HC Deb 01 March 1825 vol 12 cc752-3

On the motion of Mr. Buxton, that the bill be now read a second time,

Mr. W. Williams moved, that it be read a second time that day six months, and referred the House to the report made by the committee into the conduct of Water Companies, three or four years ago; he was happy to see the chairman of that committee in his place.

Mr. Fremantle

said, that having been personally alluded to, he felt it necessary to say a few words. When he went into that committee, he was of opinion, that the conduct of the Water companies was extremely wrong: he thought they abused the public, and obtained too great a profit on their capital; but, after six weeks close investigation, he found he was wrong; that there was a plentiful supply of good water at a cheap rate; and that while the expense and risk were enormous, the profits were too small. There was no capital in Europe better supplied with good water, and at a cheaper rate, than London. He thought that competition would be injurious rather than beneficial to. the public, and therefore he should oppose the bill.

Mr. F. Buxton

thought, that any measure, which had for its object the supply of good water at a cheap rate, could not be injurious to the public. An increase of population was the ground upon which a new Water company was established in 1810. That was an equally good ground at present; for in the fourteen years which have elapsed, there had been a proportionate increase of the population. A great deal had been said on the advantages and disadvantages of competition; and, although it was admitted to be beneficial to the public in all other undertakings, it was contended that in that most important necessary of life, water it was prejudicial. The fact was this; that when, in 1810, competition among the Water companies began, the price of water fell 25 per cent; whereas, in 1815, when competition ceased, the price rose to the same amount. The hon. member then noticed the case of a schoolmaster at Stratford, who had been recently compelled to pay 200 per cent above the sum he formerly paid, merely because he had ventured to remonstrate against an advance of 100 per cent.

Mr. T. Wilson

contended, that it was not fair to quote a particular instance as a proof of a general proposition. He was of opinion that competition was injurious in the cases both of Water and Gas companies. He therefore should resist the further progress of the bill.

The House divided: Ayes 69; Noes 30: Majority for the second reading 39.