The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-16 00:00:00

GLASGOW WATER BILL.

Sir M. S. STE WART moved the second reading of the
Bill for supplying the city and suburbs of Glasgow with water.
Mr. OSWALD said, this Bill, though professing to supply
the city of Glasgow with water, was nothing more than a
scheme for uniting two companies for the purposes of monopoly,
to sell water at their own price ; therefore, he should move that
this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Mr. DUNLOP seconded this motion.

Sir M. S. STEWART, in reply, said that one Water
Company (the Glasgow), had expended 35,0001., and
paid a dividend of five per cent., while the other Company
had not, until the last year, paid a single dividend ; therefore,
the proprietors had determined to sell their works to the Glas-
gow Company, but could not do so without the authority of
Parliament. This Bill proposed to supply water at a
rate of six shillings per annum, which is less than the for-
mer charge, and considerably less than any of the last five
Water Companies who had obtained Bills in that House.
The Hon. Member concluded by stating that notwithstanding
gentlemen were not satisfied with the modifications proposed to
be introduced into the Bill, he hoped they would not offer any
objections to its second reading. As to himself, he had no in-
terest whatever in the Bill ; he thought the question raised was
one of pure detail, and he trusted, therefore,:that -the House
would allow the Bill to be read a second time. -
Mr. A GLIONBY was opposed to the second reading of
this Bill, and he had so strong an impression against it, from
his being on the Committee before which it was discussed,
that he 'believed conscientiously nothing but expence and
trouble could be expected from acceding to the present mo-
tion. The Committee came to the conclusion to recom-
mend the Bill on certain terms which they proposed
being complied with by the parties concerned, and
unless those terms were agreed to, the Bill ought not
to pass. On that occasion the terms were considered
reasonable, but the supporters of the bill, subsequently, re-
fused to accept them. This is the very identical bill that was
then under consideration, and unless the House was satisfied
that the Committee came to a wrong conclusion, he hoped it
would not consent to a proposition from which nothing could
be reasonably hoped for, but a waste of time and money.
He saw no evidence adduced to shew that the proposed bill
would be of such advantage to Glasgow as to induce the
Committee to accede to it—nothing, at all events, oc-
curred, to induce him to change his opinion—he had
no reason now to alter his opinion, and therefore he
would oppose the second reading.
Mr. b. MACKENZIE said if the bill was carried with the
limitations suggested either this year or last year, it would be
of the greatest advantage to Glasgow. The question simply
was, if by this bill the rates would be so much
lowered as to make it an object to the public, he thought the
House ought to send it to a Committee. Hei had no interest
whatever in this measure, but he was anxious to destroy every
species of monopoly. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by de-
claring his determination to support the second reading of the
Bill.
Mr. HUME was quite sure that if the House understood
this Bill, every Member, even the Hon. Member who proposed
it, would vote against it. A clearei case he had never seen
made. Nothing was of more importance than that there should
be a plentiful supply of water in a crowded city, containing
upwards of 200,000 inhabitants. There were two Companies in
Glasgow, the second of which was established on the express
principle of competition. He believed that the profits of the
new Company were not so great as were expected, and the
consequence was that the Company now proposed an union.
This would be a palpable trick upon the people of Glasgow—
it would put an end to all competition, and again establish a
monopoly. A petition was presented against this bill, signed by
40,000 of the people of Glasgow, and they had actually spent
2,000/. in opposing it. He called, therefore, upon every Member
who wished to do justice, to vote against the second reading of
this Bill.

Mr. PRYME, as one of the Committee who had attended
this very laborious investigation—but, at the same time, un-
connected with the city of Glasgow—would impartially per-
form his duty. The words competition an monopoly were
attractive to every political economist, but there were certain
exceptions to them, and this was one. He could easily con-
ceive a case in which a supply of water would be rendered
cheaper by a monopoly than by a competition. The expense
of two establishments was much greater than that of one: if,
therefore, there was but one establishment, they could sell
water :it a lower price. He thought that the city of Glasgow
would be much better supplied with water if the Bill passed into
a law, than by the ruinous competition which had taken place.
Mr. P. M. STEWART supported the second reading of
the Bill, believing that, if it became law, it would have the
effect of lowering the price of water in Glasgow. He trusted
that the House would allow the Bill to go into Committee,
' in order that its fate might be decided upon its own merits.
Sir G. STR ICKL AND opposed the second reading of the
Bill.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw.
The House divided, when the numbers were—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority for the second reading 2O
On the motion of Sir W. FOLKES, the Wells Harbour
Bill was read a second time.
Sir JOHN HAN AIER. presented a petition from the Bir-
mingham Canal Company against the Birmingham Rail-
way I3ili.
Mr. BROWNRIGG presented a petition -from Here:
ford in favour of the Islington Market Bill.
Mr. TOOKE presented a petition from Dudley in favour
of the Birmingham Canal Navigation, and one from the pro-
prietors of Canal Stock, to the same effect.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.

~.. 67

Mr. WNI.- MILES presented a petition from the Bishop
and Clergy of Bath, praying that a clause might be introduced
in the Great Western Railway Bill, to prevent travelling on
Sundays.
Mr. POTTER thought this was one of the most extraor-
dinary petitions that had ever been presented to the House.—
(Hear, hear.) He would be glad to know by whom it had
been signed. It would be better at once to introduee a Bill
to prevent the people of England, from eating' On Sundays.
Could the persons who signed this petition suppose for a ma-
ment that the House would listen to such an absurd proposi-

ion? Suppose, for the sake of argument (and it was not an
improbable one), that people might wish to go to Church on
Sundays by the railroad—were they to be prevented from at-
tending divine service by such a clause ?—( Hear.) So far as
his (Mr. Potter's) influence went, he would take care that
such a clause should not be inserted in the Bill.—(Hear.)
,Mr. ROEBUCK observed that the first nineteen names to
the petition were those of clergymen of the Church of
England.—(Hear.) He thought it the most preposterous pe-
tition ever presented to that House.
Mr. SINCLAIR thought it extraordinary that such a peti-
tion should be required in this country, and that any objection
should be made to its reception in an assembly like the present.
Sir OSWALD MOSEL E Y considered, although the peti
tion had been termed preposterous by the Hon. Member for
Bath, and extraordinary by the Hon. Member for Wigan,
that there was cothing extraordinary in a petition praying that
the Sabbath might be set apart as a day of holy rest ; and that
those who were in attendance for the purpose of supplying
the engines, &c., would have an opportunity of observing
the Lord's Day.—( Hear, bear, hear.) It was well known
that the noise and bustle attending the passing of a train
of steam carriages—( Laughter)—particularly if a Church was
in the immediate neighbourhood, would materially interrupt
divine service. There was nothing, therefore, either prepos-
terous or extraordinary in such a petition.
Mr. PO ULTER supported the petition.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY said, it appeared to be understood
that the proprietors were going to compel people to go by the
railroad on Sundays. Now, those persons who were so very
anxious to have the Sabbath for a day of rest, had the means
in their power, not only of keeping it so themselves, but also
of setting an example to others. He confessed he was sur-
prised a short time ago to see a Bishop, who was going to
preach a sermon for a Charity in the neighbourhood, drive up
to the porch of a country church, with all the pomp he thought
necessary for his station in town. Now, he would ask, would
that not require a number of individuals to work upon that
particular Sunday ?—( Laughter.)
Mr. HARDY said he did not quite agree with the Hon.
Member for Southwark, though he did so far, as he did not
wish to compel any one to go to Church. All he wanted was
that provision should be made in the bills now passsing, so that
people who might wish to go might not be prevented from
going to the Church.—(Hear, hear.) He would like to
know how the Honourable Member went to Church when he
saw the Bishop.—(A laugh.) He wished to know why those
people necessary for the working of the engines should be pre-
vented from the exercise of their religious faith.
Sir JOHN CAMPBELL understood that the House hr.l
agreed that there should be no debate upon petitions. The
present one showed the necessity for some such regulation or
understanding.
Sir A. AG NE W thought the people who were necessarily
employed about the engines, ought to be protected in the ex-
ercise of their religious duties.
Mr. BUCKINGHAM said, if the proprietors of the en-
gines would carry the poor people of large towns free et
expense on a Sunday, he might withdraw his opposition--
(A laugh)—but he did not see why a draper, or a book-
seller, should be prevented from trading on a Sunday,
these proprietors of a railway were allowed to make large
profits.
After a few words from Mr. Howard, the petition was laid
on the table.
Several private Bills were brought up, and read a first aed
second time.