WANDLE SEWERAGE AND WATER BILL. (Hansard, 13 March 1854)

§ MR. APSLEY PELLATT
said, he was instructed by his constituents to oppose this Bill. A similar Bill—the London and Watford Spring-Water Company Bill—was rejected just twelve months ago, and the reasons which induced Parliament to reject that Bill was equally applicable at the present moment. He would quote to the House the words used by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department on that occasion:— It appeared to him that Parliament, by the 670 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."—[3 Hansard, cxxv. 201.] The promoters of this Bill proposed to construct a large subterranean trunk sewer for the drainage of the district between Croydon and Wandsworth, and to supply the houses in that district with water, charging only for the water and not for the sewerage. They professed to require a capital of only 500,000l., but it was the opinion of experienced engineers that the works would probably cost double that sum. There were at present two companies, the Lambeth Water Company, and the Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company, in full operation, with every means of supplying the same district with water, in quantity and of a quality satisfactory to the public. The Lambeth Company had just laid out 170,000l. on works at Kingston for the purposes of filtration and increasing the supply, and the inhabitants of Southwark were quite satisfied with the purity of the water. He had tasted it that day, and was perfectly satisfied. A friend of his, a surgeon, who had sunk a well because the water was so impure, had discontinued the use of the well, and also the use of his filter, since the quality of the Lambeth Company's water had been so greatly improved. There was a time when the water consumed by the district was bad, and contained dragons and scorpions. The supply now, however, was unimpeachable, and reached to the extent of 10,000,000 gallons per diem, the capability of the Company extending to a supply of 40,000,000 gallons. Under these circumstances, although he had always been for unrestricted competition, he trusted the House would ratify the Parliamentary bargain with the old companies, and refuse to read the Bill a second time. He should move, as an Amendment, that it be read a second time that day six months.

§ MR. HADFIELD
seconded the Amendment.

§ MR. JOHN MACGREGOR
said, he should support the Bill, as not being a violation of the existing companies' rights. The principal object of the Bill was the drainage of a large district from Croydon downwards, and it was not intended to retail water, but to bring water within a convenient distance, leaving it optional to the present companies to take their supply from thence as they chose. It was not intended to interfere with those districts now supplied by the existing companies until the period allowed them for effecting improvements had expired.

LORD SEYMOUR
said, this scheme was submitted to a Committee, which sat for several days, two years ago, on the subject of supplying the metropolis with water; and, after considering all the proposals, they decided unanimously that it was better to regulate and control existing companies rather than introduce new companies into competition with them. Having so determined, Parliament imposed on the existing companies a large expenditure to seek fresh sources of supply, and to purify the water. He believed the House would act inconsistently with reason and justice if they sent again to a Committee a question which had been carefully considered, or if they disturbed the arrangement into which they had so recently entered. He would not enter into the question of mixing sewage with water, for there had been too much mixing of sewage with water already; he, therefore, hoped the House would reject this Bill.

§ MR. ALCOCK
said, he hoped the House would allow the Bill to go before the Committee; but if it were found to interfere with the monopoly of existing companies he should be willing to reject it.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he had had communication with the parties interested in this Bill, and some communication with the parties opposed to it. He might say, on the whole, he was against the second reading, and for this reason, as he stated last year on a Bill of a similar kind, that there was an understanding come to between the Government and the different water companies, that they should not be interfered with for a period allowed them to arrange and organise their supply, and that period had not yet elapsed. This Bill had two objects in view:—to drain a large district ending in Wandsworth, and to sup- 672 ply water from the Wandle to that district and Lambeth. If the Company would confine themselves to the drainage of Wandsworth, nobody would be otherwise than anxious to support the Bill; but, as he understood that that enterprise would not pay unless coupled with the profit to be derived from the supply of water, he submitted to the House, as the time had not yet elapsed which was given to the established companies, to make their arrangements, it would be premature to give any new companies the right of water supply, and, on that ground, he thought it better the Bill should not be read a second time, when the expense of going before a Committee could only end in the Committee striking out the clauses which related to the supply of water.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, that for the last two Sessions Bills of the most reasonable and useful character had been met by a statement such as the noble Lord had just made. He thought it would save a great deal of money if companies knew the time fixed during which they would not be listened to; and he begged to ask the noble Lord when the understanding with the London water companies would be no longer in force? For his part, he did not think any understanding come to by the Government of which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey) was Home Secretary ought to preclude the House from fairly considering a Bill of this kind.

§ SIR G. GREY
said, the Committee certainly sat whilst he was Home Secretary, but the arrangement was carried out when the right hon. Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) occupied that office.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he did not remember the exact period, but he thought the old companies were to be allowed five years to perfect their arrangements.

MR. LOCKE KING
said, the new Company proposed to supply water twenty per cent cheaper than existing companies.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
said, that if this Company had proposed to compete with existing companies after the bargain which had been made, it would be well to reject this Bill. But inasmuch as the Company proposed to supply 22,000 houses which were not supplied by other companies, and as petitions signed by 80,000 persons had been presented in favour of the Bill, he thought it ought to be read a 673 second time, in order that it might be sent to a Select Committee.