, for instance food and medicine. Before the importance of a constant supply of water was realised there were some like Thomas Wicksteed, engineer to the East London Waterworks, and James Simpson, President of the Institution of Water Engineers and engineer to the Chelsea Waterworks, who were against a constant supply. Simpson in particular thought that a constant supply would be expensive and useless. On the other hand the health reformer Edwin Chadwick who advocated the arterial system of supply, whereby the water, drainage and sewage services would be linked, and Thomas Hawksley, engineer to the Trent Waterworks which in the 1830s was designed for a constant supply, were both in favour of such a scheme.
Hawksley was chosen by Chadwick 'to be one of the principal witnesses at the Health of Towns enquiry' in 1844, where according to Finer he proved the efficiency and economy of a constant supply. Hawksley pointed to incidences where gas had percolated into the water mains where intermittent supplies were in existence, and evidence also showed that half-empty pipes were dangerous to health because water from the surrounding soil could also percolate through and this 'might even be the overflow of a cesspool'. Hawksley also argued that through the provision of a constant supply fire safety would be improved and 'standards of cleanliness higher'.
There were many arguments against a constant supply. One was that householders were more likely to waste water simply because it was readily available and this did occur. In some instances, people left taps running continuously because of the fear that the supply would dry up, but as confidence grew in the new system and it was realised that water would be available at all times of the day and night, this type of waste was gradually reduced. Another argument against a constant supply was that if lead pipes were laid in the poorer areas of the towns they would be stolen. This did happen from time to time in areas where intermittent supplies were provided, but not in Nottingham with its constant supply, and Hawksley argued that the constant pressure of water in the pipes prevented such thefts. Another difficulty for engineers was that there was a lot of waste through defective joints, pipes and fittings, and, particularly where a limited supply of water was available an intermittent supply was a necessity. In some instances water companies having attempted to supply water under pressure, reverted to the intermittent system because of the wastage, but as technology improved and the benefits of a constant supply were realised, the intermittent system was gradually replaced, and by the 1890s most of the country had converted to a constant water supply. A distinct disadvantage in the early years of constant water and the development of water closets was that the overflow of WCs ran into the cesspools and because they were not emptied frequently enough by the night soil men, the liquid would overflow and seep into the ground , which would then become contaminated and perhaps find a way into the water supply. Originally sewers were built for flood water only, and the contents were discharged into nearby rivers. But as it became practice, then law, that the contents of WCs be discharged into sewers this increased pollution to rivers still further. In 1868 Dr. Rummy reported to the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science that Britain's rivers had become much worse in the last 30 years since sewage came in. The use of WCs where a constant supply was provided also increased the incidence of flooding, particularly to low lying areas around the riverbanks and cellar dwellings that were below sewer level. Blackburn attempted to overcome this problem by building sewage tanks at Wensley Fold, little more than half a mile from the town centre, but the liquid effluent was still being discharged into the river. In 1877 an irrigation system was built to enable the liquid in the tanks to be diverted to farmland in Houghton about three miles from Blackburn. This was done so that sewage would be 'directed for ever from the river Blakewater'.
The quality and quantity of water also had an impact on industry. Mill owners who relied on waterpower to work their mills found that where compensation reservoirs were built the flow of the water was evened-out, thus enabling a more regular distribution of workload, less lay-offs, particularly in times of drought, and hence higher profits. This in turn led to some mill owners building their own reservoirs, as for instance at Turton and Entwistle near Bolton. Reservoirs also helped to prevent flooding by storing excess water. In February 1872 it was reported at the Blackburn Waterworks meeting that because of the very heavy rainfall in January of that year, and the possibility of further heavy rains both Pickup Bank and Daisy Green reservoirs had been emptied 'to catch any flood water that may take place'. As regards the quality of water it appears from the Waterworks Company meetings that Blackburn's water was superior to that in other areas. In February 1867 the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company reported that engine boilers are 'more easily kept clean and the tubes last longer' than in other districts where the company obtained their water, but in 1872 the company was more specific. Three engines had been supplied with water from Salford in Manchester, Low Moor in Yorkshire, and Blackburn, and they had travelled 137,339 miles, 120,411 and 211, 658 miles respectively before it was necessary for the engines to be cleaned. Waterpower gradually gave way to steam power and a variety of steam engines and pumps were used in many industries, for instance cotton, mining, land drainage, railways, agriculture and of course the water industry. Steam coaches were used between the 1820s and 1830s mainly between London and Brighton, and Cheltenham and Gloucester. In Scotland the coaches were finally stopped running by a Court of Sessions when a boiler burst after a wheel collapsed and five people were killed, which was suggested as 'probably the first fatal motor accident in Great Britain'. The wheel collapse was because a 'pile of loose stones had been placed on the road by the order of the turnpike trust' perhaps this was an early incident of vandalism to the roads.
As well as the impact to individuals and businesses there were also changes to the landscape. In some places whole villages were flooded to enable reservoirs to be built. In the Longdendale Valley scheme, the Vale House Mills were demolished along with the 'gas works, cottages, shops, schoolhouse and the Manager's house', and an estimated four or five hundred villagers were displaced. The chimney of one mill was left protruding out of the reservoir until that too was demolished in 1887 at the request of the railway company, because of their concern for the stability of the trains when passengers crowded over to one side to the unusual site of a 'stone mill chimney protruding from a sheet of still water'. It was not only the visual aspect that had changed but also underground structures. In Blackburn for instance in 1844 there were just over five hundred yards of water pipes in the town, by 1875 when the Corporation bought the undertaking, fifty-seven miles had been laid. The building of the reservoirs was not inconsiderable, and no doubt then, as now, inhabitants would complain about the noise, dirt and inconvenience of the work being undertaken. There is no doubt that the development of water undertakings had a huge impact on the towns and cities in Victorian times. There were many benefits, particularly in relation to public health and some disadvantages, but in the long run a clean, wholesome and sufficient supply of water has proved beneficial to people and industries alike.
I wish to gratefully acknowledge the help and support I have received from Geoff Timmins, my Supervisor, the Reference Section of Blackburn Central Library, all those from North West Water as well as Arthur Fisher, Stanley Miller, Stan Mills, Nick Wyatt, Eddie Runswick, Mark Dixon, Barbara Riding and Maggie Simms.
Transcribed by Shazia Kasim
Article first published in The Blackburn Local History Society Journal 2004 Volume 5, pages 26-38
Published December 2025
