5. Had time permitted, some account should have been given of the success of sanitary work in India in cities, and even in country districts.
But we must be content with a few illustrations.
Ten years ago I reported to the Royal Commission that no one of those three large and populous cities—seats of Presidencies—Calcutta, Bombay, Madras—Calcutta, Bombay, Madras.had as yet arrived at the degree of civilisation in their sanitary arrangements at which the worst parts of our worst towns had arrived before sanitary reform sprang up in England at all.
Yet all the fault of the inevitable results was laid to the 'climate.'
Bombay, the second city of our Empire, had, it is true, a better water-supply, but no drainage.
Calcutta was being drained, but had no water supply.
Two of the seats of Government had thus each one-half of a sanitary improvement, which halves ought never to be separated.
Madras had neither.
This was ten years ago.
Now (and I cannot but name the name of the CalcuttaCalcutta. municipality engineer, Mr. Clark, with this great improvement—let us give him a cheer), Calcutta has its water-supply complete: all classes, all castes, use it; and find, indeed, the fabled virtues of the Ganges in the pure water-tap.
Draining has been going on, subsoil and surface: the subsoil water-level effectually lowered; and not only this, but a fine current of water runs through the subsoil from the river on one side to drainage out-
