MR. ASSHETON CROSSSir, in the course of the discussion which took place in August last on the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), I gave Notice that the whole question would be taken into consideration by the Government during the Recess, with the view of seeing whether the supply of water to the Metropolis and other adjoining places could not be greatly improved for the benefit of the inhabitants; whether that could be done without seriously increasing the cost of the supply to the consumer, and whether the mode of supply could, not also be improved. The result of that consideration on the part of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board and myself has been the framing of the Bill which I shall ask the leave of the House to introduce. Again, the result of the investigation 223 we have been able to make, and of the advice we have obtained, has induced the belief that there is only one remedy for the confusion which exists in the present state of things, and that that remedy is the unification of all the existing Companies. Let hon. Members consider that there are eight Companies supplying the Metropolis, or, rather, the Metropolitan area, with water. I do not mean the Metropolitan area within the limit usually understood, but all the surrounding districts for some little way beyond. Of these eight Companies, five draw their water from the Thames, and three of them have what may be called a supply of their own. We have five of these Companies North of the Thames and three of them South of the Thames, all of which overlap and interlace each other; they have their reservoirs, their boards of directors, and establishments of that kind, and, as far as I know, there is no natural boundary for any one of these Companies, and there is no natural division of the water supply. If anyone were disposed to erect a system more expensive than that which now exists I think he would find himself much puzzled. Now, if we consider that to be the principal fact we have to deal with, of course it is necessary to ascertain whether these matters cannot be simplified in such a manner as to bring about a reduction of expense, labour, and waste of material. First of all, there would follow from unification a great reduction of expense for all new works and water apparatus. I desire to make my statement as short as possible; but I may say, in passing, that in the present Session the Southwark and Vauxhall Company proposed to carry out new works at a cost of £500,000, which would be absolutely useless if this Bill becomes law. Again, there are the proposed works of the Grand Junction and the West Middlesex Companies, which, if carried out—as, no doubt, they would be, for a long series of years would vastly increase the expenditure necessary for the proper supply of water to London. Beyond that, you have the reduction which will be made in the course of time by the consolidation of the officers and staff, and you will have a proper provision for the supply of water in those districts where it is required, and, what will be a point of 224 much more importance, a division of London according to the levels, and, consequently, a proper pressure at different heights in various parts. If anyone will look at the map of London showing the different sources from which these different Companies draw their water supply, he will be amazed at the waste of power in the machinery by which this supply is produced. Therefore, we have come to the conclusion, on the part of the Government, that unification is the great object to be attained if you are eventually to supply London with water at the least cost and in the best possible manner. Then comes the question whether this result can be obtained in any other manner, and I am bound to say that I do not think it can. This unification cannot be obtained by any mere arrangement among the Companies themselves. As there is no corporate body which can undertake this duty in London, is it possible to obtain unification by means of the several Metropolitan boroughs? It seems to me that if each Metropolitan borough were to supply itself with water, you will have probably greater confusion and greater cost than already exist. I hope the House will be of opinion that the best way of arriving at a conclusion is that the existing Companies should surrender the powers which they possess under their several Acts of Parliament to some central body which shall have absolute power over the supply of water to London. If we are to approach the subject in that way, and come to the conclusion that unification is the primary object to be gained, and that that can only be effected by the surrender of the powers of all the existing Companies to one central body, the question arises, how is that unification to be brought about? I ventured to say in August last upon this point—
Whether it would be necessary for the purpose that the whole of the Water Companies should—of course by agreement—surrender their powers to some body which should be practically appointed by the Government.…He would not like to express any opinion upon that point."—[3 Hansard, ccxlix. 946.]Now, if you are to get from the existing Companies a surrender of their powers, there are only two ways by which this result can be arrived at—you must either take them by compulsion or by agreement. So far as compulsion is 225 concerned, I am bound to say this would be a very strong step for the House to take. Parliament has willingly conferred enormous powers upon these Companies; and, on the faith of these powers, a very large amount of capital has been subscribed, a great portion being held upon trust. Again, after many of these Companies had spent the money so subscribed, that Parliament should step in and say—"Nolens volens, we will take this money away from you, and pay you a certain sum in compensation," is, at all events, a step which Parliament is not accustomed to take. There are certainly very few precedents for such a course, which I do not myself think a wise one. I am, at all events, certain of one thing—it would meet with the most violent opposition from every one of these Companies; and if Parliament attempted to carry it out I do not believe the measure would pass. Of course, a Bill might be brought in providing for the purchase of the Companies by certain bodies; but that would leave us to all the danger and uncertainty of arbitration afterwards. We have had some experience of arbitrations in matters of this kind, which, I believe, is not likely to lead us to follow the same course again. If we put the matter entirely in the hands of an arbitration, Parliament will be acting very much in the dark, and might find herself let in for a very much greater expense than was originally expected. The only other course, then, is to take these Companies by agreement; but that is not a very easy thing, because, when the Government approached them by way of agreement, they were met by the most positive refusal from every one of them. Again, if you are to take them by agreement, it is necessary that both parties should agree; it is of no use offering terms which they will not accept and which you cannot force upon them. If this difficulty is likely to present itself in dealing with one Company, much more would it do so when it becomes necessary to agree with eight separate Companies; for it is of no use treating for three or four; you must take them all. There is one advantage in dealing by agreement—namely, that whatever the outlay maybe which you are about to submit to, in order to get possession of these Companies, you, at all events, know exactly the extent of your liability; there is no- 226 thing behind, there are no afterthoughts, and when the price is once settled the whole interest of the Company is made over. If the House will allow me, I will read a part of one of the clauses of the Bill, which will enable hon. Members to see what we propose to take over. By that clause the Company will have to surrender—All rents and other properties, including cash balances and investments, and all such property as may be in the possession of the Companies at any time "between January 1st, 1880, and June the 30th, 1880.So that everything which they possessed on January 1st of this year, and everything that may come into their possession during the next six months, will pass into our hands, with the exception of the dividends payable to June the 30th. We should have to consider what price should be paid to the New River Company, which is possessed of a considerable quantity of land in the county of Herts and elsewhere, which has nothing to do with the water supply of London. The House will, therefore, see that there can be no possible afterthought, and that we know exactly the extent of the outlay to be made. The next question which presents itself is, how the purchase-money for this purpose is to be obtained? There is no doubt that this is an Imperial question, and, that being so, it may be said, and suggestions have been made from many quarters, that the Imperial Funds should be called upon to subscribe in some form or other for the purchase of these Companies. We have, however, thought it right to lay down the principle that the State should not pay one farthing towards it. We do not think it fair to the other towns in the country that it should do so, and we have accordingly arranged to accept only the preliminary expenses if the Bill should fail; these, of course, must be paid by someone, and if the Bill passes will be eventually paid by the Water Trust. So that, beyond possibly these preliminary expenses, we think it right that the Imperial Exchequer should not be called upon, either by way of guarantee or loan, to subscribe one single sixpence. In dealing with this question, we are met with the difficulty that there existed no corporate body, which, in the opinion of the Government, ought to take this task into its own hands. Neither the City, nor the Metropolitan 227 Board of Works, are in a position to deal with the different Companies; and, moreover, they have no money wherewith to buy them out. Again, another difficulty presented itself to us—that of raising so large a sum by the issue of Stock or otherwise, for the purchase of these Companies would have been attended with a certain amount of hazard and disturbance to the Money Market. We had, therefore, recourse to another mode of dealing with this subject; and we have persuaded the Companies to consent to the Water Trust issuing a certain amount of Water Stock, and also that the Company should take this Stock by way of payment. Practically, then, it comes to this—that the Companies will create the Stock, and then, taking it when created, would so provide for their own extinction. This plan will get rid of the whole difficulty. The whole of the Companies have agreed to that arrangement through their directors, and they will take this 3½ per cent Water Stock as the purchase money; so far, therefore, no money is required from anybody. It will be seen that this arrangement very much simplifies the matter, and can lead to no possible disturbance of the Money Market for the time being. Of course, this Stock must have something at the back of it to make it sound; and the first thing we have put behind it will be, of course, the water rates receivable by the Companies at the present moment, and which will be payable to the Water Trust. But there must, of course, be some other guarantee, and we have placed behind this the Metropolitan rates; not that I think they will be called upon to contribute a single sixpence, but it is, of course, necessary to include them in the security. Therefore, the Stock proposed to be issued is charged with the water rates first of all, and then there will be the further guarantee of the rates of the Metropolis and the City of London. The next question is probably the most important of all, and that is the question of price; and here what I said before equally applies—namely, that if this is to be done by agreement the price must also be a matter of agreement on both sides. Now, the Government find themselves in this rather peculiar position—that they are standing, as it were, between the water consumers on the one hand, and the Water Companies on the other. 228 They have made the best bargain they can with these Companies, and they present that bargain to Parliament to consider—not, of course, on the floor of this House—but, as I shall presently explain, by means of a Committee upstairs, to say whether this bargain is one which ought to be sanctioned. We come before Parliament, having done our best to provide a solution of this question, and lay before it the best bargain which we have been able to make with the several Companies. Of course, the questions of Debenture Stocks, Preferential Shares, and mortgages remain precisely as they were, and all we have to deal with is the available net surplus after the payment of all necessary working expenses. That is the real matter with which we have to deal. I am afraid that one or two words uttered by me in August last have been somewhat misinterpreted. What I appear to have said on that occasion was that the Government would take the Stocks as they found them on such a day—the last day of the half-year—and that no speculative change in the value of the Stocks would have the smallest weight with the Government. Now, these words must be taken with the context, and bearing in mind the fact that we have to proceed by agreement. What I really meant, and hon. Members will see this by the context, was that there should be no speculation on the Stock Exchange; but that if there were it would not be taken into consideration at all; nor, on the other hand, if there were any action on the part of the Companies for the enhancement of prices, would that be taken into consideration. All I can say, bearing this in mind, is, that that idea has been strictly adhered to in all the negotiations from beginning to end. The only idea which the gentleman who has been advising me on this matter has ever had before him has been to find out what was the intrinsic value of the Companies at the time of purchase. In coming to a conclusion as to that, hon. Members will see at once that the value of each Company must depend on various circumstances—in the first place, on the powers which each Company had under its own Act of Parliament; and, in the next place, on its present financial and commercial position. For instance, some of these Companies possess powers different to those conferred upon others, 229 Some of them can only receive 7 per cent dividend, while others can receive 10 per cent; and some, if they have not received 10 per cent from their foundation, can make it up not only for the future, but going back also for the past. In the case of the New River Company, for instance, there is no limit at all; and they are entitled to recoup themselves up to 10 per cent for a period of 150 years or so. The Company has this power; and, as a matter of fact, they have, to a certain extent, begun to avail themselves of it. On the other hand, some Companies have no such power; some are limited, and some are not. Then, again, they differ very much as to their commercial and financial position. You will find some Companies with a practically assured dividend of 10 per cent, which will probably never be less, and may be increased. With some Companies it will be a matter of absolute certainty that they will be able to recoup themselves for their outlay in a certain number of years. Again, you will find that some Companies which have expended a very large amount of capital have not reaped the fruit of their outlay, and whose property is undeveloped, although gradually becoming more developed, who have gone through a series of expenditure, such as for the laying of mains, and whose profits have vastly increased from year to year. There are other Companies which are possessed of large areas of land that will be rapidly built upon, and which, of course, will produce to them in a short time a large harvest. The average increase of the net incomes of the several Companies for many years past has amounted to about £35,000 a-year. This is not to be wondered at when we consider the increase of population, and that there were built last year 19,000 houses; while, according to the last Return I have, there have been constructed during that time 60 miles of new streets. All this shows that these Companies have before them a large and promising future. In the negotiations which have been carried on with them, the Government have had the advantage not only of the assistance of two very able persons who have been for a long time connected with these Companies—the Auditor and Water Examiner—but also of Mr. E. Smith, who has been for so many years connected with the Ecclesiastical Commis- 230 sion. I may add that, in commencing the negotiations with these Companies, two things require our consideration—the present dividend to which the shareholders were entitled, or to which, rather, they would be entitled when the property is taken over on the 1st of July, 1880, and the increment which might be expected to have arisen had the property remained in their possession. This fact has always been recognized when dealing with other Companies situated in like manner, and the claim is one which it has been found impossible to resist. There is another matter to be considered—namely, that it was absolutely impossible, under the scheme of purchase which we have undertaken, to find the money at once to pay for this increment, which at the present moment does not exist, because the only funds which we can resort to are the water rates. It is not, therefore, proposed to pay any income to the Company in respect of the unearned increment to which I have referred until the money has been earned which the Companies would have earned for themselves. Therefore, the course which we have taken is to spread this assured increment over periods varying from four to 12 years; and it is quite certain that there will be ample funds to pay when the interest becomes due on these deferred Stocks. On the 30th of June, 1880, the Companies will receive a certain amount of ordinary Stock which would represent the dividends they themselves would have received. For the year 1881–2 they will get a certain amount of Preference Stock which will bear no interest at all for the first 12 months, while at the end of 18 months after that they will receive a half-year's dividend in the same way as the rest of the deferred Stock. Under this arrangement, the Water Trust would not be called upon to pay interest until they have received the income from the water rates to enable them to do so. There is no present charge, therefore, on the water consumers. I hope, on the second reading of this Bill, the House will not desire me to go into the circumstances relating to each Company; it would be better considered by the Committee upstairs why a certain Company gets so much, and another so much less; but the House will be interested in knowing what is to be the aggregate sum payable in 1881. That sum amounts, in round 231 numbers, to £22,000,000; and, of course, there is besides, the interest at 3½ per cent. With regard to the other increments, these will be spread over a number of years, and in the case of one Company—that is, the New River Company—a period of 12 years. It is, of course, much more convenient to spread these payments over long periods than over a short series of years; and the New River Company will, in consequence, receive a certain amount of additional Stock. Other Companies, like the West Middlesex, get four years; while, in other cases, the periods will be varied. The capital for each particular Company has been arranged, in order that the funds of the Company may not be called upon for the payment of a larger sum than we are quite assured they will receive from the interest accruing to them. Taking the average of 12 years the amount would be about £750,000 per annum, and, on a rough calculation, would reach to between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000. [Mr. COURTNEY: What will be the ultimate gross maximum?] Putting the whole of the sums together, they will amount to something like £31,000,000. It would apparently strike one that this mode of proceeding would be more favourable to some of the poorer Companies than to others, and for this reason—that the New River Company is an absolutely assured estate, and that its value has risen very much, while some of the lower Companies have not risen to the same height; although, in their case, their future position is as absolutely certain as that of the New River Company at the present moment. Therefore, something more than the fair market price is apparently given to the lower Company. But when the matter comes to be investigated it will be found that they have got no better bargain than the New River Company. Some few years ago it was found by the Auditor that one of the Companies had paid the sum of £30,000 out of capital which ought to have been paid out of income, and, to recoup that, they had to make up the annual amount of £8,000, the payment of which was a great drawback to their dividends. That sum, however, has been entirely repaid, and it is my impression that the Company will spring up in a short time to its natural height. The result of the financial operation for the year would be that they would have a saving of 232 £50,000; and, besides that, there will be all the savings from the consolidation of the staff and engineering operations. No doubt, so far as the staff is concerned, the saving will not come into full play until some of the officers, who are to be pensioned, cease to exist; but still, in the first year, there will be a saving, I am almost certain, irrespective of this, of £50,000—I hope more. There is one point which I must mention to the credit of the Companies, and that is that, after the matter of the price had been arranged, there was one question pressed strongly, and pressed so strongly, indeed, that I believe many of the directors would have broken off the bargain if the point had not been conceded. I refer to the question of the superannuation of the officers of the Companies. I believe the negotiations would have been broken off if we had not given favourable terms to the officers, and for which the directors stood out. They insisted on the matter being put in the Bill, and they were very strong on the point, and I could not resist. Well, all I have to say as to the price is this—that I do not believe better terms could be made with the Companies. As to the question of buying them by compulsion, as years would go on the price would increase. If you had bought them 10 years ago you would have saved enormously. If you defer buying them for five or 10 years you will have to pay more than now, and you must take that into consideration, when you consider the sum for which they have agreed to sell them. I believe that the Committee, when they come to investigate the sum, will find that the price is fair and reasonable; at all events, they will find that the Bill, which we place before the country, is one which forms an honest endeavour to settle this question, and which will, in the long run, tend greatly to benefit the Metropolis. But now I come to another matter, about which the House will be anxious to know something—I mean the composition of the Water Trust itself. We had no Corporation before, as I stated, ready to take. I do not think—the House, I believe, does not think—that it ought to be in the hands of the Government, that it should be a Department of the State. Therefore, we proposed that the trust shall be placed in the hands of a Water Trust; and I 233 think everyone will agree, as a starting point, that it is essential that the "Water Trust should command the confidence of the Metropolis. I propose that there should be three paid members—namely, first, the chairman, who would receive a salary of £2,000 a-year, and the vice-chairmen—one for works, and the other for finance—each receiving a salary of £1,800 a-year. The first chairman and one vice-chairman would be appointed by the Government, and the names will be placed in the Bill. I think that would be satisfactory to the House, and all I can say is, in a matter of this kind, that no Party considerations will enter into the question. The three appointments—the chairman and the two vice-chairmen—should be appointed during the pleasure of the Crown; and upon any vacancy we hope that the Trust will be so consolidated that the election of the vice-chairmen would be left to the Trust itself. As to the composition of the Board itself, we have, of course, placed the Lord Mayor and the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works upon it as ex-officio members of the Board. There will be two of these ex-officio members, one to be nominated by the Local Government Board, one by the Chief Commissioner of Works. There will be two others nominated by the Commissioners of Sewers, and one by the Metropolitan Board of Works. Water consumers are, of course, very much interested, and I do not think that the House would be willing to leave this Trust in the hands of a small nominated body; and therefore we propose, having got nine members in that way—in the way I have described—that there shall be 12 elected members. Now, the question comes as to the election, who are to elect, and what are to be the constituents. I do not think that the House would like, on the whole, that if there is an election, that it should be an indirect election. I do not think it would be satisfactory that they should be elected simply by the vestrymen. I think we had better go to first principles, and, if there is to be an election, let it be direct. The question, then is, who are to elect? If you take the vestries themselves—that is, the District Boards—the number would be so large that they would be a Board perfectly unmanageable. You might group them together. We think we had better follow the example of the School Boards, 234 and take one representative each from the different Metropolitan Boards—one for the City of London, one for Chelsea, one for Finsbury, one for Hackney, one for Marylebone, one for Lambeth, one for Southwark, one for Tower Hamlets,one for Westminster, and so on, making 10.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINI thought that the right hon. Gentleman said there would be 12 elected members.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSBut there are other persons who take water besides the inhabitants of the Metropolis, and they would join in the guarantee. There is a large population outside the Metropolitan area proper, and it is quite right they should be represented on this Board; and, therefore, we propose, as water consumers, there should be one member representing the inhabitants referred to North of the Thames, and one for the South of the Thames—that is, for the out-districts. Now, I think the hon. Member has got his 12 members.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSI have not got it here. Then we propose that all these elected members should hold their seats for five years, when, of course, there would be a fresh election.
§ MR. COURTNEYThe nominated members—how long?
MR. ASSHETON CROSSThey will hold their seats at the pleasure of those who nominate them. Having thus made clear what is the Water Trust, I should like to read a passage as to the powers and object of the Trust. The objects of the Trust are to supply pure and wholesome water for drinking and other purposes-—other domestic purposes; for watering of the streets, for extinguishing of fires, and other public purposes; also, for manufacturing and other general purposes; and the maintenance, as far as is possible, of a constant supply in the mains, under such pressure as would effectually provide for high services. The price of the water will be reduced as circumstances permit. As to the date of the purchase, I think it necessary to say a word or two. We propose that the sale should be the 1st of July next; but, as I have said before, practically ever since the 1st of January the Water Companies will be acting as our Trustees. We have the power of a continuous Audit, and they are simply the Trustees, who are to pay themselves a certain amount 235 of dividend on the 30th of July, and keep the supply in proper working order. It is provided that, as the Trust would not come into operation the moment the Bill passed, the Companies should continue to carry on, free of any extraordinary expense, the business until the 1st October, by which time we hope that the Water Trust will be able to perform their duties, and then the Water Companies will be practically extinct. There is a clause in the Bill providing that there shall be a Sinking Fund for the extinction of the debt. I do not believe I need go into details. We propose that a certain sum should be laid aside by Parliament. Now, I think I have explained, as far as possible, and as fully as necessary for present purposes, the objects of this Bill. As I said at the beginning, it is the best bargain possible for us to make. I do not see that we could make a better. It is, at all events, as good a bargain as we could make; and I must bear testimony to the way in which Mr. Smith has carried forward the negotiations. I believe he has done everything in his power to induce the Companies to take as little as possible. I now ask leave of the House to introduce the Bill, and to take the first reading. If there is any question, that can be answered on the second reading. I shall propose to refer the Bill to a Hybrid Committee, and the question they will have to ask themselves is it such a bargain as they can approve. You cannot say to the Companies you agreed to take this, and we will force you to take this. I believe we have made the best bargain possible, or that can be made. I believe it will prove beneficial to the Metropolis; and I can say this—it is an honest endeavour, on the part of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) and myself, to present to Parliament a measure which will benefit the Metropolis of the Kingdom.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to muake further provision for the supply of the Metropolis and the adjoining populous places with Water."—(Mr. Secretary Cross.)
MR. PAWCETTsaid, he was anxious to take that opportunity of acknowledging the promptitude with which the Home Secretary had redeemed his promise given last August with regard to this question; but while he was anxious 236 to do this he felt he would be doing a great injustice to the Home Secretary, and, still more, a great injustice to the extremely important question which he had brought forward to the notice of the House that evening, if he said a single word expressing a premature opinion on the Bill which had been sketched out. He had learned from experience that nothing led them into a more unfortunate position than to express an opinion upon a Bill which they had not seen—than to express an opinion on a Bill which had merely been introduced. And he thought that in this case it would be particularly unfortunate for the House to express any opinion whatever on the proposal until it had seen this Bill, because there were great pecuniary interests at stake; and if, tomorrow, it were reported that this Bill had been favourably received by the House, it might be supposed that the House would pass it, and speculative transactions might take place. It was perfectly obvious, from what had been said by the Home Secretary, that very important questions would have to be taken into account. There was one important question with regard to the dividends to the shareholders. The greatness of the issues involved in the Bill ought to warn hon. Members from expressing any premature opinion with regard to it. For himself, he should simply thank the right hon. Gentleman for the prompt manner in which he had redeemed his promise of last Session; and whatever might be the ultimate view taken of the Bill, whether in its favour or against it, there would be but one opinion on one point—namely, that the object of the Home Secretary was to promote the interests of the people of the Metropolis.
§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Hackney that it was not advisable to pass any opinion on the Bill. He thought the House would acknowledge that a very careful measure had been introduced by the Home Secretary, and that the course adopted by the Government fully justified the action taken by the Metropolitan Board in dealing with this question in 1878. He was sure it was the desire of the Government to promote a wise settlement of this question. All he could say for himself and his Colleagues was that they would 237 give their careful consideration to this Bill.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he agreed with the Member for Hackney, and in the few words he intended saying he should not go into any details. He had always been strongly in favour of the purchase of the water undertakings of the Metropolis. Beyond that, he would not go reserving for the future the expression of his opinions on the Bill.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that was a matter which, no doubt, most interested the Metropolitan Members, and he himself was somewhat of an outsider; but that was a subject in which he took a deep interest. He had some practical experience already in this matter, having been concerned in the transfer of a water undertaking in the Provinces. It was a considerable satisfaction to him that the principles laid down by the Home Secretary were precisely identical with those which guided the Corporation of Birmingham in the transfer to which he had referred. So far, he found himself in perfect accord with the Home Secretary. In a matter of this kind everything depended on the application of those principles. The cost to the Metropolis was necessarily exceptional, and the undertaking differed from any Provincial undertaking. After listening to the very interesting speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he could see that the Metropolis would have to pay dearly for its water. He did not know whether the people of London were not paying very dearly now. They would have to pay more for their water undertaking than Birmingham had to pay. He found that the sum paid by agreement for the purchase of the whole water supply for Birmingham was something considerably less than £3 per head of the population. Now, if the whole value of this property should amount to something like £30,000,000, the amount on the population would come to something like £6 per head of the population. ["No!"] Now, he took the population at something less than 6,000,000; but, putting it beyond that, the cost would be £5 per head as compared with £3 in Birmingham. In Birmingham they entered upon a great undertaking in perfect working order. The supply of water was admirable in quality and sufficient in quantity. They had a constant 238 supply, and no considerable increase had proved to be necessary. The reason for undertaking this great matter in London was that the supply was inferior in both quality and quantity; and the first thing the Trust would turn its attention to would be to give a continuous supply at high pressure. It appeared five of the Companies drew their water from the Thames, and new sources of supply must be sought at a very large increase of outlay. This would, be a gigantic undertaking, and the result would be that the Metropolis would have to pay much more for its water than they in the country were obliged to pay for it. On the other hand, he saw the immense advantage which might be derived from the unification of these various undertakings, and he did not doubt that a great saving would be made. He wished every success to the scheme, and he trusted it would prove a success.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that his impression was that the population of the Metropolis in 1871 numbered 3,200,000, and that it was at this time more than 4,000,000. He hoped that a Return upon this subject would be laid upon the Table of the House.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSI am ready to admit that it is unwise, as, indeed, it would be impossible, to discuss the scheme at the present moment. I desire to remind the hon. Member for Birmingham, however, that the inhabitants of that town were wiser in their generation than the inhabitants of the Metropolis, because they restricted their dividends to 8 and 9 per cent, which rendered the future purchase more easy. I have no doubt as to the purity of the water, and that it was obtained at a comparatively small cost. Although the population of Birmingham has enormously increased during the last five or six years, the inhabitants, at the present moment, are not using as much water as they used before they had a constant supply. I have only to add that the Bill will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow morning, and to ask leave to introduce it.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREWill this Stock be a Trustee Stock?
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary CROSS and Mr. SCLATEK-BOOTH.
§ Bill presented, and read the first time [Bill 97.]