The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-18 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 17.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
METROPOLIS WATER SUPPLY BILL.
Lord JOHN MANNERS, in moving the committal
of this Bill, intimated that the Bill as it now stood was
the Bill introduced by his predecessor in office, as
amended by a Committee, at td the Government did not
hold itself responsible for all its provisions, but it
acknowleged the principle of Government control, and
with those principles Government perfectly concurred.
Mr. MO WATT said this was a question of vital im-
portance to the metropolis, and as the Bill was exceed-
ingly defective ho must move that it be committed this
day three months. The omissions in the Bill were
most extraordinary, while it had been dealt with in a
very restricted manner,. The whole question of water
supply'had not been referred to a Select Committee, but
this particular Bill had been investigated by a Com-
mittee who felt that all they had to dispose
of was simply to decide whether or no the
Bill was such as the House ought to pass.
The public, therefore, was not heard before
that Committee, and the consequence was their interests
had been neglected. What was it that the public had
been so long complaining of ? Why, first, it was the
source whence their water was supplied; secondly, the
mode of distribution; and, thirdly, the price. The third
objection was of minor importance compared with the
two first, but he was sorry to say that this 13111 removed
none of the objections. The question of supply as against
the Thames had long ago been settled; all the authori-
ties who had written or spoken upon the point, with only
two exceptions, concurred in stating that the Thames
could not be safely used as a source of supply.
Dr. Conyers Smith had, at the instance of the
Government, examined the quality of the water in the
Thames, not only in the neighbourhood of the metro-
polis, bat above bridge as far as its source, and he was
satisfied that it was saturated with decayed animal
and vegetable matter, that no filtering process could
render it fit for human consumption, and yet this Bill
continued this objectionable source of supply. Other
authorities of equal eminence, such as Dr. Hooper, Dr.
Harris, and Dr. James Johnson, and a great many
others were unanimous upon this point, but the evidence
taken before the Committee which sat upon this Bill
was of a very different character. It was paid for, and
the views of the parties from whom the fees were re-
ceived were supported by the witnesses. Besides all
the other impurities of the Thames water, no less than
sixteen grains of carbonate of lime were contained in
every gallon of it, showing thus that twenty-six
tons of carbonate of lime were contained in
every daily supply of water to the metropolis.
It was estimated that three to four millions of money
were lost to the inhabitants of London annually in con-
sequence of the hardness of this water, which rendered
necessary three-fifths more soap and tea than would be
required under other circumstances. Hops, malt, and
dyes, and every other article which was to be
held in solution in water were likewise affected
by the hardness of the Thames water. When
the consumption of these articles had so much effect
upon the comfort and well-being of the people, he
thought the House ought to do something to cure the
evil. No less than 15,000 and 16,000 deaths in London
every year were attributed to preventable causes, and
the two main causes were an imperfect and impure sup-
ply of water and bad drainage. One reason, perhaps,
of the absence of a compreshensive system of legisla-
tion was the fact that between 70 and 80 Members were
interested in water companies. It might be said in
reply to this, that a great number of Members were
also concerned in railways; but there was this difference
between railway and water companies, the former were
generally in direct competition with each other, but
since the termination of the great water struggle in 1817,
the latter had divided and parcelled out the metropolis
as completely as if they were their own private domi-
nions. He next came to the consideration as to what
remedy was to be devised for securing a better supply
of water. The scientific gentlemen appointed by the
Board of Health to consider the subject came to the
conclusion that we had within reach water which was
not only divested of every one of the vital objections
which attached to the Thames, but could be intro-
duced into London at a mere fraction of the ex-
pense now paid for water. It was evident to com-
mon sense that it was much better to go, if pos-
sible, to the tops of hills for water than to the
the bottom of valleys, which operated to a great extent
as main sewers to the surrounding country. If a per-
fect and pure supply of water were combined with a
complete system of drainage we might have water almost
for nothing, the manure which would in that case be ob-
tained from the sowers being sufficient to meet the whole
expenses; for it would be as valuable as that which was
brought at great cost from the South Sea Islands. He
considered that neither with regard to economy
nor sanitary regulations could the two branches—water
supply and sewerage—be dealt with separately. In re-
ference to the price of water, he said the Bill gave power
to the company to make what he considered an exorbi-
tant charge. In fact, it proposed to tax the great bulk
of the metropolis at the rate of 5 per cent. on the rental
for a wretched and impure supply; whereas the Board of
Health stated that pure water from the best sources could
be supplied at 2d. a week to each house for domestic pur-
poses, and that including the cleansing of streets and the
flushing of sewers, Sec., the charge would not be more than
sd. The House could not have the remotest idea of the op-
pressive powers, both in a pecuniary and other senses,
which the Bill gave to the company. It enabled them
to raise from a million to a million and a half, and he
calculated the metropolis would have to pay to them
about 600,0001, a year. Besides that they had compul-
sory powers to make every house have water from their
mains.—(Hear.) Under these circumstances he thought
it would be much better to submit to the existing
evils, terrible as they were, for the few months that
would intervene before the re-assembling of Parliament,
than to pass the present Bill, which, while it did not
deal with the monster evil, would have the injurious
effect of staving off sine die any legislation on the subject
of a comprehensive character. He should feel it his duty
to divide the House on the Bill.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, but none
took place. On re-entering the gallery we found
Lord EBRINGTON objecting to the Bill, and the
manner in which it had been conducted through the
Select Committee. The public had not been represented
before it, although he, on behalf of an association con-
taining a number of distinguished sanitary reformers,
had applied to be beard
for the public. He
therefore did not attach much weight to that
Committee. The Bill which they had pro-
duced was certainly not worthy of the trouble which
had been bestowed. In many respects it was a retro-
grade step from the Bill of that year, bad as that was.
It made no provision for the cognate subject of drainage,
without which no system of water supply could be
efficient. He also complained that there was no pro-
vision for centralizing
the different water com-
panies. The quality of the water proposed
to be supplied was most inferior,.. and it had
been proved to have
a peculiar odour, and to be
-
most deleterious to the public health. It was calculated
that the laundresses' bills of the metropolis came to about
5,000,0001. or 6,000,0001., and it was well known that
the water from the Tbantee, from its superior hardness,
in various ways, 1,000,000 more
cost the metropolis,
I'l'
is would do. He
than the water from the Surrey H
thought that it would be better to postpone this Bill for
another year.
a
Mr. T. DUNCOII who
it used to be said that it
BB
who were the stumbling
blocks
was the old companies n• ar ti
in the way of reform in tis P eu ar, but now it ap-
peared that there were sprung up sanitary associa-
tions, who were greater nuisances still.—(Laughter.)
of certain persons in T
They had heard Tooley-street
to be the people of
declaring themselves .a.on England, and
had sanitary associations assuming to them-
now they the people of Engl
selves the health of and,
Who formed this sanitary_ association? He could not
find them out. He himself had received a pamphlet
from it, and be found on comparison that the Hon.
Cdr' Mem-
berMowatt) speech wasnothing for Penryn's A. laugh.) else
than this pamphlet"—(
The Noble Lord who
that the water taken from
had just sat down
complained
the Thames had a feculent odour. Was anything
Noble Lord, when else to be
expected? for the Commissioner
of Sewers, had, as was Proved from calculations,
poured into it 2,,
000 000 cubic feet of sewage matter,
equal to an et'ea, of thirty-six acres, and six feet in
depth.—(Great laughter.) Yet the Noble Lord and
those acting with him were now delaying measures
great
which were to remove those evils.—(Hear, hear.)
The Government deserved great praise for their eon-
duct with regard to the sanitary
mascaras now before
the House, and he was sure that the public would not
the House two or three weeks more existence if
grudge- Iv and honestly to work on
they set
fairly
House would go into Committeethese Bills.
He hoped the
set about satisfying th
without
further delay, and country that
it was resolved to do its duty with regard to this impor-
tant subject.
J. WILLIAMS complained that the Committee
Mr. • . •
Bill his had proceeded lied not contained
from which t
one sing
le Member who could be said to be the repre-
sentative of the metropolitan interest • He should op-
pose going into Committee,
because he did not think the
Bills fair one.
Sir B. HALL considered that the chief recommenda-
tion of the Committee was its entirely impartial construc-
tion, and the complete absence of any element which
could assume the appearance of interested motives. He
was surprised that the Hon. Member for Lambeth should
attempt to obstruct the progress of this Bill; because, if
he remembered aright, the animals contained in the water
his constituents were larger and fatter than
supplied to
any others.
He believed that the Honourable Mem-
ber bad himself exhibited ala d '
rge rawing of them
the Committee, and speaking of the
before stained
animals painted on the
House, had expressed his belief that the designs were
taken from the animals which his constituents ate and
drank daily. He should certainly support the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. GEACH
• who supported
the Bill,
The amendment was withdrawn, and the
into Committee on the Bill. House went
Mr. MO WATT proposed in clause 1 that the date
1853 should be substituted for 1857.
Lord SEYMOUR hoped that
not alter the original word' the Committee would
mg
After some further conversation, in which Messrs.
part, it was agreed th , and Lord John Manners took
tilted for lees, at the date 1855 should be substi-
The House
then resumed.
ROYAL COMMISSION.
The TT
Usher of the Black Rod appeared at the table to
summon the House to attend at the bar of the House of
Peers, to hear the Royal Assent given by Commission
to several public and private Bills (for which see
Lords' report). On the return of the SPEAKER ho an-
nounced the names of the Bills.
The other twelve o'clock orders were then disposed of
and the Reuse rope et Eour *look.