§ MR. BRIGHTsaid, he wished to give the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department notice, that on Thursday he should ask a question with reference to the supply of water to the metropolis. He had had to-day an interview with a gentleman interested in the Wandle Sewerage and Water Bill, which was rejected last night, who, as well as others, was anxious to know what was the precise agreement which the Government had entered into with the old water companies? How long that agreement was understood to prevent any Bill for the supply of water being brought in? In fact, how long an absolute monopoly of the non-supply, or what they professed to call the supply of water to the metropolis, was to be retained by the existing companies? He should ask those questions of the noble Lord on Thursday. Great interests were concerned, and it was really important 781 that parties should not come year after year to that House, and have their schemes rejected, contrary to what he conceived to be the ordinary practice of the House. At the same time he should ask the noble Lord as to a statement which he made to a deputation that waited on him in favour of the Wandle Sewerage and Water Bill.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he could answer the question of the hon. Member as well now as on Thursday. The arrangement alluded to by the hon. Gentleman was not made whilst he had been at the Home Office; but upon communication with his right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey), and those who had to do with the matter, he was satisfied a fair understanding was come to between the Government of that day and the water companies, that during the time specified in their respective Bills they were not to be interfered with. He was not able, at present, to state what the exact period was—he thought it was very nearly expired, but on that point he would give more precise information on Thursday. As to what passed between him and the deputation from the Wandle Company, it was this: he told them that their project of water supply would be an infraction of that engagement; but if they confined themselves to the drainage part of their Bill, there would be no objection to that; but it was represented to him that part alone would not pay—that it would be a losing concern unless drainage was accompanied with a supply of water. He stated, in answer to that, that if gentlemen at Wandsworth wished to have their district drained, they ought to pay for it, and not depend for it on the profits of a water supply.
§ MR. BRIGHTsaid, the deputation understood the noble Lord to say, that in case they would undertake, in Committee, not to intrude on the present water companies, he would not oppose the Bill, and they felt hurt at his opposing the second reading. If the noble Lord would state what was the exact time when the agreement with the old companies expired, this Company would then know if they could go on with their Bill next Session.