HC Deb 08 May 1866 vol 183 cc610-9
MR. THOMSON HANKEY

The question of the water supply of London, affecting, as it necessarily does, the daily comfort and essential well-being of at least 3,000,000 of our fellow-subjects, is one which might almost be considered as one of national interest; but certainly to us who live in this metropolis it can hardly be doubted that it is one of paramount importance, and I therefore hope that it will not be thought useless if I ask the House to grant me their attention for a short time whilst I state the reasons which induce me to ask for a Committee to take into consideration the question of the present condition of our water supply for London and its immediate vicinity. It is now about fifteen years since any serious inquiry into this subject has taken place before this House. The whole question was then very fully investigated, and legislation took place by which the then existing Water Companies who had, and who continue to have, a monopoly for the supply were placed under fresh regulations and required to lay out considerable sums of money for improving both the quality and increasing the supply. I am not going to find fault with the way these arrangements wore then carried out, nor in a general way do I question either the quality or the quantity which, as a whole, is daily poured into London; but whilst I admit this in a general way, I am pro-pared to contend that the distribution is not satisfactory, nor are the prospects at all satisfactory for the future, nor are the poorer classes as well supplied with an abundant supply of that most essential ingredient to their health and comfort, as might be the case under more improved arrangements, and such arrangements as are generally made now in most of the large towns in England. I will divide what I am about to state into two parts—1st, as to the present mode of distribution; and 2nd, as to the future prospects of supply. First, as to distribution—the great object is, of course, to secure the largest quantity or a regular supply to every house at the smallest amount of cost. Sir William Clay, formerly a Member of this House, and who was then a Chairman, I believe, of one of the large Water Companies in London, and who will be admitted to be a good authority, writes in a little pamphlet on this subject in 1844— That any person who will take the trouble to ascertain the utmost quantity of water which an individual requires day by day for all possible purposes of cleanliness and comfort, will find that a supply of twelve gallons to every member of a household will leave a surplus abundantly sufficient for other purposes in a large or small family. In 1848 or 1849, before the last Parliamentary inquiry took place, the quantity of water supplied daily by the ten London Companies was about 45,000,000 of gallons—the population being then rather under 2,000,000. That quantity afforded a supply of about 22 gallons per head on an average for each individual. The present supply according to a notice which I hold in my hand from the Registrar General for the months of January and February last is 88,500,000 of gallons, which I call in round numbers 90,000,000—though I believe, taking the whole years' supply, the average will be nearer 100,000,000; but assuming 90,000,000 for any present purpose, with a population of 3,000,000 this would show an actual supply of about 30 gallons per head on the average for every individual. The total number of houses supplied is 430,000—the average population per house, 7. To what, then, can we attribute, with such a supply, a prevailing opinion, which I know to exist, that in very many parts of London, especially amongst the poorest districts, the supply is not so ample or so regular and constant as every one would desire, and as is really very essential for their health and well-being. I believe that it is mainly owing to the mode of supply being intermittent and not continuous, as the supply is now given in almost all the large towns which have lately improved their water supply. By the intermittent mode of supply, I mean a supply not direct for use from the service pipes, but into casks or cisterns in every house. These cisterns are supplied from the mains (which are always charged so as to afford a supply of water in case of fires) by service pipes to every house, the owner of which is willing to pay the water rates (which are not, I believe, in any case excessive) for a short time in every twenty-four hours, for six days in the week, varying, I believe, from half an hour to two or three hours. No supply from the mains is given on Sundays; consequently every house, in order to have a constant supply of water, must have cisterns the size of which, I believe, is not limited, but which must be large enough to hold water for two days' consumption, or otherwise there will be no water for use on a Sunday. Say, however, that each house has cistern-room enough for only thirty-six hours' consumption; there will, then, necessarily be a storage of water in houses to a total extent of probably not less than 100,000,000 of gallons. The evil of these cisterns must be very great, and they would be perfectly unnecessary if there was a constant supply of water always available from the main pipes. But this evil is not the only objection; it is the great desire of all consumers of water to have water of the softest quality—in other words, as free as possible from that combination of lime and salt which renders water what is commonly called hard, and ill adapted for use with soap. But the softer the water the more it is unfit to be kept in leaden vessels, which is the most common material of which cisterns are made. No one can for a moment doubt that, unless there is some unknown and serious objection, it is most desirable to have the purest and most constant supply of water direct from the fountain of supply with as little storage as possible. What, then, are the objections to a continuous supply which was clearly contemplated by the Act of 1853? For there is a clause in that Act requiring every Company to give continuous supply after 1857, on the application of a certain number of the inhabitants of every district. The objections are, I understand, that water would be constantly at high pressure in every house, and might cause serious inconvenience in case of bursting of pipes; and also, that if such a power of unlimited use were granted, it would be impossible to prevent great waste, and that general carelessness of the interests of the Water Companies would involve great additional expense to the Companies, and consequently in the end increase of evil to the consumer. I believe both these objections to be ill-founded. In the first place, I believe that no town where a continuous supply is now afforded would revert willingly to the old plan, which is the existing plan now in London; and secondly, where there could be no pos- sible motive to waste, it would be more easy to enforce regulations which would prevent it. At present, without a regular system and careful attention to the maintenance of ball-cocks to every cistern, there may be great waste in every house—and there, doubtless, is great waste in that way—and everybody is more anxious to have a good supply in their cistern, than they are careful to use it afterwards or to prevent its waste, about which, if sufficient remains for their direct wants, they are perfectly indifferent. There is no such risk or annoyance experienced with respect to gas, of which every house paying for gas has a constant supply. There is no inconvenience felt from escape of gas, at least, not to any material degree; because everybody has a direct interest to prevent its escape or waste, and every house has the means immediately of cutting off the entrance of gas into their house by turning off the supply from the external pipes. I believe that the cause of gas and water are parallel in all respects. This is, I think, a fair subject for inquiry. I wish to inquire whether, if a continuous supply of water were given, and such a quantity used as would be equal to fifteen gallons a day (whilst Sir William Clay says twelve is sufficient), the total quantity consumed would probably exceed 45,000,000 gallons for the 3,000,000 inhabitants, and if it would not thus show an abundant surplus of water for all other purposes out of the 100,000,000 gallons daily poured into London? If we admit, however, that the present supply is not more than sufficient for the demand, it then becomes a matter of most serious importance to consider what I have called the second branch of my inquiry—namely, how is the future supply to be obtained? for if the present population goes on increasing at its present ratio, and the 3,000,000 of inhabitants require the whole of the present supply of 90,000,000 to 100,000,000 of gallons per day, what will be done when, in the course of ten or twenty years, the population may amount to 4,000,000 or 4,500,000 of persons? Of the present supply about one-half is obtained from the Thames; of the remainder, half is supplied by the New River Company, and the remaining quarter by the other three smaller Companies in the east and south-east of London. Those who have paid any attention to the question of the present condition of the River Thames must be satisfied, I think, that the water of that river cannot be farther abstracted without injury to other towns claiming an equal privilege with the metropolis for its use. I have understood that the New River Company do not consider that they have any means easily within reach which will enable them very largely to augment their supply of water, and I believe that the same may be said respecting the three other Companies to the; east of London. The existing ten Companies have, since the year 1852, largely augmented their works, and at a cost of little less than £4,000,000, without any adequate advantage to their shareholders. I mean not commensurate in a pecuniary point of view with the large augmentation of capital. It is not reasonable to expect that these large mercantile Companies will be willing to lay out large Minis of money solely for the public benefit. If they were willing, however, could the object of obtaining a greatly increased supply of water from such means be effected? This is a fair subject, surely, for inquiry; for if it is not practicable, it is then high time to inquire from what other source we could obtain that which we should all admit is absolutely necessary to be obtained in some way or other. Many Members may have read an ingenious and able pamphlet on the subject of the Water Supply of London by Mr. Bateman, than whom there is no higher authority, I believe, in England on such questions. He proposes to bring the supply, which he considers will be absolutely required before eight or ten years are past, from one of the watery mountainous districts of North Wales, and now drained by the valley of the Severn, and a little to the west of Shrewsbury. I am not proposing my present inquiry with any wish to advocate Mr. Bateman's scheme—that may well stand or fall on its own merits—his knowledge on the subject is too notorious to leave it doubtful that any scheme of his will be well and patiently considered whenever the public are satisfied that the present supply of water for London is deficient. If proved, however, to be deficient, this, and any other scheme having a kindred object, ought to be inquired into. I think I have shown grounds enough to justify me, then, in asking for an inquiry. I ask it solely on public grounds. The question is one in which we are all interested, and if the inquiry is entered into with the view of ascertaining, first, what are the deficiencies complained of, and secondly, whether they are capable of a practical remedy, I do not think that the time of any Committee which the House may appoint will be otherwise than usefully employed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Water Supply of the Metropolis."—(Mr.Hankey.)

MR. AYRTON

said, that his motive for calling the Speaker's attention to the thinness of the attendance in the House when his hon. Friend rose was, that if that subject was then to be proceeded with there might at least be something like an audience to hear the discussion. His hon. Friend had made an interesting but by no means conclusive speech. Having no connection with any of the Water Companies—and he trusted he never should, for he held it to be very inconvenient for Members representing metropolitan constituencies to mix themselves up with commercial speculations—he took a dispassionate view of that question, and thought the House would not advance the interests of the inhabitants of the metropolis by acceding to his hon. Friend's Motion. When a subject like that was mooted within the House, it was generally the case that there was some enthusiastic person outside who had drawn the hon. Member's attention to the subject for some end of his own, and who had some private interest to serve; and before his hon. Friend sat down he disclosed what might be called the causa causans of that proceeding, inasmuch as he had told them that a certain engineer was anxious to bring water into London from the head waters of the Severn. Without entering into the merits of that scheme, he thought the population on the banks of the Severn would have a great deal to say to it before they allowed their sources of supply to be cut off from them and their river to be turned into a dry channel for the sake of the metropolis. Why, it was but a few Sessions ago that the people of this metropolis were called to resist a scheme to carry the head waters of the Thames to the dwellers by the Severn—that scheme was resisted successfully; and was it to be supposed that the people in the Severn Valley would not equally resist this attempt to rob them? But his hon. Friend, keeping that project at first in the background, had enlarged upon the merits of a constant supply, as contrasted with a supply by means of cisterns. Now that question had been fought out with the utmost zeal and vigour between the advocates of the rival systems and theories before the Act of 1852, dealing with the water supply of the metropolis, was passed. The arguments against the system of constant supply were numerous and conclusive, and the House recognized that fact by sanctioning the opposite system. £4,000,000 having been spent in carrying out the principle adopted, after full investigation, in 1852, his hon. Friend thought it would be a wise and economical proceeding now to reverse their decision, and throw upon the inhabitants of the metropolis, who, after all, really had to bear the cost of these projects, the enormous expense incident to such a change. His hon. Friend had started the novel and extraordinary theory that there was no practical difference between the passage of water and of gas through pipes; but every one who thought upon the subject would see that there was no comparison between the two. The hon. Member was impressed with the fact that water and gas were equally distributed by pressure, but he took no account apparently of the fact that the arrangements and machinery of the Water Companies were all calculated to meet certain requirements, and that a greatly increased strain might burst their pipes or render them powerless for the object in view. The hon. Member said he only asked for a Committee. As a metropolitan representative he (Mr. Ayrton) was quite ready to undertake the responsibility on behalf of the inhabitants of the metropolis; but he entirely objected to have the responsibility of so serious an investigation cast upon metropolitan representatives and Members of the House of Commons without a very serious case being first made out, without some substantial cause of complaint being shown. Under the existing statutes twenty inhabitants anywhere in the metropolis who might be dissatisfied with the supply of water had only to present their complaint and a solemn inquiry would be held under the authority of the Board of Trade. But no such step had been taken, no petitions had been presented; and it was merely upon the suggestion of two or three persons who had spoken to the hon. Gentleman about water that he proposed to embark in this serious undertaking, affecting the taxation of the citizens largely, and all the ramifications of their social interests. Inquiry by a Committee, he believed, would be insufficient for the purpose, and he greatly feared it would end in the launching of some kind of speculative movement. A Committee would have no engineers, no scientific staff at its disposal. It was liable, therefore, to be overreached by persons who came before it with views and motives of their own. Of these, though his hon. Friend would be the last to encourage them, he feared he would be the victim, and therefore he trusted that the Secretary of State would not acquiesce in the course proposed.

MR. WATKIN

said, he did not agree with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. His argument was, that this inquiry should not be granted, because fourteen years ago what he called a settlement of the water supply of the metropolis had been arrived at. No doubt fourteen years ago a certain settlement was come to on this water question—that was to say, a Select Committee sat to consider certain Bills promoted by private Companies, and they passed certain resolutions. But was the London of 1852 the London of 1866? The question of metropolitan gas had been referred to a Select Committee, and the question of metropolitan water was much more pressing than that of gas, and certainly justified and demanded inquiry as much. A Bill was before the House last year embodying a project, which was opposed on the ground that the volume of the Thames was now so diminished that not a drop of water could be spared. There was certainly a danger that the water of the Thames would before long become insufficient for the healthful supply of the increasing population of the metropolis. The question was not whether Mr. Bate-man's scheme should be adopted, but whether there should be an inquiry with the view of ascertaining the best scheme for obtaining a supply of water. If the Committee met upstairs to-morrow, and recommended any plan for supplying the metropolis with water, it would be six or seven years before this new source of supply came into operation. Manchester and Glasgow had set a bright example in this respect, and the Government would be incurring a great responsibility if they did not look ahead in this matter.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he could not admit that the metropolis possessed a satisfactory supply of water; and if London went on increasing for the next twenty years as it had increased during the last twenty years, he, for one, did not know what the inhabitants would do for water. The question was one of great importance, and the House was very much indebted to the hon. Member (Mr. Thomson Hankey) for bringing it forward.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that if any substantial complaint had been made as to the quality or quantity of the present water supply, his hon. Friend (Mr. Thomson Hankey) would have made out a fair case for the appointment of a Committee. His hon. Friend had not, however, rested his Motion on that ground, but had admitted that the supply to the metropolis was ample for the wants of the present time. But then it was contended that in twenty years' time, if the population went on increasing at its present rate, 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 would be added to the inhabitants of the metropolis, and that then the present sources of supply might be insufficient. But as his hon. Friend admitted that the present supply was ample, and the quality good, it seemed that, at present, the only thing that inquiry was wanted for was to determine whether the supply should be constant or intermittent, and whether Mr. Bateman's plan was a good one. His hon. Friend said he did not wish the Committee to inquire fully into Mr. Bateman's plan; but, if so, it would be better not to inquire into it at all, for without a searching inquiry a Committee would not be able to say whether it would be safe to act upon it. As to any plan of getting a supply of water from a distant place, if there were any well-founded apprehensions of a limited supply, public Companies would be formed, plans would be prepared, Bills would be brought in, they would be referred to Committees, and ample evidence would be taken upon them. He thought the House was not now in a condition to inquire into such a project as that of Mr. Bateman (though he did not mean to say it was not a good one), or to appoint a Committee. If any complaint were made as to a deficient supply or distribution of water, and if that were brought before the House by petition or authentic information, he should consider it his duty to advise the House to act upon it. By the clause of the Act which had already been pointed out, it was provided that, if at any time there should be a complaint as to the quantity or quality of the water, such complaint might be brought under the notice of the Board of Trade by a memorial signed by twenty of the inhabitants, and the Board of Trade might, at any time within one month after the receipt of such memorial, cause an in- quiry to be instituted. His right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was not at present in his place, and he did not know whether any complaint had been addressed to the Board; but, as he had not heard anything on the subject, he presumed that, to say the least, those complaints must have been very infrequent. The subject was, no doubt, an important one; but under the circumstances which he had just stated, and having regard to the number of Committees now sitting, and to the advanced period of the Session, he would advise his hon. Friend not to press his Motion. If he thought there were grounds for an inquiry, he could bring forward a similar Motion at the beginning of the Session. He might observe that in 1856, four years after the passing of the Metropolis Water Act, a Report on the subject was called for by the First Commissioner of Works, and a very full Report was made as to the course taken by the different Water Companies. It is stated that all the requirements of the Act of 1852 had been in all essential respects fully and satisfactorily complied with by the Water Companies, but that the provisions for a constant water supply would not come into operation till 1857. That was the last official Report on the subject. If his hon. Friend thought that a further Report of the same description would be desirable, means could be taken with the view of having one laid before Parliament.

MR. THOMSON HANKEY

said, he had no other object in bringing the matter forward than the public good, and after what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman he would not press the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.