Abstract

AbstractAlthough the development of constant water in London has largely been treated by historians as inevitable, this article explores contemporary arguments for and against the constant water system. A case was made for its main competitor, the much maligned intermittent supply. Water company engineers in the nineteenth century in particular argued against compulsory universal constant water, and it was not obvious that the constant system was better than the intermittent. The universal constant water ideal in London arose from a coming together of politics and engineering, facilitated by a (contested) sharing of knowledge, and the linking of a particular conception of social benefit — the alleviation of poverty — with constant water. Hence, constant water was not an inevitable development, but was a response to particular socio-economic conditions.