SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS—GRAND JUNCTION COMPANY. (Hansard, 11 June 1827)

Mr. Whitmore

presented a Petition from the Grand Junction Waterworks Company, setting forth, "That the Petitioners were incorporated by an Act of the 51st of 1198 George 3rd, and authorised to exercise certain powers for supplying the parish of Paddington, and the parishes and streets adjacent, with Water, from and out of the Grand Junction Canal, and subsequently by the Acts of the 59th of George 3rd, and the 7th of George 4th, were recognized and confirmed a corporate body for ever, for supplying Water from the river Thames; that the Petitioners have observed that a Petition has been presented to the House, complaining that the several Water Companies by whom London is supplied, and especially the Petitioners, have abused the powers intrusted to them by the Legislature, and praying for inquiry and redress; that the Petitioners have not the smallest wish to avert or impede such inquiry; on the contrary, it is their ardent desire that it should be immediate and complete; that the Petitioners are prepared with the amplest proof of the utter groundlessness of the grave charges contained in the said Petition; that, with regard to the competition referred to in the said Petition, it may be sufficient for the Petitioners to state, that it was fully proved before a Committee of the House in 1821, that the competition, which had existed between the Companies was alike disastrous to the competing parties and inexpedient for the public, and that the arrangement alluded to in the said Petition had the full sanction of that Committee; that the Petitioners are prepared with proof that the assertion of the Water supplied by the Petitioners being unwholesome is utterly without foundation; and that the opinions of the professional men alluded to in the said Petition are crude, hasty, and inaccurate; formed without the requisite care as to the mode in which the specimens pronounced upon were taken, and, as the Petitioners believe, in almost all, if not in every instance, without analysis; whilst properties and qualities are, by those opinions, ascribed to the water which nothing but a careful and scientific analysis could detect; that the Petitioners are ready to prove by analysis, performed by experienced and scientific chemists, that the Water supplied by the Company is unexceptionably good; that changing the source of the supply from the Grand Junction Canal to the Thames, so far from being a breach of faith, for which the Petitioners deserve censure, was an arrangement not only sanctioned by the 1199 legislature, but highly beneficial to the public: the quality of the Water of the Canal had not, on trial, proved equal to the expectations which had been formed of it, conclusive proof whereof may be found in the fact of the Water, both of the Brent and of the Ruislip Reservoir being diverted at great expense from entering that branch of the Canal which supplied the Water to the works of the Petitioners; that the Petitioners, far from being actuated by the sordid feeling of obtaining the greatest return with the least outlay, and with a disregard to the health and convenience of the Public, have recently expended, and are expending, 50,000l. from which they will not derive the smallest increase of income, feeling that, whilst they are left undisturbed in the occupation of the district they supply, both their duty to the Public and their own interest, rationally viewed, concur in imposing upon them the necessity of improving their supply to the utmost; and they will venture to assure the House, that their efforts to accomplish this object will never cease whilst one means of improvement shall remain unexhausted; that the Petitioners crave permission humbly to state to the House, that they have now for months been labouring under most unjust aspersions, and that any delay in the investigation of the charges brought against them must prove equally injurious to the Public and to the Petitioners, as, although they have hitherto persevered in carrying their several plans of improvement into effect, under the discouraging circumstances of public disapprobation, and the fear of legislative interference (having actually, within a fortnight, completed a material portion of such improvements, which have been more than two years in progress), they must now abstain from any further prosecution of their plans, until it can be known what measures with regard to them Parliament in its wisdom may adopt: the Petitioners, therefore, humbly pray, That, in whatever mode the inquiry into the conduct of the Petitioners may be made, the House would be pleased to direct that it may be immediate, and prosecuted speedily to a conclusion."