The Express.
London, England, 1853-03-02 00:00:00

WEST LONDON WATERWORKS COMPANY BILL.

On the motion that this bill be read a second time,
Mr. BARROW moved as an amendment that it be read
a second time that day six months; observing that as par-
liament had imposed new obligations on the old companies,
it ought to allow time for their fulfilment.
Sir J. Y. SHELLEY thought there was • fair subject
for inquiry. Every one must admit that a supply of pure
water tor the metropolis was desirable.
Lord SEYMOUR would vote for referring the bill to a
eozumittee if the whole subject had not already been consi-
dered in c nusittee, and the old water companies subjected
to new regulations. If the existing companies could not
supply the metropolis properly, the beet course would be to
abolish them, and establish a municipal system. To estab-
lish a now company would be to increase the present diffi-
culties.
Sir B. HALL would put it to the house whether the
were satisfied with the present supply ? (Hear, hear.
They had gone on year after year treating with the of
companies, without any good result. Tie great opponents
of the bill were the Grand Junction Weber Company, whip
were afraid lest competition should ilmessy their monopoly.
He maintained that the old ooesprige a net te
to have beta
swept away long ago; and, at allettemee. =OM
reject a new scheme which promised* a rinks aft
the metropolis with good and pure water.
Mr. BOUVERIE said the home ought Ca einumbee
that competition between companies nearly always ter-
minated in a compromise, by which the !Public were robbeL
(Laughter.) Last year very onerous stipulations IMO im-
posed on the old companies, and the hoses would be guilty
of a breach of faith, if it did not await the result.
Lord J. MANNERS agreed with the noble lord the
Member for Totneas (Lord Seymour), and thought that by
geheenting to pus the bill the hones would be committing a
moral injustice towards the old companies without at all
Improving the supply of water.
Xr. W. A. WILKINSON protested anst the doctrine
blot down, that bemuse parliament had Owed the old our
ponies under new obligations, it had no right to amities
any fresh scheme. (Hear, hear.) He saw no reams
asq
why
existing companies should not be still subjected N
competition which was necessary for the riblie basalt
Sir J. WALMSLEY wished to state that the of
water under this bill was to come from an aatlrdy new
source, in fact, from an artificial well ; and it was the
opinion of competent authorities, that the water would be
of • very supenor kind. He had beard no reason urged
against referring the bill to a committee, except that ties
scheme would interfere with the monopoly of the Gristle.
companies.
Mr. BECKETT supported the amendment.
Lord D. STUART said the opposition to this MR was set
up by water companies, and by the water men is ihst
house—(laughter)—who were he lmlieved, very sommest
That the present supply was dear, bad, and immilienee aM
one could deny, and he could not believe that the boom I
would reject a proposal to improve it.
Mr. BROTHERTON believed that the competition of
water companies was generally injurious rather than bene-
ficial to the public, and would oppose the second reading.
Mr. HUME said that when the West Middlesex and
other companies come before that house, they promised not
to combine ; but no sooner had they get their bills than
they combined and divided the metropolis amongst them—
(laughter)—and he knew one instance in which the coat of
water was, in consequence, raised from Si. to Ili. (Hear.)
Lord R. GROSVENOR would like to hear from her
Majesty's government a candid answer to this question—
whether, in consequence of the arrangement of last session,
all water companies were to be practically precluded from
coming to that house ? (Hear, bear.) He understood that
there was no member of the cabinet present, but the ques-
tion was one of considerable importance to the public.
The house then divided:—
For the second realms
Against it

PUBLIC BUSINESS.
PETITIONS PRESENTED.
CANADA CLERGY RESZETES.—By Sir B. INGLIS, from
the presbytery of Jedburgb, against.
EXAMINERS IN CiLascanv Buz.—By Mr. MULLENS,
from solicitors in London, against.
RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS.—By Mr. W. WILLIAMS,
from Camberwell, Surrey, against.
Sienalyre' COURTS, SCOTLAND.—By Mr. HUME, from
Montrose, signed by the provost, for amendment.
'ENGIN DISABILITIVA.—By Sir INGLIS, from York-
shire, Kent, and other places; Lord HOTHAM, from
Yorkshire; Mr. CHILD, from inhabitants of Skendleby,
county of Lincoln, and from dewy and inhabitant+ of air-
ton-on-Trent ; Mr. GREENAM., from Great Sankey and
Palkeith, Lancaster; Mr. BARROW, from Costock, Not-
tinghamshire; Mr. NOEL, from Stoke Drey, in the county
of Rutland ; against the removal of.
ANNUAL CERTIFICATE DUTY.—By Col. SMYTHE, from
inhabitants of York, for repeal of.
Maysoogis GitANT.—By Col. SMYTHE, from inhabi-
tant+ of York; Mr. CHILD, from the attendants at the
I
i chapel of Licensed Victuallers' Asylum, Old Kent-road, for
repeal of.
Latin' CAIIIIIERS.—By Col. SMYTHE, from the lOW
clrrien of York: Sir O. HEATHCOTE, from the letter
twists of Uppingham, Untland ; praying for relief.