Minutes of evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Supply of Water to the Metropolis ; together with an appendix, containing sundry papers laid before them.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on the Supply of Water to the Metropolis.
Date:
[1821?]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Minutes of evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Supply of Water to the Metropolis ; together with an appendix, containing sundry papers laid before them. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.

    79/262 (page 73)
    that we invited them to construct those works : I will explain that to the Committee. M> . In the House of Lords, they laid before the Committee petitions which had been I presented in 1810, in support of their bill, signed by certain inhabitants of those ^ parishes. Upon those petitions they grounded an allegation, that the parishes had ^'^ invited and promoted their undertaking; and that after they had constructed their works, they could not obtain the custom of the inhabitants. Now the fact was, that the West Middlesex company, which had not powers to come into London previously to 1810, were laying down pipes for the supply of a part of the parish of Mary-le-bone. If that supply had been extremely desirable to the parish of ' Mary-Ie-bone, it is not to be presumed that the vestry would have interfered and stopped the proceedings of the company in laying down those pipes ; but they did exercise the powers with which they were invested by acts of parliament, to stop the progress of those works in the parish, which gave rise to a correspondence between the vestry and this West Middlesex water company. One of the letters which passed upon that occasion was the letter which has been read to the Com- mittee. In that letter they distinctly state, as an inducement to the vestry of Mary-le-bone, not to proceed in their opposition ; that they contemplated being enabled to supply the inhabitants of Mary-le-bone with water more abundantly, and at reduced rates. I myself, between the years 1800 and 1810, lived in three dif- ferent parts of that district. I resided in Privy-gardens, in Portland-place, and in the neighbourhood of Manchester-square, the two'latter very high situations; and I never heard of those houses being insufficiently supplied. I never heard of an absolute want of water in either of those three houses. What companies were you served by in those districts ?—The Chelsea and the New River. I believe that in the new part of the parish of Mary-le-bone the supply given for the year or two previously to 1810 was insufficient. Those new buildings are situated upon high ground, and it was understood that the New lliver company could not, with the then power of their Avorks, adequately supply those buildings; but the Chelsea company had been for some three or four years previously qualify- ing themselves to give a sufficient supply to those very parts. As far as the fact came within my own knowledge, and applying the observations generally to the dis- trict now supplied by the West Middlesex and Grand Junction companies, I should say that the supply in the year 1810 was a supply which occasionally required regard to economy in the use of the water. Are you alluding to particular parts of the district r—To the districts now supplied by the West Middlesex and Grand Junction companies. Not only in the high places to which you before alluded ?—No, generally; taking the whole of the parishes of Mary-lc-bone, St. James and St, George. As to the elevation to which the supply given by the old companies was carried, I can also speak from personal and individual knowledge, that the Chelsea company supplied without extra charge the cistern of a water-closet on the parlour floor in Duke- street, Manchester-square, at the elevation of at least nine feet above the pavement. The bottom of the cistern or the top ?—I should say about the mean; probably ten feet to the top of the cistern. Do you happen to know the number of the house ?—Yes; it is a house that be- longed tome. No. 32, Duke-street, Manchester-square. Would you state any particulars you may think material for the information of the Committee concerning the establishment and the proceedings of the new com- panies ?—I would lay out of consideration, in answer to that question, all particu- lars of their expenditure, or of the prices paid by proprietors for shares, as quite irrelevant to the subject of your inquiry ; but I wish to lay before the Committee a series of papers, showing what their undertakings were, and which can be identified and authenticated if their authenticity be denied by any party. But before I bring those papers forward, I will just shortly advert to the origin of the West Middlesex company. The West Middlesex company was established in 1806, for the supply of the out-parishes of London, and at that time the Chelsea district was protected. The West Middlesex company had not a right to lay pipes within the districts supplied by the Chelsea company ; that establishment was strictly a city speculation (if I may so call it) and it failed : they were disappointed in their expectations of procuring customers in those parishes, after having expended a very considerable sum of money. To render their works productive, they availed themselves of the insufficient supply to the exterior parts of the parish of Mary- le-bone, and began to extend their works into London. Their operations were stopped by the interference of the Mary-le-bone vestry, and the correspondence 706. T to