HC Deb 16 March 1854 vol 131 cc857-9
LORD SEYMOUR

said, he wished to ask his noble Friend the Home Secretary a question relative to the water supply of the metropolis. His noble Friend was aware that, under the Acts passed two Sessions ago, before the new works of the various water companies were opened, they were to be inspected by engineers appointed by the Government. He wished to know whether his noble Friend would direct a letter to be sent to the water companies, calling upon them to report in what state their new works now were, in order that the House might be made aware what probability there was of their being completed by the time the Act came into operation?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, the inquiry suggested by his noble Friend appeared to him to be a very proper one, and he would take care it should be made.

MR. BRIGHT

said, he was not sure the noble Lord did not think he had given a sufficient answer to the question of which he gave him notice the other evening. What he wanted to know on behalf of persons who brought Bills into that House for establishing new water companies was this, whether it might be understood, once for all, that Bills rejected, like the Wandle Drainage and Water Bill, this year, if presented next Session, would be judged upon their merits, without any plea of an understanding come to by a former Government with the existing water companies. He understood the noble Lord to have said that the term of that understanding would expire this year. If that were so, he wished it to be known to the persons who promoted these Bills, because they were put in great difficulty so long as the matter was uncertain and ill defined.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, the Acts passed two years ago were of this description. They provided that, after a certain period in the years 1855 and 1856, none of these companies should be allowed to supply the metropolis with water taken from the Thames below Teddington. It was a prohibitory clause, and the companies undertook to make arrangements for bringing water from the Thames above Teddington. Of course, while these works were in operation, it would be unjust to subject them to additional competition. When these works were completed, it would be for Parliament to determine whether the water supplied from the Thames above Teddington by these companies was satisfactory and sufficient. If, on the other hand, it should appear that those supplies were unsatisfactory in quality, and insufficient in amount, then of course Parliament would admit of competition to make up that deficiency. If, on the other hand, they should find that the supplies by these companies, after their works were completed, were sufficient in quantity, and satisfactory in quality, then it would be for Parliament to consider if there were any reasons for fresh competition.

MR. BRIGHT

said, he understood, then, that after the period expired the House would give these Bills a second reading, and judge of them by their merits and the demerits of the existing companies.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, it was impossible to say what would be done at some future time. He held that, until these existing companies had completed those works they undertook to complete, and furnished the supply which they undertook to furnish, there was a fair understanding which precluded that House from reading any rival Bill a second time, or giving countenance to any further schemes.