HC Deb 05 June 1835 vol 28 cc535-41

Sir Francis Burdett moved the second reading of the Metropolitan Water Company Bill.

Mr. Warburton

said, it was not his intention to oppose the second reading of the Bill, as the object proposed—namely, that of supplying good and wholesome water to the metropolis—was deserving the encouragement of the Legislature, but if it should come out in the Committee that the Bill proposed to give any exclusive power to this Company, he would certainly oppose it. There was nothing of novelty in the principle, that of sinking wells to obtain a supply of water. It was a principle that, for a long period, had been acted upon by various individuals, and from such a source a large quantity of good water was at this moment supplied. He therefore repeated that this was not a new discovery. The large breweries and distilleries, and a great number of manufactories, got their water from such a source, from which this company only proposed to supply it on a larger scale. They had no right, therefore, to exclusive privileges, and he should oppose their obtaining them.

Sir Samuel Whalley

said, that as all plans hitherto for obtaining a supply of pure water for the metropolis had failed, this proposition was worthy of the attention of the Legislature: as it had been ascertained that there was an abundant supply of water underneath the metropolis, this Company only asked for the power of getting it up, and the privilege of selling it at such a rate, as a commission composed of the metropolitan Members should consider reasonable. He thought there was nothing unreasonable in such an application, and at all events the Bill should be allowed to go into Committee.

Mr. Shaw Lefevre

observed, that sufficient grounds had not been adduced to call upon Parliament to pass a Bill of this nature. If there was, as they asserted, an abundant supply of water under the metropolis, let them try the experiment without coming to Parliament. It was quite certain, he believed, that such an experiment could not be tried without great danger to the supplies already in the posses- sion of different manufactories, public institutions, breweries, and private individuals. He therefore moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. Buckingham

supported the Bill. It was admitted on all hands that nothing was more wanted than a supply of pure water for the metropolis, and all the evidence went to show that such a supply was to be found beneath its surface.

Mr. Henry Bulwer

said, the question was, whether the Company did not oppose a public advantage adequate to the privilege they sought. He denied that they asked for a monopoly in the bad sense of the word. A monopoly in perpetuity he was ready to admit was an obstacle to industry and exertion, but such a privilege as they sought—a temporary and limited monopoly—would, on the contrary, be a stimulus to industry and enterprise. He contended that the present case was precisely similar to that of a patent. It was said, that this was no new invention: had any such experiment, he asked, ever been made, or attempted before? Unless they were to give this Company an exclusive privilege, the other companies, having already the pipes sunk, &c, would take advantage of the success of the experiment, and drive these parties out of the market. All they asked for was a temporary monopoly in a good article, in order to put down a permanent monopoly in a bad one.

Mr. Charles Barclay

said, that this Bill was for an experiment, and an experiment which would endanger, if not destroy, the property of others. He denied there existed a sufficient supply, at present, of pure spring water for the purposes it was wanted for. The manufactories and breweries which derived their supply from wells, had not, at this moment, a sufficient supply. He was enabled to state these facts from the experience of two or three wells in breweries and manufactories. One of them was his own well in his brewery. It was a well twenty feet in diameter, and sunk to a sufficient distance to catch the land springs. If this experiment should be tried, all the breweries and the manufactories, (of which there were many hundreds deriving their supply from this source) would lose their supply. In his own well the water, twenty years back, rose within five feet of the surface. It now only rose within twenty-five feet of the surface. That was a proof that there was anything but an abundant supply of water underneath the metropolis. The hon. Member for Bridport said he would not support the Bill, if it should propose to confer an exclusive monopoly on this Company. He was, however, sure that the parties would not ask for the Bill, if it did not contain such a privilege. Let them stand on equal grounds with the rest of the public, but why should they get an exclusive monopoly? The House should not give these parties the power of making such an experiment, and of doing a vast deal of injury, without perhaps doing any good. He believed that the result of such an experiment would be the ruin of many individuals.

Mr. Hume

said, that he had had sufficient experience of water monopolies, his rates having been doubled and trebled in the course of a few years, to render him adverse to the formation of any new monopoly of the kind: he looked, however, upon the present proposition in a different light. He understood that the proposition of these parties was, that it having been already ascertained that there existed underneath the metropolis an abundant supply of water, they proposed to obtain it for the use of the metropolis; but as great risk would attend the experiment in the first instance, they asked for exclusive privileges for a certain period, in order to secure them against loss, and to insure them a reasonable profit on their capital so sunk. He considered that an extremely fair proposition. At all events, they should allow the Bill to go into Committee. If when there, the parties should show that the public benefit to accrue from their undertaking would adequately compensate for the privilege they sought, the Bill should have his support, but upon no other ground.

Mr. Fowell Buxton

said, that it was because he objected to the monopolies and exactions of the water companies he should oppose this Bill. The effect of such an experiment, if it were tried, would be to dry up the wells of all the manufactories in London. Another objection to the Bill was, that even supposing this company should procure the water in sufficient abundance, it would come out of their cistern deteriorated, and unfit for the purposes to which it was at present applied. The public pumps, also, would necessarily suffer from such an experiment. The allegation on which the Bill went was, that there was an inexhaustible supply of water underneath the metropolis. If it were so, there could be no objection to an experiment of this nature, but the fact was the reverse. More water there would not be raised than there was at this moment by private wells. In his brewery every thing had been done for the purpose of raising water that this Company could do. They had penetrated down to the chalk. Now, as to the supply derived from his wells, he had sent for information to the person who managed that part of his business for him, and the statement in reply was, that the supply of water from the wells had at times been so scanty, that owing to that cause they had since January last been obliged totally to stop the brewery on six several occasions. That fact showed that there could only be a small increase made to the present supply by means of wells. He would state another fact in corroboration of that opinion. Two wells had been some time since sunk by two different parties—one in Southwark, and the other on the London side of the river. The latter having been sunk deeper, there was at once an abundant supply of water, while the well sunk on the Southwark side was quite dry. It was sunk deeper, and then, the London well was dried up. This alternate drying up went on for some time, and at length the parties were obliged to come to an arrangement. He would mention another fact—on Sundays the wells in the breweries were of course not used, and on the Mondays there was a most abundant supply of water, which went on gradually diminishing throughout the week. It had been fully ascertained that so far from there being an inexhaustible supply of water underneath the metropolis, the supply from the wells had been diminishing at the rate of a foot a-year daring the last twenty years. That fact proved that the supply had been pressed to its fullest extent.

Colonel Evans,

with every respect for the hon. Member who had just spoken, must say that the facts he had mentioned must be taken as an ex-parte statement. If they went into Committee, there could be a full and fair inquiry into all the circumstances of the case. He was therefore for reading the Bill a second time. The object which it proposed would, if accomplished, produce great good to the public.

Lord Granville Somerset

said, that the real object of this Bill was to found a new monopoly. There was no clause in it proposing compensation to those parties who would be deprived of their water should it be carried into effect. For his part, he did not believe that this was a bona fide company; and no Parliamentary grounds had been laid for such a measure.

Dr. Lushington

agreed with the noble Lord that no Parliamentary grounds had been shown for making this experiment on a vast quantity of property, and the security for property in large and extensive districts in this metropolis. This experiment went to endanger property to an extent for which it would be quite impossible for this Company, even were they so inclined, to return any compensation. Let those parties exercise the power which they had at present of sinking wells, but let them not get a monopoly for that purpose.

Mr. Wilks

supported the second reading of the Bill. The necessity for good water was notorious. The most eminent medical authorities had attributed the mortality that frequently prevailed in London to the bad water supplied to its inhabitants. The health of the metropolis therefore called for some such measure. He denied that this Company sought for any monopoly. They only asked for fair competition. The large brewers and the manufactories derived benefit from a supply of water from the wells, and it was they that contended for a monopoly of it.

Mr. Mark Philips

said, that such a measure would, if carried, distract the water from the private wells, and therefore the effect of it would be to rob one party to supply another. Besides, it should be recollected that it was private property that would suffer from the invasion. Such an experiment would be productive of great loss to several manufactories and valuable institutions throughout the metropolis.

Mr. Harvey

said, that Parliament had already expended 5,000l. in seeking to provide a supply of good water to the metropolis, and had failed. He did not see why, then, they should prevent a set of philanthropists from trying the experiment. An objection had been started that it would dry up the public pumps. That might be easily removed by making the company supply the poor with water gratuitously. He thought, at all events, that the Bill should be allowed to go into Committee.

Mr. Vernon Smith

said, the question was, whether they would let those parties try this experiment at the public expense, and interfere, as it was shown they would, with the private property of others. He decidedly objected to such a measure. It only went to create a fresh monopoly.

Sir Francis Burdett,

in reply, said that the very fact of the different statements that were made on the subject showed the propriety of sending the Bill into Committee, where the whole case could be properly investigated. Some hon. Gentlemen felt, no doubt, strongly interested in opposing the Bill, as they thought it would injure their property. It was, however, his conviction, from all that he heard from the best authorities oh the subject, that it would be made out to the satisfaction of the Committee, that there existed an abundant supply of water for all purposes underneath the metropolis. There was no monopoly sought by this measure. In truth, the effect of it would be to promote competition. It had been proved by scientific men on philosophical principles that the proposed plan was feasible, and must be successful. If the contrary should be proved before the Committee, he would willingly give up the measure. It was a disgrace to the country that the poor of this metropolis were not supplied with an abundance of good water. As to the exclusive power sought by the company, they would be satisfied with one for a period of 14 years. The measure would not do harm to anybody, and, after all, they only asked to do that which every individual had the power of doing at common law. He understood that some of the existing water companies were determined to do the same thing themselves. He submitted that sufficient reasons had been given for sending the Bill to a Committee. As to the Commissioners, a great mistake existed on that point. A leading paper of that day, The Times, seemed to suppose that there would be a set of paid Commissioners, and that the company, no matter how great a failure it should turn out to be, would be kept up as long as the Commissioners were in the receipt of their salaries. Now, what did the Bill propose? Why, that a set of persons whose interests would be opposed to those of the company, as far as gain was concerned, should be appointed to control them, that the metro- politan Members should form such a commission, not a paid commission, but a commission composed of impartial persons, who, consulting the interests of their constituents, and not those of the company, should compel the company to supply good water to the metropolis at the lowest possible rate.

Mr. Warburton

said, that though he had said he would vote for the second reading of the Bill, yet after what he had heard he had changed his mind, and would vote against it, as the parties declared that it would be worth nothing without a monopoly.

The House divided—Ayes, 60; Noes, 134; Majority, 74.

Bill thrown out.

Back to