LONDON (WATFORD) SPRING WATER COMPANY BILL. (Hansard, 15 March 1853)

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL,
in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, that he had on the previous day presented a petition in its favour from a very large number of the inhabitants of the metropolis, who were convinced that they could not have a good supply of water unless there was competition amongst the water companies. This Bill was read a second time last Session by a majority of 196 to 65, but it was not reported upon by the Select Committee to which it was referred, solely because their inquiries were interrupted by the dissolution of Parliament. The inhabitants of the metropolis, whose feelings, wishes, and interests he must ask the House to consider, were in favour of this Bill, which was opposed only by those interested in the existing water companies, who at present enjoyed a monopoly of the supply. The promoters of this Bill stood in this disadvantageous position—that there were from fifty to sixty Members of that House concerned in those companies; and he knew that an hon. Member who was the chairman of one of them had actually been canvassing Members to come down to the House and vote against this Bill. Under the present system competition was impossible, for clauses in the Acts of the Grand Junction and West Middlesex Companies actually prevented either of them from going out of the districts allotted to them. In districts where there was no competition, the Grand Junction Water Company, for instance, of which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets 200 (Sir W. Clay) was the chairman, charged 8d. per 1,000 gallons; and the West Middlesex Company, of which another hon. Member was also chairman, charged ls. ¾d. per 1,000 gallons. In districts, however, where competition was admitted, instead of 8d. per 1,000 gallons, the charge was 4¾d., and in other districts, instead of the inhabitants paying ls. ¾d. per 1,000 gallons, they had only to pay 3d. and two-thirds of a penny. The water supplied by the Grand Junction Company was worse and more full of animalculæ than even the Thames water. All sorts of hideous monsters, great and small, were supplied to the inhabitants of London to eat and drink. There were male scorpions, and female scorpions, and little scorpions — and a host of other loathsome animals. The Grand Junction Company supplied the district in which he lived (Mayfair), but no one ever thought of drinking the water. Indeed, so bad was it, that the inhabitants were indebted to Lord Chesterfield for a supply of pure spring water. He hoped the House would now permit the Bill to be read a second time, and refer it to a Committee, before whom it could be fully and fairly discussed.

§ MR. HALSEY
said, he thought that the interest of the district from which the water was to be taken should be considered, as well as those of the metropolis to which it was to be given. The Bill proposed to take away water, the loss of which would be severely felt in Hertfordshire, without giving the slightest compensation. All the millowners and landowners affected by this Bill were opposed to it; and he hoped that the House would protect them from the expense of going before a Select Committee, by agreeing to the Motion which he would make, that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months.

§ LORD DUDLEY STUART
said, he hoped the House would not, by rejecting the Bill, pronounce, in regard to that important necessary of life, water, against the principle of unrestricted competition. The existing water companies had obtained by the Bill of last year much more favourable conditions than they had any 201 right to expect; and it was most unreasonable, that because they were compelled to go a little higher up the Thames for their supply, that they should desire to prevent the inhabitants of the metropolis from obtaining water from a yet purer source at a more reasonable rate, in order that they themselves might continue to enjoy their monopoly and continue to poison our stomachs.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he intended to vote on this Bill according to the answer he had given to an hon. Friend of his the other day. It appeared to him that Parliament, by the Act of last Session, had imposed on the present water companies obligations for the supply of the metropolis, which would be necessarily attended with considerable expense, and which were to be carried into effect by works that would require a certain lapse of time for their completion. It would not, therefore, be in accordance with the fair understanding of that Act, that the House should, before the expiration of the time within which those works were to be completed—and until they had seen whether by means of those operations a sufficient supply of water could be provided—it would not be fair either to the parties concerned, or the existing water companies, to sanction a Bill of this nature. He should also say, in reference to what had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall), that whatever objections there might be to the quality of the water now supplied, that which this company proposed to furnish was not free from objections in that respect; and as it was proposed to draw it from the chalk formation, it would be necessary to alter its quality by means of processes which, for so large a quantity as was required for the supply of this metropolis, it would be difficult to carry into effect. Besides this there were good grounds for believing that the operations of this company would deprive some important public works of the supply of water necessary for carrying them on.