The Sun.
London, England, 1852-01-09 00:00:00

N°.18,502.]

METROPOLITAN WATER.
N.B.—That large portion of the public, whose money is in-
vested in private enterprises, on the faith of recent Acts of Parlia-
ment, is requested to peruse the following letter from the Chairman
of Lambeth Waterworks Company to the Secretary of State for the
Home Department :
Belvidere House, Wimbledon, Surrey, Dec. 2,1851.
Sir,—The reappearance in the public newspapers, of a notice of
application to Parliament, signed by Messrs. Lyon, Barnes, and Ellis,
relative to the metropolitan water supply, and also relative to the
water supply of rural districts several miles distant from the metro-
polis, obliges the Lambeth Waterworks Company, through me, their
Chairman, to address you.
Before proceeding further, I beg to observe that this Company
is placed under the most modern legislation. So very recently as
1848, it applied to Parliament for leave to bring in an abundant and
pure supply of water from Thames Ditton, for the purposes of the
southern portion of the metropolis, and of certain rural districts.
Parliament highly approved of the application, and " The Lambeth
Waterworks Act, 1848," was passed. Under the faith and powers
of, and relying upon, the terms and status conferred by that recent
Act of Parliament, two hundred thousand pounds (200,0001.) have
been subscribed, and large further sums borrowed from the public,
in addition to the former capital of the company, whereby a supply
inexhaustible, and now universally admitted to be excellent, and
(owing to the large volume of the Thames there) superior to
other sources, has been achieved ; and as the Chairman of this Com-
pany, I am proud to be able to state that this great public beneSt
has been economically effected by the Inherent energy of the prin•
ciple of private enterprise, while the Board of Health, which
professed to deal with the question, had not proceeded beyond
theory, or rather impracticable speculation. A glance also at the
minutes of evidence before the Committee of last session, on the
water supply, will show a striking contrast between private enter-
prise arid public bodies; it will there be seen that Commissioners,
popularly elected, had either refused to act at all, or had, as in the
case of the Edinburgh Improvement Commission, wasted the public
money at a rate of five times more than was beneficial to the pub-
lic, so that the inhabitants are described by an eminent witness as
entertaining " the greatest thankfulness" that the Commission "had
come to an end ;"—that municipal bodies had made the water sup-
ply a political question ;—that in the case (among other instances)
of the Southampton Corporation, the Itchen was the Tory river, and
the Tese was the Whig river, so that the town was drunk of neither,
and only from 1,800 to 2,000 houses were supplied with water, out
of 6,000 houses ;—that Liverpool and its corporatkn were distracted
by the water supply question;—and that the greatly overcharged
gas consumers of Manchester have been and are paying the corpora-
tion higher than other towns for gas, inferior to that used in such
other towns, thereby ftunishing a large annual surplus on the gas
account; and that half such surplus (such half amounting to about
15,0001. a year), has been and is applied towards the large water
supply expenses in relief pro tanto td the water consumers, the gas
consumers and water consumers being by no means wholly identi-
cal bodies. For the sake of brevity, Ido not allude to the cases of
Worcester, Dundee, Oxford, Dunfermline, &c., &c., but beg to refer 1
to the Minutes of Evidence.
I further beg to state that there is no Waterworks Company in the
United Kingdom subjected to any modern principles of legislation to
which the Lambeth Waterworks Company is not subjected by the
Act of 1848. It is thereby (among other things) subjected to—

The Waterworks Clauses Act.
The Companies Clauses Act.
To such limitation of rates as the Committee of the House of
Commons thought just with reference to the intended outlay.
To limitation of dividends; and
To constant supply.
Such having been the state of matters in the last session of Parlia-
ment, I most respectfully say that this Company felt it to be an ex-
treme hardship to be then obliged to spend a large sum out of the
moneys which (relying on their recent Act of Parliament) they had
hoped to spend in useful public objects, in opposing the Bill of last
session, up to the time when it was thrown out by the unanimous
vote of the Honourable Committee of the House of Commons ; and I
am truly grieved to state that this Company feel it to be a matter fo
just surprise and regret that they should have to look forward to the
absolute necessity of a similar unprofitable expenditure in the next
session of Parliament, in opposing a Bill which, if it be drawn ac-
cording to the Standing f irders, must of necessity be in pursuance of
the notice given, and must therefore embrace those very principles,
or some of them, N, hich were negatived last session, and to which,
I say it most respectfully, and in the fullest reliance on the tried
justice of yourself and of Parliament, this Company can never
consent.

I beg, at the same time, that it may be clearly understood that we
are far from attributing to the Government, or to yourself as a
member of it, the provisions or details of the Bill of last session, or
the torm of the fresh notice before alluded to. We believe, on the
contrary, that both the Government and yourself only desired, in the
last session, to submit to the consideration and decision of Parlia-
ment, according to its usual rules, this important question; the de-
tails were necessa7ily ieft to be prepared elsewhere ; and I shall be
able t • show you in what manner they were prepared.
For the present, however, again guarding myself against being
supposed to attribute to Government the details of the Bill of last
sessio I beg to sail your careful attention to that Bill. Its effect
may be fairly stated to be as follows :-
1. A forced amalgamation, and thereby a compu'sory throwing
together of the moneys and affairs of parties who may be composed
of both the provident and improvident, and practically a giving the
exertions and energies of the enterprising to others, who, instead of
receiving a gift, ought to exert themselves. (See Metropolis Water
Bill, 1851, sections 1,2, 3,4, 5, &c.)
2. A compelling of the Lamb,th Waterworks Company (who had
so recently, to the great satisfaction of Parliament, achieved the
Thames Ifitton source of supply) to abandon that excellent source
if required so to do by the Secretary of State, and instead thereof,
at the requisition of the Secretary of State, upon the suggestion of
the Board of Health, or indeed of any other pers ,ns, to expend this
Com.,any's funds (raised on the faith of another purpose) in bring-
ing water from other sources to be pointed out which (after the ex-
penditure of the money) would, as every practical mind believes,
have left London without its supply ; such, for instance, as the Bag-
shot Sands source, which, even with the addition of the water
from the Green Sand district, is admitted to be utterly deficient in
quantity, and bad in
quality ; or the Woolmers Spring in Huts, a
feeder pf the River Lee, which an official witness stated as yielding
about 2.000,000 gallons daily,
but which has been dry fer the last
two months: or the Darenth and Wandle Rivers, which are co it-
paratively small streams, and subject to the same fluctuations as all
rivers in the chalk and limestone districts, and the quantity of water
in which has been seriously reduced during the last summer and
autumn, &c.—(See sections 22, 23, 26 )
3. A compulsory taking away and injuring of the rates, dividends.
and general states upon which (as solemnly secured to them by
Parliament so recently as 1848) this Company has just raised an ad-
ditional capital of between 200,0001, and 300,0001. (See sections 27,
28, 29, 30, 31, ikc )
I next beg to state an important fact. ThisCompauy having been
incorporated in 1785, and having relieved its district from a great
dearth of water, there appeared a rival Company, which insisted
upon competing—procured an Act to be passed, and did accordingly
compete with the Lambeth waterworks Company. Of this rival
Company (now, since its junction with another, called the Southwark
and Vauxhall Company), a gentleman of eminence is the chairman.
The Lambeth Waterworks Company, by its energy and outlay, has,
in achieving the Thames Bitten source of supply, outstripped this
competitor. Of course, if that competitor could have succeeded by
legislative enactment in forcibly uniting itself to this Company, the
competitor would have been Immensely benefited, however much
the Lambeth Waterworks Company and the public would have suf-
fered, and however great the blow given the great principle of pri-
vate enterprise.
Such was the state of things when the Bill of last session appeared,
the enactments of which certainly would have given to the Southwark
and Vauxhall Company the benefit of the enterprise and outlay of
the Lambeth Waterworks Company ; and such is still the state of
things now that the notice of application for a Bill to effect (so far
as notice is an indication of the intended Bill) the same object has
re-appear. d.
The Lambeth Waterworks Company entertains, Sir, the deepest
respect towards you, and confidence in your determination to up-
hold what is just and in accordance with the faith of Parliament ;
and we are well assured that when the Bill of last session was in-
troduced you were not made acquainted with the above-mentioned
cireumstances, which this Company afterwards embodied in their
petition against the Bill, upon which petition they were heard before
the Committee. . . .

I next beg to call your attention to the minutes of evidence given
before the Committee on the Metropolis Water Bill of last session,
questions 1,348 to 1,361 inclusive, and to assure you that when the
Right Honourable and gifted Chairman of that Committee put those
questions to the Secretary of the Southwark and Vauxhall Company
there was scarcely a person in the crowd,el Committee room enter-
taining a doubt as to who was practically the author of the main
provisions of the Bill then under di!cussion, or of bit influence and
co-operation with the acting portion of the Board of Health; and I
take the liberty of the snore especially pointing your attention to
this, because the Lambeth Waterworks Company feel that in truth
it is their public spirit and enterprise which, in outstripping, a com •
petitor, have brought upon them the trouble and expense of a pe-
riodical agitation, attack, and defence.
Upon this point I would also point your attention as to who were
some of the chief witnesses called in support of the Bill list session ;
they were :
1. Mr. Rosseter, the Secretary of the Southwark and Vauxhall
Company.

2. The Chairman of the same Company; and
3. Mr. Joseph Qaick, the Engineer o: that Company.
We respectfully protest against the acting portion of the Board of
Health being allowed to interfere with and embarrass the dus
working of that well-tried and great principle, private enterprise,
by which this commercial empire has, under Providence, mainly
achieved its greatness, and especially we feel that it would be truly
unjust that the Kouthwark and Vauxhall Company should be allowed
to cripple the free development ot, or to appropriate the fruits of the
Lambeth Company's own enterprise, and of the talent of the Lam-
beth Company's engineer, 3lr, s mpsen, to whom alone (as en-
counged by uur enterprise and outlay), and to no other, is due the
merit of the Thames Ditton supply, and the striking conceptions and
works by which his tried and well-known practical experience has
thus far carried it

To an inspection of those works I beg respectfully to invite yourself
and any other members of the Government, whenever convenient
to you.
I beg also to enclose a print of the petition whiCh this Company
presented against the Bill of last session, and in the language of en-
tire moderation and unfeigned respect, bnt at the sanwehtiemneevoefr en-
tire firmness, to express the plain sense of duty which this Company,
feels of opposing, with every energy, the principles (f
re-
newed) which were so embodied in that Bill.
This Company is truly desirous of continuing to develope their
own project in an enterprising and public spirited manner for the
public benefit, and in accordance with their Act of Parliament, but
if the moderate rights which, having been conferred upon them by
that Act, have induced them to spend their money, arc ever sought
to be broken in upon in a compulsory manner, and this Company's
opposition should (contrary to their expectation) prove in vain,
then, according to all precedent, they are entitled to the fullest
compensation, upon which subject I would beg to call your attention
to the ttie following passage in this Company's petition against the Bill
of last session, viz.:
f " That your petitioners beg most reseectfully to represent that if,
any alleged public good, it is sought to deal with your petitioners'
property without their consent, and to dissolve their company, the
least measure of justice to which they are entitled is to be paid in
ready money such a sum as will place all their shareholders in as
pecuniary
position
nareo nowf not in,
thus and also
compulsorily in as good a
inter-
feredthesawi-di'R—hi),llwil.hlseit: the scheme sanctioned by the Lambeth Water-
wgoordir'a
property,A lets
an
and sled shallp have fully developed itself; whereas, under
uncertain
to give to your petitioners, id lieu of their
amount of what in the said proposed Bill is
stock may be,
called a
Capital Stock,' which consolidated capital
and unmarketable."
aria y ed
petitioners believe will be, of but little value,
See also the minutes of
the Liverpool and Manchester
as to the compensations given to
In conclusion, Pteg to aziWaterworks Companies respectively.
re you . •
tical Men that, if prise hat it is the opinion of prac-
seems to be proposed by the fres:en be dealt with in the way which
taken out of the hands of private
enterprise,
or if the water supply be
eventually be very largely increased egtertnise, the water rates will
I have the honour against the put-lie.
to be, Sr
With high respect i-'
Your most obedient humble
JAMES COURTlLuervpsrant,:.
Chairman of the Couva; ' E ACHE,
Lambeth al,*-a•rw
of Proprietors of
The Right Honourable Sir George Grey, Bart., Nix , •
her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for •
the Home Department, &c.
P.S.—The Lambeth Waterworks Company are particularly de-
sirous that I should state most distinctly, that no company or person
whatsoever, except myself, as its chairman, has, or will have, any
ri
authority to speak or act for the Lambeth Waterworks Company in
communication with yourself, or With any board or department of
Government. J. C. P.