§§§§
§§§
*
， ！
* Ѻº șºſ
-ș
* · * *

----· · · · · · · · · · · · ·T·~*~*=~~~~ --------~~~~- - -
... } /
////zz//, //zz //z. z
/// ) /*////





TT)
2 & 4
. L$
P 2.5
|
[…]
[-]
º
ºw
ºt
ſº
Lº
º
º
º
º
- &
|
:-
* \S
E;
b-º
EP
- º
Eº
E.
E-º
Fº
º-C
E.
º
Eº
E:
º
E.
EºN
Eº-ſº
E3
É.
É
E:
E;
E
E8
| E:
E;
E.
E.
-D
E:
C-
É.
tº-
#3
E.
Fº
#.
ń
|
Ecºrcºccº-cº-ºccº-ºcºcºcº-ººrºzºº
Filmſtrºmmºnitºmºtiºn
III]]||||II.
Elliſ |
E0 -
P
|E: REGErved IN ExoMANGE #
|É FROM #
E} - - - §:
É Lafayette College #
TT 25



























f jº Aft * #. -“-
- # * * * * s, ...": . . .'; # 6 A.2s.
K9 J & A.A. # &
. 3. - ** º } }
*** agº 2 \ , , ; *- : .# 3, #.
. § { - *
f
*
R. E. P. O. R. T
F R O M THE
SELECT COMMITTEE
O N THE
Supply of W AT ER to the Metropolis.
:
:
©
:
©
*
i
i
Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed,
18 May 1821. “ -
* -
* ...A ** \ ; ,
**. '. 3. s \ , ; , - sº
Y 1. \\\ \ \ , t →
537. A
(
C
...’. .ź,”
~
2
--~
º&
-:)
ſº
/.
º-
E. London,
47 Geo. 3.
West Midd”,
46 Geo. 3.
50 Geo. 3.
53 Geo. 3.
Gd Junction,
51 Geo. 3.
56 Geo, 3.
Ž
Ç.
3.
~"
R E P O R T.
THE SELECT COMMITTEE appointed to inquire into the
past and present state of the supply of WATER to the Metropolis,
and the LAws relating thereto, and to report the same, together
with their observations thereupon, to the House; and to whom the
PETITIONs presented to the House, in the present Session, on the
subject, and the MINUTEs of Evidence taken before the Committee
on the West Middlesex Waterworks Bill in 1819, and all Petitions
relating to Water Companies, presented in the last Session, were
referred ;—Have considered the subject referred to them, and
agreed upon the following REPORT:
THE Companies which at present supply London and Westminster
with Water, are Six in number, The London Bridge, New River,
Chelsea, East London, West Middlesea, and Grand Junction.
The three former of these are ancient establishments, originating in
various charters and acts of parliament ; the London Bridge in the reign of
Elizabeth; New River in that of James the First ; and Chelsea about the
year 1734; these, with three smaller companies now no longer existing,
had the whole supply of the Metropolis north of the Thames, previously
to the year 1810. None of them had any legal privilege in the nature of
a monopoly, but each possessed a monopoly in effect, through the greater
part of the district which it supplied. Where their works intermixed, as
they often did, it was the effect of a very gradual extension ; and though
the inhabitants of those parts of the town had the benefit of a choice, no
mischievous spirit of rivalry seems to have been excited between the
companies. wº *
The East London, West Middlesex, and Grand Junction Companies,
were formed under the several Acts of Parliament, noted in the margin;
they began to supply the town about the year 1811.
The principle of the acts under which these companies were instituted,
was to encourage competition ; and certainly in this as in other cases, it is
only from competition, or the expectation of competition, that a perfect
security can be had for good supply ; but Your Committee are satisfied
that from the peculiar nature of these undertakings, the principle of com-
petition requires to be guarded by particular checks and limits in its
application to them, in order to render it effectual without the risk of
destruction to the competing parties, and thereby ultimately of a serious
injury to the public.
Competition, in ordinary cases, adjusts the supply to the demand through
the liberty which the sellers have to go out of the market as well as to
come into it; but in trades carried on by means of large capitals, vested
in fixed machinery, and furnishing a commodity of no value but for con-
sumption on the spot, the sellers are confined to the market by the nature
of the trade; and if the new comer has to seek immediate employment for
large works, by taking custom from the established dealer, as there can be
537. * > I}O
4. REPORT FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
no great difference in the quality of what they sell, they must vie in
lowness of price, and will probably be driven to underbid each other down
to the point of ruin, because it is better to take any thing than to take
nothing for that which cannot be carried away; and this must go on until
both are worn out, or one has out lasted the others, and succeeded to a real
and effective monopoly, or until by some arrangement between themselves
they can put a stop to their mutual destruction.
These consequences appear to have followed from the late protracted
competition between the water companies; it was carried on during several
years at a very ruinous loss, and must, in all probability, have led to the
extinction of all, except one or two of the wealthiest, as it actually did to
that of the smaller companies, but for an arrangement which finally took
place, and by which the supply of the town was partitioned between them,
each company withdrawing its services within a line agreed upon, and ex-
changing with the other the pipes beyond its own boundary.
This arrangement was effected between the new River and East London
Companies, about the end of 1815; and between the New River, Chelsea,
West Middlesex, and Grand Junction, at the end of 1817. In the former
case a deed was entered into by the two companies, binding them by
penalties to abstain from serving beyond the line drawn between them.
In the latter, the four companies entered into no engagement to that effect,
but left it to the prudence of each whether they would at any future time
embark at the expense of fresh capital in a renewal of the contest. This
difference of proceeding appears to have been occasioned by the wording
of the West Middlesex and Grand Junction Acts, which rendered it
doubtful whether those companies could bind themselves by engagement
with any others to abstain from serving within certain limits. The London
Bridge Company did not take part in any of these arrangements; from the
whole evidence it appears that this company was comparatively very little
involved in the competition, and has made no change in its system.
These measures, so questionable at the first view, and carrying with them
so much appearance of a combination against the public, do nevertheless
appear to Your Committee to have been measures of self-preservation,
leaving the companies only responsible for the use which they might there-
after make of them ; they were, however, in themselves of a nature to
excite, and did excite, a great degree of alarm and discontent ; it was
obvious that they placed the companies and the public in a relation, the
reverse of that in which Parliament had designed to place them, and that
in rescuing themselves from ruin, they had, in point of fact, (however
unavoidably) acquired a power which they might abuse to any extent.
Some vexatious proceedings on the part of the West Middlesex and Grand
Junction Companies, in matters of no great moment in themselves, but
calculated to show what might be the consequences of a power without
appeal, appear to have added to the irritation of the inhabitants of the
districts served by them, and it was in this disposition of the public that
the East London, West Middlesex, Grand Junction, and Chelsea Com-
panies gave a notice which they have since acted upon, that an increase of
water rents would shortly take place, the amount of which was, generally
speaking, about 25 per cent above the old rates for the ordinary service.
The two latter companies also gave notice, that they should make an addi-
tional charge for high or extra service, which does not appear to have been
their practice in all cases before the partition. The New River Company,
about two years after their partition with the East London, raised the rents.
which had been depressed during the contest with that company to the old.
rate, but they have taken no measure of that sort subsequently to the
partition of the western parts of the town ; an expectation having since
- *-, * ...been
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 5
been constantly entertained, that the question would in some shape come
before Parliament, it has been stated to Your Committee, that they pre-
ferred waiting the decision of Parliament on the subject, taking it for
granted that no prejudice would thereby arise to their claims.
However capable it might be of precise proof, that the increase thus
demanded was reasonable (a point which Your Committee have not felt
themselves qualified to decide with the object of permanently sanctioning
that specific increase), yet it is no wonder that, under the circumstances
above stated, the demand was ill received, and its reasonableness very
strongly disputed, more especially after the rash and unqualified pledges
of the West Middlesex and Grand Junction Companies, circulated during
the competition, that they could and would supply their respective districts
at the rates of 1810, or even at lower rates, including the advantages of
high services, and of a more abundant and certain supply for ordinary
Se]"WIC62. -
Your Committee feel it their duty to state, that the old companies (the
New River and Chelsea), are not involved in this charge of culpable
precipitancy, if not of intentional delusion.
Your Committee forbear to enter into the history of the altercations
which have taken place, considering that it would only help to keep alive
the spiritin which those altercations originated, and which so long as it exists
will tend more than anything else to obscure the real state of the question,
by preventing that disposition to fairness which is necessary in order to
settle the principles upon which it should be decided.
The question fairly stated appears to Your Committee to resolve itself
into these, --
1st. Is there any improvement in the supply, and how far is it pro-
portioned to the increase in the demand P
2d. Could that improvement have been obtained, or could it now be
obtained upon terms so much more favourable, as to set the
increase of rate at present demanded in the light of an extra-
vagant overcharge f *.
In resting the case on these grounds, it will appear that Your Committee
do not treat it as one in which it is simply to be considered what will remu-
nerate the companies for their actual outlay, but as a case for fair adjust-
ment between the companies and the public, in which it is proposed to cast
upon the latter no greater proportion of a losing adventure than is equiva-
lent to the advantage which they actually derive from it, and to leave upon
the former the remaining burthen of a loss incurred in trade.
They conceive that the power of Parliament cannot possibly be inter-
posed upon terms of which the public have less right to complain, and at
the same time that in the situation which the companies have assumed for
themselves, these terms are no other than those which they fairly owe to
the public, and which therefore Parliament may justly interpose its au-
thority to secure. s -
They feel, however, that in forming a judgment on these questions,
especially on the second, with a view to proposing a maximum of price,
and restrictive regulations for the protection of the public, it is due to the
Companies, that a liberal construction should be made in their favour on
all doubtful points, and that restriction should be carried no further than
is warranted by the clearest evidence. \ -
The case does not precisely stand as it would if Parliament were now
considering the application of the companies, and the conditions upon
537. . : sº. *. which
6 REPORT FROM THE SELECT committee oN
which they would allow of the engagement of their property in the public
service, because their property is already irretrievably engaged. -
If the Legislature is to rectify a mistake in policy, and to amend de-
fective provisions by substituting other restraints of a different nature from
those which the parties contemplated when they engaged their property,+
it is on all accounts advisable that these restraints should not be too closely
pressed. . . . . . . .
Upon the first of the two questions, thus limited, Your Committee are of
opinion, that a material improvement has taken place in the supply, both
in respect of abundance and certainty; and, which is not without its weight
as a consideration of public utility, it is extended in its improved state to
large districts in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, which were not
before supplied. * - - • , - -
Your Committee are inclined to believe, that the quantity of water now
delivered into houses, is in about the proportion of 5 to 4 to that which
they formerly received; and that, taken with the increased regularity and
certainty of the supply, the advantage to the consumers may be fairly
stated to be in that proportion, with the further benefit that the security
against fire is increased, and that by the establishment of communications
between their works, the powers of the companies may be brought in aid
of each other, in case of emergency. Your Committee have no hesitation
in stating their opinion, that the present supply of water to London is very
superior to that enjoyed by any other city in Europe, and that the preser-
vation of that supply in its present state, is by far the most important
object involved in the questions under their consideration : It remains
to be determined, whether these advantages have been obtained at a greater
expense than it was necessary, with good management, to have bestowed
upon them ; and consequently, whether it is just, or to what extent it is
just, to lay an increased charge upon the public in respect of them.
It is in the consideration of this question, that Your Committee have
felt how much of difficulty and complication belongs to the subject, and
how necessary it would be to require further aid from men of science and
practical knowledge in the construction of works; and to consume more
time in the investigation, if they were required to come to such conclusions
upon it, as they could with any confidence submit to the House, as the
grounds of a permanent measure. -
The principal arguments adduced to prove that the outlay of the
companies has been excessive, are grounded in some instances on the
nature of parts of their expenditure, and on questions how far certain
items ought to enter into estimate as between them and the public, but
mainly on comparisons between them, as to the modes of forming or
carrying on their works, and as to the difference of results in respect of
price for given quantities at which the supply is afforded. . .
Many of these, Your Committee feel to be such as at first view to chal-
lenge inquiry, and raise presumptions of mismanagement, but in answer to
such presumptions, the attention of Your Committee has been called to
the great diversity of local circumstances which affect this question. And
it cannot be doubted, that differences of elevation, and of distance from
the source of supply, a more or less scattered distribution, or a more or
less ample scale of buildings in the districts to be supplied, are all causes
most material to be considered, in comparing the cases of water companies,
as to necessary or judicious expenditure. - -
Difficulties of situation must always be encountered by increase of
expense in one shape or another, and will therefore always afford a reason
z **.*. for
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 7
for differences of outlay to the Suppliers, and consequently for difference of
price to the Consumers; the question presented on such grounds as these
can never be any other than a question of degree.
Your Committee agree, that in an inquiry whether the public could
have been more cheaply supplied than they are, provident or improvident
expenditure (allowing fair latitude for the mistakes inevitable in new
undertakings) is not only not foreign to the question, but is of its very
essence, but then they think it must also be admitted, that the proof of
improvidence should be clear to demonstration before it is made a ground
for striking out of an estimate between the public and individuals, any
part of a capital actually employed with a design to the public service.
This objection of improvident expenditure, is also subject to another
qualification. It does not accrue to the payer until it appears that the
charge upon him exceeds the rate of a just profit upon the sum for which
the work might have been completed under better management, because
it is obvious that while the charge is within that line the loss falls not upon
him but upon the adventurer. e
Thus, supposing a waterwork to have cost in fact 400,000l. and it
appear ever so clearly that it might have been formed for 300,000l.
Supposing also, that six or seven per cent were the just rate of return for
capital employed in such adventures, the previous question would be,
whether the charge on the consumer was such, that (after a fair allowance
for current expenses) yielded a greater rate of profit than six or seven per
cent on 300,000l. The question for the Legislature being always this,
and only this, could the public be served cheaper at a fair rate of profit,
for without such a rate of profit a competition would not be practicable.
Upon this part of the question. Your Committee feel themselves incom-
petent to form a precise opinion, modified as it is by all the considerations
which have been pointed out, and by others which have occurred in the
course of their inquiry ; and they think it could not be safely decided, so
as to justify an interference of the Legislature affecting private property,
without the assistance of very skilful and experienced engineers, uncon-
hected with the parties concerned, and having the opportunity of an actual
survey, if they should require it, to guide their judgments. -
They feel satisfied, however, that the question lies within narrower limits
than is supposed by those who object to the claims of the companies.
They are not prepared to state, that the rates of 1810 would, upon the
principles above recited, be an adequate payment for the present supply.
Many reasons induce Your Committee to think, that this point may be
much more satisfactorily resolved at a future period than at present. In
the first place, it is not clear, what amount the increased rates, with the
additional charges for high and extra service, will produce to the compa-
nies, as they have never hitherto been wholly unaffected by the state
of the contest either with each other or with the public. The submission
of their accounts annually to Parliament for a few years, would necessarily
throw light on this part of the question. 4 &
Your Committee are clearly of opinion, that in availing themselves of
their present situation to increase their rents, the companies owe to the
public a complete exposition of the grounds on which they proceed; and
that if those grounds are just, such an exposition cannot but be advan-
tageous to themselves. - -
But more than all, Your Committee are desirous, that for the sake of
final good understanding between the public, and bodies of men whose
property is most usefully employed in its service, the question of the
537. * quantum
8 REPORT FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON .
quantum of charge should be disengaged from other questions with which
it is at present mixed ; and which tend to produce dispositions unfavourable
to a candid and liberal consideration of it.
The public is at present without any protection, even against a further
indefinite extension of demand. In cases of dispute, there is no Tribunal but
the boards of the companies themselves to which individuals can appeal;
there are no regulations but such as the Companies may have voluntarily im-
posed upon themselves, and may therefore at any time revoke, for the con-
tinuance of the supply in its present state, or for defining the cases in which
it may be withdrawn from the householder. All these points, and others of the
same nature, indispensably require legislative regulation, where the subject-
matter is an article of the first necessity, and the supply has, from peculiar
circumstances, got into such a course, that it is not under the operation of
those principles which govern supply and demand in other cases; and Your
Committee are of opinion, that as it cannot be precisely foreseen how the
rules which they are prepared to suggest for these purposes may work, it
would be expedient that they should be enacted, in the first instance, only
for a short period. - r -
It may be objected, that the assumption of the same maximum of rate
for the whole town, may, upon the very supposition of such local differ-
ences as have been adverted to, leave too great a profit to some of the
companies, while it gives a bare remuneration to others. This might be
the case if the rates had formerly been equal in all parts of the town; but
they appear always to have been considerably lower in the eastern than in
the western extremities, insomuch that the proposed increase in the former
will not raise them sensibly above the general average of the rates of 1810
in the latter, so that in the cases where there are the greatest differences
of local circumstances affecting the facility of supply, there will be nearly
a corresponding difference in the rates of rent, the maximum being taken,
not at a fixed sum, but by way of rise on the old rents. The question
whether the supply could be had cheaper, can only relate to the modes of
supply which are commonly attainable.
Independently of these reasons, the attempt to fix a separate maximum
for each company, would be attended with all the difficulties which belong
to the decision of the general question, and which Your Committee have
already professed themselves incompetent to decide; if inequalities shall
really be found to exist in a greater degree than they have supposed, they
will always be subject to the natural remedy of competition in those dis-
tricts in which the rates shall appear to be inordinate.
Your Committee therefore take the liberty to recommend that a Bill
should be introduced and limited to four years, restraining the companies
from advancing the rates beyond the proportion of 25 per cent on the
old rates, for what is termed the ordinary service of water for domestic
purposes, leaving high and extra services as matters of agreement between
the parties, but defining the one and the other, and establishing, as far as
may be found practicable; fixed rules for the rates of charge on trades con-
suming large quantities of water.
Your Committee assume 25 per cent for the general limit, on the prin-
ciple of not disturbing a system now in operation, without the clearest
ground ; and as it seems to correspond, generally speaking, with the amount
of the increase which has been made by the West Middlesex, Grand Junc-
tion, Chelsea, and East London Companies; there are peculiar cases which
must form exceptions, where the elevation of the ground is such that the
ordinary supply cannot be effected without those additional powers which
are necessary for giving the high service ; but these cases, which cannot be
fairly
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 9
fairly brought within the general limit, may be particularly adverted to
and provided for in the Bill itself. The most simple and satisfactory rule
of increase will be by reference to the old rates for each house. Where
very gross inequalities occur, it will be proper to leave room for correcting
them by reference to the averagé charge in the street, or in the streets of
the same class in the immediate neighbourhood ; and the same rule should
be adopted for the rate of all houses so recently built that there is no old rate
upon them. To attempt any more general scheme of equalization, would
probably lead to more dissatisfaction than it would remove. w
Your Committee have been induced to form this opinion from an
actual trial of the experiment by the Grand Junction Company, who, in
adding 25 per cent to the rates, altered also their proportions throughout
the district, upon the grounds of great apparent inequality in the old rates,
thereby assuming an unlimited power of apportioning the charge to each
house. It is due to them to state, that they do not appear to have acted
upon any other than fair motives in this respect, inasmuch as their addition
did not exceed 25l. per cent upon the gross rental ; but it appeared from
cases brought before Your Committee, that in the superficial survey on
which they had proceeded, they had created disproportion instead of,
correcting it; and in hardly any instance did the inhabitant so surcharged,
not find himself subjected, by the result of this operation, to a much
larger increase than 25 l. per cent on the old rate. There are many cir-
cumstances which vary the rents of houses of the same external appearance
in different situations of the town, and consequently the description of
persons who inhabit them. These will reasonably account for a certain
degree of inequality, and render it inexpedient, if not unfair, to disturb it.
At all events, the person whose payment is raised by the disturbance
should have an opportunity of objecting; and the objection, though very
easy of decision by comparison with his neighbours, becomes matter of
much more doubt and difficulty when it is to be scanned with reference
to an extensive district. On these grounds, therefore, and in the view
which Your Committee take of adjustment, they deem it essential that the
increase should be made on one uniform system by all the companies;
and they think none so little likely to excite discontent as that of putting
it on the old rate, any general deviation from which must necessarily
create dispute. *
With regard to the principal object of keeping up the supply in its
present state of certainty and abundance, much might, no doubt, be
effected towards it by direct regulation, but the shortness of the period
for which it is proposed to pass the Bill will, in itself, be a great security
that the companies will not relax in the discharge of their duties to the
public in this respect, and would perhaps supersede the necessity of any
further provision for the present.
It is further to be observed, that though the experiment of competition
(set on foot as it was without guard or limit), has failed, the present situa-
tion of the companies is such, that a considerable practical check against
abuse in this, as in other respects, may be expected from the apprehension
of its renewal, especially if the means of renewing it are facilitated, as
undoubtedly they may be by regulations calculated to restrict it to its real
and useful end, by prescribing conditions under which it shall be exercised,
and protecting the competing parties while acting up to those conditions,
in the first place, from the caprice or dishonesty of individuals in transfer-
ring and re-transferring their custom without any fair reason, and next from
manoeuvres undertaken by each other, merely by way of speculation or
reprisal. In short, by confining their interference to cases in which the
occasion for it should be previously established by some good test. This
537. *- C facility
| O REPORT FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
facility of renewing beneficial competition would be further increased, by
requiring the invited company under these regulations to explain in writing
the grounds of their refusal to accept the proposed invitation ; and, on the
other hand, by preventing the inviters from receding so long as the service
which they had called for is fairly rendered ; regulations of this sort, which
appear at first sight to be restrictions on competitions, are, in truth, the
only means to make it effectual in this trade, by making it safe to the
party who undertakes it.
Your Committee forbear to carry these suggestions further; it will be
easily seen in what way they might be extended, and it will be always in
the power of Parliament to act upon them, if occasion should call for it,
or to receive and encourage, under limits of the same sort, any other
undertakings, by which it may plainly appear that a better or cheaper
supply can be furnished, none of the companies having any claim to an
exclusive privilege of any sort; but let it be always remembered, that the
efficacy of these, or of any other means which can be taken to insure the
goodness of the supply, must depend upon leaving to the companies some-
thing which is worth having, and which, if they should fail to perform the
conditions on which it is held, would be lucrative enough to invite other
persons to undertake the same service. If this be attended to, Your Com-
mittee are persuaded that so much reliance may be had in the prudence of
the companies, and their sense of their own interest, as to render it matter
of less moment to attempt the effecting of this purpose, for the present, at
heast, by direct regulations.
The Bill should further contain a clear definition of what shall be deemed
high and extra services, and rules for fixing the cases in which the com-
panies shall be at liberty to withdraw the supply from individuals;
especially the extent to which they shall be allowed to look to the premises
for payment in default of the occupant. For preventing the waste of water,
and for rendering the remedies of the companies for this purpose, and for
the recovery of their dues as efficacious as possible.
Another most material provision will be that of an easy and efficacious.
mode of enforcing the observance of such rules as may be laid down, and
deciding disputes between the companies and their tenants in a cheap and
summary way ; the judicature should be such as would be likely to ensure
the confidence of both parties; and its powers and rules of practice so
framed, that while it takes from the companies the decision of their own
causes, it shall completely secure them against evasion of their dues, under
pretence of disputing them, and give them increased facilities for recovering
small demands where there is no doubt of their being just. Alterations are
also necessary in the existing Acts of the East London, West Middlesex,
and Grand Junction, with respect to the necessity of notices of actions
against the companies, as also the double costs and other regulations of the
same tendency, now imposed upon the public in the case of failure.
It has appeared to Your Committee, that a judicature of this sort might
be formed in each district, by one person nominated by the Company,
another by the parishes, within the district, who unless they could concur
in their choice, might each nominate a person, and the appointment be de-
termined by lot to be drawn before a magistrate, the two persons thus
appointed to chuse a third.
If these, and other subordinate regulations, should be found to work
well, Your Committee feel confident that they will tend to remove a great
deal of dissatisfaction; and though they do not mean in any way to pre-
judge that part of the question on which they have stated that they enter-
tain doubts, they are satisfied that it will have the best chance under
- * • * a temporary
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. , 1
a temporary Bill of this sort of being well understood, and considered
with that liberality which belongs to the national character; that if it shall
appear, under all the light which may be thrown upon it during the short
period of experiment, that the charge is not productive of an undue profit
to the companies, there will be no disposition to revive the question, or that
if, from the continuance of a contrary impression, it should be thought ex-
pedient to revive it, it will be brought forward with all the advantage which
will have been obtained by a public inspection of the accounts of the
companies in the mean time.
The voluminous, verbal, and documentary evidence which has been col-
lected by Your Committee, will remain on record for the information of
those who in future may be called upon to resume the inquiry; and
especially as to the most difficult parts of the case, will keep the question
entire for the information of men of science and practical experience, whom
it may be necessary to consult; and therefore Your Committee have not
thought it necessary to annex it to their Report.
18 May 1821.
MINUTES OF EVIDEN CE
TAKEN BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE
ON THE
Supply of Water to the Metropolis;
TOGETHER WITH
AN APPENDIX,
CONTAINING
SUNDRY PAPERS LAfD BEFORE THEM.
Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed,
29 June 1821.
706. A.
WITNESSES :
William Chadwell Mylne, Esq. - pp. 3. 17. 179, 186.
Mr. John Paul Rowe - - - - - - - - pp. 8. 138.
Thomas Simpson, Esq. - - - - - - - pp. 10.66. 181.
Mr. James Gascoigne Lynde - - - - - pp. 13. 178. 181. 186.
Mr. Richard Till - - gº ºf º - - - - - p. 15.
Mr. James Dupin - - - - was ºs º as ºn e- p. 23.
Mr. William Tierney Clark * = & sº sºme - - - p. 25.
Mr. Matthias Koops Knight - - - pp. 31. 97. 158. 161. 169. 173. 187.
William Anderson, Esq. - - - - - * * * Lºs p. 34.
William Matthew Coe, Esq. - usº gº - p. 44. 95. 147. 152, 169. 173.
Mr. John Southam - - - - - - - - - - p. 51.
Mr. John Dowley - * * * * * * * gº gº ibid.
Mr. George Saunders - - - - - - - - - p. 52.
Mr. Joseph Steevens * = ºn sºme sºme tº gº sº pp. 54.69.
Mr. Thomas Nelson Pickering - tº * . sº sº - pp. 61. 157. 172.
Mr. Matthew Chitty Marshall - - - - - - - - p. 63.
Mr. Joseph Nelthorpe - - - - - - - - - p. 69.
Mr. William Rudge sess sºme ºs ºn sº * * * * ibid.
Mr. James Weale - - - - - - - - pp. 70.83. 129.
Mr. Charles Smith – tº sº gº *ºr º tº tºg wº gº p. 93.
Mr. William John Newton sº - - - - - - - p. 94.
Daniel Robert Barker, Esq. - gº =s’ dº gº gº gºt - p. 103.
Jonas Hall Pope, Esq. - - - - - - - - - p. 105.
Mr. James Day - - - - - - - - - - p. 107.
Mr. Seth Smith tºg tºº * * tº - - - - - p. 110.
Mr. Richard Dennison - - - - - - sºs º º ibid.
Mr. John Thorowgood - - * - - - - - - p. 112.
Dr. Robert Masters Kerrison - º º wº * * * - p. 115.
Mr. William Harris gº º sº tºº tº * * - - p. 118.
Mr. William Amsted gº * tºº º tºº gº gº sº isºs ibid.
Mr. William Knowles gº tºº cº º tº º º gºt *
Mr. Shirley David Beare - tºg wº * =? * = tº º Kºº &º
Mr. Joseph Simpkin * * Eºs * ºr * * * &ngs gºs tºº
Mr. John Richardson
Mr. Michael Smith - * - s tº-> tºs {-} tº tºº tº fº tºº
Mr. John Bullock - tºge tºº sº gºº tº gº tº ſº &º
Mr. John Thomas Hope
Mr. James Birch Sharpe - º & sº •º gº º - pp. 13
Mr. William Treacher gºs tºe tº ſº- tº wº gº gº tºº
Mr. Robert Wright - tºs * º tºº sº gº * º tºº
Mr. James Davis - ſº * tº — - #ºss sº tº gº
Mr. William Hart - gº tºº •º tº gºme gº sº º ſº
Mr. John Gibson - tº tº tº ſº- gº gºy sº tºº tº
• I 19.
• 12O.
1 22.
126.
128.
129.
130.
137.
139.
143.
146.
I 47.
148.
tº º
º
º
gºs
tº a
gº
* =
*
sº
tº
*
*
gº
* -
ſº
tº
&sº
Eºg
M IN U TES OF EVIT) E N C E.
Veneris, 16” die Februarij, 1821.
WILLIAM HENRY FREMANTLE, ESQUIRE,
IN T H E C H AIR.
William Chadwell Mylne, Esq. Called in ; and Examined.
Hº long have you been engineer to the New River company?—About
ten years.
You were not engineer previous to the year 1810?–No; I acted under my
father; my father was then engineer.
Are you the principal engineer?—Yes, I am.
Have you any record, or any average statement of the quantity of water supplied
by the New River company previous to the year 1810 —Supposing that I might
be asked for that, I collected what documents were in my possession, and I have
made a statement of it, or nearly so.
This confines it to a time previously to the year 1810?—Yes.
And relates solely to the supply of water 2–Yes, to the west end of the town;
I cannot distinguish correctly as to the parishes, but this relates to the whole of
Mary-le-bone, part of Soho, and part of St. George’s Hanover-square.
It does not therefore comprehend the whole of the supply at that time?—The
whole of the supply to Mary-le-bone, part to Soho, and part to St. George’s
Hanover-square.
The object of this Committee’s inquiry comprehends the whole metropolis: you
were then entitled to supply the whole of the metropolis: the Committee wish to
know what was the amount of your whole supply?—From an estimate taken in
1811, the quantity of water furnished by the New River company, to the whole of
London was 214,000 hogsheads a day.
In that estimate, what part of the town was comprehended?—The whole of
the town; that was the quantity of water delivered by the New River into the
reservoirs at the New River head.
Now specify the parts of the town under the other head?—The only distinc-
tion I can make of the quantity supplied, is by the quantity raised by the steam
engines to supply the west end of the town.
en were those steam engines erected?—I go back as far as 1767: I believe
the first might have been thirty years before that ; in the first instance it was a wind-
mill, it was then converted into a horse engine, and after that into a steam engine.
When was it converted into a steam engine P--I do not know ; it was before
Mr. Smeaton’s time. In 1767 there were four mains passing to the west end of
the town; one called the Soho Main, another the Grosvenor Main, the third the
Oxford Main, and the fourth the Portland-road Main. The Soho main was allowed
21 hours a week, the Grosvenor main 24 hours, the Oxford-road main 15, and the
Portland-road main 6 hours, making 66 hours per week of a 7 inches main, with a
head of 34 feet pressure upon it. In 1768 the number of hours were increased to
117 per week.
From 66 hours they were increased to 117 P-Yes.
In relative proportions?—I can give the proportions; in 1773 it amounted to
150 hours; in 1780, 229 hours and a half; in 1787, 301. About the year 1787
Messrs. Bolton and Watt had a patent for an improved steam engine, and they
agreed with the New River company to put one up, being allowed a profit on the
coals; they employed a person to take down in a book the time of working the
engine, and from that book I have the time of its working very nearly up to 1810:
there are three years not made out.
706. Do
William C. Mylne,
Esq.
S--—”
(16 February.)
4
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
William C. Mylne,
Esq.
\–—"
( 16 February.)
Do you consider that the first steam engine?—No ; but it was the first upon
which an account was kept, which was done by Bolton and Watt’s man as a check
against the company. In the first two years, 1787 and 1788, the quantity of water
is 4,900,000 hogsheads; those two years are rather more than the following year,
from this circumstance; a water wheel was erected in 1789, which threw up about as
much water as supplied Islington, but in the first two years Islington was supplied
from the steam engine, and after this period I consider the whole of this water to go
to the west end; this is the exact number of hogsheads raised; each motion of
the engine is registered, and each motion produces a given quantity of water; in the
first year it amounted to 4,940,243 hogsheads. -
Including Islington 2–Yes; the supply of Mary-le-bone has increased gradually,
up to 1810, to 10,000,000; in 1789, 1,780,019 hogsheads were supplied to Mary-
le-bone ; that I conceive is the whole of the water that went to the west.
In the two years after the erection of Mr. Bolton’s steam engine the whole
amount of water supplied amounted to 4,940,243 hogsheads —That is the first
year only, 1787; in 1788, 4,041,952. -
That embraced the whole of London 2–The whole from the upper reservoir.
Proceed with your statement from 1788?–In 1789, 1,678,019 ; the whole of
that water went westward, I should conceive, not including Islington.
And so you go on regularly till what time?—Till 1810; in 1810, it was
10,035,664 hogsheads, of 54 gallons, in a year. -
That included what part of the town P--It supplied the whole of Mary-le-bone,
part of Soho, part of St. George’s Hanover-square, that being the higher ground
adjoining Oxford-street; every house to the north of Oxford-street being supplied
by it, and a portion to the south on the high ground.
Do you consider that this supply of 10,035,664 hogsheads was the full extent to
which your powers could be carried, or could you have furnished more?—Not with-
out robbing other parts of the town. - -
Could you have afforded more if a demand had been made of you?—A portion
more certainly might be supplied in flood times, but not a regular supply, I should
conceive.
Your fund of water was exhausted by that then P-The whole that was delivered
at the New River head was distributed in the town ; if more had been taken from
the river a greater portion might have come down, but not to any great extent.
It was pretty nearly the whole extent you could supply at that time 2—I should
imagine so. - - -
Have you any detail of that supply, namely, into months, or weeks, or days?—
Yes, I could give it; I have it not by me; I have got a book of the description to
show the mode in which the account was kept. - -
Will that answer the question ?—It gives it weekly.
In the year 1810, what was it, weekly —This is only up to 1790.
Have you any detail or any memorandum of the number of houses that were
supplied in this district 2—The secretary of the company has ; I have not.
Is the secretary here 2—Yes. -
You say in 1787 the total supply was 4,940,243, including Islington, and in
1789, 1,678,019; was that difference made by the supply of Islington 2–All the
higher ground: it was what they called the higher service, and that makes the
difference; it is rather more than half; it appears so in the book.
You state that the supply amounted to 117 hours and 150 hours, and so on;
what number of services had you in the week; when was it put on ; and how long
did it continue each time?—This statement refers merely to charging the main from
the reservoir at the head; it was then distributed by the turncocks; the account
of which I have not. - -
How often did you charge the main 2–Bvery day the Soho main was charged
for 21 hours in 1767; on Monday, seven ; Tuesday, nothing; Wednesday, seven ;
Friday, seven ; making twenty-one. * .
That is three times a week?—Yes: the Grosvenor worked every day; Monday,
three ; Tuesday, five ; Wednesday, three ; and so on. - - **
Have you any document of the same sort for 1810 2–No, I have not.
It was supplied in the same way?—Yes. - -
Did the mains continue full after that 2—They did not at that period.
Do you consider them as full always now 2–Yes. ... •
You are positive your mains are always full now?—Yes; those mains were shut
off every night. -
What
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
5
What was the total quantity supplied in 1811 ?–214,000 hogsheads a day.
That was the total supply of the New River per day?—Yes. &
Have you got any returns of the supply beyond the year 1810?–No, no account
was kept ; Bolton and Watt’s patent was out, and no account was kept.
But you have an account of the supply since, have not you ?—None whatever.
Have you no daily return ?–No.
How do you calculate your rates then upon the supply?—The regulation of the
rates is entirely managed by the board; they generally judge from the size of the
house, and the general consumption of the house or manufactory.
Do you mean to say that the company are ignorant of the quantity of water sup-
plied from their works?—They know nothing more than what the river produces.
What time do your engines work at this moment?—The engines work only for
the high supply now ; the water from the level of the New River will pass to all
other parts of the district now supplied by the New River company.
And the mains are always kept charged 2–Yes.
That makes sixty-eight millions to the other parts of London 2–It will be so.
You make sixty-eight millions to the other parts of London, exclusive of Mary-le-
bone and the higher ground, and ten millions to the higher ground 2–Yes.
Have you no means, by the mode of working your water, of ascertaining or
guessing or giving information as to the quantity of water you now supply to the
public?—No. -
Do you consider that it is considerably beyond what it was in 1811 ?—No ;
I should not consider it now quite so much. -
Has there been no such account kept of the supply since 1810 as was kept
previous?—No ; we have an account of the coals burnt by the engine, which would
lead us to it.
Your engine only raises a certain portion of your water 2—Yes, for the supply of
cisterns above the level of the river.
What quantity of coal do you consume annually *—Rather under 400 chaldrons.
What quantity of water per chaldron is the estimate that that coal consumed
raises?—That is a question I cannot answer; the engine works with different
pressures.
How many horse power P-Sixty-three it is called; there are three ; but a
chaldron of coals, when raising water ten feet high, will raise only half that quan-
tity if you are supplying houses twenty feet high. The way in which the water is
regulated is, that the cock in the street is opened, then it has been ascertained,
in a given pressure, how many hours will supply every house; when that is ascer-
tained, it is shut by the turncock, and he is not allowed to go beyond it. If any
abuse arises in a particular street, the tenants complain, and it is immediately looked
to, and remedied if possible.
You can give no information as to the quantity of water that is raised by the
expenditure of those 400 chaldrons of coals?—I could, but I have it not here;
I believe I have the hours the engine has worked for the last two or three years.
Do you know the quantity it raises per hour?—It will vary a little, but it may be
averaged sufficiently near.
You have no memorandum upon that P−No, I have not.
Do you know whether there has been a greater quantity of coal consumed since
the year 1810, than before?—There was a great deal consumed the first three or
four years, at the time of the competition; the return of the coals every year will
show it: the theatres are supplied to the top, and many brewhouses are supplied to
the top; that must be done by steam.
Can you give the Committee any information as to the quantity of water supplied
daily to each house within your district 2—I merely from curiosity took the quantity
of hogsheads delivered per day, and divided it by the number of tenants on the
books; it amounted to about four hogsheads per tenant: there may be more houses
than there are tenants, because people farm them ; sometimes a person will farm
a whole street, and it appears in one name in the book: it amounted, by the books,
to four hogsheads per tenant.
Have you any means of ascertaining the quantity of houses so farmed P-Surely
the secretary has that.
You say from mere curiosity you took the number of hogsheads furnished per
day; did you take the number of hogsheads furnished from the whole of your works
per day ?—Yes; 214,000 hogsheads.
You are speaking of 1811 ?–Yes. . . .
706. B The
William C. Mylne,
Esq.
S-Q –'
(16 February.)
6 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
William C. Mylne,
Esq.
(16 February.)
The question refers to the present time ?—The river has the same declivity, and
will yield the same quantity; the fall is three inches in a mile.
Do you expend the whole of your means at the present time?—No, not in the
supply of the town. ~. *
Can you give us any idea of what is reserved?— I have not got it here, but I
have calculated it within the last month, taking it in general numbers; I forget
what it amounted to. * . -
What do you do with it, let it off?—Let it off; at this period of the year there
is a great deal more water from the river skirting hills in different parts; in the
summer we have none to spare.
What do you consider as the difference between the wastage quantity when you
used the wooden pipes, and now you use iron ones —The waste was immense, but
I cannot form any opinion ; there is an immense waste in the town at present.
Owing to what ?—The company not having enforced ball-cocks; they have had
no deficiency of water, and they have been rather lax.
Do you consider that there was more regulation and more prevention of waste in
1811 than there is now f-Far greater.
Why was it so?--The necessity of preserving the water for the tenants. Mary-
le-bone was never satisfied in my remembrance. .
The demand was greater then 2–The demand was greater; it was with difficulty
that water could be saved.
As engineer, can you show any reasonable ground for an increase of rate beyond
the rate of 1810, within your district, arising from any other grounds than those
of the expenditure on the competition between the companies P--In 1810 the
New River company could not serve above the ground-floor, in any part of the
town, and did not profess to do it; their works were all in wood : there may have
been instances in the lower ground where the water has gone up higher, but they did
not profess to give above the ground-floor. The mains were generally shut off in
the night to prevent the waste of water. - -
That means, the mains were not full at night?—They were not full ; the cock at
the upper end of them was shut. At present the works are wholly in iron, and now
they will engage to serve the top of any house in their district. The mains are
always kept charged, and the supply of the tenant is as regular as the day comes.
What do you mean by the expression, shut off in the night?–Not full.
The supply now is perfectly regular to all the houses 2—Perfectly regular.
And the mains regularly charged during the night?—Yes.
Which used not to be the case previous to the year 1816?—Certainly.
Then you mean to distinguish that there being iron pipes now, instead of wooden
pipes, as one of the grounds for an additional rate?—Yes; all the benefit arising
from the iron works. .
But the iron did not serve, independent of the high service, one iota better than
the wooden pipes?—More regularly. In 1810 there were nine pipes passing down
Goswell-street, side by side; water would escape from one, and it would be a month
before it was found out; now it is one pipe, and I do not receive in the average ten
complaints in a year of deficiency. -
You do not receive ten complaints in a year of a defect of supply?—No ; the
turncocks may have received complaints, which did not come to my ears.
Could you give the information to the Committee as to the difference of expense
between an iron pipe, of any given length, and a wooden pipe of the same description,
laid down with a proportionate diameter -- I can on a future day: there are many
situations where one iron pipe is cheaper than nine wooden ones in the same street.
Were all your wooden pipes taken up in one year, or was it a long process?—In
about four years; the greater part was done in two years.
Could you furnish the Committee with any information as to the extent of dis-
trict, and what number of houses have been supplied since the arrangement in the
year 1817, for dividing the metropolis into districts?—I cannot give it directly;
52,000 tenants were supplied since the year 1817, and they cannot have varied
much. - -
That is your present number, is it?—Yes.
Could you inform the Committee whether there is any plan or written docu-
ment specifying the line of demarcation between the separate establishments, the line
to which you are confined, and the line which is taken up by the other companies?–
There is a plan on which I have inserted the whole of the companies works, which
extends to the districts they now supply. i :
Has
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS, 7.
Has that plan been regulated by a comparison with the other companies; is it amu- William C. Mylne,
tual agreement 2–There is nothing with the plan that at all refers to an agreement. Esq.
How was it settled -The withdrawing of the supply was settled by a communi- ºr bruary
cation between the different companies. - - (16 February.)
In that communication the line was specified, was not it?—The line was specified.
Specified by mutual agreement?—Yes.
Was that specification in writing?—No. .
Was not there an exchange made of iron pipes, by which your proportion in the
iron pipes was ascertained so as to mark the district 2—The district was completely
marked by the present supply of the water; all pipes that remained in the New
River district were purchased by them.
Were you privy to that contract?—I valued the pipes. **
In the arrangement of the district, was there any legally binding contract or
agreement —Nothing whatever.
Is there no plan of the district which you supply with water?—I have a plan; it
is a large plan, and very cumbersome.
What quantity of water is supplied by the New River; you cannot furnish the
Committee with any distinct information upon that head beyond the year 1811, more
than that you believe it is less than it was at that period 2–It is rather less now than
it was at that period. - -
You stated that in Goswell-street there were nine wooden pipes running parallel
where one iron main is now, and you say in that case the iron pipe would be cheaper
than the wooden one —I should conceive it is.
But upon the average you think the iron is about double?—Not upon the average;
but in pipes of the same dimensions the iron is nearly double the wood.
Supposing that the pipes were of equal diameter, what would be the expense of
repairing the wooden pipes, as well as the iron —It is a very difficult question; it
could be got at only by the average of the company’s expenses to maintain them.
Have your iron pipes required much repair 2–Very little indeed.
Have they sunk at all in any cases?—Only by crossing large sewers; not in
common ground. . . . •.
In the understanding which exists between the companies to serve particular
districts, is there any thing legally to hinder you from infringing on the districts
you have deserted P-I understand not; but I believe there are persons here who
can answer the question better than myself. I have generally understood that the
company are not bound in any way from going into Mary-le-bone.
What is your opinion of the advantage of iron pipes, taking into consideration
their original cost, and the expense of repairing them —There is no comparison
in the supply derived through wood and iron; one is extremely uncertain, and
the other is as certain as the day comes.
Were the wooden pipes competent to stand the pressure necessary for high
service?—No, they gave way immediately on the engine being applied to them.
Do you know the comparison of the strength of the two materials, as to the high
service?—No ; in a main, however good the timber might be when laid down, it
passes through such various soils, that in two miles, you may find a hundred places.
in it, where it will be decayed in two years, while the rest is entirely sound.
In the case of low service, is iron preferable to wood?—Far preferable.
And you think that it would be more desirable for a new company to put down
iron for low service?—It depends entirely upon the inhabitants, what sº would
satisfy them ; they might have wooden pipes to supply a portion, if they would
consent to take it irregularly. . - .
Have there been any experiments made at any time respecting iron pipes, that
ascertain the extent of their durability?—None have worn out yet; they have been
down 30 or 35 years. I have seen parts of pipes that have been 80 years under
ground, perfectly good. ,” - *
They corrode in some places, but not in others; that depends upon the soil in
which they are put?—Yes.
Haveyou seen any instance of decay in the iron pipes?—Nothing worth mentioning.
Have you ever known any expense incurred in repairing iron pipes –There is a
small expense: there is a contraction and expansion takes place with every change of
the season, and when they were screwed together, they became one rod, and pulled
themselves asunder every winter; now passing into each other, it is not perceivable.
They are not screwed together now 2–No; the contraction on mine feet is so
small, it does not affect the joint.
706. There
8.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Filliam C. Mylne,
Esq.
*—J –
(ió February.)
. Mr.
John Paul Rowe.
S-2–'
There is considerable expense to keep wooden pipes in repair?—Yes. -
At this time, have the companies any choice as to the sort of pipes they will have,
or are they not compelled, by Mr. Taylor's Act, to use iron pipes, and iron pipes
only 2—I believe it is so understood.
Are they not compellable?—No; I do not believe they are; I do not believe it is so;
by the act of parliament all new companies must lay down iron pipes.
What is your opinion respecting the advantage the public derive from the present
supply of water, in comparison with the former one 2–It is very great; the
supply is more certain ; there is a supply in cases of fire; and fifteen years ago, the
mains to Mary-le-bone were always shut off of a night, and if a fire happened, they
had to send to the New River head for water : a watchman was kept to look out.
Have you formed any notion of the number of houses that used to be burned
down before this ample supply, and the number of houses since burned down?—No.
Have you any notion in your own mind of the increased supply of water over the
supply in 1810, as it now exists 2–In the district supplied by the New River, it
certainly is increased, but the ground is limited, and the same quantity of water is
delivered to a smaller number of tenants; the ground which has been quitted by the
other companies, I believe, to consume about double. g
Have you any minute or memorandum to inform us what was the number of
houses supplied in 1811 by the New River company?—No.
You state the number of houses to be now about 52,000 2–I believe it was
between 70 and 80,000 in 1810, but you can ascertain that from the secretary.
Do you know whether the sewers are now kept in a much better state, from a
larger supply of water being given to this end of the town, than they used to be 2–
That is certainly the case ; as a commissioner of the district I can answer to that fact.
You are a commissioner of sewers?—I am. ºf
At the time that the separation was made of districts, in the year 1817, when you
withdrew from certain districts, did the companies who took up those districts any
of them purchase your mains and pipes?—Each company purchased the pipes that
were left, both wood and iron, and every thing else in the districts abandoned.
Mr. John Paul Rowe, Called in ; and Examined.
HOW long have you been secretary to the New River company?—Since the year
1811 ; Midsummer 1811. r -
Were you employed before the year 1811 by the New River company?—Yes, I was.
What situation were you in 2—I was then a collector.
Were you conversant with their books and records 2—Only so far as related to
my own district as a collector. -
Can you give the Committee any information with regard to the quantity of water
furnished by the New River since you have been secretary in the year 1811, either
by the year, month, week, or day 2–No, I cannot, * -
Can you furnish the Committee with any information of the quantity of water
that is raised for high service by the consumption of 400 chaldrons of coals in a
year?—No, I cannot.
Can you inform the Committee as to the number of persons to whom water is
furnished 2–I can. -
What number?—I have it not in my recollection, but I can furnish such an
account; do you mean inhabitants or houses, I have received instructions to prepare
an account of the number of houses supplied, which is nearly concluded. -
Can you give the Committee any information with regard to the relative difference
of expense between laying down a wooden pipe and an iron pipe 2–No, I do not
think I can. - *
Can you inform the Committee what extent of district, and what number of houses,
on the average, have been supplied since the arrangement entered into in 1817, for
dividing the metropolis into districts 2–I can furnish such an account.
Is there any plan or written document, specifying the line of demarcation between
the separate establishments?—There is a plan that is in our office showing the line
of demarcation. «
Where was that plan prepared and made out?—By our engineer.
In communication with the other companies?—Since the line of demarcation was
formed that plan has been drawn. . *
When was the line of demarcation formed 2–In the beginning of 1818, I believe;
somewhere about March 1818.
Where was it formed?—It was formed, I believe, at our office.
By
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
By a joint meeting of the proprietors of the different companies?—No ; by a
meeting of the officers of the different companies.
Is there any signature affixed to the line of demarcation?—There is not.
Who authenticated that line of demarcation ?–It was left to ourselves to arrange
it, on given rentals of each company.
You valued the rates payable to each distinct company, and then upon the
average of those rates you made the division ?—Upon the gross rental of each com-
pany we made that division.
Was it in proportion to the capital, or the rates?—That I am not aware.
Were you employed to make that calculation?—I was employed to make this line
of demarcation.
• Was that engagement entered into upon any penalty, upon the entry into a part
that did not belong to you which you had surrendered?—No penalty whatever.
You each reserved the power of entering upon the other’s territory if you thought
proper ?—We did, so far as relates to the west end of the town.
Not to the eastern side P-No.
There was a contract under a penalty 2–There were writings between us, but I
cannot give any information on the subject.
Was that boundary-line decidedly fixed at that meeting?—Yes; I believe it was.
Has there ever been any variation to that boundary-line —I am not aware that
there is any variation; what may have taken place with other companies I know
nothing of -
Do you know the number of services that are now laid on per week, whether it
is so many hours a day, or so many days in a week?—That is a question I cannot
answer; it is not within my province.
In that arrangement that took place in 1818, for the division of the district, did
any part of it go to the destruction of the pipes that you left in the ground that you
surrendered —The pipes were exchanged between each company, by the arrange-
ments between us. -
What was the date of that?—I think about March 1818.
Then if by that arrangement you surrendered the pipes, you rendered yourselves
incapable of interfering with their district afterwards, did not you?—Without laying
down fresh pipes.
Your district comprehends the very centre of the town, does not it?—It does.
Your district is therefore the most inhabited of any part of the town 2–I should
COI) CelVé SO.
Can you show to the Committee any reasonable ground for an increase of rate
beyond the rate of 1811, when you first came there, within your district, arising
from any other grounds than those created by the expense of the competition ?—
We have been laying out a very large sum to increase our capital, and in the ex-
change of iron pipes for wood : I think that is one very great ground for an advance
in charge; certainly the supply is very much benefited by the iron pipes.
Provided you had supplied 20,000 houses previous to 1811, and you still con-
tinue to supply the same number, what difference do you suppose there is in the
supply?—I really cannot answer the question,
Nor can you answer any thing on the comparison between iron and wooden
pipes —No, I cannot.
You have stated that there is one reason for an increase of price for supplying
-water, that the company have been at a great expense in laying down iron pipes,
do not you conceive that that expense will be compensated for in a certain degree by
the smaller expense of repairing the iron pipes?—Certainly the expense will be
materially reduced. *~. *
Have not you been very much benefited also by the reduction of expense of
repairing the pipes?—I think we have.
In making that calculation, do you take into consideration the interest of the
money laid out for the iron pipes —That I have not considered.
Did you take that into account when you gave your answer, or not?—Yes, it
was the impression on my mind at the moment.
Will the augmentation of the capital be such as to be equal to the expenses saved
in repairs 2–I should think, in the course of a few years that it would not.
Are you at this time the better or the worse for what you have done, in point of
income, looking to the interest of the money laid out?—It is a question I cannot
answer at this moment. -
| 706. *~. C Then
Mr.
John Paul Rowe.
\-->
(16 February.)
10 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr. Then you are not certain there is any gain to the company at present?—No.
*** **, Do not you consider it was for the interest of the company to lay down iron
> → pipes?—Yes. - -
(16 February.) in what way are the public benefited by the iron pipes?–The more regular
supply, and the high service. - -
What expense is the steam engine and coals?—I do not know.
fn consequence of the erection of steam engines you supply the higher ground?—
We supply the high ground with steam engines about Mary-le-bone. .
You have been under the necessity, in consequence of that supply, to have some
addition to the steam engines?–We have had no additional steam engines lately;
but we are obliged to supply all the high ground by steam engines.
When were those steam engines erected –They were erected before my time.
Your mains are constantly charged during the night 2—I believe they are; it is
not in my department. -
And the supply now is much better than it used to be 2–Yes.
There are no complaints?—Very few complaints about it.
Thomas Simpson, Esq. Called in ; and Examined.
Thomas Simpson, HOW long have you been engineer of the Chelsea company 2–Since 1783.
Esq. Chief engineer 2–Chief engineer. -
S——" Can you furnish the Committee with any information with regard to the quantity
: of water that you furnished the metropolis with, previous to the year 1810 2–-I am
able to do it; but I have not it with me : I will make a point of preparing it.
Have you the same information to give for the period subsequent to 1810?–
I can give the same information for, perhaps, seven years before 1810.
And subsequent to 1810 up to the present period?—To the present period.
What quantity of water can you supply daily, monthly, or yearly 2–I am not
prepared to answer that ; but I will ascertain it, and give it in in writing.
Can you supply water to the tops of houses in any part of the district 2—All parts
of our district. º
Your district is principally the low ground 2–Principally.
Can you inform the Committee what extent of district, and what number of
houses, on an average, were supplied in the year 18 o P−I cannot ; but the
secretary is in possession of it.
Is he here 2–He is. •
Can you, subsequent to the year 1810 2–Yes; I believe he is enabled to do it.
Can you inform the Committee what the average quantity per house is 2–He
can do it more correctly ; or, probably, I shall be able to do that better, from the
quantity of water raised, when I get the number of houses. * * * , ,
Do you know the number of services that you employ during the week or per
day ; is there a service put on every day?–In some parts of the town there are ; in
others not : that I will also furnish. --
Do you consider that you furnish a greater quantity of water now to the public,
than you did in the year 1810 –We do a very little in proportion to the number of
tenants we have. - -
Had you many more tenants in 1810 than you have now 2--A great many.
Were you employed in making that arrangement which took place in 1817 or ,
1818, for dividing the metropolis into districts 2—I was called upon, but I had no
concern in making the arrangement; that was done between the boards.
Were you present at it 2–I was at the New River board, and several others, to
give an opinion upon several matters.
Were you consulted on the allotment of the districts 2—No. * -
You saw the allotment afterwards?—No ; I was told afterwards what they had
allotted to Chelsea.
Have you any plan of your district 2—I can furnish you with the line of demar-
cation, and I can inform the Committee of it now. -
What is it 2–The south side of Cleveland-row, Pall-mall, is our district, and the
whole of Cockspur-street; then we strike through the Mews, and take the lower
and higher Mews.
Can you show to the Committee any reasonable grounds for an increase of rate
beyond the rate of 1810, within your district, arising from other grounds than those
created by the expense of the competition, which took place 2–I think I could ;
I think the high service ought to be charged more than it is,
- -- In
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 11
In the ordinary service?—The ordinary service, I think, does require it, on the Thoma. Simpson,
ground of the great expense we have been at already, and which must be con- º
tinued; we have laid down a great deal of iron pipes; we have erected new
buildings for the new engines.
What was the object of those engines; for the ordinary service?—We certainly
had not the means before we did erect them. The original intention was, looking
forward to the serving Mary-le-bone and Paddington as we did; that was the first
object; and the old works are upon a leasehold, and we are under the necessity of
moving them to a freehold that the company purchased; the lower reservoir we shall
have to remove in two years time.
Did that arise from the creation of the new companies?—No; we erected the
new works in a great measure before they commenced. x
With regard to the iron pipes, can you give the Committee any information with
regard to the relative expense between iron pipes and wooden pipes?—The iron
pipes are within a fraction double.
Do you think it was the interest of the Chelsea company, if they had the
capital, to lay down the iron pipes in preference to wood?—I think it is.
Were any part of the new works which you have erected necessary to enable you
to give that ample supply of water which you now give?—They were. -
Could you have given so satisfactory a supply to the district you supply as you now
do with the old works?—Certainly not. * - .
Then the erection of the new works was necessary to enable you to give that
supply 3–That is my opinion. - ---
How much more water do you supply to any given pipes?—I cannot exactly
answer that ; I should think it may be a third more. .. g
Have you entirely changed your wooden pipes for iron pipes —Not the whole;
we have a great many. -
Are you gradually changing them —We have been gradually changing them.
And you will, ultimately, entirely have iron —I hope so. -
There are cases where the exchange of iron for wood has been perhaps cheaper?
—In low services wood will do; but in high services it certainly will not. -
You have stated that iron is within a fraction double the wood; in many parts
of your district, has it not been an economy to substitute iron for wood, although
it is double the expense in consequence of there being more wooden pipes 2–If
you take the expense of laying wood, and the difference between that and iron,
you will find perhaps that wood is as cheap as iron; the expense of wood is in re-
pairing them ; upon the whole, perhaps there is very little difference in point of
economy, but wood will only do for low services.
Do you mean to say that the expense of maintaining iron pipes is the same as
the expense of maintaining wooden pipes 2–No; supposing a wood pipe costs four
shillings a yard, and the iron pipe eight shillings a yard, there is a difference of
four shillings a yard in the price ; then, I say, that four shillings will keep the
wood in repair from time to time. .
For what period?—That depends upon the quality of the ground ; if it is a clay
ground it will last twenty years or twenty-five; if it is sandy, not so long.
You have had much experience in iron, does that lead you to believe there is
any wear on the iron at all?–Not in the least can I perceive they will require
repairs. -
To what period of time do you apply your reasoning as between wood and
iron – I calculate that the wood depends upon the ground; some ground will
preserve pipes twenty-five years, in other ground they will go in three or four
years; then I have taken the average upon fourteen years that a wood pipe will
last. . tº
What difference of water, in the mode of conveying it, have you found out.
between iron and wood of the same diameter?—ſ do not know, provided the
diameter is the same. -
Because you say it is more convenient to use iron than wood?—Certainly ;
there are several leakages in the wood which do not appear above ground.
, But you say there is a difference of four shillings between iron and wood, and
that the ease with which wood is mended makes very little difference between the
two 3-If you were to lay down a wood main that cost £. 1,000, and an iron main
that, cost £. 2,000, the interest of the iron main would keep that wood main in
repair. - ". * -
Then you cannot calculate what additional quantity of water is produced to the
706. company
(16 February.)
3 2
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
company by the iron pipes 2—I have made calculations, and I think we can furnish
one seventh more in iron, and that arises from the various leakages in wood which
do not appear above ground.
Do you think it assists you as much as one third 2–No ; I suppose if the bore
is the same the quantity is the same, provided there are no leakages. *
Have you any idea, as far as you have gone, what the cost of the iron pipes have
been over the wooden ones?—I can furnish that.
You only raise that by steam which is high service 2–The whole by steam.
What is the difference of leakage between the iron pipes and the wooden pipes 2
—My calculation is one seventh ; that is to say, that the wood will leak a seventh
part more; there are various leaks which do not appear, and I conceive we can
produce one seventh more water from iron than from wood.
Then with the iron pipes you have one seventh less to raise by the steam engine *
—Yes, certainly.
Then of course there is a saving of fuel and of work by the steam engine —
There is, certainly.
And do you take into your calculation that diminution of expense when you say
that the iron pipe and the wooden pipe come to pretty much the same amount 2–
No, I certainly do not.
You have enumerated several causes of expense which the company have been
at, such as iron pipes, and changing their ground ; is the Committee to under-
stand that no other company could have furnished the district you furnish with
water P-Yes.
Because those accidental expenses are not necessary for the furnishing the water,
they are merely accidental?—Yes.
Other companies might have done it without resorting to those additional
expenses?—I should conceive not.
You stated as one ground of the reasonable advance-in the rates, the laying down
iron pipes?—Yes.
Those iron pipes were partly laid down before the division of the districts —
They were.
Your view in laying down those pipes was to furnish a greater part of the town?—
No ; in laying down iron pipes, we did it with a view to high service.
You furnish nothing without force —No ; but we could not furnish the high
service from wood pipes. ..
When you laid down the iron pipes it was not to enlarge the concern, but to
effect a high service?—Nothing more. ".
In point of fact, if you had the capital, was it not the interest of the company to
lay down iron pipes in preference to wood P-That is my opinion, but perhaps others
may differ. I beg to state, that there is certainly a great convenience in that; it is
less trouble.
Were there general complaints before 1810, in your present district, of an
insufficiency of supply?—No ; we always served well in my time.
You have said, that in order to give that efficient supply of water that you now
give to your district, it became necessary to construct new works and additional
steam engines —The lease of our works will be out in about two years, or little
better, then it was necessary to erect new works. -
Who was the lease under?—Lord Grosvenor.
You said you could not have given the supply to your district with your old
works?—No, our engines were in a great measure worn out.
That necessity did not arise from any arrangement with the companies, but must
have existed under other circumstances —Yes, it was begun prior to that.
In order to give a satisfactory supply of water, it became necessary you should
erect new steam engines?—Yes, -
And you found iron pipes were necessary 2–Yes.
The wood gave an irregular supply?–It was not so satisfactory.
. If it leaked much, and you were some time before you found it, you could not
give a regular and constant supply 2–No ; but we ascertained it as soon as we could,
and we keep the water constantly in the main now. -
Is that a voluntary act of your own, or was it in consequence of some declaration
that you made to the district you supply, for their satisfaction as a security against
fire?—I am not aware of any such declaration.
Do you constantly keep your mains charged during the night?—The whole of
the iron mains.
So
Thomas Simpson,
r $g.
\–C–?
(16 February.)
*~.
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. I 3
So that in case of fire in any part of the district, a supply of water can be had Thomas Simpson,
at once?–Not at any part, but where we have the iron mains. Esq.
In the arrangement for a division of the district, you purchased what pipes were \– –’
within your district, and sold what you abandoned?—We purchased what was in (16 February)
our district. -
And sold what was out?—No.
You retain them now?—Yes. f -
In preservation ?–No, they lie in the ground; we did purchase some that were in
our district.
But you did not sell those that were in the district you surrendered 2–No.
You have not repaired them since f--No.
If you thought it advisable to enter into any other district, you must lay down
new pipes and mains 2—Yes.
How long will a wooden pipe last, according to your experience 2–According
to my calculation, upon an average fifteen years.
What experience have you had of iron 2–Forty years; and I have taken up and
relaid iron that had been down forty years before. ~ *
Have you found any corrosion in those pipes?—None whatever.
And is the water as good coming through iron pipes?—Quite.
You have had experience of iron pipes eighty years?—I have taken up a pipe that
had been forty years in the ground and put it down again.
How could you supply the district round Paddington with water from Chelsea?
—We did supply it from Chelsea beyond Paddington. -
If a wooden pipe will only last fifteen years, and an iron pipe will last seventy or
eighty, do not you consider the profit to the company must be great after fifteen years,
because you have a new wooden one after fifteen years?—I have not considered that.
The expense first gone to, it finishes?—There is a little expense in repairing iron.
If you consider that the advantage of iron pipes is so little beyond that of wooden
pipes, upon what ground were the company induced to go to the expense of laying
down iron pipes —We could not work the water through wood; we could not get
pipes more than eight or nine inches, and we required iron twelve or eighteen.
You might have had several mains of wood running parallel?—We had, when
I first came there. *
Then do not you think, in that case, iron is cheaper as a substitute 2–Yes.
You must have laid down three mains for one 2–We did originally.
Then if the expense is nearly equal, it would have been nearly as three to one 2–
No, it does not bear that proportion; we used to get the seven inch pipes laid down
at about eight shillings a yard, and the iron cost six-and-thirty shillings.
When you laid down the iron, what were you laying down wood at, at that time, of
the common size you use —When I speak of three to one, it is only in reference to
the small pipes; but when you get at the large pipes, the size of the large pipe
increases very much indeed.
Speaking of wood P−No ; particularly iron.
You stated that an iron pipe, of a diameter of twelve inches, would serve equal to
three wooden pipes of seven inches?—Yes.
What is the expense of an iron pipe twelve inches diameter?—The expense of an
iron pipe laid down, is somewhere about nine-and-twenty or thirty shillings, and it
used to be six or seven and thirty. *
What is the expense of a wood pipe of seven inches diameter 2–. About eight
shillings.
Then an iron pipe of twelve inches, would be equal to three wooden pipes of seven
inches 2–Yes. -
An iron pipe of that diameter you said would cost 36 s. 2–That was the original
price, but iron is down as low as ags. 'º-
Is not timber down now 2–I do not find it down.
You would call the price of iron from 30s. to 35s. P-Yes.
r
fr
§,
**ay
Mr. James Gascoigne Lynde, Called in ; and Examined.
HOW long have you been Secretary to the Chelsea works?—Six years. Mr.
Were you employed previously by them?—Yes. James G. Lynde.
As what?—Clerk to the secretary. t \–C–’
Therefore you are competent to give information previous to the last six years?—
Not of my own knowledge; I was employed as clerk.
706. D And
T 4
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
James G. Lynde.
(16 February.)
And had access to the books and records 2—I had ; but I am not competent to
give evidence upon any thing that occurred before I was secretary.
Could you inform the Committee what power and capacity belongs to the Chelsea
works for affording supply, and to what extent?–No, I cannot. ".
What number of houses, and what extent of district were supplied previous to
the year 1810?–I believe that account will be presented to the Committee, as well
before as subsequent to 1810 : we did serve to the other side of Paddington. *
Do you know the number of tenants you have 2–I have not in my recollection;
but I think that is comprehended in the account.
Do you know the number of houses that are supplied within your district at the
present moment?—I do not. Upon recollection, it is impossible to answer that ques-
tion without the account, and it is being made out.
You have in your office a plan marking the line of demarcation that at present
exists for the company 2–We have a plan of our present works.
And the extent of your district 2–Yes.
Can you furnish the Committee with any reasonable ground for an increase of
rate beyond the rate of 1810, in your district, arising from any other grounds than
the expense of the competition ?–We give a much better service than we did, and
a greater quantity of water in the same district.
It is a limited district?—We send more water into the district we now have, than
we did do before the arrangement, into the same district.
You send more water to the whole district now than you served to the whole
district before ?—No, I mean in the same district.
What is the cause of that increase within the same district, putting out of the
question the high service 2–From the iron mains that we have laid down : the iron
mains we have laid down from the engine, will necessarily convey more water into
the district. -
Was there a complaint of the want of supply previous to that arrangement 2–
No, not for the low services.
Then more water runs away ?–Yes, certainly.
Then you conceive that the additional supply that is offered is occasioned by that
which runs to waste?—The rental left to us in the district that was assigned to us,
without an increase would not pay the expense, or much more than pay the expense,
of the service. .* *
The daily expenses which are incurred by the company in giving that service?—
Yes.
You say that the supply is more abundant now within that district than it was
before the arrangement 2–No doubt of it.
Is that in consequence of a greater demand by the inhabitants; do they require
more water than they did for the ordinary service 2–I believe you will find that if
a person has ten butts of water, he will use it, generally speaking; if you were to
increase that ten butts to twenty, he would use it if he had it. .
How often do you apply the service; every day ?–Sometimes every day, some
parts of the district, and some parts four times a week.
The iron mains, how often do you supply them f—They are always full.
How often do you supply the houses —Some parts four times a week, and some
parts every day. -
You say, if you were to supply twenty butts they would use it ; how can they
receive it?—They let it run to waste.
You conceive that that additional supply runs to waste?— A great deal of it.
And where does it run to waste; into the sewers?—Into the sewers.
The water that runs to waste is very serviceable in cleansing the sewers?—Yes,
it keeps the private sewers sweet.
And the town is benefited by it?—Undoubtedly.
The purity of the air is much increased ?–I suppose so.
Do you consider that it was the interest of the Chelsea company, if they could
raise the capital, to lay down iron pipes instead of wooden pipes 2—I have not made
that calculation.
Since iron mains have been laid down, are not the annual expenses of repairs
diminished 2–Not at all. -
The laying down iron pipes has not diminished your annual expenses and
repairs?-- I do not think it has. Gº º sº
Then the iron pipes require as much repair as the wooden ones?–No ; I will
give
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 1;
give you a reason; if you were to lay the whole district with iron you might save Mr.
some expense, but if you only lay a part, it is a great outlay of capital without a James G. Lynde.
Saving of expense. -
Are you in the progress now of increasing your iron pipes?—Yes, we are. (16 February.)
And eventually you look to laying down the whole with iron pipes —Yes.
And you think the interest of the money sunk on them is as great as would
repair the wooden ones?—Yes. -
But when you have entirely iron mains, you consider the diminution will be con-
siderable?–Something; I will not state considerable, unless all the service pipes
were iron too ; it would give a better service to the town without much diminution
of expense.
The expense of your pipes is not much decreased by the iron pipes?--It has not
much decreased ; we have only some iron mains; we have not laid our district
with iron pipes entirely. -
You can furnish a greater quantity of water by the iron mains?—We do.
That which is wasted by the wooden pipes is saved in the iron pipes 2–I do not
know that. -
Has your outlay been considerable in iron pipes?—Not very considerable.
Most of your pipes are wood?—Mostly wood; we keep our iron mains full now,
which we could not do before, to give a better supply in case of fire, and that is
an additional expense to us.
What creates that expense?—A great deal of water runs to waste, because the
cocks are not shut close always; the turncocks do not turn them off.
And is there waste from that?—Certainly. - *
. But the keeping your mains full, to supply water in case of fire, is a considerable
expense to you ?– No doubt of it; a great deal of water runs to waste during
the night. -
Mr. Richard Till, Called in ; and Examined,
WHAT is your situation ?—I have the honour of being superintendent of the Mr.
London Bridge waterworks; I have been in office there for forty-one years. I beg Richard Till.
leave to say, that in consequence of the order that I received at our works, for the ` J-7|
engineer to attend, I thought it incumbent on me, as a proper compliment to
you, to attend here to inform you that we have no engineer, and that every
thing I could answer your questions in, I should be very happy to do it.
The whole proceedings of this company are under your superintendence and
management —I was in the office of secretary, and about seven years ago I wished
very much to decline part of the business, and I had a young man under me, and
our directors accepted my resignation of part of the business, and appointed him
to do the rest, but some lies on me, and I am answerable. -
In what part of the town do your works lie?—Only in the city; we are prevented
by our leases going out of the city, and we are not connected with the west end of
the town.
Do you supply the water by the force of steam engines?—By water-wheels.
The London Bridge water-wheels?—Yes,
Can you inform the Committee what was the quantity of water supplied by you,
on the average, previous to the year 1810 —I can tell you what we raise every day,
and there has been no alteration since the year 1810 up to the present time. We
suppose that the quantity of water raised by the wheels is now 3,894,317 gallons
daily; our wheels I do not suppose work more than twenty hours in a day.
Every day ?—Every day; we take this as an average, because when the tides are
very low we cannot raise so much, but then we make use of a steam engine to make
up that loss.
Were you parties to that division of the town that was entered into by the com-
panies? Nothing like it; no combination, nor any thing like it. .
And you have not therefore varied your district from the commencement of your
undertaking to the present?—Not the least; and I intended to ask you to exonerate
us from being examined, because we are not authorized to go out of the city, and
have no connection with any other waterworks; and we are the oldest waterworks
in the metropolis. f
Do you now supply the public at the same price that you did twenty years
ago?—No ; we supply it at less, and we supply it so bad, that we are upon the
edge of ruin. i
706. - Your
# 6
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
£ichard Till.
(16 February.)
Your district, in point of population, has increased 2–Very little. I am sorry to
- say that our tenants have not increased, because we have a very strong enemy
against us, who has taken away a great many of them; we are in a state of pauperism,
and are much to be pitied. The New River have the power of raising their water
higher than we do; and the manner in which houses have been built within thirty
years, have carried up their cisterns and their water-closets much higher, and from
that we are much injured.
Do the New River come into your district 2–All through it.
And there is a competition between you ?–Yes.
You have suffered as a manufacturer suffers from not supplying so cheap as a person
who starts up afterwards?—No ; but we cannot supply so high.
Is not your water the most inferior of all the water supplied by other water-
works?—So far from being inferior, in many instances all the distillers take our
water in preference to any other.
Do not they have water from the New River, or some works in addition to
yours?—No ; some inhabitants may prefer the New River, but there are many
that think our water vastly softer than the New River, and take it in preference.
Is it not so soft, it is not drinkable?—I never think of drinking it.
Was it your poverty and not your will that compelled you not to compete with
those other companies?—No ; but it was what we thought an honourable way of not
doing it.
You are destroying yourselves by that point of honour?--We are ; but the board
of managers thought it was not very honourable to enter into a combination to raise
their rates; they have gone on in this way always; and however they might lose their
tenants, they thought it was more honourable for them to go on than enter into a
combination. .
Was it in consequence of your poverty that you were compelled to surrender the
advantage to the New River, by not erecting the steam engines they did?—We did.
not stand in the way of a steam engine; we have one which we always work, and are
bound to work when the tides are low, but we have no site to put a steam engine on ;
the neighbours would not permit it.
Can you form any account of the average charge per house for the water?—It
would be very difficult: suppose we take a house of £.50 a year with one cistern
and one water-closet, we charge them from 30 S. to 35 s. a house.
And have chiefly wooden pipes?—We have ; we have gradually put down a few
iron ones in particular places, but we have not a fund to authorize iron pipes in the
whole. -
A great portion of your pipes are wood?—All of them.
And you have as high service in the city as in any other part of the town 2–
Yes. -
And do the persons complain that these water-closets are not supplied?—They
do; we cannot supply higher than two stories.
Have your company ever calculated the relative expense between an iron and a
wooden pipe 2–Yes.
What was the result of that?--Completely double ; and at this moment our
managers would be very glad to put down iron pipes if we had a capital to do it;
it would cost us £.60,000, and that we have not got.
It would save you a considerable sum eventually 2–Yes; and I have always been
putting down gradually two or three pipes, on different places, where we were likely
to hurt warehouses in case a pipe broke, and our wish is to lay down the whole
with iron. . t
And if you had a capital you would not hesitate in doing it?—Not a moment.
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 17.
Lumac, 19" die Februarj, 1821.
WILLIAM HENRY FREMANTLE, ESQUIRE,
IN THE CHAIR.
Irilliam Chadwell Mylne, Esq. Again called in ; and Examined.
IF your machinery had been improved, and your steam engines enlarged, and William C. Mylne,
your mains increased, could you not, at the period of 1810, have supplied a larger JEsq.
quantity of water –The machinery was merely applied to distribute the water ~~~~
after it had arrived, and, therefore, it would not increase the supply of the New (19 February.)
River. .
If your machinery had been increased and enlarged, would the New River head
have afforded fund enough to supply a greater proportion 2–A very small propor-
tion ; it would have lowered the head, and the velocity of the river would have been
increased. . .
Could you now supply a larger quantity than was supplied at that time?—No.
You were asked, “Do you expend the whole of your means at the present time?”
your answer is, “No, not in the supply of the town.” “Can you give us any
idea of what is reserved?” “I have not got it here, but I have calculated it within
the last month, taking it in general numbers ; H forget what it amounted to.”
“What do you do with it 2” “Let it off.” Then it appears that there was a reser-
vation of water, at that time, beyond that which was exhausted?—At the present
time, not then. *
It is now used to turn a water-wheel to raise water?—Yes.
Then there was no reservation at that time 2—-No.
There is a reservation at the present time 2–Yes. . .
Could you supply more at the present time, if it was called for 2–There is a sur-
plus of about eleven million hogsheads in the year. - -
The eleven million hogsheads only applies to the distribution of that which went
to the high service; the general distribution to the whole metropolis is about
seventy-eight millions?—About seventy-eight millions in 1810; I consider it about
sixty-seven millions in 1820, making a difference of about eleven millions.
And you have no estimate of the present moment P−No ; I find I was in error,
in taking the account from the engine books; the accounts were only made up to
1809, and not 1810. I will deliver in the account. -
[It was delivered in.]
You are understood to have stated, that the same quantity of water came down to
the New River head in 1810, as does now come down, or nearly the same?—
Thereabouts. - - *, *. - -.
Are you of opinion, that of these same quantities of water an equal quantity
found its way into the houses, considering the state of the works in 1810, as does
now find its way into the houses 2—There is a greater quantity finds its way now
into the houses than did in 1810. -
The whole quantity that came to the New River head was at that time distributed
among a much larger number of tenants than it is now?—It was.
The same quantity of water, with better and more saving means of distribution, is
now distributable among a less number of houses; and, in point of fact, adverting to
these questions, do you now consider the service to be better than it was then, in
point of certainty and abundance?—Very much better.
Both in certainty and abundance 2–Yes.
Do you consider it is better in respect to the means of safety afforded to the town
in case of fire?—I do.
How?—The mains are at present all charged, which was not the case in 1810.
In what quantity do you suppose the increase now exists over and above the
quantity that was supplied in 1810; in what larger proportion do you supply it
now than you did in 1810 2–I am not aware of the number of tenants the com-
pany has. - º
What quantity of water do you suppose is distributed now more than was in 1816.
in any given district?—I am at a loss how to answer the question: the secretary
706. E CàIl
18
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
William C. Mylne, can state the number of tenants the company had, then I state the quantity of water;
Esq.
(19 February.)
I have stated the quantity of water they have at present, and he can state the num-
ber of tenants. - -
There is much more water given now than was in 1810, and antecedently 2–Yes.
What increase of quantity is given to any district now?—I believe it will appear
that the district the New River company has abandoned has about double the quantity
of water they then supplied. -
Was not the practice of keeping ball-cocks on those cisterns much more general
in those times than it is now P-Certainly.
You have the same power to direct ball-cocks now?—Just the same; it was
considered extremely irksome at that period, and would be thought much more so
at present.
You say the cisterns are larger now than then ; do you think the inhabitants have
generally got larger cisterns?–It has been generally directed, on complaints, that
there should be an enlarged cistern, which has been done. - -
Can you speak, upon the average, to the size of cisterns?—They vary materially.
Can you give the largest you know of in a private house P-About two hogsheads.
And the smallest?--About a single butt.
What do you mean by a butt –Fifty-four gallons.
In gentlemen’s houses, the largest is not more than two hogsheads?—Upon an
average. - * - * - -
You say you have surplus water at this period; have you the same surplus
during the whole year, or only at this period of the year 2–I have averaged the
surplus of the year at about eleven million hogsheads; it is greater in winter than
in the summer. -
Have you had any material increase of water since 1810 from the New River?—
None whatever.
Do not the West Middlesex company alone supply to Mary-le-bone, and part
of Pancras, a quantity of water equal and even superior to the whole that was sup-
plied by you to Mary-le-bone, Soho, St. James’s and St. George’s?--I understand
that to be the case, but I have never calculated it myself.
Have you any means yourself of knowing anything about their supply 2–I have
examined their engines repeatedly, and I went into the calculation certainly before
the western part of the town was abandoned, to satisfy myself whether the powers of
the two companies were equal to supply it. -
Do you suppose there will be no continuation of expense on iron pipes after
they have been once put down ; do you expect and calculate they will remain
perfect for any and what length of time?—It is a very doubtful question.
What length of time have you had experience upon that subject —Not above
ten years.
When iron pipes are put down, will there not afterwards be some continuation
of expense, or is there a total cessation of it?—The immediate repairs will be
trifling for many years; but in twenty or thirty years I have no doubt there will
be a continual repair upon them ; they are continually in motion, from the expan-
sion and contraction of metal, but the socket joints being used now, each joint
allows for the contraction of the pipe, but in the course of forty years, it is impos-
sible to say what it may produce, the whole of the joints may require repair. **
Hs not tow used at the point of junction where the pipes unite?--Tow is used
merely to prevent the lead passing into the pipe when the joint is made. --
And as the tow goes to decay are you not obliged to drive up the lead further
and further between the spigot and fosset 2—No ; if we take pipes up in two
years, the tow will be perfectly gone. -
The Committee were induced to think there was no constant expense on iron
pipes; do not they frequently burst from pressure?--I do not recollect an instance
in the last two years.
Have you had no bursting in your's 2–No.
If there had been, would not that have been in the high pressure for high
service —No ; more from contraction; I never found them fail from the pressure
of water ; the pipes that were used were flanch pipes screwed together, forming
one rod ; they generally pull themselves asunder at about 300 yards, from the con-
traction ; a socket joint was then made wherever this occurred, and that joint
generally gets out of repair in about four years. :
That is to say, at the distance of 300 yards —Yes.
Not
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 10
Not at a considerable expense —No ; the pipes are all in existence that were William C. Mylne,
originally laid down ; but those laid down since are all socket pipes. Esq.
Without any flanch pipes 2–Yes. \ –
To the old pipes you introduced a socket once in 300 yards 2— Not in the first (19 February.)
instance; but afterwards, wherever it failed, a socket joint was made.
Are you of opinion that the old style of putting down pipes would make them
of greater durability than the present one?—No ; the present is a better mode, to
prevent any great failure.
You have given it as your opinion, that any given district that is now supplied
with water receives upon the whole twice as much as it used to do in 1810, and
previous to that time?–No; I merely speak of the part which has been abandoned.
The part which you now cease to supply 2–Yes, the part we abandoned receives,
I believe, about double the quantity it did in 1810, from the New River company.
That is merely your belief?—Certainly ; I have not calculated it.
You said likewise, that in the former way in which water was supplied through
wooden pipes, there was considerable leakage from the pipes becoming defective 2–
There was. - - -
Much beyond the present mode of supplying?—We have none now.
Mr. Till, of the London Bridge waterworks, stated, that for a house of about
f. 50 a year, 358. a year was paid to that company for the service of water to the
first story, and that the New River company charged 40s. a year to similar
houses 2—I am not aware of that. :
What may probably be the view of expense in the decay of the joints at a subse-
quent period?—The expense of the joints, including the laying the pipe, amounts
to twenty-five per cent. upon the cost of the pipe itself. -
Supposing the whole required repair, at the rate of twenty-five per cent. P−In
the first laying it amounts to twenty-five per cent. ; I suppose relaying would
require about the same. -
The decay you speak of you think would require that expense to remedy ?—
Yes.
What part do you think will decay, is it the positive iron joint, or that which is
put in 2–The joint itself fails, and must be re-made; the iron itself will remain
perfectly good for a hundred years; but the lead, labour and tow is entirely
destroyed. I have seen a socket joint put in on a flanch pipe having contracted
in its length, and having drawn the lead out of the joint ; the moment the pipe
expands, it returns without the lead, so you will see a ring of lead with five years
contraction upon it marked upon the surface of the lead.
But now the one pipe goes within the other without any fixture ?–Nothing
but a collar of lead between. - • *
And that collar of lead removes P-Yes, from expanding and contracting.
What decays besides the lead 2–Nothing.
What other expense is there?—The labour and the tow. .
What is the expense of labour?–Labour, the expense is twenty-five per cent. on
the first cost of the pipe; but the labour and laying is about half that amount.
The whole together, the aggregate is twenty-five per cent. P−All together.
Do you mean that putting the pipes together again, including the labour and
laying, would amount to that P−I think it would.
Would there be no wear of the joints of the pipes themselves?—I think not.
Have you ever considered the expense of maintaining your aqueduct of forty
miles to be more or less than the expense of erecting and maintaining steam
engines to raise it 2–It is considerably less; the expense of maintaining the New
River amounts to somewhere between £. 3,000 and £. 4,000 a year; to raise the same
quantity of water to the reservoirs at Islington by steam would amount to about
#. 16,000 a year.
Without calculating the expense of machinery?—Yes.
When you say it would cost twenty-five per cent. do you mean the transfer from
the pipes to the spot?—The first laying of the pipes is twenty-five per cent. on
the pipes when delivered in London. - - . {
That is the cost at the foundry 2—No ; if the foundry delivered them in London,
it would cost twenty-five per cent. on that.
Would the foundry deliver them in the street 2—No ; on the wharfs on the
Thames. w -
Some part of those pipes would not require carriage?—No.
What expense would be incurred in the repair of pipes, in case of the sockets
706. - being
20 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Hilliam C. Mylne, being out of repair, by the total repair of them 2–It is impossible to say, because the
\
Esq.
(19 February.)
under which the engine works at the head.
ference; but I cannot say that I have discovered it.
loss would not be discovered in the first instance; the joints would become leaky,
and the water would find its way into the sewers. You often have to clear two or
three hundred yards in a street to find out one small leakage not equal to the size
of a quill, at an expense of £. 30 or £. 40.
In your experience, have you frequently found, that when a calculation has been
made as to the probable expense of an operation, it has amounted, when you came to
pay the bills, to double the sum you calculated 2–I can only say, that the work
was executed within the estimate I had the honour of furnishing.
Have you ever valued the purchase of the land on which the New River aqueduct
runs 2—I estimated the whole of the New River company’s capital in the year
1815, valuing it in detail, according to the prices of that year, supposing the land
had been purchased at that time, and charging the labour at the current price: I have
not that estimate with me, but I can furnish the Committee with a copy of it at
the next meeting; in which, the river is separated from the pipes, and every thing
taken in. y
Before the year 1810, had not you constant complaints of a deficiency of the
supply of water from your tenants?—From the high ground, certainly.
Then, speaking comparatively, at this time have not you almost no complaints?—
Very few indeed ; not above ten in a year. -
What is the distance of the delivery pipe from the pump of the steam engine?—
To the tenant?
Yes.—Previous to the year 1810, the whole of that water was delivered west of
Tottenham-court-road, which is nearly two miles and a quarter; every thing now is
to the eastward of that; the tenants are supplied direct. Some of the high services
commence within half a mile, and the greatest distance I should consider two
miles, or two miles and a quarter; St. Martin’s workhouse is the greatest distance.
What is the greatest elevation of delivery 3–Sixty feet is the greatest pressure
Above the head?—Yes.
What is the diameter of your cylinder?—I really do not recollect it; I believe it
is fifty-four inches.
Now the diameter of the piston 2–There are two pumps to one engine, a nine-
and-twenty inches and a twenty.
Do you recollect what the mean pressure on that is 2–The steam about eight
pounds upon the square inch. Bolton and Watt made the engine, and they ar
made all on the same principle.
Do you know the number of strokes in a minute?–It varies according to the
high service, as the mains open and shut. r
'And the number of hours in work?—We have two engines, but only work one
at a time.
Do you know how many hours they work?—I have stated the quantity in the
paper i have delivered in ; it amounts to about nine millions of hogsheads in a year
of water supplied, where there was no high service water.
How high is the source of your water from the river Thames?–Eighty-four feet
and a half.
How much higher is the upper pond than the New River head?—When full,
thirty-four feet.
And have you means of high service above the upper pond ?—Yes.
To what extent 2–The difference between thirty-five and sixty feet.
Are there not a large class of houses that have a supply of water frºm the London
Bridge waterworks that likewise, choose to have a supply from the New River ?—
I believe there are ; in public buildings particularly.
Are there a large class of houses that are in some degree supplied from the
London Bridge waterworks that choose likewise to have an additional supply from
the New River 2–Yes; from the certainty of one supply and the uncertainty or
the other. **
And being able to get a high service from one and not from the other?—Yes;
and not only that, but the certainty of supply in case of fire; London Bridge wheels
must stop at the turn of the tide; the New River supplies it constantly.
Is not the Thames water sent up from that part of London so inferior, that there
is great preference, excepting for the vilest purposes, for the New River over the
London Bridge water?—The collectors of the several companies can discover a dif-
In
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 21
In speaking of that high service, did you speak of the distinction high pond William C. Mylne,
service, or of the distinction of what you also call high service, as to the upper part Bsq.
of the house?—Since the abandonment of one part of the district, the high pond S-
reaches to every part of the district; it would supply the basement story of every (19 February.)
one of those houses: that alteration has wholly taken place since 1810. -
You consider that nine million of hogsheads is raised by machinery?—Eight
Wºº.
million and a half. - -
In consequence of an alteration which the inhabitants, for some reason or other,
have made in what is called low service, you are now incurring the expense of
throwing water up by machinery into a house which would not have been incurred
if they continued to be supplied, as formerly, in the basement story ?--Certainly ;
in some instances machinery will be employed to save capital; for instance, if a large
brewery was erected upon the boundary of Tottenham-court-road, the present main
would not throw the water to that point with the same head that is allotted to the
district at present; therefore, if an additional quantity is required, it is obliged to
be done by machinery, or a larger capital expended in pipe ; it may be met either
WàW. - - >
#he question related to the common and usual domestic supply 2–The common
level of the head would supply the whole of the district as it was supplied previous
to 1810. f
What is the reason it will not do that now ; is it from an alteration made by the
inhabitants in the lay of the cisterns —Yes. -
Why has that alteration been made by the inhabitants P-It is very beneficial.
What is the difference between the basement story and this first high service?—
We have them at all heights, from six feet up to sixty. -
In 1810 it must have been in the basement story 2–Yes; there might have been
a few instances to the contrary; previous to the high service being put on, the low
service is always thrown in for a certain number of hours, that it shall fill all low
cisterns to the extent of the pond head, perhaps four hours; by that time the whole
of the lower cisterns are full, then the high service is thrown in.
Are there a great number of houses that are supplied at present not on the base-
ment story but upon the ground floor?—Yes.
Does it not come under the ordinary designation of high service –No.
The New River company do not call it high service till you get to the first floor?
—No.
So that there is a good deal of service which is called low service which is higher
than it was in 1810?–Yes. w -
And that is supplied by machinery now 2–Yes. -
In point of fact, have the cisterns been generally altered P−An immense number
of houses have been built since 1810 on the Bedford estate and Foundling
Hospital estate, and the principal part of the supply is confined to that part ; but
the old cisterns have been raised, wherever they had an opportunity; for the con-
venience of a shop, every man endeavours to get his cistern up stairs if he can.
I do not know to what proportion, but the cisterns have been altered to some
eXtent. -
Do you think one half?—No, perhaps not a fifth. -
A fifth, in the old houses, have been changed from a small cistern to a larger
one 2—Hardly that ; the quantity raised now by the steam engine of the district is
about a sixth of the whole, nearly as sixty-seven bears to nine. . .
- But that alludes to what is properly called high service and all?—I am continually
called on to inspect houses in consequence of applications for high supply.
What decides the difference between high and low service in their charge to the
tenant, and does it depend upon the difference in height above the level of the
source, or the level of the street 2—The level of the street. -
Will it not then follow that a house may receive water in the second or third
floor without any additional expense to the company, whilst in another house the
company will be put to an expense in supplying water to a first floor 2–Such a
case is possible.
Is it not generally so — It is not generally so; for the ground falls from the New
River head, and there are few natural dips. A house must have been situated, to
have met with the supply you mean, in a dip of the earth. The houses nearer to the
head can be supplied at a cheaper rate than the more distant ones, from the question
of friction alone. - .
You have said that you reckon from the level of the ground; what do you estimate
706. - - F high
22
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
William C. Mylne,
Esq.
Esq.
\—
( 19 F
~~
ebruary.)
~/
high service on, up to the ground floor, or the first floor?—Above the basement
story, so as to supply the level of the basement. .
A cistern so situated as to supply a room on the ground floor, is that low or high
service?--It would be considered high if the house had never enjoyed it before.
And would have a different payment of course 2–Yes.
You have stated repeatedly that the inhabitants have an additional convenience
which they had not in 1810 in this respect, that in 1810 they were only served on
the basement story, and now they are served on the ground floor, and that they
were not charged for high service, because the high service did not begin till the
first floor P-That is generally the case throughout the Bedford estates and the
Foundling Hospital estates, because it has been established during the opposition;
but if a house had never enjoyed that supply, and afterwards applied for a supply up
to the first floor, we should consider that high service. -
To supply the ground floor, do you esteem that a high service; the situation of a
cistern so as to supply a water-closet on the ground floor?—If the house never
enjoyed it before, it would be considered high service now. . . .
In order to supply a water-closet on the ground floor you must carry your water
up to the ceiling 2—To supply the ground floor, in most cases would require
machinery. * :
In point of fact, are not a great many of the kitchens towards the city on the first
floor P-They are. - -
And have they not been regularly supplied without any extra charge?—They are
generally upon the first floor, the cisterns being close up to the ceilings of the second
floor; they generally pay something extra, but not to any extent. -
What is the criterion?—There is no rule, the rates bear no proportion to one
another, - . -
Go back to 1809, and state whether the kitchens in the lower part of the
metropolis which you supplied were not regularly supplied at the ordinary rates?—
In the city they were, and they were called high tenants, but without extra charge,
I believe. - * -
You say in the city they were ; do you mean to confine yourself to what is
technically called the city?—To the city; in the western parts of the town they
certainly paid more; the same house that paid in the city thirty shillings would pay
three or four guineas at the west end of the town. -: -
At what height in the houses in the present district can the water be supplied
without the assistance of machinery?—That must vary according to the level of the
ground; the water from the New River head with a sufficient capital, would supply
the basements of all the houses within the district, save Islington.
That is below the street?—Yes. - - -
What do you mean by sufficient capital; sufficient diameter of pipage 2–Yes;
there would be larger mains required, if the whole was to be sent for that purpose.
You stated that the expense of friction occasioned an additional expense to supply
the different parts of the town ; what do you mean by the expense of friction ?—
Mains will generally supply higher near their source above ground, than on a level;
the main when at work, leading to Tower-hill, although the ground is between fifty
and sixty feet below the level of the river head, will rise higher above ground nearer
the source, than it does at Tower-hill.
You have stated that the greatest extremity of your waterworks is nine quarters of
a mile; have you for every quarter of that distance, any proportion of what you call
the expense of friction, and what is the proportion of that expense of friction on each
of those quarters, as you advance from the source 2–I cannot answer the question.
Are you aware that the company have any minute rule for tempering their prices
in proportion to the height above the street, or distance from the head?—I believe
within the last few years, an addition of something like thirty per cent. has been made ;
I believe there is a rule for high service. -
Would you, in estimating the price to be charged, take the level of that house in
any part of the town 2–No ; only from the street. -
There is a difference between Islington and the city in height?—Yes.
Does it go more minutely than that?–No.
It is averaged, is it not ?—Yes. - - -
Could you supply even the ground floor of the high district of Mary-le-bone, and
so forth, without machinery?–No, certainly not; the level of the New River head
is about two feet above the pavement in Tottenham-court-road.
That would not do for a cistern for the ground floor?—No ; the New River water
Ylever
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
23
sº
never would flow up the New-road, without machinery, west of Tottenham-court- William C. Mylne,
road. -
Might not the rate of charging, in most districts, be regulated by the height of the
cistern receiving the supply, above or below the level of the source –I should con-
sider it impossible, unless each house was supplied from a separate pipe to work itself:
it is impossible to ascertain it: upon one pipe immediately connected with the engine,
there may be 900 tenants, each at a different level, the lowest fills first, the ball-cock
shuts up, and then it goes to the next, and fills the whole. -
Has the average size of cisterns been increased since the new companies?—The
cisterns within the New River district do not contain more now than in 1810;
there are a great many houses that have enlarged their cisterns on the recommenda-
tions of the company, but many have no cisterns at all; they have found they can put
their pipes on the main ; they have sold their cisterns, and by paying 5 s. a year
addition, they have a constant supply. .
In point of fact, in the old part of the town which you supply, there is no greater
capacity to hold water than there was in 1811 ?—I should think not.
Is not the consumption, in fact, much greater?—Certainly. *-
Is not the supply much more certain into those cisterns 2–As certain as the day
comes; which it was not before. -
But if the capacity to retain the water is not larger than it was in 1811, and the
supply greater, the residue must go to waste 2–Yes.
You have said that water would not flow up the New-road from Tottenham-
court-road; how long is it since the New River company applied machinery to fill
the cisterns on the ground floor there?— As early as 1767, Ithink.
Mr. James Dupin, Called in ; and Examined.
ARE you Secretary to the York Buildings waterworks?—I am. -
How long have you been secretary to this establishment 2—About one-and-twenty
years.
Does the company exist at this moment 2–It does not. -
How long has it been extinct 2––Since 1818; they leased the pipes to the New
River company. - r
That is to say, you sold your property 2—Yes; we leased our pipes for the profit
attached to them, and ceased working our engine. - 4. - -
The alienation of the pipes is absolute?–Yes.
At the time that the establishment was disposed of in that way, was it in conse-
quence of it being a disadvantageous concern, or from what motive P-Quite so ;
we were losing about £. 1,500 a year. * --
Positively losing it? —Yes; we were positively losing £. 1,500 a year from the
increased capital that was embarked in 1810 up to that time.
What was the inducement for that increase of capital?—A mere idea that they
could make a fortune, as the New River company had done. We had some gentle-
men in our concern, who were also large proprietors of the West Middlesex concern;
they conceived that by changing the complete system, which they did, of the original
York Buildings company, they could realize a very large rental. I think I have got
a statement of that rental.
Then that increased expenditure arose from the speculation of some individuals
belonging to your establishment?—Yes; not of the original establishment, for
they completely bought out the old proprietors: these were a new set of gentlemen
who came in in 1810.
These new gentlemen being connected with the West Middlesex 2–Yes, they
were ; and also with the East London.
What was the nature of that expenditure?—Our original shares in the year 1810,
previous to their purchase, were eighty-four in number; they raised a capital equal
to 750 shares, of £. I oo each, just £. 75,000. -
In 1810?–Yes. - -
They added 750?–They completely merged the 84 shares, and made it
750 ; in 1812 they doubled it ; they took up the whole of the wood pipes and
laid a complete system of iron mains and services, and erected a very large
steam engine, and very expensive works also in the bed of the river: they never
received a dividend out of any profit whatever: from 1810 they paid two dividends,
of £, a share each, but it was out of the capital. -
This expenditure arose, at the time you are speaking of, from the competition
º the other companies 2–Yes; the doubling of the shares did completely.
706. What
Esq.
^ --f
(19 February.)
Mr.
. James Dupin.
`-->
24
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
- Mr.
James Dupin.
\a -
(19 February.)
What is the power and capacity of your work for affording supply to the
y metropolis?—I think our engine would have supplied about 10,000 houses very
well. .
These works continue to supply the district that was apportioned by the division
in 1818, or was the surrender made previous to that division of district 2–-We were
certainly in treaty with the New River company previous to the abandonment of
©
the west end of the town by the other companies. -
Then you never were a party to that arrangement 2–None whatever.
What was the state of your supply in 1810 2–2,217 houses.
Your state then, before this new capital, was about 2,000 houses 2–Yes.
Was 2,714 houses the whole of your supply before the arrangement 2–Yes, it was.
Do you recollect, previously to your increase of capital, what was the average
amount furnished to your tenants or houses per day 2—No.
You say two dividends of £. I each were paid from the capital 2–Yes.
Was that known to the subscribers generally —Yes; I have the account of the
gross rental, and the sums received for water, annually. -
Before you began the great alterations you have spoken of, were not the York
Buildings waterworks in a very ruinous situation ?–No.
How long before that had you paid a dividend ?–A dividend of 4 per cent. in
the year 1804. This is an account of the dividends from the year 1789. In the
year 1789 they divided £. 10 per share; at that time the shares were valued at
£. 250. - -
Eighty-four shares, at £. 250 2–-Yes; the original shares were £. 100 shares: in
1790, they divided £. 7. 10 s. per share, and valued their shares at £. 200 : in 1791
they divided the same, and they valued the shares at £. 220 : that was a mere
nominal value; in 1792 they divided £. 8 per share. -
Have not you been driven out of the field in consequence of being underworked
by the new companies 2–Certainly ; because in some cases they threatened to work
for nothing; their object was, we want a numerical rental, we have plenty of
money, and when we get that, we will turn you out of the field.
companies, you have not
You have been so much underworked by the other
been able to compete with them?—No, certainly not.
In order that you might compete with the new companies, did you wantonly
and unnecessarily take up your wooden pipes and put down iron, or was it necessary
that you should take up the wooden pipes and put down iron ones P-Our wooden
pipes did not extend to where the main competition of the new companies came at
all; but in laying down iron pipes we took up the wood. -
Was it necessary you should change your system entirely 2–Certainly.
And when you had done it you were not able to compete with the new companies,
because they underworked you?—Yes. - .*
The whole of your tenants did not go to the New River company, but some
to Chelsea P−Yes, a part went to Chelsea, and part to the Grand Junction
company. - - -
Those works that you put down were put down under the direction of engineers,
and not clumsily and awkwardly 2—Very properly, I believe. - -
And you were fairly ruined by the undertaking, were not you?—Certainly we
WeI’é. -
The competition that was then going forward, you stated was carried to that
extent of not caring what the price was to be paid, but determining to secure the
custom P-Yes, that appeared to be the object entirely.
Not caring one sixpence for the price?—Yes; that used to be the general answer
to the question whenever we asked their reasons for changing. - w
You do not mean to say they went the length of supplying gratuitously, for no
pay whatever ?–I believe for a very small pay.
: Do you know any instance whatever where the service was given gratis 2—No,
I cannot say I do. .
Are you able to say that the new companies, though they worked very low and
at prices which would surprise you, they did not work at prices that did not produce
them a sufficient profit 2–I think so. -
Have you had access to their books to see their profits and losses?—I know from
the local advantage of our company they could not supply water in the Haymarket
for one-half of what we could. - -
And
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
5
And they did supply it for that ?—They certainly did, at very little more.
Had you the means, by access to their books or otherwise, to ascertain this 2–
The very receipts produced by the tenantry convinced us houses that paid us thirty
shillings a year quietly for seventy years, they supplied for a pound.
Had you the means, by access to their books or otherwise, to ascertain this?—
No, I had not. -
You state that as a mere matter of opinion ?–No, I speak from facts,
Could you, or could you not, supply a great part of your service without iron
pipes; does the height to which it is to be thrown require iron pipes?— It depends
upon the power of the machinery. -
iXid not the iron pipes become necessary for the service of your tenants?—When
we increased our machinery, it did, but not as we were serving in 1809; we supplied
all our tenantry through wooden pipes.
Did you throw it a great height?–Yes, we did; we threw it up two pair in
Piccadilly. ..
What height is that above the base of your head 2–I should suppose between
sixty and seventy feet.
You found it expedient to resort to iron pipes, because it was the only thing
to enable you to compete with the other companies —When we increased the mal.
chinery we were obliged to have iron pipes, because the wooden pipes would not
bear the pressure. -
And you gave a much larger supply?—Yes. J
Was there much complaint against your company at the time when these new
companies were introduced P-We certainly had a great many complaints.
Did this continue after your iron pipes were laid down P-Not so much.
Have you any doubt your supply was improved by that ?–Yes.
Both with respect to quantity, steadiness, and certainty of supply 2–Yes.
Mercurij, 21° die Februarj, 1821.
WILLIAM HENRY FREMANTLE, ESQUIRE,
IN THE CHAIR.
Mr. William Tierney Clark, Called in ; and Examined.
YOU are Engineer of the West Middlesex waterworks company ?—I am.
How long have you been engineer –Eleven years.
Ever since the establishment of the company?—I became engineer in 1810, early
after the first establishment of the company.
What power and capacity belong to the West Middlesex waterworks to supply
water to the metropolis –We have two seventy-horse engines.
Have you had that from the beginning?—No ; they were erected in 1811.
What has been the quantity of water supplied by the day, week, month or year,
on the average, since the company was chartered, and the works put in activity?—
In 1820 we supplied 12,169,300 hogsheads.
Mr.
James Dupin.
\–sº-'
(19 February.)
Mr.
William T. Clark.
(21 February.)
Can you go back and state the gradation to that?—I am not prepared now ; but .
Nº.
if it is wished I can go back to 1814, and give it in the shape of a return.
What extent of district, and what number of houses have been supplied previous
and subsequent to the arrangement formed for dividing the metropolis into dis-
tricts?–It is impossible to say the number of houses. -
As tenants –I cannot say ; the secretary will furnish that information; I do
not think I can. - t
Can you state what has been, and what is now the average quantity of water
furnished to each house per day, month or year 2—It is a very difficult thing to get
at that; we have not been able to get at it accurately.
You have no information upon that subject?–No, none.
You have not the division, taking it by the streets?—No ; as to the streets we
have not. • -
There is no division as to the quantity?—No. -
Is there any difference when families are in town, or out of town, as to the
706. . G - quantity
26
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
Hºlliam T. Clark,
\–s, L’
(21 February.)
quantity of water wanted *—Sometimes We find there is a little difference; but then
it is made up by the quantity used in watering the streets, so that we find very little
difference. * tº ** ** de
Although a greater number of families are out of town it makes no difference in
the quantity supplied P–No; the difference is made up in watering the streets.
That takes place in the months of May and June, as well before the families
retire 2–Yes, it does. --
Is it decreased more after they do retire?–No ; for there is still watering going
on during those months. &
The watering the streets is to as great an extent in the month of June as any
period of the year?—No ; I find the most water is used for watering in July and
August. - -
And in the month of June none of the great families have left London —A great
many have left London by the month of June. f -
You find no considerable variation from the difference of the families being in or
out of town 2–There may be some variation, but very little on the average.
What are the number of your services by the day or week?–We have a great
many services, I cannot tell the number we have altogether; we have them upon
different mains. - -
Does not your steam engine show that P–No, it does not at all show the services.
You must know how often the services are applied ?–We give the low service four
times a week. -
What is the high service?—Three days in the week.
How long are those services continued, and do they furnish an equal quantity of
water –Some of the services vary in quantity, in proportion to the quantity of
houses on them. *.
The question applies to the time they are on 2–Some are on two hours, some
three, some more, and some less. t .
Now as to the quantity?—It is impossible to tell the quantity of water that any
particular service delivers.
You have no gauge to measure?—No.
If it is on for two hours do you not know the quantity of water thrown up 2–No,
it is impossible to ascertain the quantity.
With regard to the high service, can you give the Committee any calculation as
to that 2–We are not able to make any calculation as to the quantity of water of
the high or low service.
How long are they continued?—Sometimes three quarters of an hour, or an
hour, in proportion to the work they have to do. * - . * *
Speaking of the high service, if it is on only three days in the week, one of those
services must be equal to the supply of those houses for two days and a half, if it
is on three days in the week, the supply put in on the Friday must be equal to last
till the Monday?—Yes, till it comes in on the next water day; the capacity of the
cisterns is such, as to hold enough for the inhabitants. s - .#
It must be so throughout the whole district, because if you have only four
services in the week, it must be a supply for more than two days for the district 2–
I suppose it would be about enough ; when we turn the water on, we find it is fully
adequate to the demand. - -
That is to say, that any certain service is adequate to the supply of the houses
for two days 2–I should think, about two days or a day and a half.
What is the average size of your ball-cocks for cisterns 2–I do not know what
the average size is, they are so various, some are an inch, some three quarters,
some as low as half an inch ; the lead service pipe is generally three quarters of an
inch. - -
You are speaking of the low service –Yes; some of the low service cocks are
five eighths or half an inch, but generally three quarters, the waterway of the cock
is seldom equal to the waterway of the pipe; it is narrowed. .
What is the extent of the service pipes to the high service 2—They vary; some
an inch, some an inch and a quarter, some three quarters.
Do you speak now of cocks or pipes 2–The cock.
The pipe itself is of still greater diameter 2–Yes, a greater area. *
What proportion is there between the service pipe and the cock?—I cannot exactly
say, without calculating.
As four to thrée –I do not know, but I will prepare that with the return.
You
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 2;
You have stated, that the average quantity furnished per day you were not able Mr. &
to tell?—Yes. w William T. Clark.
It would be fair to you to state what appears upon a former occasion before the S-2-’
Lords, that you stated them the average quantity to be from 200 to 300 gallons (21 February.)
a day 2–That is only the average; but I cannot say that each house takes that.
What should you say would be the average now P-I should think it might be
near that ; from 200 to 250 gallons. ~
Do you mean that for the low service 2–I put that as the service generally.
Upon the statement of a former answer it appears that those services are capable
of providing a supply for a house for two days and a half or three days; if they
could supply a house for three days it would amount to 750 gallons?—Yes; but you
must allow me to explain, that during the time the water is coming in, the inha-
bitant is frequently running away a great quantity of water down the privy.
But the fact of 750 gallons being provided to that house is what is stated,
whether it is used is quite another question ?—We turn the water on four days,
and for those days about 200 or 250 gallons is about the quantity put in for
each day.
Then your supply being four times a week must be four times 250 gallons?—
Some of the houses get it every day; we turn on some of our services every day
for houses where the cisterns are small, therefore they get it every day, and this is
taking it upon the average. -
In fact, the provision for each house, at the rate of 250 gallons a day, is 1,750
gallons a week P-I take it upon the real quantity of water delivered in London,
the whole quantity of water we raised, that was the result of my evidence in the
Lords; it would be impossible to select the quantity for each house.
Do you consider that 250 gallons, to a private house, could flow in one day
through such an aperture as you have stated to be the aperture of the pipe?—Yes,
certainly. -
Could double the quantity flow through such an aperture ?– Yes, that it could.
Could three times the quantity ?--I cannot say exactly, but twice the quantity
could. ^.
Five hundred gallons could flow through such an aperture as you have described
for the low service P-Yes, no doubt of it. - - *.
What is the distance of the delivery pipe from the pump —From our engine-
house to the reservoir is about three miles and a quarter. -
What is the elevation of the delivery pipe above the pump 2–One hundred and
twenty-one feet. - --
What is the diameter of the cylinder 2–Fifty-four inches.
What is the diameter of the pump piston?—Twenty inches, -
What is the mean pressure on the piston —From seven pounds and a half to
eight pounds. :
Per inch 2–Yes. - -
What is the number of strokes per minute 2–About fourteen. i
What is the number of hours each engine works per day P-We work, upon the
average, about 176 hours both engines. -
In what time?—Per week. We have two engines, and they work the same number
of hours,
Your answer then applies to both engines —Yes. -
What is the general description of cisterns used by the inhabitants 2—I cannot
exactly answer that question, some of them are large, some small, various sizes.
Could you make an average P-I cannot. *
What is the least you know of for private families 2—I have not any memorandum
by me of the least sizes, we have some very large.
What have you known the least to be for private families?—I suppose there are
some that hold three or four hogsheads of water, some more, and some less.
Down to half hogsheads P-Not so low as that, very few of that description.
Have there been any alterations in the enlargement of them of late years 2–I.
do not exactly know whether there has or not; I have not had any particular cases
come before me of enlargement; there have been several additional cisterns put
down in houses. --
And alterations in the positions of cisterns?—Yes, there may be some. -
You do not know of any general enlargement throughout the district 2—No,
I do not. t
You * speaking of the amount of the supply being 200 or 250 gallons per day;
700. you
28 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Af;-. you stated that the whole of that could not well be consumed, what becomes of the
William T. Clark, refuse?–I do not mean to say that the whole was not consumed. -
\–2- * The Committee mean in private families?—There is a much greater quantity of
(21 February) water used now than there was formerly, in the early part of our establishment.
. What do you consider the amount of the refuse-water; that not used ?—We
have very little water runs to waste at present; we have enforced the putting on
ball-cocks, as far as practicable; there may be some little going at the time that
the water is turned on for the supply of the cistern, by running down the privies;
there is a great deal goes that way, I believe, at times. -
Are your services supplied to any of the houses from the main at once, without
going into a cistern ?–We have very few indeed from the main.
Have many of the houses more than one cistern in your district 2–Yes; many
of them have three or four cisterns.
Upon the average, have the greatest number of houses one or more than one
cistern ?—I cannot speak accurately, upon the average, but I know there are more
than one in many houses; in some houses there are a great many cisterns.
The Committee speak of the ordinary service?—Yes, I am alluding to that.
Are you in the habit of remonstrating, or making any observation to your tenants
if they put up a second cistern ?–They often do it without our knowledge.
Do you do it when you do know of it?–If the water is required for other
purposes than for domestic consumption, they are charged when they are found
Out. : - - --
In fact, your principle of ratage is upon the quantity of water supplied ?--I have
not any thing to do with the rating of the houses ; that is generally managed by the
Committee, assisted by the secretary.
Is there any authenticated plan, or written document, or reference paper, spe-
cifying the line of demarcation, or the terms on which admission into the districts
was made by the different water companies 2–There was a plan made by Mr. Milne,
which specifies the line of district allotted to the West Middlesex waterworks.
That was an authenticated plan –No ; I do not know that it was.
Was there any authenticated plan, or written document, or reference paper, speci-
fying the line of demarcation ?--I do not believe there is any authenticated plan;
it was only a common plan with the lines marked out. -
Was it prepared for mutual consideration previous to the establishment of these
divisions?–Yes, certainly, it was ; because a line of demarcation for each company
had been fixed upon. r
You saw it previously 2–Yes. -
Was it a written agreement with signatures?—I never saw anything of that kind.
How was it prepared F-It was merely a plan upon which the officers of each
company consulted as to which would be the best line of demarcation, the best way
to concentrate the works of each company. -
A plan marked upon the map?—Yes, upon the maps of the separate companies.
Was there any reference paper annexed to that?—Only a paper containing a list
of the pipes. -- - -
Not a reference paper as to terms?—No ; I never saw any.
Was or not that district allotted in conformity to some mutual written agreement
or proposition?—I do not know of any written agreement ; I had nothing to do
with it. \
There was no proposition you were a party to ?—No.
You were one concerned in the allotment?—Only to mark out the line with the
other officers. - -
All you know of that allotment was by seeing the line marked upon the map ?—
Yes. -
You know of no written arrangement of any sort or kind?—No, I do not.
Previous or subsequent P--No. -
Was there any alteration made in that division of the plan when it took place?—
I do not know of any particular alteration in it; an exchange of a few houses was
afterwards made with the Grand Junction company, for greater convenience of
º s'
At what period was the West Middlesex company empowered to extend their
works into the metropolis?—I believe in 1810 or i 81 i.
How long was it after this period that any interest was received on the capital
expended?—That is a question more in the secretary's department to answer than
}]]}}}{2. - ; :
Fs
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 29
º
Is it within your knowledge that all the tenants comprised in your rental have Mr.
actually been supplied from your works?—Yes; I should think they have been. William T. Clark.
There are no persons treated as tenants of your company, who, in fact, are sup- - - J
plied by another company with water?—I cannot answer that question; the secre-
tary very likely can ; it is in his department : there may probably be one or two
instances where our pipes do not pass so near.
That is done as a matter of accommodation ?–Yes.
Do you supply any part of the bishop of London’s estate at Paddington P-We
supply part of Paddington; I do not know whether it is part of his lordship’s estate
Or not.
Is that part of Paddington which you supply, nearer to the Grand Junction works
than the West Middlesex 2–We had works at Paddington before the division.
Those works you use notwithstanding the division 2–Yes; we use all the works
we have there. .
Though it is not in your district P−Yes, it forms part of our district.
Can you show any reasonable ground, independent of the expense incurred by
the competitions at the commencement of your establishment, for an increase of the
rate beyond the rate of 1810 2–I presume from the very great increase of water to
what was wanted formerly.
Before the district division ?—Yes, long before. The New River did not use to
above half fill the cisterns, and that only three days a week, and now they are filled
as constantly and regularly as the water is turned on.
That is four times a week for the low service, and three times for the high 2–
Yes; and then there is an additional quantity of water used, from the additional
state of luxury introduced into houses; a great many baths; a great many families
brew and wash at home, and that all adds to the consumption.
Is it within your knowledge, that at the time this line of demarcation was made,
which does not appear to rest upon any written document, but upon an understanding
between the companies, that the West Middlesex company parted with the pipes
which they had in the district beyond their line of demarcation ?–They did give
up a certain portion.
1)id they not give up all?—They gave up all that were out of the district.
Did you mutually take and receive pipes?—Yes; there was an arrangement of
that kind. *
Throughout the district 2–Yes.
Value for value?—Yes; it was understood in that way, and acted upon in that
Wà V.
.* £º that the ultimate balance was afterwards given up to the West Middlesex
company, by the New River company, gratuitously?—Yes, it was.
In the estimate you have made, you must have reference to the general capacity
of the cisterns to receive water?—No ; it is merely an estimate of the number of
houses, and dividing the number of houses with the total quantity of water con-
sumed in the year. -
You have said in one part of your examination, that the district marked in the
maps for each company to supply, was, in the judgment of the officers of the various
companies, the best in their power for the public convenience 2–Yes, it was. -
Was that the motive which guided you?—Yes, it was ; the concentration of our
works, so as to give the most effectual supply. *
And in the judgment of the officers of the different companies, that district
which they each took was the most calculated to give the best supply to the public 2
—Yes. -
And upon that principle it could be done cheaper?––Yes, it could.
You do not mean that the division was made solely with reference to the public
convenience; it was also with reference to the rental?—Yes, it was. - -
But the ample supply of the public was the chief motive for taking those districts
you each of you took –Yes. -
The expense of the repair of iron pipes would be less than the repair of wooden
pipes 2—I have not had any experience in that.
Would there not be a considerable expense in the repairing iron pipes?–Yes,
there would. - *
Do not the iron pipes burst 2–Yes, from frost, they do, sometimes.
Is it not necessary frequently to repair the joints of iron pipes?—Yes, occasionally.
Does not the quantity of water always wasted, prevent you from making an average
706. H of
(21 February.)
30 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
... Mr. . . of the consumption of each house P-We have not much water running to waste in
William T. Clark, our district.
~ Is not it a common practice to let a quantity of water run to waste, by leaving
(21 February) open the cocks to wash down privies and sinks?—Yes. , ,
And when they are left open during the night, you cannot ascertain the quantity
wasted?—No, we cannot. - - -
Are you not liable to constant imposition on the part of your tenants, by putting
down cisterns without notice, and taking off the ball-cocks 2—We are.
Does it amount to any serious inconvenience, the consumption of water of which
you are not apprised ?–I conceive not much. -
Do you keep your mains constantly charged for fear of fire during the night?—
Yes; between seven and eight miles of main are full of water. - w
Is there any considerable expense in keeping the mains so charged?--Yes; the
expense of the loss of water upon those mains. -
In so far as you keep those mains charged for fear of fire, have you any remunera-
tion or compensation for that? —Not to my knowledge.
Is not the parish of Mary-le-bone much better supplied than it formerly was 2–
Yes, much better.
Have you any complaints now from the parish of Mary-le-bone —Not any ; our
supply is very regular. -
And the actual supply now is far beyond what it was 2–Yes.
In some cases, you say one water company has assisted another by a supply of
water which they have not actually charged the waterworks receiving that assistance
for 2–There may be one or two instances.
Is there any sinister or bye motive in that, or is it done with a view of accommo-
dation ?—Merely for accommodation. .
If you chose to run mains again into the parts you have relinquished by some im-
plied agreement, is there any impediment to your returning and putting mains down
again?—No ; not that I know of.
Did you take any part of the district supplied by the Chelsea waterworks 2–
A very small portion of it.
Was there an exchange of pipes?–We had iron pipes there.
An exchange took place between you ?—We had a very small proportion of iron
pipes down there.
In laying down your mains, did not you lay down an extent of mains in point
of size originally perfectly unnecessary for the district you occupied ?–No; I should
conceive not. ~. -
What is the diameter of your principal main 2—Twenty-one inches.
What is your rule with respect to high and low service; what do you call.
high and low 2–We call high service all above six feet six inches above the
pavement. -
And every thing below that you reckon low service?—Yes.
You say you have had no complaints from the tenants you have served 2–Not as
to the supply or quantity of water. -
Is it to you the complaints are made 2—The complaints go to the office where
they are booked; and when I come to town, I examine it; but the foreman receives
instructions immediately upon the complaint coming to the office.
You hear of such complaints?—Yes. - - .
Therefore in answering that question, you are clear no such complaints have been
made 2—Yes, I am. - .
The Committee are not speaking of the quantity of water in the main, but the
conduct of the turncock, and so on ?—Yes; I understand it so. -
And the times you mention here, four times for low service, and three times for
high, are considered generally sufficient 2–Yes, certainly ; except some few in-
stances where the water is turned on every day; where they have very small
cisterns.
What is the mean distance of the tenants from the main –Some of the tenants
are ten feet from the main, some fifteen feet; we have not mains in every street.
What is therefore the mean distance; what is the extreme and the least?—
There are some services forty or fifty yards from the main; we have not mains in
each street.
You have stated that there is considerable expense in the repair of iron pipes —
Yes, there will be a very considerable expense.
*
You
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
31.
You say you are not at all conversant with wooden pipes?--No, I am not; but
with iron pipes I have been for the last ten years.
Did you not state that the leading motive of the division was to allot to the com-
panies the parts most contiguous to their works?—Yes. w
How do you reconcile that with the fact that part of Paddington is supplied by
you when it is close to the Grand Junction?—The Grand Junction had no mains
in that particular part of Paddington and we had.
You have stated that one of the advantages of your system is, that one of the
mains is always charged for extraordinary services, such as accidents by fire, and
that in consequence of that being so charged there is a loss of water; how is that
occasioned P-In consequence of its passing through side cocks that connect the
collateral mains with the great mains, these sluices wear, and in consequence of their
wearing, they leak and admit the water to pass through other pipes, namely, small
iron service pipes, and then the service gets water, and it gets to some of the tenants
at night. We have done as much as possible in our district to prevent the water
running to waste : we keep a man on purpose to watch the ball-cocks.
Mr. Matthias Koops Knight, Called in ; and Examined.
YOU are Secretary to the West Middlesex waterworks company 2–Yes.
How long have you been secretary 2–Between six and seven years. .*
Were you employed upon this establishment previously to your being secretary P
—No. *> -
You can only speak to circumstances since you have been secretary P-Only since
my time. -
Were the works in a state of activity when you first became secretary 2—Yes;
to a considerable extent.
Not so great as they are now?—No ; certainly not. .#
Can you inform the Committee what extent of district, and what number of houses
had been supplied, previous to and subsequent to the arrangement formed for di-
viding the metropolis into districts?—The answer may be given in the shape of an
account; the total number of houses we now serve is 10,350, that includes manu-
factories and other public buildings. y
That is houses in distinction to tenants 2–Yes; I believe houses. I have got
the return from the collector. There are stables included in that number.
Can you tell what are the general descriptions of cisterns used by the inhabit-
ants P-No ; they almost every one have different descriptions of cisterns.
The question applies to private families —I think it is quite impossible to tell. .
As to the gauge of them —I think it is quite impossible to say without a survey
of them.
Were you employed at the time the metropolis was divided into districts 2—Yes.
You were a party at that meeting when a division took place 2–Yes.
Do you know of any other ground upon which that division took place than the
actual district described upon the map?—It was founded upon the rental; the line
was described according to the rental.
The rental of each company was previously produced?—It was to that effect; a
rental was allotted to each company, and a line drawn to give to each company that
rental. - -
Do you mean a rental for each company under any division, or that a portion
was taken from each of the old companies and apportioned in an equal degree?—
A portion of the rental was taken from the old companies and given to the new.
Your rental was produced 2–Yes. - * .
And the rental of other companies 2–Yes; it was not so with respect to the New
River and Chelsea companies; but with respect to the West Middlesex waterworks
a line was drawn to give a particular rental. -
You know of no plan or written document upon which this division took place —
There was a bill originally introduced into parliament for a partnership ; that was a
long time ago; but nothing with regard to this latter division.
Many of the tenants have more than one cistern ?—Yes.
When they place up another cistern are they charged with another service 2–
That depends upon circumstances; if they want it for a mere matter of convenience
they are not charged. .. *
If it is a matter of luxury you charge them 2–Yes; it is charged if it is a high
Service, | . - --
Can
-- Mr.
William T. Clark,
N-- - Af
->J-
(21 February.)
Mr.
M. K. Knight.
32
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
w Mr.
M. K. Knight.
(21 February.)
. Can you show any reasonable ground, independent of the expense incurred by the
competitions, at the commencement of your establishment, for an increase of the
rate beyond the rate of 1810?–I can give several reasons. -
State them 2–In my opinion, the rates of 1810 never paid an adequate profit for
the limited supply then given, (if I am incorrect in that opinion the old companies.
can correct me,) particularly in the high districts of Mary-le-bone, Paddington and
St. George's, and St. Pancras also. I consider the supply very greatly superior now
to what it was in 1810 in point of quantity; I also consider the circumstance of the
mains being constantly charged, as a protection in case of fire, another reason : these
are the principal reasons. I consider the last a very important alteration; so that
now, in case of fire, the water is produced almost instantly : we can undertake to
supply water in five or ten minutes from the time the turncock reaches the Spot ;
and in several recent cases, where a fire has happened, the water has been so instant
and abundant, that the houses have been only partially burnt. In the account of fires
I have taken for the last three years, in the whole district, consisting of 10,000
houses, I do not think there have been more than two entirely consumed, and there
are more than a dozen cases where the houses have been completely on fire, I mean
the floors and window frames, but where the fire has been stopped by the great supply
of water.
The whole of your supply is by machinery 2—Yes.
Entirely —Yes, entirely.
What is the level of the reservoir compared with the high service?——The reservoir
is 121 or 122 feet above the level of the Thames. The water is first raised to that
reservoir by engines from the Thames; it is then supplied from that reservoir to
what we call the low service; we call the high service every thing above six feet
six inches from the street : that height is given in order to protect the lower class
of people, whose supply is afforded by butts standing in the yards, and which, but
for that circumstance, would be chargeable with the high service rate : the inten-
tion was, that water-closets upon the ground floor should be charged a small addition,
fifteen or twenty shillings, but if the cistern of the water-closet be lower than six
feet six inches, no charge is made : as we found it necessary to draw a line some-
where, we said every cistern below six feet six inches, although it be for a water-
closet, shall not be charged; but if it exceed that, we charge fifteen or twenty
shillings, according to circumstances. * {
That is, on the ground-floor?—Yes.
Are there any water-closets that come below that P−Yes, the bulk, I should
conceive; there are a great number of water-closets on the basement; a great
many have lowered their cisterns to be below the charge. -
When you stated the level of the reservoir was 121 feet above the Thames, do
you mean at high or low water –I believe it was taken at the mean tide; but
the high service is pumped-over a stand pipe thirty feet higher. s
Is the ordinary supply from the reservoir above the level of the pavement?–It is
raised 122 feet for the ordinary supply. - -
From that it flows into the ordinary supply 2–Yes; that height will cover the
greater part of Mary-le-bone; the high service is raised thirty feet above the
reServOIT. -
The highest service you work is 121 and 30 feet?—Yes, within an inch or two.
I should state, the reservoir will not supply north of the New-road for the ordinary
supply. - *
º is the highest service in the New-road?—We are obliged to work over the
stand pipe for the New-road; it is all high service there.
The extent of your high service does not go beyond 151 feet?—No.
Is there any such understanding existing amongst the companies, now, that in
case of an accident happening to any one of the companies, the other would supply
it with water during that time 2–Yes; the mains of the several works communicate
with each other, so that in case of an accident happening to either of the companies,
the other companies can supply till the accident is repaired. - " W.
What mains do you communicate with 2–With the New River on the east, and
the Grand Junction on the other side. - -
So that in fact, according to the present understanding among the companies
now existing, the public have the benefit of the whole, as if they were one entire
company 2–Yes; I conceive so. .' -
Have any occurrences taken place in which that has been done P- Yes; about
tWO
- ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
33
two years ago an accident happened to the Grand Junction engine: the Grand
Junction company applied to the West Middlesex company for assistance; a commu-
nication was opened between the mains, and the West Middlesex company during
the night worked their engines for the supply of the St. George's district, for a certain
number of days, till the engine was repaired; it was no length of time.
So as to remedy the defect?—Yes. -
Has any other accident occurred, to your knowledge 2–Yes; there was a tem-
porary stoppage, during the late frost, in the New River: the ice, I believe, was
blown up by an easterly wind, and choked it so, that they could not get an adequate
Afr.
AH. K. Knight.
S-S.–
(21 February.)
supply for the whole of their tenants; and the West Middlesex company, assisted
by the Grand Junction, worked through their mains, and for two days, I believe,
supplied their tenants.
Is that, in your belief, resulting from the arrangement that has taken place,
and from the pipes being now so contrived as to afford a junction with one or the
other ?—Yes; I conceive that the three companies are so constituted as to comprise
only one capital; and that the public derive the benefit of three capitals, having to
pay the expense of only one. . . . . . . ..
In consequence of this arrangement, is it your opinion that the public are mate-
rially better off than they were whilst the competition lasted?—Undoubtedly, taking
into consideration the competition, I conceive they are better off than they would
be if they were to pay for two companies: if two pipes were laid in the street,
and the public were charged rates which should pay an adequate interest upon
those two pipes, the rates must of necessity be nearly double what they are now.
Is it your opinion, that from the arrangement that has taken place, the separate
companies taking separate districts, the public are much better supplied than they
could be in any other way?—Certainly. - w
What was the amount of the rental allowed to your company at the partition?—
A reduced rental of £. 15,000.
What do you mean by reduced?—The reduced rates, as they then stood upon the
books.
What is the amount of your present rental 2–Our present rental, taking every
thing into the calculation, is £. 23,700. -
That is the gross rental 2–Yes, the gross rental. w
The other was gross?—No ; there was no high service there.
When did they first make a dividend ?—There was a dividend made in 1810, but
it was out of the capital. º
What was the extent of that dividend ?–Four pounds per share; the shares
then were £. 100 shares; but that dividend has been expunged from the books, and
deducted from the capital. -- *
Was that the only dividend you made upon the capital?—The whole amount
paid back to the proprietors was twelve thousand four hundred and odd pounds;
that was paid at different times; but having been paid to the proprietors out of the
capital, it has been deducted from the capital now standing upon the books of the
Company. ** -- º
What is the date of the real dividend?—We have paid four half-yearly dividends.
Did you divide a farthing before the partition?—No ; nor for some time after-
wards.
As the public have felt a very lively interest in the arrangement made between
the water companies, the Committee would wish to know whether it is within your
knowledge, that if any accident had happened to any one of the works of the com-
panies before that arrangement, any of the other companies would have had the
Rindness to supply that defect when it arose 2–No, certainly not; the contest
between them was very acrimonious. r
The public are very much benefited by the arrangement?—Yes.
They had no means of doing it?—No, certainly not.
There being no communication between their pipes?—Certainly.
706. I
34 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
William Anderson,
Esq.
~~
\—
(24 February.)
A
Sabbati, 24" die Februarj, 1821.
WILLIAM HENRY FREMANTLE, ESQUIRE,
I N T H E C H AIR..
William Anderson, Esq. Called in ; and Examined.
HOW long have you been Engineer to the Grand Junction water company 2–
Ever since the commencement of the works. $.
What power and capacity belong to the Grand Junction works for affording a
supply of water to the metropolis –The original part of the works was supplied
from the Grand Junction canal.
The question applies to the quantity of water?—The quantity of water now
supplied to the town is 36,000 hogsheads per day, 252,000 hogsheads per week,
and 13, 104,000 per year.
This is upon the average?—This is the whole quantity supplied to the district
that we serve. -
At the present moment 2–At the present time.
Has it been gradually increasing up to the present time 2–It has been much the
same from 1819. *
What was the quantity in 1817 and 1818?–I have not got that quantity.
Was it much under that 2–We did not supply the same number of houses as we
have since supplied: that quantity is taken since the partition of the town.
What is the average quantity you could give, or do give to each house supplied
per day?—Taking the number of houses according to the last account that I have,
they amounted to 7,288 houses; the exact quantity of houses at present, owing to
the alteration in the new street, I cannot give, but I should apprehend about 7,200
would be nearly the quantity we now serve; that would be an average upon those
houses of 43 hogsheads per day for each house.
On an average of every house, including manufactories and every thing?—Yes.
Does it include brewhouses 2—Yes; we have but one, I believe. A
Have you any average of the supply to private families in distinction from trade?—
It is impossible. -
This is the result of a calculation you have gone into for this very purpose, is it?
—Yes.
What are the number of your services by the week and day 2—We serve five times
a week, six times a week, and seven times; but the greatest proportion is about six
days a week that we serve our houses; we serve a great proportion of every house
six times a week.
None less than five 2–Yes; we do serve some four times.
Are you speaking of high service or ordinary service 2–Ordinary service only.
Do the number of your services differ when families are in or out of town 2–We
have never found any difference; and if you will allow me, I will explain something
on that head. In taking the number, or greatest number of tenants out of town at
one time they amounted to between three and four hundred tenants; or I should
wish to say, taking the number when I thought the town was most empty, they
amounted to between three and four hundred tenants : the proportionate part of
those tenants will be, in taking the daily service at six times a week, that is,
averaging between five and seven days a week, it is allowing about two hours per
day for a thousand tenants; consequently, if a thousand tenants require two hours of
our engine to supply them, the question will be, what will between three and four
hundred require, which will be about forty minutes supply per day with our engines.
Those absent are not wholly in one street, but they are in a number of between forty
and fifty streets; you will then see that it will be somewhat between about a minute
saving upon each street. But this is not the whole of it; for as many of the streets
have only two tenants out of it, and others ten and fifteen, the consequence will
be, that in proportioning the saving of two tenants, that probably will be about
twelve seconds upon that street. I think I need not go further than to say it is so
unnecessary to expect a saving upon such a principle of waterworks, that we have
never considered any alteration necessary as to the working of the engine.
Do the engines work the same number of services each week in the year?—Yes,
they do. -
How
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 35
How long are those services per day continued 2–Some services are on half an William Anderson.
hour, some an hour. • Esq.
Do they furnish an equal quantity of water?—The services are proportioned to &
the demands of the houses, and that in a large way. (24 February.)
If they are on half an hour, or an hour, must they provide the same quantity of
water, or can you regulate the supply in the course of that time more or less 2–We
can regulate it, certainly; but we find it necessary to get through with our services as
quickly as possible, in order that the whole service of the district should be performed
within a given time per day, say fourteen hours per day.
Then you find as much water flows as you can well produce in each of those
services 2—Yes, it does.
You stated, that upon an average the service supplied each house is 43 hogs-
heads per day P-Yes, about that.
But six days is the extent of your service in general P
whole of it.
But in private families, do you mean to say all private families are served six
days each 2–The greatest portion, for low service.
Have you any reason to suppose that the supply furnished is greater than is
wanted 2–No, I have no particular reason for thinking so.
The supply is infinitely larger, at that rate, than what was supplied previously to
181 o 2—I consider much so.
Has your supply been adapted to what was considered and has appeared to be the
wants of the district 2—Yes; I consider so.
Can you give the Committee any information with regard to the difference in the
amount of the supply between 1810, and this supply of 43 hogsheads per day?—
I have heard it proved before a Committee of this house, that the quantity of water
that was necessary to supply the parish of Mary-le-bone, was 324 gallons per week
for each house, and to raise that quantity of water, would consume 300 chaldrons of
coals per year, amounting to £. 750; and whereas it requires a consumption for the
present supply of water, equal to about 1,300 chaldrons of coals per year, to supply
the 7,200 houses; but the quantity stated before was to supply 12,000 houses.
What do you consider the expense of the 1,300 chaldrons 2–It would be about
£. 3,200, taking the price as stated in the estimate for St. Mary-le-bone, at 50 S. per
chaldron. -
All this is ordinary service 2–Eor ordinary and high service. -
What is.the proportion of increase in your supply, beyond the supply in 1810, to
each house?—I have always considered the calculation as therein stated, that is, that
324 gallons per week, appeared to have been about the supply of London in 1810.
324 gallons for 12,000 houses 2–324 gallons for each house.
That is one hogshead per day 2–Yes.
Can you account in any way for this increased demand on the part of the public?
—There is the luxury of the times; there is a vast number of water-closets that are
used below, that never were used in 1810.
Do you consider much of that goes to waste?–In some water-closets there is ; but
in many of the principal houses they have a pipe attached from the upper cistern to
the lower water-closet, and I think that the servants have as much convenience in
the way of water-closets, as that of their masters, which was not had before ; there is
also brewing to any extent; there are gentlemen’s stables supplied with soft water
now, which were not formerly; carriages are washed with soft water, which were
not formerly; in short, there is hardly any thing you can mention in which water
has not formed a considerable consumption in the last ten years.
What is the average size of the ball-cocks 2—The greatest part of them are about
three quarters of an inch in diameter. -
What is the diameter of a service pipe?—Three quarters of an inch, but the
opening of the ball-cock is generally smaller than the diameter of the pipe, it is
contracted; the diameter of the cock is the exact diameter of the pipe, but the casing
inside of it reduces the diameter.
Can the quantity of water which you have stated as 43 hogsheads per day,
flow through such an aperture as you have stated in the time of your service –
No doubt it can ; if the quantity is not supplied in the half hour, an hour longer
will produce a greater quantity.
And that would enable you always to supply such a quantity – Quite so. I
should also observe, that where any difficulty has occurred with small pipes, the
706. SèI'V1CéS
No ; that is taking the
36 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
William Anderson, services have been altered very much, and consequently the supply has been given
\
Esq.
(24 February.)
quicker, that is, by serving a less number of houses in a shorter time.
What is the general description and dimensions of the cisterns within your
district?—It is impossible to say the exact quantity they will hold ; there are many
of them that will hold from two to forty hogsheads, and some hold forty. * -
Do you mean to say that in a private family there is any cistern that contains
twenty hogsheads of water 2—I do ; I can name them.
What is the average size of your cisterns in the whole district?—If the number
of houses were equal in proportion, that is, the large houses in proportion to that of
the small houses, I think one could come to an average; but it would be impos-
sible to come to an average without they were equal in point of number, for some
of the small cisterns may not be above 100 gallons.
Have those cisterns been enlarged, or their situations altered, within a late
period?–To my knowledge many of the cisterns have been raised, from alterations
having taken place in the houses.
More raised than enlarged then you mean to say?—Yes.
Any enlarged?—There have been cisterns added.
When a cisterm is added to any private family do you make any alteration of
charge upon that ?—Not for domestic purposes; but when it is added for the use
of a water-closet we do.
That you consider as high service in general?—That is high service.
Are there in general more than one cistern to a house 2–Many houses have
three and four cisterns.
But upon the average 2–Generally one cistern, but many houses have two.
Was the old system of supply in 1810 liable to more or less waste than the
present 2–I think they never had any water to spare for waste then.
Did they take more pains in preserving the water than you do at the present
moment?—They have stated so, and I have no doubt they did.
You conceive, that the inhabitants of the district consume as much more water at
this period than they did in 1810, and previously, as to be in the proportion of more
than three to one now 2–That is my opinion, in point of quantity.
Is all the water supplied by the Grand Junction water company derived from the
Thames?—The whole of it now, within the last few months.
When did they cease to supply from the canal water?—It was in the beginning of
September last, but there have been various supplies taken from the canal since.
Is the Thames water delivered directly into the cisterns, or first into the reservoirs
at Paddington 2–It is delivered occasionally into both. If you will allow me, I will
state how the town is supplied. The engines at Chelsea are set to work at five and
six o'clock in the morning; the water is then pumped into the reservoir at Padding-
ton; and allowing the water to run from the reservoir into town from five o’clock in the
morning till nine and ten o’clock in the day, every day, for the purpose of performing
all the low service, I believe there is not one of our tenants who does not receive
a portion of that water every day for low service; and in order to perform the next
service, owing to the removal of cisterns, such as laundry cisterns, and various other
cisterns that stand eight and ten feet above the level of the streets, the water is then
shut off from the reservoir, and it is worked till about two or three o’clock in the
day, in order to get rid of this second service. The high service is then performed,
between that and seven, nine, and ten o’clock at night.
From the Thames itself?—From the Thames itself.
Without passing through the reservoir –Yes.
All your high service is from the Thames itself?—Yes.
But the ordinary service is from the reservoir 2–Yes.
What company now supplies the whole of the bishop of London's estate 2—The
West Middlesex and our company.
It is divided ?–It is divided.
Can you state what is the total quantity of water raised by the Grand Junction
engines daily from the Thames?—I have already stated the quantity.
What is the highest extent of your high service?--Sixty-one feet five inches above
our upper reservoir.
What is the height of your reservoir from the Thames?—At high water of a
spring tide it is eighty-eight feet mine inches.
The highest service you perform then is one hundred and fifty feet two inches
—Yes.
Do you know of any authenticated plan or written document, specifying the line
of
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 37
of demarcation, and the terms on which the division of the districts was made William Anderson,
between the water companies —I do not. - Esq.
The arrangement was made according to a calculation of rent 2–That was one S-S-'
part of it; but the capital also formed another part; and I should say the con- (24 February.)
venience of the mains that had been already laid by each company, in order to make
as much saving as possible in regard to the capital of each company.
Capital of property you mean P-Yes.
An allotment of rent was surrendered by the old companies to the new in that
arrangement, was not there 2–There was. -
Do you consider that iron is very superior to wood for the purpose of affording
supply?—Most certainly, as to a supply.
The wooden pipes were constantly subject to accident, and decayed repeatedly 2–
Yes.
Can you give any information as to the average duration of wooden pipes?—
J cannot, from my own experience ; I never had any.
Do you consider that the iron pipes are liable to decay (the pipe itself) at any
period?—I think the main pipe will last a great number of years; but I apprehend
the service pipes, from the action of the water, which is much quicker in the service
pipes than in the mains, they being constantly filled, and emptied at all times of the
service, will wear out much sooner than the mains. x
What do you consider the wear of those pipes; how do they wear; in what way?
—They oxydize very much in the inside : and I have found in one instance also of
our own company, where a three-inch pipe has been so much oxydated in the inside,
that I was obliged to take it up, and put one of four inch diameter, and I found
that the rust of the pipe had obstructed the bore of the pipe, and consequently the
oxydation must have had some effect in reducing the width of the middle of the pipe.
That is a single instance?—That is one instance. *
How did you discover it?—The service being bad, we could not perform it.
How was that displayed, that service being bad?—By complaints; we could not
fill the cisterns.
Was it from the water being tainted, or from the want of the water?—It was
solely from the want of the water, not from the quality of the water.
You consider, however, that in the construction of works for the supply of a
great and populous city with water, there can be no question as to the preference
for supply of iron over wooden pipes?—None whatever.
In point of interest, you would not hesitate to put down iron pipes in preference
to wooden?—Provided I had capital.
Can you show any reasonable ground, independent of the expenses incurred by
the competition at the commencement of your establishment, for raising the prices
beyond the prices of 1810 2—I have already stated a considerable consumption of
coals. I consider the town very much benefited, with regard to the security against
fire. I also consider, that from the size of the mains being much larger than those
which were formerly used, a considerable additional capital has been employed to
furnish that extra supply to London: the engines also have been constructed upon,
I may say, better principles, and much larger in power than any hitherto con-
structed : this, I think, taken with the extra consumption of coals, with the extra
capital upon the size of those mains, are much more than sufficient grounds for the
increased demand of rate.
What is the diameter of your principal main 2—Thirty inches.
The Oxford main 2–The Oxford-street main.
Have you any means of knowing how the town was supplied with water previous
to the year 1810 2—I have already stated, that it has been proved in a Committee
before the House the quantity of water supplied. .
Do you know, of your own knowledge, how the town was supplied with water
previous to the year 1810?–No, I do not.
You have no knowledge upon the subject?—Nothing further than from the cal-
culations made then.
Have you any means of ascertaining whether the town was or was not supplied
sufficiently with water previous to the new companies?—It was not.
Were there constant complaints upon that subject 2––I have heard that there were
constant complaints. *.
At that time the New River company had merely wooden pipes; was it possible,
in the nature of wooden pipes, they could supply the houses?—I cannot answer the
question. •
706. - K s was
38
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
William Anderson,
Esq.6.
\---
-N92–
(24 February.)
Was it possible they could have high service P-Certainly not. *
Have you heard that houses were sometimes days, and even a week, without a
supply of water?—I have heard so.
Were there not a large class of houses without tenants, because they could not
get water 2—I have heard so.
In consequence of the institution of the new companies, all houses have water,
and there are none without tenants on account of the absence of water P-I know
of none.
Is it not a common practice for servants to take water from cisterns above, when
they ought to take it from the cisterns below, to save trouble —I have no doubt they
wish to save themselves as much trouble as possible.
Is the great quantity of water that goes to waste without any benefit to the
town 2–I have not said a great quantity goes to waste; I do not know what quan-
tity goes to waste in the sewers.
Is not that water that goes to waste beneficial to the public at large, though not
to the houses from which it is wasted 2–I consider it beneficial to the drains of the
house where the water is wasted, and to the public at large.
Do you think it possible to ascertain the quantity of water that is given sepa-
rately for the high service, and the ordinary service 2–I do not think it is possible,
at least accurately.
Are people much more lavish now in the use of water than they formerly were,
relying on the accurate supply of water 2—I have no doubt of it; for to my own
knowledge, there is hardly a door that you pass in which water is not applied
to the washing the pavements in front of the house, which was not done formerly.
Are not the companies liable to constant trick and imposition by the introduction
of cisterns, without their knowledge, by having a water-closet, and by taking the balls
from the cocks?—We have found some.
Have you not many more mains in your district than you formerly had of a
large size; and are not those mains kept constantly charged, with a view to fires 2
—The mains are kept constantly charged night and day.
And have you not larger mains in your service, and more of them 2–We have
more mains in the district that we now serve, I think by about twenty times the
area, than there were formerly.
In keeping the mains charged, with a view to the prevention of fires, and like-
wise in the supply of water for watering the streets, have the companies any benefit
or advantage whatever ?—No benefit whatever; no remuneration whatever, except
from the watering of the streets.
It is dome entirely gratuitously —Yes. }
So that the public have that advantage, and not the company?—The companies
have no advantage, except from the watering the streets.
And in being paid something for the watering of the streets, do you think you
are remunerated for the pains and trouble to which you are put 2–I think not ;
for I would be glad almost to pay the money out of my own pocket, rather than
have the interruption of the service by the watering of the streets; I think the
company do not gain more than £. 5 or £. 10 a year throughout the whole of their
district.
Do you mean that that £. 5 is actual profit?–Actual profit.
That is setting off against it the expense 2–The expense of coals.
When so much is said about the charges for high service, do you think that the
company are fully and fairly remunerated by their charges?—At present it is not, for
we have expended a large capital, that is something considerable, for the high
service only.
Can two companies in the same street serve as cheaply and effectually as a single
company, and as certainly 2–Not without the tenants paying double rates.
Then would it be beneficial to the metropolis to be served throughout by several
companies together, or by one company in each district —I should think one single
company.
Have you any doubt upon that subject?—No doubt whatever.
Have your directors endeavoured to find out a scale for rating houses, so as to put
each tenant on an equality with his neighbour —I do not know of any scale.
Have they endeavoured to equalize it as well as they were able 2–Yes.
Have you now any considerable sums to expend before you have completed your
works 2–I made an estimate in order to give as full a supply of water as it was
possible our district could require, and that estimate amounted to seventeen thousand
and
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
39
and odd pounds, but we have never been able to raise the means to lay out any of William Anderson,
that money. -
Do you think there are any peculiar difficulties in the district you serve, owing to
the inequality of the ground?—Yes, I do consider that there are more difficulties
in our district than any other.
Is there not a considerable saving to each parish in consequence of the use of iron
pipes?—In point of paving, I should consider very much.
Is there a considerable saving in each parish in their plumbers bills?—I cannot
speak positively as to that, but that would go in reference to high service, comparing
that with force pumps. -
But for one reason or another, do you not conceive there is a great saving to the
public in plumbers bills?—I consider so.
So that there is a saving to parishes as to paving and as to plumbers bills, a saving
to individuals, and is there not a great saving in manual labour to the servants, in the
high service?—No doubt. &
There is such an arrangement between the companies, that in the event of acci-
dent, from frost or other circumstances, you can contribute to each other's assistance?
—Yes.
You have spoken to the decay of a particular pipe which had begun to oxydate or
rust; was it owing to its being in calcareous or siliceous earth 2—No, I think not;
but it was the inside of the pipe that oxydated.
It is probable that iron pipes might not decay in argillaceous earth; have you
ascertained how it will be in calcareous earth 2–No, I have not ; it is more from
the interior of the pipe that we expect decay.
Have you had many instances of the bursting of a pipe?—We have had a few.
That is an accident which occasionally happens to iron pipes 2–Yes; but it is
occasioned by frost when it does take place, from the contraction.
In point of fact, have you had many pipes burst 2—We have had a few.
Was there any high service whatever before the year 1810 2–No, there was not.
So that the benefit of high service has been entirely derived to the town since
that time 2—Since that time.
Did none of the other water companies afford high service P-No, not any.
Not the Chelsea?—The Chelsea had some partial high service, perhaps eight or
ten feet in some situations, where the mains were.
If your mains were of much less capacity, would you not require larger reservoirs?
—The part where the company would suffer most is the greater time of the work-
ing of the engines; and if you will take the per-centage upon the increased diameter
of the pipes, and compare that with the size of the smaller pipes, the annual
expense of fuel to push the water through the small pipes is much increased,
much more than what I have already stated; and consequently it would become a
greater annual expense with small pipes, than what it does in the first expenditure
for large pipes.
If you had not those large mains you would be under the necessity of increasing
your reservoir, consequently that increased reservoir would be a greater increase of
expense to the company than the expense of the main 2—No ; we should have no
occasion to increase the size of our reservoirs.
You were asked as to the capacity of the cisterns, and you stated that they ran
from two to forty hogsheads; in answer to a subsequent question about them, you
said that some small cisterns contained not above two hogsheads; do you consider
that two hogsheads is the smallest capacity of a cistern that is contained in the houses
you supply?—There are butts; and the very small houses have all butts and not
cisterns.
What is the capacity of those butts P-They hold two hogsheads, some of them.
Then in fact, cistern or butt, the smallest receptacle for water in your appre-
hension, generally speaking, may be two hogsheads —Yes.
You have stated that of the seven thousand two hundred and odd houses you
consider five thousand of them to be small houses 2–I consider so ; but that
account can be delivered in quite correctly, perhaps from three to five thousand;
I know I have overstated it at five thousand.
Will you say four –I should say the smaller houses would be 3,000, and the
next description about 2,000.
Should you suppose, one with another, that it would be fair to state the capacity
of the smallest receptacle at two hogsheads each, for the 3,000 houses?–Yes; I
certainly think that would be about fair.
706. In
Esq
\–J–’
(24
February.)
40.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
William Anderson, In the next class can you give the Committee any information, as matter of
->2-
Esq.
- Z
(24 February.)
opinion, what the average capacity of cisterns may be stated at 2–In many of those
middle sort of houses they have two cisterns, and I should not suppose that there
are any of those cisterns that hold less than 100 gallons, and above 100 gallons.
What are the two cisterns generally ; one of them is a lower cistern for the
purposes of the house?—They have generally been put for the convenience of
servants, that they should not go to the front area to draw all the water; that has
caused a cistern to be put in the back part of the house; and to say whether those
cisterns are of the same dimensions I cannot, but they are something thereabouts,
at least 100 gallons each.
Then you would state, as matter of opinion, that the receptacle in this middle
description of houses was about two cisterns of about two hogsheads each 2–Yes.
You state the cisternage, in some houses that you could name, to amount to
twenty hogsheads 2—Yes.
Are those instances numerous at all 2–No, they are not; they are very few.
Do you think going out of your middle class of houses, that cisternage does in
very many instances rise above four hogsheads?—I should state that would be a
very good average, or thereabouts.
You say there is but one brewer in your district 2—Speaking from my recollection.
Have you many distillers in your district 2—We have two.
Have you many other trades that largely consume water at the rate brewers do;
dyers for instance 2—We have a few dyers, I do not recollect the number.
Do you apprehend, from your recollection, that of this whole quantity supplied, of
36,000 hogsheads per diem, those largely comsuming trades take up any consider-
able portion per diem P-I cannot state that correctly, but I think it is one brewer,
two distillers, and I think not more than eight or ten dyers, which are the principal
consumers of water, and three chemists. -
You cannot form an opinion of what quantity of water may be taken by them 2–
I cannot ; there are a few fishmongers.
Dividing the quantity that you supply per diem upon the whole, by the number of
houses supplied, without taking into account those largely consuming trades, would
make a domestic supply of 43 hogsheads per day ; if the average cisternage be only
four hogsheads per diem, it would appear that the cisterns were emptied every day,
and indeed that there was not cisternage enough to hold the supply furnished 2–
There is a proportion of houses of a very large class, from 5,000 to 7,000, the
proportion of which has not been named.
The first class you state at 3,000, from 3,000 to 5,000 ; 2,000 have two cisterns
of four hogsheads per day?—That was averaging the first 5,000 at four hogsheads.
Is it not true that many of the houses served by you have no cisterms at all 2–
I do not know of any at present. --
That was so formerly, was it not?—It was so. -
Has that then lately been corrected?—Yes, it has ; the number was very few that
were served without cisterns. -
But now you believe there are mone?—I do not know of any.
You have stated that the supply of 1820, per week per house, is in the proportion
of 33% hogsheads now, to six hogsheads in 1810; do you consider that the increase
of cisternage in the district is capable of receiving that difference 2—Not with
regard to the size of the cisterns; but as the supply, as I have already stated, is
four, five and six times a week, whereas it was only three times a week formerly,
that will account for the extra supply of water. -
What is the distance of your furthest supply from your works and reservoir P
—Taking it in a straight line, it would be about two miles from the reservoir.
How far from the reservoir to the Thames?—About two miles and six or seven
hundred yards from the Thames to the reservoir.
What is the extent of your high service first from the Thames, that does not go
into the reservoir 2–We cannot define that. -
What is the furthest house you throw the high service to?—We throw it all over
the district.
What is the extreme distance which you throw the high service from the Thames?
--It will be four miles.
It goes up as if it was going to the reservoir, does it not?—Yes.
It is then stopped at the reservoir 2–Yes.
º * then you force it up to the high service in different parts of the district?
— Y (2S, - - ... }
. In
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 4t
In your service, you calculate upon the time necessary to drive your water to the William Anderson,
farthest extent of the district 2—We take the whole of our district to be served in a *.
certain number of hours. s——
Supposing, in that part of the district which was near to the supply, that people (***)
generally were to allow the water to run away to cleanse the sewers, the water would
not reach the further end?—We do not supply the further end of our district and
that close to the works at the same time.
Not in the ordinary service 2—Not in the ordinary service ; for the elevation
would be such, that we could not get any water in the high districts by attempting
to send it to the low at the same time.
You have said, that in the proportion of 6 to 33 hogsheads a week, you now
actually serve six days instead of three ?—We do. -"
The proportion you state as 6 to 16 #?—If I supply a house six days a week,
I make it more than 24 hogsheads a week, because 6 times 43 is 28#.
What time do you suppose that, under the pressure of ordinary service, it would
take for four hogsheads and three quarters of water to run through a pipe of the
orifice that pipes guarded by ball-cocks ordinarily are 2—I cammot tell.
Do you think it would run through in half an hour 2—It depends on the situation
and the length of the pipe.
Can you give any average 2––No ; not as regards the supply of water.
Have you ever happened to observe what time it took to fill one of those cisterns?
—I have, when our general supply has been on ; when our regular pressure has
been on ; and I have found it in half an hour giving a supply to a street, and filling
every cistern in that street.
But supposing those cisterns all to be empty, and to be of the capacity of four
hogsheads, would that be the case?—Yes, in the mode we have constructed our
works, generally speaking. *g
You think four hogsheads and three quarters would flow through a leaden pipe
of the ordinary orifice in half an hour?—It is impossible to say ; but we keep the
service on half an hour and three quarters.
Could you not, by actual observation, be enabled to tell the Committee what
quantity of water would be discharged into one or more given cisterns in the ordinary
service in a given time?—It will be very difficult; and I will give you an instance
of what occurred yesterday. I had a complaint from a house that was supplied with
a three-quarter pipe; and from what cause, I cannot ascertain, yet the water was on
two hours and a half in that service, and filled every cistern except this one, and it
did not half fill this. -
Would it not be possible for you to go into the house of any acquaintance where
your water was on, and by a common rule take the depth from the top that the
water stood at, at any given time, and staying there any given time, say what water
had flowed through that pipe in the time 2—I could state that, certainly ; but if
you are to put it as upon a general supply, and that every house ought to get the
same supply, you will be very much mistaken. I consider it impossible to give any
thing more than an average. .
Are the cisterns all filling at the same moment, or do the different heights create
delays 2–Yes; perhaps the first lower cisterns may be full in twenty minutes; the
upper ones may be half an hour or an hour, as I stated.
Have you any regulation what time such and such services should be on 2–We
have. -
Has not that reference to your experience as to the work that will be done by
this service or that service in a given time?—We know that by turning on such
and such services, it occupies many hours of the engine at a time; we can tell then
the quantity of water worked at that time, but how it is distributed to the different
houses we cannot get at by any statement that will satisfy this Committee.
Are all the supply pipes in the houses of the same dimensions?—No.
Give the principle in writing upon which you calculate four and three quarters
hogsheads per day per house? –I can give you that now. I have already stated to
the Committee, that 36,000 hogsheads of water, divided among 7,200 houses, will
produce an average of four and three quarters hogsheads per day; that is the general
average; I can give no other average at all.
It has been stated to the Committee by an officer of another company, that the
average supply to the houses furnished by that company appears by the same method
of dividing their whole quantity by the number of houses, to amount to three
hº and a half; can you account for that difference between their average
700. L and
4:
*
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
William Anderson,
\–
Esg.
~~~~
(24 February.)
and your’s?—I think I can. In some instances the houses in the parish of St. George
are much larger houses; the increased quantity that has been used for the supply
of stables for those large houses, carriages for those large houses, in my opinion,
will give some reason for the increased quantity. *.
In a gentleman’s family, supposing that any individual puts up a cistern, is it
necessary that he should apply to the company —Not at all, for the low service ;
but for the high service it is expected they will apply for it.
If it is done upon the high service you consider it a fraud on the company –
Yes, certainly.
And you have, in some instances, found it to be done?—We have, in some few,
they are not many.
You have been stating to the Committee the great benefit to the public by the
increased quantity of water; do not you consider that there will be a proportionate
waste agreeably to the surplusage of water; because you were understood to infer
that the whole benefit from the surplus of the water is in favour of the public 2–
I have no doubt when the public find that they receive an abundant quantity of
water they have so much more reason to waste it.
Are you, as an engineer, in the habit of going from house to house occasionally,
to ascertain the increased number of cisterns, or, on the other hand, to see the ball-
cock is not let off, because there must be the waste?—Where high service is per-
formed, and our district comprehends a great number of the better sort of houses, we
find all the ball-cocks generally pretty correct.
Do you look for them 2–We know it generally, because the high service will not
be performed if the ball-cocks are not acting properly below.
You have ball-cocks in the lower service?—We have, or we could not get the
water to the tops of the houses.
Are those ball-cocks watched 2–They are, I think to the utmost extent, without
we were putting a sort of excise, or something very troublesome to the inhabitant,
who is even unwilling to let the turncock into the house when a complaint of want
of water takes place.
Those are carelessnesses, which you cannot immediately call frauds; which you
cannot avoid?—I do not call that a fraud; it is only cisterns being put on high
services, unknown to the company. *
Then supposing there were four cisterns unknown to the company, added to the
original one, would not the quantity of water, and the force you throw it with, fill
four of those fraudulent cisterns?—I think to the extent spoken of, without they
increased the diameter of the pipe, it would not do so. 3.
Take two additional cisterns?—Then I think it might.
That would be a fraud on the company?—Yes.
You have said that you would in no case whatever have wooden pipes, when you
could afford the price of iron ones, and that in some measure the occasion of
not laying them down to the extent you would have done, was in consequence of
the expense?—There are two particular circumstances which demand iron pipes;
the first is, with regard to the quantity of supply; the second is, that the
wooden pipes would only furnish such mains of a small diameter, and which present
supply could not be furnished without increasing the number of lesser mains, or an
expenditure of fuel, and the iron pipes have been much larger in diameter, and that
has of itself increased the capital. The supply to the town in case of fire is certain
in iron pipes, and very uncertain in wooden pipes. In keeping a regular account of the
alarms of fire that have taken place from October 1819 to the present time, there
have been 132, and only one house burnt down out of that number.
You were asked whether you conceived that the inhabitants received as much
water now as in 1810; you stated that you considered there was an increase in the
supply in the proportion of three to one; now you having stated that it was twenty-
eight gallons and a half to six, it is as four and three quarters to one?—Yes.
How many houses do you reckon in a service, or do you apportion it according to
your convenience?—Generally in proportion to our mains; some are twenty in a
Service, some thirty, and some forty : I think forty is the greatest extent we have
lil Oile Service.
How many hours a day does your engine work?—Sixteen; the service to the
houses is completed in about fourteen hours; but as it takes out a considerable
quantity of water out of the reservoir, we work two hours more in order to fill up
that surplus quantity of water.
You
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS 43
You stated that the total quantity of hogsheads was 13,000,000 in the year, does Wiſh”.4**
that include the high service and the low 2–The whole º º and low. , Esq. ,
Do you obtain that quantity by gauging your reservoir P-We do. -
W. that for . #. .. i. not thrown into the reservoir, how do * February.)
you obtain that quantity?—I cannot obtain the quantity for the high service.
Do you reckon the sixteen hours the total of the possibility of the engine's work-
ing, or could you work it more hours?—We can work the engine twenty-four hours,
because we have a spare engine. -
Would your reservoir suit that ?—Yes, it would.
So that the supply of water is not limited to the sixteen hours?—By no means.
Are there not some situations in your district which cannot be supplied below
the pavement from your reservoir 2–I think not any ; I do not recollect any below
the pavement.
You mentioned that the areas of the mains were in the proportion of one to
twenty as now, that is 1820 or 1821, with what other period?--It was the early
period, wherein it was stated four seven-inch mains. -
What was that period?—Before the year 1810.
Your principal main you state is thirty inches diameter?—Yes.
The principal main goes along Oxford-street?—Yes.
And the supply mains running north and south, what is their diameter 2-We
have three twelve-inch mains.
That is what you call collateral mains?—Yes, we have three twelve-inch mains,
three nine-inch mains, and three seven-inch mains.
That is up to Poland-street?—Yes; there is also one nine-inch main into Mary-
le-bone, and one seven-inch into Mary-le-bone.
You stated there was a considerable estimate that you had made, off. 17,000; for
what object was that 2—One is a main along Piccadilly, to communicate the whole
length of Piccadilly, another main down Regent-street; one twelve-inch main in
Piccadilly, and the other nine; and there are some other cross mains ; there is
another nine-inch main, called the Stanhope-street main. It is also proposed in the
estimate to make another reservoir, higher in elevation than the present, in order to
give a full security to the town in case of any accident happening to the engines
and with a supply of these increased mains, there is no probability of the district of
the tºn we supply being in want of water in case of any accident happening to the
WOI’KS,
Do you reckon those works, according to the best of your judgment as engineer,
necessary for the good supply of the district?—I do, in order to secure the supply.
It has been stated to the Committee, by the engineers of all companies, and
yourself as well, that one of the great advantages of this good understanding
between the companies, was the facility of assisting each other in case of an accident;
now it occurs to the Committee it would not be necessary to have another reservoir,
because, in the case of accident, the other companies have the means to supply you?
—I take it for granted the more secure any thing of that sort is made, the more
secure the public will be. Supposing, in the present state of the works, that any
thing was to happen to the great main in Oxford-street, which would require two
or three days to repair it, the advantage by laying the Piccadilly mains and other
cross mains I have named, would be, that the supply would then be stopped at Oxford-
street, by Tyburn Gate, and the engines working from the river would send a supply
of water into the town and throughout the district, without communicating with the
great main at all; and that may be done in half an hour's notice at any time.
You would then force it up the Piccadilly main into all your services?—Yes.
Then supposing any thing happens to the engines, and it may occupy a fortnight,
perhaps, or three weeks, as took place with our engine at Paddington, wherein it
was three weeks before the repairs were completed, and with another extra reser-
voir of water placed at Paddington, that would give ample means for securing the
district that we supply, independent of drawing it from other sources; it will also
afford a reservoir full of water, equal, perhaps, to a week’s consumption upon our
tenants, as a reserve for any other of the companies that may require it.
What are the contents of your reservoir now —Our present reservoir, the large
one, holds nearly one week’s consumption.
Have you two reservoirs now 2–We have a smaller one that will hold a little
better than two days, hardly three days, consumption.
. The whole of your present supply for high and low service, throughout your
º is obliged to come through the great main in Oxford-street 2—It is. A d
700. - Il
44
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
William Anderson,
Esq.
\–~~ -
(24 February.)
William M. Coe,
Esq.
S-S2-—’
And what would be the consequence, in case that main was broken, to the
town 2–It would totally depend upon what it was. - -
Would not other companies be immediately enabled to form a supply?—No.
By the construction of a great main along Piccadilly, the supply of the whole
district might pass through that, in case of the one in Oxford-street being
destroyed?—It is so contrived through the Piccadilly main, through Stanhope-
street main, and through our seven-inch mains. -
Those are projected improvements, but they are not necessary 2–In case of fire
what would be the event. - - -
In case the Oxford-street main should fail, and you had a new main in Piccadilly,
how long would the town be without water before you could fill it?—About as
long as we could be going from Oxford-street to the Thames.
What thickness are the pipes of this main —About an inch, or a little better.
In the scale of chances, what probability do you suppose there is of an accident
happening to that main 2–I cannot say ; it may be a long while before any wear
will be produced, but in case of accident it may want repair.
Is there such a thing as a ground plan in any of the companies of any of these
mains and works 2–Yes.
What is the size of it?—It is to the scale of Harwood’s Map of London, one
third of an inch to a chain ; but we have a smaller one which you can look at.
William Matthew Coe, Esq. Called in ; and Examined.
HOW long have you been Secretary to the Grand Junction water company 2–
Almost from the origin of the concern. - - -
At what period after your act passed, did you first begin to furnish the town
with a supply of water?—I think the first supply was given in 1812, but the engineer
could have answered that question better than myself.
Can you state under what circumstances the allotment of the districts took
place 2—I understand the boards to have settled the amounts to be apportioned to
each company. - -
Was it upon the principle of rental ?—Yes, upon the principle of rental, having
due regard to where the mains of each company were placed, which were most effec-
'tive in giving the service.
When the company was first chartered, an agreement existed for furnishing water
from the Grand Junction canal?–Yes; it was an agreement to vest the power
which the Grand Junction canal company obtained, under the act of the 38 Geo. 3,
to supply Paddington and the parts adjacent with water, in a gentleman of the
name of Hill, who agreed to lease this power of the Grand Junction canal
company. - - - - -
To you?—No, to himself and others; and he got several of his friends and
other persons to join the concern. The lease was, I believe, first granted to
Mr. Hill. -
In 1810?–Yes. ... •
What is the nature of your agreement with the Regent’s canal company 2—The
principle upon which it was arranged, was, that we should be placed in as good a
situation as we were. - -
What is the Regent's canal company bound to provide by that agreement 2–
They are bound to erect engines, and to provide a main; and the expense of pump-
ing the quantity of water that we were entitled to from the Grand Junction canal,
was not to exceed the expense we should have incurred in paying the rental to
that company.
By your agreement, do you pay the same rental to the Regent’s canal company,
that you pay to the Grand Junction ?–We pay it in coals, estimating the rent
that we should have had to pay at the expiration of 1826, when the greatest rent
accrued, of £. 2,000 a year, and calculating the value of the fines payable at the
expiration of the lease. -
You pay to the extent of £. 2,000 a year now 2–No, it has not commenced yet;
the agreement is still in an imperfect state. - -
Is it like the agreement with the Canal company, a graduated payment 2–No, it
is not a payment to the company at all; we ascertained that we should have had
to pay in 1826, £. 2,000 a year to the Grand Junction canal, if they chose
to accept that in preference to a quarter part of the gross rental; and the principle
upon which the arrangement was made with the Regent's canal company, was,
that we should pay for the pumping of our water, and such further sum as
- might
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 45
might be agreed upon as a sum equivalent to the fines that were to be paid to the Hilliam M. coe,
Grand Junction canal company at the expiration of the lease ; so that in fact we Esq.
consider ourselves as standing in about the same situation, in point of expense, as if S-v-'
we received our water from the canal. (24 February.)
What was the great object of that alteration ?—It was a matter of accommodation
to all parties. The Grand Junction canal company found us very disagreeable lessees,
inasmuch as we could draw any quantity of water from their canal, and injure their
navigation. Our company considered it in some manner an accommodation, though
I have not found it so, that we should have the Thames water, because the town
seemed rather to prefer it; and the Regent’s canal company considered it the easiest
mode by which they could obtain a plentiful supply of water for their navigation.
Is all the water supplied by you at this time from the Thames?—It is, except in
case of a stoppage of the engine by any accident ; water has been taken from the
canal under such circumstances.
The principle of this agreement was established merely for convenience, but you
personally did not consider that your company were benefited by the alteration —
No further than that the town seemed to prefer Thames water, and that had its
weight of course with the board of directors.
Being under agreement to furnish the same quantity of supply, the difference of
supply to the public was nothing?—That undoubtedly had weight, because we had
constant disputes with the canal company; we used to draw down their water and
injure their navigation, and we considered that we should have a much greater
power of obtaining water without constant disputes about the quantity.
Do you in fact supply a greater quantity of water since you had your supply from
the Thames?—That the engineer is more able to answer than I am.
What part of the Thames is that water taken from ?—It is within a few hundred
yards of where the Chelsea supply is taken from, near Chelsea hospital.
Upon the ground of supply, do you see any reasonable ground, independent of the
expense incurred by the competition at the commencement of your establishment,
for increasing the rates beyond the rates of the year 1810?–I certainly do, in
point of supply: the expense that has been incurred in competition is very trifling
indeed; I conceive it to have arisen in nothing else than the expense of plumbers
work, and the laying on houses, and changing houses; I do not know any expense
occasioned by the competition beyond that : from my own knowledge I can state
that the supply of water previous to the establishment of this company was very
indifferent. I was, previous to the establishment of the Grand Junction company,
employed as secretary to the Manchester waterworks, the board of which company
used to hold its sittings in London, in the early part of its establishment: it was one
of the gentlemen of that board that first established the Grand Junction waterworks
company, and many of the gentlemen of that board were asked to embark their
property in the Grand Junction waterworks: previously to their having so dome,
they requested of me to obtain information for them relative to the deficiency of
supply, particularly about Paddington and St. Mary-le-bone. I employed myself several
days for that purpose, and I almost found, universally, that there was a deficiency
in the supply of water; that the price never appeared to be an object with the
parties receiving it; and the reply I generally received was, that they would not
mind paying a greater sum, provided they could get a greater supply.
What do you consider high and low service —We have taken the separation
between the two, according to the proposition that was made in Parliament two years
ago, under Mr. Taylor's bill, at six feet six above the level of the pavement.
It has been stated that one of the great reasons of the additional consumption of
water has been the turning the old-fashioned conveniences into water-closets for
servants; do you charge high service for those which are placed below the level of
the pavement?—I do not know that we have so charged them where we have found
them, but if they are erected now we charge them, because we do not consider that
as a supply for domestic purposes.
Supplying a water-closet below the level of the pavement, you consider as extra
service?—Yes; we consider all water-closets either high service or an extra supply.
Have you cut off the supply of water in cases of refusal of payment 2–We have.
In several instances?—Yes, in several instances.
Have you served general notices with respect to that 2–Yes, we have.
Determinable at Lady-day P-Determinable at different times.
Generally, to all who refuse to pay ?—Yes; there have been instances where
706. M persons
46
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
William M. Coe,
Esq.
\– -
`N >
(24 F ebruary.)
persons have not given a positive refusal that we have served notice on, they not
having paid the rate, but wishing for delay. -
Is a notice served, stating that it is on account of the nonpayment of this
additional rate 2–I think the notice states, that in consequence of their having
refused to pay the rate, they are to take notice that, &c.
All in one form 2–A printed form.
Are there any prosecutions now depending, in consequence of that, against the
company 2–Not that I am aware of.
After having given notice to them of your intention of cutting off, in case they
do not pay that increased demand, have they then subsequently signified their
intention of paying it?–Yes; we have found that many to whom the notice was
delivered have afterwards denied that they refused to pay it; they have no objection
to pay it ; they have not all paid merely in consequence of that notice.
Have persons subsequently signified to you that rather than suffer the inconve-
nience of losing the supply of water they would pay the increased demand 2–Yes.
Many 2–Yes.
Taking the proportion of the notices, have half agreed to pay under them 2–No,
certainly not ; in fact, there are many of them have paid without my knowing the
reason; after they have received a notice, the collector has called and has been paid.
But have they paid rather than suffer the inconvenience of the loss of their
water 2–Yes; some have, but very few.
Have you any means of knowing what is said between the collector and the in-
dividual renting the house?—No ; I only speak of appeals that come to the office;
the collectors seldom report unless it is that any tenant wishes to see some one
from the office; then I have called, and after an explanation of what the company
are likely to gain by it, they have readily consented, without suffering the water to
be cut off.
You have not considered that they shall bind themselves to continue to pay that
rate 2—We consider that the tenant may give us notice to discontinue our water at
any time : a person will come to our office and say, I do not wish my supply con-
tinued after to-morrow, which is quarter day.
Have you no contracts on leases with tenants?—I do not think we have more
than one; I believe we had one six or seven years ago, and I do not think it is
out yet.
Were not the notices given generally and indiscriminately to all tenants, without
reference to those who had refused?—When we first began to give a notice, there
were from a thousand to fifteen hundred persons who had not paid the rate, and to
those we gave notice.
The Grand Junction water company is now cutting off supply, on the ground of
refusing to pay the high rates?—No ; upon the ground of their refusing to enter
into contracts with us for a future supply.
That refusal is founded on the high rates?—Yes.
Have you not this power of cutting off, in the case of nonpayment, under your
act of parliament 2–We conceive so.
And you have likewise a power of bringing actions, in case of nonpayment for
your water supply f—I consider so.
Is it not thought to be a milder mode of proceeding, the cutting off water, rather
than bringing actions 2—The person receiving the water can give the best informa-
tion on that ; it is less expensive to us.
Have you ever cut off water wantonly and capriciously, or only for the non pay-
ment of your demand 2—Not that I am aware of.
. In the allotment of districts by the boards, is there any instrument that is legally
obligatory on you?–None that I am aware of. i
So that if you thought fit to break the verbal agreement, you might still enter
any district you thought fit?—Yes.
Is there, to your knowledge, even a verbal agreement that the companies shall not
go into the other districts?—None that I am aware of
Do not you know it has been declared by all of them, that they may go into any
other district to-morrow?—Certainly, we rather understand that ; if we practise
any system of extortion, the New River company would come into our district.
At the time of that division you surrendered the works from each respective
district, and purchased or sold the mains and the pipes belonging to each district?
—Yes. - - -
Consequently
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
47
Consequently you disable yourself from entering into that district without new
works 2–Without laying new pipes.
That was the virtual division ?—Yes.
You have spoken as if you considered that your power of commencing a water
company originated about the year 1810; are you not aware, that at the original
formation of the Grand Junction canal there was that power in them to make a
water company forty years ago?—I have so stated. .
When you diverted your service, and took your water from the Thames in-
stead of the canal, was it not in consequence of the water being foul, which
was supplied by the river called the Brent 2-—No ; we had got rid of that
altogether.
Had you not foul and impure water, in the estimation of many people?—When
we first began.
And subsequently, was it not thought more impure, by many persons, than the
Thames water P-It might be with many persons; I have never found it.
When you had the supply from the canal, it was in some measure limited, and
now it is unlimited 2–We had as much as we wanted from the canal; we consider
we have a greater power of supply from the Thames.
What is the extent of your powers?—I am not able to speak to that ; but I
understand the evidence of the engineer to go to that point; but by working longer
we can supply more.
You stated that your reason for not bringing actions was, that it was a cheaper
mode to cut off the supply?—It has always been considered so, not with reference
to this particular question only. -
h Does not your act authorize you to distrain 2–Yes; and in some instances we
aVé. - -
So that you have three remedies; either by action, cutting off the water, or
distraining P-We have never brought actions. - -
Have you actually distrained 2–In some instances. - -
And that led to payment and not to action ?—We have never distrained for the
high rate; we very seldom distrain, excepting in the event of a person running
away, or becoming bankrupt.
Have you not been invited to distrain, for the purpose of putting the question
at issue, without suffering the loss of the supply 2—I think the board have received
a letter from what is called the Anti Water Monopoly Association, to that effect.
Are you prepared to state the grounds upon which you refused that proposal
to distrain for the sake of bringing the question to a legal issue 2–We considered
that it would not decide the question ; the proposal was, that a case should be
drawn up and submitted to a court of law for decision. * ,
A case founded upon a real grievance which was forthcoming 2—Yes.
Do you imagine that there is such a great distinction between those resistances
on the part of the public to pay this increased rate, that one decision at law would
not have gone to decide the question 2–1 really do not see how a court of law
ever could have settled it; they must have gone into all the inquiry that you are
now instituting ; it did appear as if there would be a great deal of difficulty
attending it.
You did not see the possibility of making it a general issue?—We did not.
Not so as to put the question at rest?—No ; one action would not meet every
case ; no single case could be selected that would answer every purpose. -
Was this question agitated in the Court of Chancery 2—Yes, with respect to
the West Middlesex company. - |
Do you know what the decision was 2–I can only state that the Lord Chancellor
refused the injunction.
[The following papers were delivered in, and read.]
“IN respect to the durability of cast iron pipes in the streets of London, I believe
there exists no difference of opinion; all the persons with whom I have conversed
being confident that they will be as perfect at the expiration of 100 years as they
were in the first instance; but how far the joints will remain perfect, and the
pipes answer all the purposes for which they were intended, is a very difficult point
to determine, from their having been in use so short a time. f
“From the experience I have had, I consider the capital expended in the pipes
to remain unalterable, having seen some which had been in use eighty years, so
706. - perfect
William M. Coe,
Esq.
S-S2-4
(24 February.}
*
48
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
William M. Coe, perfect that no corrosion was visible; but the contraction and expansion of the
Esq.
(24 February.)
metal, with the temperature of the water with which they are filled, is constantly
acting on the joints, the effects produced from which, in my opinion, will be equal
to a complete relay in every thirty years; for it must be considered, that as all such
repairs must be executed without interfering with the supply of the town, it must,
therefore, be dome under every disadvantage.
“It is also necessary to observe, that the velocity with which the water passes
through the pipes, materially affects their future efficiency. In all pipes that I have
seen, immediately connected with engines, I have observed no material incrustation,
there being nothing more than a thin film on the surface, resembling what is pro-
duced in the interior of a tea-kettle ; but in pipes where the velocity is not so
great, a material incrustation takes place, and more particularly with Thames water.
“In the New River waterworks I have seen a sixteen-inch pipe taken up, which had
been down about twenty years; it was reduced from incrustation at least one inch
in the diameter.
“In Kensington gardens I understand a five-inch service pipe was laid down of
iron in the year 1751, and it was in 1819 taken up from inefficiency, being reduced
to about three inches in diameter in many parts of its length, which consequently
affected the utility of the whole. A similar circumstance happened at Windsor
palace.
“These are the only instances with which I am acquainted; but if such should
be the case with all the pipes in the streets of London, there will not only be an
annual expenditure in coals (or other ways) to overcome the temporary resistance
arising from such incrustation, but also a complete relay, for the purpose of cleansing,
once in about fifty years.
“I must also observe on the capital employed in cocks, which is by far the most
perishable, a considerable part of them being made of wrought iron, from the
experience I have had, the screws will all require to be renewed within seven years,
and the doors fresh faced, which may be considered as being equal to a complete
renewal of that portion of the capital in every ten years.
66 February 1821.” 6 “JWilliam Chadwell Mylne.”
“IN my evidence of Friday the 16th instant, in answer to a question respecting
the duration of iron pipes, I stated, “That iron pipes would not require repairs.”
This question I understood related to the time that iron pipes would last, without a
reference to the repairs, and I beg to state there will be an expense attendant on
the repairs of iron pipes. With respect to their duration I have not had sufficient
experience to fix a period; but what I have taken up did not appear to be diminished
in substance. “Tho' Simpson,
“February 24th, 1821.” “Inspector-general to Chelsea waterworks.”
“PARTICULARs of the method of rating the Tenants of the Chelsea Waterworks
Company, in the year 1810.
“First Class of Houses:–From 8s. to 12 S. per ann.; average about ; d. per day.
House or shed, with one room - sº sº gº 8s. per annum.
D° - - d” - - two d” - º º gº º I O S. 5 3
D° - - d" - - three d” - - 㺠tºº ſº 1 2 S. 5 3
“Second Class:–From 14s. to 22 s. per annum; average about ; d. per day;
the ground plan containing 250 superficial feet, and not exceeding 400 superficial
feet, charged at # d. per foot.
“If the above are more or less than three stories, add or deduct 1o per cent.
and if in a good or inferior neighbourhood, add or deduct to per cent; also
add for watering gardens from 2 s, to 5 s. according to the size.
“Third Class:—From 24 S. to 36 s. per annum; average about 1 d. per day;
the ground plan above 400 superficial feet, and not exceeding 600, charged at # d.
per foot.
“If the above are more or less than four stories, add or deduct same as in
2d class.
“Fourth
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 49
“Fourth Class:–From 4os. to 52 s. per annum; average about 1 # d. per day ; (24 February.)
the ground plan above 600 superficial feet, and not exceeding 850, charged at # d.
per foot. * w
“Fifth Class:–From 56 s. to 70s. per annum; average about 2 d. per day; the
ground plan above 850 superficial feet, and not exceeding 1,000, charged at # d.
per foot.
“Sixth Class:–From 80 s. to 105s. per annum; average about 3 ; d. per day;
the ground plan above 1,000 superficial feet, and not exceeding 1,460, charged
at 4 d. per foot. -
“Seventh Class:–From 120 s. to 160 S. per annum; average about 44 d. per
day; the ground plan above 1,460 superficial feet, and not exceeding 1,900, charged
at I d. per foot. -
“Eighth Class:–168 s. and above, per annum; average about 63 d. per day;
the ground plan above 1,900 superficial feet, charged at I d. per foot.
Water-closets, extra each - tº - - tº e - 12 S. per annum.
Coach-houses and stables, viz. for a coach and pair - 12 S. 55
Each single coach-house - gº sº * gº - 6 s. 55
,, Dwelling above tºº º gº gº! º - 8 s. 33
, Horse and chaise - gº sº tº tº - 8 s. 9 3
,, Horse and cart tºº tº •ºm .* º - 8 s. 3.2
£ivery stables, per stall - tº r º º - - 2 s. 6d. ,
,, each coach, or stand for ditto - - 5 S. 35
5 3
Manufactories, &c. if delivered into a low situation, # d. per barrel; but if
from ten to twenty feet high, I d. per barrel.
Breweries, if delivered into a low situation, at per barrel, taken from the excise
books, 1 d. but if delivered from twenty to thirty feet high, 2d.
Watering streets by scoops or carts, per superficial yard between the foot-
pavements, 1 d. per annum.
“Tho' Simpson,
“February 24th 1821.” “Inspector-general to Chelsea waterworks.”
“CoMPARIson of original Expense between an Iron and Wooden Pipe of four
Inches diameter.
Four-inch iron pipe, laid down in the year 1810, cost 1 1s. 9d. per yard.
Four-inch wooden pipe, laid down in the year 1810, cost 5s. 2d. per yard.”
“ ESTIMATE of the Expense of probable Repairs of Iron and Wooden Pipes of four
Inches diameter, during the course of thirty years.
Four-inch iron pipes:—Expense of repairs during thirty years, including
proportion of taking up, cleaning and relaying, which will be necessary once
in fifty years, 3 s. 1 # d. per yard.
Four-inch wooden pipes : —Expense of repairs during thirty years, including
twice renewing and proportion of two years more, 11s. 2 + d. per yard.
“Pursuant to an order of the Select Committee respecting the supply
of water to the metropolis, -
•, “ Tho’ Simpson,
“ February 24, 1821.” “Inspector-general to Chelsea waterworks.”
“REMARKs on the Comparison of the original Expense between an Iron
and Wooden Pipe of four Inches diameter, and Expense of probable
Repairs of each during the course of thirty years. *
“With respect to the cost of four-inch iron pipe laid down in the year 1810, it is
necessary to observe, that 11 s. 9 d. per yard is for straight pipes only ; and there
will be an additional expense for branch, elbow and plug pipes; also for cocks, and
for fining ferrules, all of which are greater in iron than in wooden pipes; that is to
. the extra expense will amount to 2 # d. per yard, in a pipe of four inches
{\lameter.
706, N “ In
50
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN REFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
(24 February.)
“The following are three particular instances of the contraction of the orifices of
iron pipes, which came under my observation :-
“In the year 1789, in consequence of the great difficulty experienced in supply-
ing Windsor-castle with water, I was ordered by the surveyor general of His
Majesty’s office of works, to ascertain the cause, if possible. The engine which sup-
plies the castle is worked by the fall of the river Thames, and the pumps are sup-
plied from a spring. Upon examination, I found the leaden conveyance pipe for
the engine to the castle, very defective, and recommended two-and-a-half inch iron
pipe to be substituted, which was done. In the year 1816, the same deficiency of
supply took place as in 1789, but not from the same cause. I had, from my observa-
tions, experienced the incrustation of iron pipes, and concluded the pipe was almost
stopped ; and having recommended the pipe to be taken up, I ascertained the orifice
was little more than one inch diameter, the incrustation being nearly equal all round
the internal surface of the pipe.
“ In the year 1791 it was found necessary to take up and relay a twelve-inch
iron main (of flanch pipes, which were originally laid down in the year 1746)
from the Chelsea waterworks engine to the reservoir in Hyde Park, in consequence
of the joints being perished. The incrustation on the internal surface of this main
was in irregular lumps, and upon an average about half an inch thick; the diameter
of the pipe being contracted to nearly eleven inches.
“In the year 1819 the difficulty of supplying the reservoir in Kensington Gardens,
near the palace, had increased to such an extent, that it became absolutely neces-
sary to ascertain the cause ; and having taken the proper steps, I found the pipe
was contracted by incrustation. The pipe was originally five inches diameter; and
from the Chelsea waterworks books was laid by government in the year 1751.
The pipe was contracted to three inches diameter, and the incrustation covered the
internal surface in irregular lumps. - * ,
“From the foregoing observations an inference may be drawn, that the incrustation
on the internal surface of iron pipes will, in the course of fifty years, so contract the
orifices, that it will be absolutely necessary for the pipes to be taken up, cleaned and
relaid, during which process some of them may be injured. It had long been discovered,
in the instance of the pipe which supplies the reservoir in Kensington Gardens from
the Chelsea waterworks main, that great difficulty had arisen in making the service,
and the cause was unknown until the pipe was examined, so that the incrustation
had, it must be presumed, originated some years before that period. It is necessary
to observe, that by the progressive incrustation, and consequent contraction of the
orifices of the pipes, the friction of the water passing through them will be in-
creased, and either a greater power or longer time will be required to force the
same quantity of water through iron pipes at the end of fifty years, than was
originally allowed. Upon this computation it may be stated, that the progressive re-
quisite increase of power or of time, will occasion a corresponding inci'ease of expense,
which in the fiftieth year may amount to fifty per cent. more than was found sufficient
in the first year. It is also necessary to observe, that this progress of incrustation in
iron pipes is calculated upon a supposition that the river Thames water only is used
in the pipes. .*
“There is another material consideration in the expense of the probable repairs
of iron pipes, which is not included in the estimate; viz. the expense of the pro-
bable repairs of cocks will be greater in iron than in wooden pipes; and having care-
fully estimated such extra expense, I find during the course of thirty years it will
amount to three pence per yard in a four-inch iron pipe.
“With respect to the duration of wooden pipes in the district supplied by the
Chelsea waterworks, the water being forced through them by engines, on an average
they do not last more than fourteen years, and the estimate of the probable expense
of the repairs is made out accordingly.
t - “Tho' Simpson,
“February 24th, 1821.” “Inspector-general to Chelsea waterworks.”
©
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS,
- - Lunae, 26' die Februarj, 1821.
WILLIAM HENRY FREMANTLE, ESQUIRE,
IN T H E C H A I R.
Mr. John Southam, Called in ; and Examined.
WHAT is your situation 2–To attend the flood-gates at the open part of the
King’s Scholars Pond sewer.
Flap-keeper?—Yes.
How long have you held the situation ?—Upwards of twenty-years. - 1
Explain the nature of the business you have to perform as flap-keeper?—To keep
the gates shut to prevent the Thames water getting up the Scholar sewers, and to
see that there is no impediment in the drains.
Have you any distinct recollection of the average quantity of water received from
the town into the open parts of the sewer at dry seasons of the year in and before
the year 1810, as compared with the average quantity that now flows into it at
similar seasons?—It is a hard case to say exactly; to the best of my information I
should think there may be an increase of one-third. .
More water is discharged down the sewers than there used to be?—Yes. -
If the quantity of water supplied by the water companies to the inhabitants of
that part of the town drained by your sewer was generally reduced to one half
of its present amount, do you believe that that diminution in the supply would
produce such a difference in the height to which the drainage-water rises in the
open sewer as to be perceived by you?—I should think it would. *
What sort of difference would it make in the level of the sewer, when it is coming
down, in the height of the water -–I should think as much as a foot. -
What is the depth of the whole?—I should think about three feet; and it would
make a foot difference. d
What is the height of the drain now?—About three feet.
You never made a measurement 2–No, never. *
Do you consider there has been much variation in consequence of the supply of
water from the companies since 1810?–There certainly has been an increase;
I cannot say to what extent.
In the last two or three years particularly, do you consider there has been an
increase beyond the years preceding that 2—I should think not.
From your own experience, what benefit do you attach to this increase of water 2
—I do not know of any benefit particularly, except that it cleanses the sewer.
Mr. John Dowley, Called in ; and Examined.
YOU are Surveyor of the Westminster sewers 2–Yes.
Have you any recollection of the quantity of water formerly collected in the open
parts of the sewers in dry seasons, compared with the average quantity now col-
:lected in them at similar seasons?—I have some knowledge. .
How long have you been in this situation ?—I have been with them ever since
1810. - - -
Do you consider that since the year 1810 there has been a considerable increase
of water in those sewers ?—Not a very considerable quantity. -
To what extent do you consider that increase?—Not more than one-fourth ; but
at all events, not more than one-third : but it varies according to circumstances.
Have your sewers been improved in the construction since you have had the
inspection of them?—Yes; particularly the lateral sewers: some years past they
have undergone a very considerable improvement; and the main sewer has lately
undergone a considerable improvement.
And that would create an increase of the passage independent of the water?—
Not of the quantity; it would let it pass off with more facility; their ill construction
would not prevent the flowing of the water. * *
The channels are wider 2–Yes. ... • •. -
706. T)6
Aſr.
John Southam,
\-—S2-—’
(26 February.)
|Hr.
John Dowley,
52
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
John Dowley.
(26 February.)
Do you take that into calculation when you say one-fourth increase ; do you take
that into consideration as well as the increase of water thrown into the sewers ?—
Yes, both. -- -
Do you judge merely by the increase of levels?—No ; I judge from the works
going on in the sewers where the breach has happened : we have the means of con-
veying the water by troughs during the repair of the sewer.
Have you perceived any increase in the last two or three years more than there
was in 1810, 1811, or 1812 2–It has been gradually increasing since 1810.
Not more particularly in the last two or three years?—No.
Do you consider in the district drained by the King’s Scholars Pond sewer a
great portion of the water supplied by the public companies is suffered by the
tenants, through negligence, to run to waste more than formerly 2–Not more in
proportion than as the town extends: we always found a great run of water at the
time the water was laid on at the houses; there was apparently a great waste.
Mr.
George Saunders.
Do you find it to have increased since the water has been applied to the district,
and the water companies have been established?—Not particularly. -
Your acquaintance with your present office began in 1810?–Yes.
You have no means of speaking before 1810 2–No.
You have a perfect recollection of the state of the sewers in 1810 2–Yes.
And you have mentioned an improvement in the lateral sewers?—Yes.
And putting that aside, do you consider the increased supply of water since 1810,
tends to cleanse the sewers more than before?—Yes; but that is not the principal
improvement; it has been in the improvement of the lateral sewers.
Are the works more immediately under your direction affected by the water being
on in any particular part of the town more than another?—No.
You have said that you perceive a difference in the quantity of water discharged
into the sewers at the time the water is on ?—I am alluding now to the lateral sewers;
but the main sewer varies: the water in the main sewer generally begins to be in-
creased visibly about eight o’clock in the morning, and we attribute that greatly to
the use that is made of it in houses, and it keeps running with great velocity and in
great quantities till four in the afternoon.
Mr. George Saunders, Called in; and Examined.
YOU are Chairman of the Court of Sewers ?–I am.
How long have you been in that situation?–Now about sixteen years.
Did you belong to the Court previous to your being chairman 2–I have belonged
to the commission about twenty-six years. --
Many improvements that have taken place in the sewers, have been from your.
suggestion?—A great many of them ; they have been in a continual course of im-
provement ever since I have been in the chair.
You heard the evidence given by the surveyor and sluice-keeper in respect to the
quantity of water passing that sewer, the product of the waterworks at the present
period compared with the period immediately preceding the establishment of the new
water companies; the Committee wish to be informed whether you concur in that
evidence, and to receive the observations you may think it fit to make thereupon 2–
I have not myself observed any increase in the ordinary flow of the water in the
King’s Scholars Pond sewer. It should be observed, that sometimes our attention
is not called to the common flow of the water from household uses, but to the great
flow of water in floods; we pay very little regard as to taking account of the common
flow of water; and therefore, if there has been an additional flow of water, it has escaped
my notice. I should add also, to show that the flow of water from household uses
makes but little show in thesewers as to attracting one’s notice, that the King's Scholars
Pond sewer drains a district altogether perhaps ten times as large as that drained by
the Hartshorn-lane sewer, which discharges in Northumberland-street: our sewer
discharges by the side of Tothill-fields, Westminster. On the west side of Tothill-
fields, the Hartshorn-lane sewer drains a district of the town, not half so much as the
district of town drained by the King’s Scholars Pond sewer. I am confining it now to
the town drainage; but the district drained by the Hartshorn-lane sewer, is carrying
as much of the ordinary flow of water as the King’s Scholars Pond sewer, or there-
abouts, and that is owing to several works with steam engines being upon the district
o, tº wº $ *
drained by the Hartshorn-lane sewer. I mention this to show how little difference the
ordinary household uses of water will make in the show of water; but in times of
floods
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
53.
floods the King’s Scholars Pond sewer is carrying perhaps ten times, or twenty
times more than the other districts. I am stating the difference that takes place in
the ordinary time, and the time of great flood.
Is it within your knowledge that the supply of water afforded by the New River
and Chelsea companies to the respective tenants residing southward of the New-
road, was very generally complained of as inadequate to the wants of the inhabitants
before the establishment of the new companies in 1810 and 1811 ?–If I may be:
allowed to speak from what I have heard, I must say I did hear complaints; but
from my own knowledge, at my own house, I was abundantly supplied; in short,
I had no ball-cock, and they never required it ; but my water was laid upon the
main of the New River company, and it had served another house before it came to
mine. -
Have your sewers suffered any particular grievance by the exercise of the powers
vested in the water companies, which you think necessary in any new Act to be
passed to amend ?–Our powers are so ample, I do not apprehend we want any
H] Ol’e. -
As regarding their abuses or their means of injuring your sewers?—I believe
they have no means in their power, but what we have the means to correct; they
cannot touch a sewer without coming to the court for leave ; they are liable to
punishment if they do,
Has any case of the kind occurred within your own knowledge, which you
think ought to be provided for in any other new act for the regulation of those.
companies?—Nothing has occurred to me, conceiving our powers perfectly ample.
What is the nature and constitution of the court of sewers ?–It is a commission
issued from the King. -
You consider a house supplied with water more valuable than a house without it 2
—Yes, certainly,
You would think it reasonable that the company should have the power of -
obtaining the rent somehow or other ?—Yes; and that they should have more
power than they have.
You think the powers are deficient at present?—Yes, of the New River; they
have no remedy but to cut off the water.
Have your works belonging to the commissioners of sewers sustained any injury.
from the laying down the pipes or the aqueducts of the companies?—There have
been, at times; when they have been driving their works they have been discovered
to have done mischief, but in all those cases they have been sent to in a proper way;
the mischief has been remedied, and they have made some apology; such as the
necessary haste of the thing. - -
So that they have always corrected what was amiss –Yes; I do not know of
any thing remaining. .. ".
You are aware, that being a court of law, you have a power above the committee
of managers of the water companies, therefore you would control whatever they
were presuming to do amiss —As far as their acts of parliament will allow us to
do; but sometimes acts of parliament for bodies like them get clauses which restrict
the powers of the commissioners in some small degree. -
Are you aware that the powers of the commissioners of sewers have been at all
interfered with by those water companies 2–Not at all, I believe, by any one of
them ; I believe there is a saving clause in all of them. -,
No mischief has been sustained by the commissioners from any of those com-
panies?— I do not know of any. - -
Do you look at the periodical floods as the great source of cleansing out the
sewers?--In summer particularly we do. -
In point of fact, if there were no floods, you would find the want of them
materially 2–Oh, yes, very materially; there are parts of the town, take Grosvenor-
Square, for example, where, during the summer, there is scarcely a drop of water
in use in the whole square for household purposes; those sewers get very dry, and
nothing but a thunder storm or a good flood of rain would move it; but fortu-
mately our main sewers have been very much improved; we understand that
business much better now than ten or twenty years ago; we give our main attention
to that: formerly the fall was so irregular, it was sometimes hollow, and sometimes
raised so much, it was an obstruction to the lateral sewers; and by giving our
attention to that, the water flows off in a manner much better than it did, and more
perfectly. • r
706. - * O In
Mr.
George Saunders.
(26 February.)
54
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
George Saunders.
\ ~~
(26 February.)
In the discharge of the sewers, does not the river Hay produce a very beneficial
effect 2—There is a spring under the Hampstead Hill which we have been very
Tº careful to get Parliament to preserve, to prevent a diversion of it in any other way;
because in summer that is more beneficial to us than any other water coming into
the sewer ; that forms, I imagine, what was formerly called the Hay brook.
Is it your opinion that no greater profusion of water flows into the sewers, nor
are the sewers and drains kept more clear than ten years since?—I have not observed
the increase of water; if there has been, I have not observed it, our attention being
Mr.
Joseph Steevens.
\—J-”
chiefly drawn to the flood-water.
You have mentioned that the powers of the commissioners of sewers are very
extensive ; do the commissioners of sewers in the town of London act under parti--
cular local acts, or the powers of the general act P-Originally under the general.
powers of the act of Hen. VIII. extended to the districts about London by many
local acts, because that would not enable us to act above the tide level. *
In case of any disagreement with the water companies, or with any other body,
with respect to your works, what is your impression, from the experience of twenty-
six years in this commission, of the mode of proceeding for compelling a restora-
tion of any damage that may be done to your works?—By bringing them before
the court of sewers, and then requiring them to do what the court orders to be
done. *
Have you ever had any further resistance to the powers of the court of sewers,
so as to require compulsion ?–In no instance, that I recollect, from the water.
companies. $.
The question is general?— It requires a great deal of recollection to ascertain
that ; I am endeavouring to recollect a case of resistance.
Did you ever go the length of fine and imprisonment 2–Oh, yes, fines every
quarter. t-
Have you recovered fines?—We send them into the court of exchequer; they
are always returned every quarter. . % -
Do you make use of a jury upon such an occasion, or not?—Not for fines or
amercements as they are called. -
Do you generally make use of a jury, or not, upon settling a question?—Not
ordinarily, int upon particular occasions we do. I should say we never find any
effectual resistance.
*
t
Mr. Joseph Steevens, Called in ; and Examined.
YOU are Engineer to the East London waterworks?--Yes. *
How long have you been engineer 2–Between seven and eight years.
Were you long in any situation regarding this company previous to that time?—
No. - - . . . - -
How long has that company been established 2–I believe in 1807; I am not,
particularly able to speak to it before my attendance there. - -
What power of capacity belongs to the East London waterworks to supply water
to the metropolis?—It consists of a water-wheel working six pumps and four steam.
engines. . . . ..
What are the powers of the steam engines?—One at 20-horse power, two of
40-horse each, and one of 100. I would here beg to observe, that when steam.
engines are employed to raise water, they are not altogether estimated by horse
power; it is more so when employed in machinery; for the same engine which is
estimated at 100-horse power, by the increase of the force of steam might be
made to perform the work of 120 horses, and so on with engines of a less size; so
that the horses power, when applied to raising water is not so definitive as when
applied to the grinding corn, or turning other machinery where a rotatory motion
is necessary.
How do you account for this difference; what is the cause of it?—Merely the
mode in estimating; that where corn is ground they grind the same quantity with
an engine of a given power, which before was ground by horse ; but the language
in estimating an engine to raise water is generally the quantity of water raised, for
you have no occasion to regulate so much the velocity of an engine to raise water
as other purposes; and therefore, though I could not use an engine for rotatory pur-
poses beyond a given velocity, still I could increase or decrease at pleasure an
engine to raise water; that is, I could make the same engine perform ten strokes
per
-A .
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 55
per minute, twelve strokes, or perhaps even eighteen or twenty strokes, therefore Mr.
they are more at command than engines applied to other purposes. r Joseph Steevens.
What is the quantity of water you supply by the day, month or year to the S-2-’
metropolis P-I have the statement per diem, per annum, and I have also taken it (26 February.)
in barrels and gallons, that being the general denomination for measuring vessels
of large capacity. - •. º
Can you give it in hogsheads —The number of hogsheads would be one third
less. -
Give the Committee the gallons or barrels for 1814 2–In 1814 we raised
.50,313 barrels per diem, of thirty-six gallons each.
What do you raise now per day 2–121,300 barrels per day. - "..
In 1814, per year?–In 1814 the quantity was 18,364,245; in 1820, 44,274,500
barrels. . . - - -
What is the average quantity you do or can give to each house per day ?—We
are raising at present, including all houses, three barrels and three quarters per day;
we could give one third more ; this is including manufactories. *
You could give four barrels per day ?—Yes, we could.
What is the number of your houses —I think at present 32,000.
Is this information you have given us the result of any calculation gone into for
the purpose 2–It is. .
What are the number of your services by the day or week?—Our whole number
of services probably consists of about 500, they are supplied generally four times
per week; there are a few only supplied three times a week.
Do the engines work the same number of services each week in the year?—Each
week in the year they do. * * - 4.
How long are the services continued P−From one hour to two hours; there are
others which are obliged to be continued from four to six hours; that depends upon
the number of tenants to be supplied upon each service.
Do they furnish an equal quantity of water –Very unequal, some services
having not more than forty houses upon them, and others 150.
If your services are only three times a week upon the average, the supply must
be equal to the demand of the house for three days?—It is so in most cases in the
three days service. -
Have you any reason to suppose that the supply furnished is greater than is
wanted P I apprehend it is, and particularly so in certain parts of the eastern
districts, the houses are so small and the tenants poor, that they have it not, perhaps,
in their power to provide means, either of receiving water sufficient to last them from
one water day to another, and some not having any vessels, they allow it to run.
to waste a large proportion of the time it is on. …
Are any of your houses supplied from the main?—There are some, not to a
very great extent. - -
What would you say was the proportion of the 32,000 2–I apprehend we have
not more upon the main than 200, where we have services, because it happens in
some places that they are upon the main till the service is driven, and therefore
I should consider on the main, where the services are, not more than 200 houses.
You supply more than what was supplied to the same district previous to the
establishment of your company?–Clearly so; the greatest proportion of the district
was without a supply. . . . . . . - .
To what extent more 2–We are supplying now more than double the quantity
that was supplied in the year 1814. * -
Previous to 1807?–I cannot speak to that fact; it was before I was upon the
work ; but I should apprehend there is now supplied twenty times the quantity
more than in 1807, taking the district altogether.
Do you consider that much of this supply, at present, runs to waste?—A very.
considerable portion of it: a considerable portion of it is a very poor and low
neighbourhood, inhabited by the very poorest of inhabitants, who have themselves
mo means of preventing the waste; and when the landlords have provided anything,
some of them are so low from distress and other circumstances, they have even
destroyed those modes of receiving it. : 4.
What is the size of your ball-cocks and service-pipes?—The service-pipes will
average about three quarters, some an inch and a quarter, and we have some as:
3much as an inch and a half; for private houses, waterway of the ball-cock increases
* in proportion to the increase of the service-pipe. You
700. - ; Oti
56 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
You have stated that your supply daily to each house amounts to three and three
Joseph Steeve”, quarters of a barrel; do you consider that this quantity can flow through such a
(26 February.)
service-pipe in such a time?—Yes; and in many instances, twice or thrice that
quantity; we have no service, except in one or two cases, but what is on an hour.
What is the general description and size of your cisterns P--They are various;
and if I would speak of the cisterns, I should say they hold from 100 to 150
gallons. I would here beg to observe, as many of our tenants have various small
receptacles, merely a pail or a tub, therefore the quantity they can receive will
amount to from 8 or 10 gallons to perhaps 50 or 60 ; but where cisterns are used,
they will average as I have stated. I am speaking of private houses, for we have
some that contain 50,000 gallons. -
You supply a great many brewers ?–Yes, we do. - * .--
A very considerable proportion of your supply is given to manufactories?—A.
considerable portion of it.
Probably larger, in that respect, than any other district in the metropolis 2–
Undoubtedly so. - -
Have your cisterns been enlarged or altered of late, speaking of private families?
—Finding the supply of water abundant, parties have added cisterns, and others have
added butts and small casks. -, * *
Do you add an additional rate when that takes place?—We have not.
Do you consider that in private families there are more than one cistern upon
an average to each house?—I apprehend not more than one upon the average;
I should say, perhaps, if we were to take any number, say take 3,000, that 2,000
of them, at any rate, have but one. -
Your supply is from the Thames?—The river Lea; supplied ultimately from the
Thames. - - . - - r
• The river Lea at high water –Yes; it flows up all from the Thames.
You raise from the river Lea —We are lower than the Thames; the average
levé1 of the Lea is considerably lower than the high water in the Thames. The
entrance to the river Lea is a narrow entrance; it is a winding river; and in all
cases the tide rises higher in the Thames than it does in those small outlets from it.
If it were a wide outlet at the mouth, and the river a straight one, there are cases
where it would naturally rise above the actual spot where the water comes from: this
is produced by the velocity of the water passing from a wide mouth channel into a
IlāI’I'OW Olle. -
Js the whole of your service raised by engine?--Entirely so.
Your ordinary service P-Yes; we have no distinction of high and low tenants;
we have made no distinction, nor have we any distinction in charge; we supply them
at considerable heights. , & . . i
What is the highest ?–We are working under an average pressure of 120 feet,
but occasionally 150 feet above the level of the river Lea. t
here is your reservoir 2—We have two reservoirs to receive the waters from
the Lea, and we have a small reservoir in Mile end-road from which we supply a
small portion of the district; that is also raised by the power of machinery.
What is the size of your largest reservoir, as to affording supply?—The two
reservoirs are competent to hold two days supply, but we have the power of filling
them every twelve hours. - - º *
You replenish these as you supply the town, daily P-We do. - t
What height is the reservoir above the level of the river Lea; the highest of
them?—We pump from two ; the average level of those will be about five feet
below the average level of the river Lea. - -
The water runs in them from the Lea 2–Yes. -
What is the third reservoir 2–Above sixty feet above the level of the river Lea;
that is at Mile-end-road. t
That is raised by an engine?—Yes; this reservoir at Mile-end will supply only
the lower parts of our district, the upper parts being supplied entirely from the
engines.
From this reservoir at Mile-end it flows into the lower parts?—Yes; to the extent.
of about 2,000 houses.
Do you conceive the inhabitants of your district to consume much more water
now than at the commencement of your establishment?—Yes, much more so: at
the commencement, and probably long after, they had not so much as was actually
necessary. . . . . - -
Carl
,-
ON THE SUPPLY OF wATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
Can you say in any proportion?—We are actually supplying to the district double
the quantity we were in 1814; the district is rather less than it was in 1814.
Have you in your recollection the largest supply you give to any manufactory —
Not the actual gauge ; but I should suppose we are supplying a back that contains
not less than a thousand barrels at a distillery. - T .
Whose manufactory is this?—It is a distillery in Mile-end-road. .
Is this quantity supplied per day 2–It is not filled every day; but the supply is
kept up, and it is occasionally filled in twenty-four hours.
From emptiness P-Yes: the tenants of that description are supplied daily; they
do not come into the denomination of four days per week.
But your average estimate included them?—Yes, exactly ; if a distinction is
made, the large classes of course, and the small houses, formed the average;
but they do not actually receive it, nor could they consume half of it, if they did
receive it.
At what period did your agreement with the New River company take place —
At the autumn of 1815. - --
On what account did that agreement originate –Two or three circumstances
occurred to induce the parties to withdraw from either side of the given line. While
we were so in contact with each other, the changes from one company to the other
were incessant ; the streets constantly broken up ; the expenses very material, and
the supply very uncertain in the parts near the line given : the ordinary expenses of
the companies, when the utmost economy was observed, were but little more, or
perhaps no more, than covered. Upon the retiring of the parties, the district
became more concentrated, and each found immediately that it fell incumbent upon
the parties so retiring, to take especial care (and it was a strict and serious under-
standing) that the district should be amply provided for. The East London company
in consequence (and I apprehend all the others did the same) expended a very
large sum of money to increase their machines, their mains and services, and did, in
fact, send in double the quantity of water. -
Did you exchange, by purchase or arrangement, the works belonging to each
other?—I cannot speak to that particularly ; but it was generally this: the parties
retired behind a given line; the rental and pipes on the one side turned out to be a
balance for the pipes and rental on the other. I am not aware that a shilling of
money passed between either party. - -
Was the agreement entered into upon the principle of rental 2–It was arranged
chiefly with the view of concentrating the works so as to produce the best possible
supply to the public; and the line therefore became a crooked line, having respect
to the number and size of the mains and services, and the competency of the parties
to supply the district so limited. -
Is your agreement of that nature to prevent your now re-entering upon your
respective districts?–Oh, by no means: if a deficiency of supply called for it, the
New River would enter on us, and we should enter on them in the same case.
Do your principal mains connect –They are not actually connected, but they
lie contiguous to each other. I should state, that in case of non-supply for a certain
number of days, we have the power of re-entry. ‘. . . . .”
If any defect existed at the present moment, it could not be immediately relieved
by the adjoining company?–Not immediately ; but probably twenty-four hours
would afford us an opportunity of connecting. - r - ... .
What is the diameter of your principal main –Issuing from the engine, twenty-
four inches, one of eighteen inches, one of twelve inches, and another from the
water-wheel, of twelve inches. ,- • .r
Are your mains and pipes of wood or iron –Chiefly iron ; we have a small pro-
portion of wood still to change out, but all on the hither side of the river Lea
are II'OIl. - ..
You laid down nothing but iron —Nothing but iron. -
Considering that superior to wood?—Yes. -
Those pipes which are of wood are those which existed previously to the esta-
blishment of the company, or did you lay them down yourselves?—They were found
in the district when the company commenced, but they did lay down some wooden
ones before they could provide those districts with iron ones. . . . . .
But from motives of interest you now lay down nothing but iron 2–We could
not with the force of our engine, supply through wood, except in the very ex-
treme parts, where, from the remoteness of the power of the engine, wood might
706. P bear
Mr.
Joseph Steevens.
(26 February.)
58
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
Joseph Steevens.
S-J–’
(26 February.)
bear it; the capacities of wood pipes are so small when compared with their external
diameter, that much inconvenience would have arisen to the public had such pipes
been laid down in the streets by all the companies.
What water establishment did you succeed to in the year 1806 2–It is a con-
tinuation of the Shadwell waterworks, who were incorporated by act of parliament,
and the West Ham waterworks. We began our works in about 1807.
Are your rates very much increased since that period?—Not a great deal; I
apprehend about 20 per cent. ; I apprehend that the secretary is prepared to state
that more particularly.
How many hours a day do your engines work 2–Fifteen hours a day, the whole
force; the twenty-horse engine is kept in reserve, in order that we may be prepared
for accidents and other casualties; the two forty-horse engines, the hundred-horse
engine, and the water-wheel, work in the day-time; the water-wheel works as long
as the tide will drive it, night and day.
The others work fifteen hours ?—Yes. When I speak of the twenty-horse engine
being reserved, it is taken alternately for one of the forty-horse engines; and where
we have alterations to make, so that the supply is interrupted, we then employ an
additional power, and supply by night, so that the district shall be again re-instated
in its quantity of water, as if no such interruption had taken place.
Do you conceive that you could increase your supply of water, if necessary, very
much —We could increase the supply at least one-third, without adding a single
machine. If we were to work more hours, or work the whole of our force, we
could work twenty-four hours, and still keep the reservoir untouched, or work the
whole power twenty-four hours.
Have you ever had any serious interruption by damage or the non-competency
of your engine —No ; having four engines, we are not liable to interruption by
accident ; for suppose one of them was to be destroyed or incapacitated from
working for a week or a month, we could, with our power, so supply the public,
that no difference would be discovered in the supply; if we were to discover more
than one fire, we should start another.
Are your mains kept constantly charged by night?—Yes.
Was this the case previously to the New River company leaving the district —
Certainly not. . -
Is there any considerable expense incurred by charging the mains by night 2–
Very considerable.
Are you not enabled to keep your mains constantly charged from your reservoir?
—Not to depend upon it.
What extra quantity of coals do you use, to keep your mains constantly charged
for the benefit of the public in case of fire 2–From an eighth to a tenth part more
than would otherwise be required. . . . -
In case of fire, have you any precautions taken to direct an additional supply of
water to that part where the fire may rage 2–We have. -
Is that at a considerable expense 2–Yes; the company have provided a watch-
man to be constantly on the look-out, and to call me at every fire that happens at
whatever time of the night it may be ; and further, they give rewards to watchmen or
to any one who will give early notice to myself, to the superintendents, or to the
turncock; and immediately such notice is given, the parties are further rewarded if
they come to the works, although we have a watchman constantly employed; and
the company, to insure the supply in case of fire, are at the further expense of paying,
messengers in case it might be possible the watchman had not seen the fire.
Is not this done solely for the benefit of the public, without any recommendation
to the company –It is a great advantage to the public, but a great drawback on
the company.
Are your works, as now constituted, liable to be interrupted by a severe frost P
—Not by any means; water-wheels in general are not only interrupted, but
stopped; but our wheel never has been stopped in consequence of frost, by its
being inclosed.
During the time the competition existed between the New River and yourselves,
was it not used as an instrument to reduce the rates, and sometimes of evading the
rates altogether ?—It was to a considerable extent; and great inconvenience arose to
the company, and great inconvenience in the public streets, in consequence.
During the time of the competition, was not it usual for a tenant, from half year
to
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
59
to half year, to refuse payment, and dare the company to take any measure for the
recovery of what was owing 2—It was very frequently so.
And during that time, they threatened to resort to the other company, and so
shift from one to the other when payment was demanded ?–Yes, most assuredly
they did; many of them were so unreasonable as to declare, and perhaps actually
carried it into effect, that unless the company would be at the expense of breaking
up the pavement and thawing their pipes during the frost, they would then go to the
other companies.
In consequence of the lenity shown to poor tenants, did your arrears of rates
increase to a large amount, and what amount 2–I cannot speak to the amount, but
very considerable. * -
Any thing near £. 16,000 P-From £. 15,000 to £. 20,000; a very large amount.
At the time of the New River retreating from your district, and you from their
district, was it done solely for the benefit of the companies, or equally with a view to
the advantage of the public P-With regard to the companies, the competition was
destructive to themselves and the public ; the supply was uncertain, and the only
mode of rendering it more certain without an enormous expense to the public, was to
withdraw from behind a certain line. If two companies were again to exist in one
district, the competition could not be carried on in the ordinary way of other
competitions; each must have his whole capital in the district, there fixed, and not
to be removed : if the district were divided, both companies, or if there were three
or four, must be utterly ruined, or the rates must be increased in the ratio of the
number of companies; that is to say, double, and treble, or quadruple, if they are all
to live.
When you made the advance of your rate, did you find many cases where, owing to
the misrepresentation of the parties, the premises had been very unequally rated 2–
That was the case: that arose, perhaps, in two or three ways; the secretary, perhaps,
will be able to inform the Committee more minutely; but two or three cases came
Aunder my notice: it happened with a sugar baker who had been rated twenty or
thirty years ago as a one pan house, they had, however, from time to time increased
to two, three, and even to four pans; this undoubtedly was without the knowledge
of the company, and therefore they had been paying this given small rate, but
upon being rated agreeable to the number of pans, without any actual advance per
pan, they conceived they had been doubled or trebled, and hence there was some
murmuring, but they submitted when they found they were employing four pans
and had been only rated at one.
Among the small houses in the eastern district, is it usual for the supply of
water to be farmed by the landlord, or for them to agree to pay a rate for the
houses, full or empty 2–They are farmed by the landlords, who agree, in conse-
quence of having it at a less water rate, to pay full or empty.
Did not, upon many occasions, the landlords actually make a profit by so doing?
—There were many cases where they did; there is one comes to my recollection at
this moment, where houses were rated at 12s. per annum by the waterworks com-
pany, and the tenant paid the landlord 20s. per annum.
Previous to 1808, was the supply from the Shadwell waterworks constant and
plentiful for that district?—I have reason to believe it was not, from my own
knowledge; for although I was not in the concern, I had much to do with the
sewers; I know it was so uncertain, that there were parties for twelve or twenty
days without water, and the answer upon application was, we cannot control the
tides; the quantity flown into the bason has been exhausted for sugar-bakers and
others, and you must wait till the next spring tide. -
Were the rates of the Shadwell company lower than your present rates?—
They were, at the time the company took possession of them, arranged to be
advanced by the London Dock company; the advance was not carried into effect,
but I apprehend it was considerably more than subsequently took place when the
works came into the hands of the present company. -
Has the increase in the Shadwell district exceeded 25 per cent. —I cannot speak
precisely, but I apprehend not equal to that. -
Have not the advantages gained been infinitely beyond that?—I believe it may
be generally said, the advantages have been at 50 per cent. -
Where one individual has been advanced more than another, has not it been
º either to misrepresentation, or being unequally rated throughout, * is
700. that
Mr.
Joseph Steevens.
(26 February.)
60
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
323ſ.
#r.
\ -
_/
~~
* 33 ſebruary.)
and those parts which c
that the ratio of proportion?—It has been uniformly so where an exorbitant advance
happened. - - k
Have your company been always ready and willing to hear any appeal and com-
plaint, and give redress wherever a real grievance existed –They have been always
ready; and it is the instruction of the board of directors to each of their servants,
to allow every one to be heard, and introduce him to the board where there is the
least ground for complaint. - .
You have mentioned that the average height you throw water is 120 feet?—Yes;
about that.
That is with your steam engine?—Yes. - -
What is the height you throw it to with the water-wheel?—Not above from 90
to 100 ; the force of the wheel is not sufficient.
Above the level of the Leaf-Yes. -
Does the wheel work at every flood tide -—At every flood tide. +
Both at spring and neap, and the intermediate tides?—Yes; the wheel works at
least twelve hours out of the twenty-four, taking spring and meap tides together.
I have known instances where the wheel has worked what is termed through the
whole tide; it has not stopped when there has been some land water flowing, and
also the retiring of the neap tides; the wheel has worked nearly the whole of the
twenty-four hours.
You said, in answer to a question put to you, that formerly the public had facilities
of evasion in the payment of the rates during the competition ?–Yes; by leaving the
company. -
The partition has prevented that 2–Yes, to a great extent.
Then you could afford to supply water cheaper now — We are so doing; we are
supplying double the quantity of water. -
TEor the same rate —No ; we supply double the quantity for about an increase of
one sixth. w - * …
Was it a very capital trade during the competition ?–Most assuredly a ruinous
one; and it would be utterly impossible, if the East London company were now
put back upon the same rate again, with their accumulated power of machinery, to
exist.
If matters had gone on as they were, without any such arrangement, it must
have ended in the ruin of one or both of the companies?—Very shortly it must.
In point of fact, during the competition, you were obliged to supply at almost
any price?—We were very much reduced in consequence of that ; it was thought at
the moment, before we had greater experience, a mode of establishing ourselves in
the district, which ruinous mode incommoded the public, for they had not that
reliance they have now ; for at night, when there were three or four companies, one
looked to the other and thought probably the mains would be charged, but as mone
of them were paid, it frequently happened none of them were charged, and you
had to go to the fountain head to get a supply; but when the companies retired
from the line, the public must and did look wholly to them for the supply, and a
large sum of money was expended for that purpose. I was instructed to take every
possible care that the confidence of the public should not be betrayed, but that we
should meet it, and be able to say to them, you have now a dependence for a supply
at all times, because the court of directors felt themselves responsible for every
deficiency in a case of that kind, and therefore especial care was taken, and a
large sum of money was expended in increasing the power of the machinery and
extending the mains and services.
T}oes the whole of your supply go through one principal main —Through four
mains, , , -
There are four mains it goes through previous to the services 2–Yes.
There is no one principal main through which it goes previous to going into the
*
other mains?–No ; and those mains are so constructed as to be capable of being
{ . - . - * , | w_ - s . & ' ' ' . - tº 8 - -
connected immediately with any other main. -
In case of any injury to any one of those mains, the supply would not be
stopped 2–It would not
In point of fact, did not the London Bridge company go beyond the city?—They
do supply many hundred houses out of the city; in Goodman's Fields and White-
chapel, the old º Spitalfields, and the upper part of Shoreditch,
ash in with us, we have reason to know it, particularly in
- - - - frost,
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
6;
frost, for we then supply their tenants by our stand-pipes, inasmuch as their wheels
become generally stationary. *
Mr. Thomas Nelson Pickering, Called in ; and Examined.
YOU are Secretary to the East London waterworks company 2–I am.
How long have you been secretary 2—From the incorporation of the company,
in 1807. -
What was the origin of the institution of this company 2–The eastern district,
before the incorporation of the company, was chiefly supplied by the New River,
º by London Bridge, and partly by the old concerns of Shadwell and West
am waterworks, but great part of the district had no supply at all.
Do you mean they got it from the Thames in buckets?—In any way they
could : those were the allegations proved before the House, and which induced
the House to incorporate our company: the company was incorporated by the
47 Geo. 3, c. 72. - ---
Was there any evidence to show the extent of the supply of all those resources
within the district at that time?—I do not think there was.
You have no means of knowing that ?—No. -
Were there no returns of the Shadwell or West Ham supply at that time 2–
I believe not. -- •,
How long was it after your incorporation you began to supply this district —In
1809 I think the works were completed at Old Ford, but I think it was two years
afterwards before we could supply the district; I think it was in 1811.
You have heard most of the evidence given by the engineer; do you agree to the
quantity of water supplied and the number of tenants?—I am not competent to
speak to the quantity of water, it is out of my department; but so far as I have heard
the engineer, I believe what he has asserted is strictly correct in every particular.
When was the first dividend paid 2–Before I answer that question, I would
state that there was a part of our undertaking originated from the Shadwell and
West Ham establishment; for by the act of the legislature of the 48 Geo. 3, our
company were enabled to purchase the Shadwell and West Ham waterworks, and
they were incorporated with us as one concern; from that time, from the Shadwell
and West Ham waterworks, a rental arose to the East London; from that period,
and out of that rental, a dividend was made to our proprietors so early as 1809, of
OIleº cent. that was made out of the gross rental of the Shadwell and West Ham
WOTKS. - ..
How were the expenses paid —The expenses were paid by the East London
company out of their capital. -
That was a dividend out of their capital?—Yes, it was.
The Shadwell and West Ham companies were a part of your concern ?—Yes.
At the time you paid it out of the rental?—Yes, it was. -
When was the second dividend paid 2–In July, in the same year.
From the same source?—Yes.
How much?—Two pounds.
Do you recollect the estimated value of your shares previous to the dividend
being made P—Such was the rage for concerns of that kind that the price of the
shares was very high ; I believe, previous to the dividend, there was as much as
£.60 premium upon £. 100 shares; the capital was £. 380,000, raised in shares of
£. 100 each. *
Doyou recollect the price of the shares after the second dividend?—They gradually
increased till they got up to the enormous price of about £. 130 premium.
Did you make a third dividend ?–In January 1810, of two pounds.
From the same source 2–Yes.
Was there any further dividend?–In July, two pounds more.
From the gross rental?—Yes. *
Any further dividend ?–Yes; in January 1811, two-and-a-half, from the same
source; in July 1811, two-and-a-half.
Any further dividend ?–In January 1812, one pound; in July, one pound;
in 1813, no dividend whatever.
In 1814?–No dividend whatever.
1815?–In January 1815, one pound; in July 1815, one pound; in January
1816, one pound; in July, one pound; in January 1817, one and a quarter; in
July of the same year, one and a quarter; in January 1818, one and a half.
| 706. Q - Have
Mr. &
Joseph Steevens.
\–~—/
(26 February.)
Mr.
T. N. Pickering.
\——”
62 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
Have you had any dividend from the net rental?—Yes, from 1814; the
T. N. Pickering, dividend of January 1815, of one pound, was out of the net rental.
`--— That was after the partition 2 – The partition was at Michaelmas 1815.
(26 February.)
What was the price of your shares when the agreement took place?—They were
then at a considerable discount, as much as £. 45 discount; there has been no
dividend paid since February 1820; the last dividend was in February 1820, of one
and three quarters. - *.
You have heard the former witness state the system of competition, and the other
many expenses incurred, and the means resorted to to gain custom; give the Com-
mittee your opinion of the reasonableness of any ground to increase the rates beyond
what they existed at the formation of your company 2–The engineer has very pro-
perly told the Committee the difficulty we had in collecting the rates, and the
undue lowering of the rates. : -
The question was upon what ground you consider you are authorized to increase
the rates beyond those which existed when your establishment took place in 1807 ?
—Inasmuch as we could not make a dividend without.
Do you know what the average of the rates were at that time previous to your
establishment 2–No ; I do not know that. -
You are in the habit of compounding for your rates?–Yes, with the proprietors
of large numbers of houses,
Farming them?—Yes, full or empty. *
What is the charge for houses of one or two rooms, when compounded for, and
when not compounded for 2—Ten shillings, when compounded for, and twelve when
not ; but that depends much upon the size of the house; we have some that are not
farmed, at ten shillings; the rates are generally two shillings less where farmed.
Were the West Ham and Shadwell establishments losing concerns at the time
your establishment was formed 2–I was led to understand so from the former pro-
prietors, the London Dock company, although they had made a rise in the rates.
y When your establishment was formed, did you purchase out those companies?—
€S.
What was the amount of the purchase money 2–5. 130,000; the transaction is
recited in the act of 48 Geo. 3, c. 8.
Was part of the £. 380,000, your capital, employed in that way?—It was.
The London Dock company did not supply water?—No; in the formation of the
docks, they excavated a part of the district, and the legislature compelled them to
purchase the Shadwell waterworks. -
Is the London Dock company a water company now?—No. :
At what time were the shares at this enormous sum of £. 130 –I cannot exactly
tell: I think about 1810 or 1811. .*
You think about Michaelmas 1815 they were at forty per cent, discount?—Yes.
Have they decreased or increased since?—They have been pretty much the same
up to within a few months since, when they looked up a little; the last transfer in
my office was done at £.66 per share. I have heard E.70 asked lately.
At the period when this dividend was made out of this gross rental, were the
proprietors generally aware of that fact 2–Certainly ; because they knew we had
no income whatever from the original undertaking. -
The purchasers could not be aware of that fact?—I cannot answer that; I should
apprehend not. -
Were the proprietors informed by the court of directors of the state of the
concerns?—Certainly, by their half-yearly reports and accounts. *
Why has not there been any dividend since 1820 2–There have been no means;
there has been an additional capital actually expended on the undertaking, beyond
the capital of £. 380,000, to the amount of £. 45,000.
How was that raised ?–Instead of making a dividend from the revenue. -
You did not have recourse to the bank, or any public company P-We have bor-
rowed of individuals to the amount of £. 22,000 beyond the before-mentioned sums
of £, 380,000 and £. 45,000.
Were the works of the West Ham and Shadwell companies of very considerable
value to you in your undertaking?—Their pipes were of wood, but it gave us im-
mediate possession of the district. #-
What proportion of the £. 130,000 was in actual value of works?—I cannot
answer that question. - - -
What proportion of it was for the mere good-will of the district 2—That I cannot
3HASWéF. - . . --
Have
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS,
63
Have you made any dividend from net profits?—Yes.
What part of the dividends have been from net profits 2–Those which have been
made since 1814. t
When this fever of speculation went off, did the injury accrue to the speculators
or the tenants 2—To the speculators only.
So that no mischief accrued to the water tenants 2—Certainly none.
Of the arrear the engineer has stated to accrue to the company, how much ended
in total loss 2–The amount of the arrears up to Christmas 1820, which have been
parted off as irrecoverable, is £. 15,348.
Does not your water rate amount to 20s, a house, at the average, taking the
houses great and small throughout 2–Yes; including the manufactories, and making
allowances for houses actually empty, it is as nearly as possible 20s. a house; the
gross rental is £. 34,000; and making allowance for houses actually empty, it is
as near as possible 20s. ; upon further reflection, I think it would be 22 s. ver
thereabouts.
What is the difference between the gross rental and the actual receipts?—I can
hardly tell that at present. *
Does it amount to about £. 2,000 or £. 3,000 a year?—Not quite so much ; but
that would appear by the returns directed. :
Is there not a considerable difference between the sum actually received, and the
sum which ought to be received?—Yes. -
Can you tell the amount of the rental expended in the increased capital?—
I cannot. -
When you made your equalization, did you do it with a view to justice and fair-
ness as much as you could?—Yes, certainly. *
Is your work in such a situation as to the work, that you can form a calculation
as to what the expenditure will be in the maintenance of it?—I think it is.
What is the expenditure?—I apprehend the permanent expenditure to be
£. 1 1,000 a year. * -
In the whole of the establishment?—No, not including repairs; I am not able
to state that.
What does the £. 11,000 allude to ?—The permanent expenses, salaries of
officers, coals, and so on ; near £. 4,000 a year is expended for coals, but including
no repairs whatever.
Have you any ground-rents to pay on account of your works —Yes.
Are your reservoirs on ground purchased by you or on rented ground 2–The
works at Old Ford are upon freehold ground.
The two larger reservoirs?—Yes.
Is the small one too 2–The Shadwell works are upon leasehold.
Do you pay any considerable sum in taxes or rates?—Yes, we do.
T}o you know about the amount P−No, I do not.
Do you consider as part of the loss that which goes in taxes or rates ?–No.
There is no other expense except empty houses?—And tenants removing.
How can that happen when the landlord is bound to pay?—Where landlords pay
it does not happen, except in a very few instances.
Mercurii, 28° die Februarj, 1821.
WILLIAM HENRY FREMANTLE, ESQUIRE,
IN T H E C H AIR.
Mr. Matthew Chitty Marshall, Called in ; and Examined.
WHAT is your situation ?–Secretary and chief Clerk to the South London
Waterworks.
When were your waterworks first established?—In the year 1805.
What establishment was supplying your district at that time —Not any that I
.am aware of. *
What does your district comprehend generally?—It takes Clapham, Brixton,
Acre-lane, the Kent-road and Bermondsey; those are the principal districts.
Most of it, then, is on the other side of the water?—On the Surrey side of the
Water; entirely on the Surrey side of the water.
706. \, - - What
Mr.
T. N. Pickering.
sº
(26 February.)
Mr.
M. C. Marshall.
\-vº-'
(28 February.)
64
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
M. C. Marshall.
\– ~~ _/
(28 F ebruary.)
What is the quantity of water that you give in the course of the week or year?—
About 42,000 hogsheads per week; I have it 42,740 hogsheads per week.
The whole year round 2–The whole year round. º
What is the average quantity you give to each house per day 2—I calculate about
eight hogsheads per week. -,
How many houses do you serve 2–5,200 houses.
That is rather more than a hogshead a day then?—Eight hogsheads per week.
Have you many manufactories in your district —Several in Bermondsey. t
Fellmongers?—And leather-dressers.
You take that calculation that you have made upon the gross quantity, including
manufactories P−Yes, I do ; there are many small families that do not require one
half of that quantity.
What are your number of services by the week or day ?—We divide our services
into three parts; the Clapham, Brixton and Acre-lane; and another called the
home service ; the other is considered one, and is called the Bermondsey service.
Are the services put on every day?—Every day. --
All the three services —To Clapham, Acre-lane and Brixton three days a
week, and Bermondsey three days a week, so that each tenant is continued three
days a week.
How long are your services generally continued?—Eleven hours.
Not on for each house eleven hours?—No ; the whole day’s service eleven hours.
It supplies the lower houses first, and so gradually rises and supplies the higher ?
—Yes.
How long is each service on 2–Not more than an hour. -
Do your engines work the same number of services during the whole year –
The same number of services during the year.
And your services are equal to the demand completely P-Oh, completely.
Do you conceive that your supply is greater than is wanted by your district —
We could supply double the number of houses we now do. -
-
You do not furnish more than they require, only what they demand 2–We do not.
How was your district supplied previously, by pumps and by private mains 2—I
believe so, there was the Lambeth company which can come up to our present gates.
Does it work in the same district as you now 2–It works in the same district;
but the Lambeth company have it in their power to come into our district, though
we are prevented from going into theirs.
Do they come into your district?—Every day.
So that there is a competition of water companies?—Yes; but we have it not
in our power to serve the same district which the Lambeth company do. ‘.
What is the general size of your service-pipes 2–Three quarters of an inch.
What is the size of your main 2–The largest main is twelve inches.
What is the general description and size of your cisterns?—They are generally
butts that we supply.
Butts of two hogsheads?—Yes.
Are there generally more than one to each house?—Generally two to each house;
I ought to distinguish particularly on the Clapham road, where they require a
greater quantity; Clapham, Brixton, and Acre-lane; because they are quite a
different description of customers from those in Bermondsey.
Is all the water in your district drawn from the Thames by your works?—Yes.
Have you a reservoir 2–We have two.
Where?—Close to the works, from which the engine works.
What height is your reservoir above the Thames?—I calculate about fourteen feet.
Is the whole of your supply given by engines, forced 2–Entirely.
What is the high service you supply from the Thames?—I have taken the eleva-
tion from our own works, and from the works to the high service which is at
Clapham, and the highest is sixty-five feet from the reservoir. -
That is eighty feet the whole height from the river 2—Yes.
Near Clapham church, is not it?–To the Plough at Clapham. *
Can you give any information with regard to the difference of quantity in high
service and ordinary service; do you make a distinction in your rates between high
service and low service?--No, not any.
Every thing is charged alike, whether it goes to the top of the house or to the
basement story?-No; upon cisterns at the top of the house some little addition is
made, perhaps 20s, more, not more than that.
Upon what rental –Forty shillings.
Then
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
65
Then you do make a distinction between high service and ordinary service —
We do not call them high services, we call them cisterns on a high elevation, but
there are very few.
Have you any scale of those elevations?—No.
It is merely upon your own observation ?–Entirely.
Are your mains and pipes of wood or iron F-Now they are principally of iron.
In your first establishment you laid down wood 2–They were entirely of wood.
But since, they have been altered to iron, most of them 2–Most of them to iron.
From that circumstance, you consider iron superior in quality and most advan-
tageous?—Most certainly. -
State your reasons for this opinion?—From their durability, and being less
subject to repair. -
How long has your longest iron main or pipe been put down 2–Ours were put
down immediately on the establishment; that was in the year 1805. -
One of the principal mains?—One of the principal mains.
And some of the smaller pipes 2—And some of the smaller pipes.
Have you ever had an examination of these pipes since 2—I have seen these pipes
since, that were then laid down ; the iron pipes as well as the wooden pipes.
For what purpose were they taken up?—The joints were imperfectly made ; they
were done by contract, and dome improperly.
Did you make any observation at that time upon the pipes?—I did.
When was this?—This was two years ago. *
They had then been down about fourteen years?—Thirteen years.
Did you observe any defect about them —Not any ; neither inside nor out.
You said you forced water sixty-five feet above the level of the reservoir, is that
the extreme point of your highest elevation ?—That is the extreme point we can
Sël’Ve.
Is that on Clapham Common —There are some water-closets there about sixty-
two feet ; we have a few water-closets above that elevation. :
In point of fact, you can supply the top of the houses in the Clapham district?—
We could ; and there was a proof of it in a fire that took place at Clapham : the
Plough at Clapham was burnt down, and we supplied that with water.
Upon the taking up of those iron mains, that were originally put down, you
mentioned the joints as being imperfect; did you consider it to be in consequence
of the imperfect formation of the joints, and not in consequence of a fair decay of
that joint?—Entirely to an imperfectness of the joints,
In consequence of an evasive contract?— Not being done in a workmanlike
IYR3||1116I’. .
What joints were those; do you know the difference between a socket joint and a
flanch joint?—Those were flanch joints. * *
You say in a part of your district, the South Lambeth supply also 2–The Lambeth.
In that part of the district was there any competition of rates between you ; did
you acquire any of their tenants by supplying at a cheaper rate than the Lambeth P-
We never held out that inducement; and I do not think we did. -
Did you supply cheaper ?–No ; exactly the same price, as near as possible.
Did you gain any tenants from them, or did they gain any from you?—I believe
it is not from any reduction of prices; we imagine that we supply clearer water.
But, in point of fact, you do gain upon them, as you suppose 2–And from the
increase of population in our neighbourhood.
Do you take tenants from them, or do they take from you ?—I do not suppose
we take from either of the companies the value of ten houses a year.
On either side?–No.
Have you any regulations between you, about taking tenants from each other?—
Not any.
No understanding?—Not any whatever.
How is your reservoir supplied from the Thames?—The tide brings it into our
reServoll’.
Then it is a rise you get by the tide P-Yes.
What is the size of your reservoir 2–One hundred and fifty feet; the two basons
will give four days supply. -
You are secretary 2–Yes.
What have been the dividends the company have derived from their concern ?—
Not any. -
Not any whatever?—No. - --
706. 3. R. What
Aſr.
M. C. Marshall.
\-S 2—Z
(28 February.)
66
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Thomas Simpson,
Esq.
(28 February.)
What have you done with your rates received?—Laid down the iron pipes.
Then you have added it to your capital 2–Yes.
Thomas Simpson, Esq. Again called in ; and Examined.
WHAT situation do you hold in the Lambeth works?—Engineer.
As well as for Chelsea 2–Yes.
Are those very old works?—They commenced in 1785; the act was obtained in
that year, I think.
Was it in the room of any other works that then existed 2—There were none in
that district. -
Is it a company ?—A company of proprietors.
Does it furnish water on the Middlesex side at all 2–None, whatever.
All the Surrey side –All the Surrey side.
What district does it comprehend generally?—It goes a small way into the
Borough, and it goes as far as Kennington Common, Vauxhall and Walworth ; it
goes through Walworth, and then to the Kent-road, near the canal bridge of the
Grand Surrey canal. &
What are the number of houses supplied?—The secretary is here, and will give
the number of houses. -
What capacity do those works afford for supplying water to that district?—The
annual quantity raised is 7, 193,830 hogsheads; but we have means to supply
26, 163,590. |
What you supply at this time then is as much as is demanded ?–Fully.
From whence is your water produced?—Immediately from the river, opposite
Hungerford. t
The whole from the river ?—The whole from the river.
Have you any calculation as to the quantity to each house at the present moment?
—Some years back I made it out, and it amounted then to one hogshead and three
quarters per house.
Have you reason to think it is increased since then 2–I should think it has ;
but the houses are of a very small description, principally four roomed houses.
Then the great consumption is by the manufactories in that neighbourhood?—
There are some manufactories and two brewers.
Any distillers?—No, I believe not. -
Any tanners ?—We did serve two tanners; but I think we only serve one now :
but the secretary will be able to give that statement,
T}o you apprehend the consumption of the manufactories to cut a considerable
figure in your whole consumption —No, a very small proportion; they are prin-
cipally hatters.
What are the number of your services per day ?—I cannot say ; I am not in
possession of that.
If you do not know, who does?—I must procure it.
Is the whole of your water raised by engines?—Wholly.
What reservoirs have you?—We have none.
Then what is the highest elevation you raise at present?—Sixty feet.
That is the very extreme height of your elevation?—The very extreme height.
Have you any distinction between high service and ordinary service?—None
whatever.
Your rates are calculated exactly the same 2—Exactly the same. t
And yet you serve to the top of houses 2–We do not profess to serve above two
or three and twenty feet above the level of the pavement.
In no instance do you serve above that?–No.
The power of your engine does not exceed sixty feet above the level of the
Thames?—No.
And that you consider about twenty-three feet above the level of the pavement?—
We could go six-and-thirty, or forty, Idare say.
What is the construction of your pipes and mains, iron or wood?—The mains are
principally iron, and some of the pipes. Of late years we have increased the size of
our mains very materially, and likewise we have laid down a number of iron services.
Originally you laid down wood 2–Originally the whole was wood.
And you laid down iron in consequence of finding the advantage of it?—Yes;
when it commenced it was a trifling concern, but in the increase of buildings it
required larger engines, which we have put up since that ; we have built two new,
engines since the original.
And
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 67
And in consequence of the largeness of your means you have laid larger mains?— Thomas Simpson,
We have laid down an eighteen-inch iron main, and a twelve-inch, a ten-inch, and , Esq.
two nine-inches. \–sº-
Do you happen to know much about the proprietors of this concern ?—Certainly (28 February.)
I do.
Do you know whether many of them are also proprietors of the South London —
Not one, that I am confident of. -
You have never had any disputes with the South London at all?—No. -
Do you take many tenants from each other?—We take rather more from them
than they do from us.
It is not much either way ?—No.
A part of your district is confined to you?—Yes.
But you may enter upon theirs?—Yes.
And have not pushed into their district 2–No. -
You have rather fought shy of entering the enemy’s country?–Yes; it would
not pay one per cent. . -
Your supply is confined to your own district?—No, we extend beyond it; upon
the line of demarcation we have a large quantity of tenants.
Speaking of the line of demarcation between you and the South London —Yes.
You were in possession of those tenants before they came 2—Yes.
Since they came on the field, you have not found it your interest to extend your
works in that district 2–No.
And the result has been, you have kept the same number that you had when
they came P-Very nearly.
Do their works actually run parallel with yours in that district —They do in
many streets; in most of them towards Walworth and that neighbourhood.
And you have not lost many tenants?–No.
Then they have laid down their works at a loss 2–I think so.
Is there not a greater facility of obtaining water by wells and pumps on the
south side of the river Thames than on the Middlesex and Westminster side –
Certainly.
Is not the supply of the inhabitants on that side therefore much greater by
those private means, than by having recourse to the supplies of the different com-
panies that are established on that side 2—Certainly. Proportionally with my
experience on this side of the river, I beg to state, that in all old houses in general,
there are many have pumps, which they do not alter, and several of them keep the
pumps and have rain water; pump water will not do for washing, it is very bad
water in fact. -
You were the inventor of the spigot and fosset joint?—I was.
How long ago did you lay them down 2–I tried some experiments six or seven-
and-thirty years ago, and then I laid a long main for Chelsea waterworks.
And you have never found them want repair 2–Those that were laid down for
the Chelsea waterworks were taken up and relaid after twenty-seven years, but the
first that I laid down had been laid down six or seven-and-thirty years, and I never
knew them fail yet. t
Was this experiment on a large scale 2–No ; the first I tried was with some
joints we could not make stand in any other way; and we run them in lead, and
it has not failed. * -
Is it upon a large scale —No, it was one joint I tried.
You still use the oakum behind the lead 2–Yes.
You tried one joint at first 2–Yes; it answered for seven years, and never
leaked; and then I ventured on laying a main, perhaps 1,500 or 1,600 yards, for
the Chelsea waterworks. - -
How long ago was that?—They had been down twenty-seven years; they were
taken up two years ago, and relaid in Pall Mall.
This main was down about twenty-seven years?—Yes; about 1,500 yards long.
New joints were put to them when they were relaid 2–They were relaid in Pall
Mall, then they were joined in the same manner with lead.
When you took them up you found no defects in the joints?—None whatever.
And they had been down twenty-seven years?—Yes. -
Your experiment of thirty-seven years does not go beyond one joint?—Two or
three joints, perhaps, I tried the experiment on. - - -
Do Chelsea waterworks make any distinction whatever between high and low
706. service?—
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Thomas Simpson,
Esq.
`--— - 2-——º *
(28 February.)
J}}r.
Joseph Nelihorpe.
~—/
Mr
William R udge.
`--~~~~
service —None; we charge nothing extra for high service; and I beg to state, it is
the same at Lambeth. º
How high do you serve in Chelsea?—Sixty or seventy feet; we serve houses in
Pall Mall to the top, and particularly in Grosvenor-place; we serve Saint George’s
Hospital up into the roof.
What is the reservoir above the Thames?—Our reservoir above the Thames is
only eighty feet, and then we raise it up higher by the stand-pipe.
Is there any additional expense to you to throw it up to the tops of the houses —
Yes, eonsiderably. +
Are your high services very numerous?–No ; they are principally in Grosvenor-
place and Pall Mall, and Whitehall and Great George street: they are rather
IlúžſleI'OUIS.
Do they take a third of your consumption ?–No ; I should think not more than
a sixth. 3.
If the supplying of those houses costs more than a lower level, what is the reason
for not making a higher charge 2–I do not know ; we did not do it originally, and
we have not altered.
Mr. Joseph Nelthorpe, Called in ; and Examined.
YOU are Secretary to the Lambeth company 2– I am.
How long have you been secretary?—About five years and a half.
What are the number of houses within your district 2–1 1,487.
Are there any manufactories in the district?—There are several establishments in
the district of that description. *
About what number?—Between twenty and thirty.
Have you ever made a dividend since the establishment of your company 2–
Several. -
Upon the gross rental, or upon the net rental?—They have made a dividend
when they have found their funds equal to such a dividend, from £. 15 to £40 per
share: there have been some years, in fact I believe as many as ten or eleven years, in
which no dividend has been made, and then a dividend has been made for two or
three years, and then suspended again. -
Very irregular 2–Yes.
Were your shares £. 100 shares?—There are thirty-two shares, but it was never
expressed what sum should be advanced upon the shares in the act of parliament.
What was the original subscription ?—The original subscription was £. 185 each
share. - *
That was the outlay of the original proprietors?---Yes.
What has been the market price of the shares since 2–There have been none sold
since I have been there. -
Have they increased the number, of shares P-No; that cannot be without an act.
What dividend have you paid in the last five years?—From 1817 to this time,
the dividend has been from £.40 to £. 70 per share. 4.
Yearly 2—Yearly. *
Taking £. 55, would be about the average —Yes; for six years previous to that,
there was no dividend at all. -
You have never made your dividend from capital?—Not on the original capital.
For some years they were forborne altogether ?–Yes.
There never has been a dividend made without assets from the revenues of the
company 2–Never since I have known it.
Mr. William Rudge, Called in ; and Examined.
WHAT is your situation —Engineer of the Southwark waterworks.
This is a very old work, is not it?—Yes.
It is now in the hands of one proprietor only 2–Yes; Mr. Edwards.
What capacity does your work contain for the supply of your district, as to
quantity of water?—We raise about 8,000 gallons an hour.
How many in a day ; how many hours do you work –Seven hours and a half or
eight hours, upon an average; we are not tied to an hour. w
How many houses have you, do you recollect 2—I cannot tell indeed ; it is out
of my department. -
Is your’s an improving concern or a losing concern?—We are improving in point
of number of houses. *
- Is
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
Is your's a supply by wooden pipes or iron pipes 2—Wood pipes.
Entirely 2—We have a few iron pipes; we have iron pipes in the yard to lay
down, but we have not laid them down. - .."
Does Mr. Edwards ever receive any interest for his property 2—I cannot tell, that
is out of my line to know that ; all I have to do is to send them plenty of water.
Does the London Bridge take from you customers ?—Sometimes they take from
us and we from them, there is very little difference between us, we are very good
friends, I believe.
And your proprietors very unanimous P-Yes.
You never knew a difference of opinion between the proprietors?—No.
Do you force the water?—Yes; we raise it about seventy feet.
Is the whole of it raised by engines?—Yes; we have only one engine, of eighteen-
horse power.
Have you any reservoir 2–No ; only a cistern to receive it, about seventy feet
high, and then it comes down to its level again.
Mr. Joseph Steevens,
Again Called in ; and Examined.
ARE there not whole streets within your district, in which your iron service-pipes
are laid, but in which there is not any inhabitant taking your water 2–I am not
aware of any thing of the kind: it is certainly not the case. -
Are there any cases in which, though the whole of the inhabitants may not resist
the taking of water, yet there are only a very few who do take?—There are some ;
and even in the older districts, where the iron has been laid for some years, that
perhaps not more than two thirds take the water; the others have means, perhaps,
of getting it from those who do receive, and hence a fraud, and that to a considerable
extent, is committed upon the company. In the streets that have been recently
driven, the largest proportion by far do receive the water. It has happened in some
cases, and particularly a few years ago, where an application has been made and
signed by perhaps almost the whole of the parties in a street, and upon having the
pipes laid down, there being other pipes in the same street, I think there is one
case, and that where they utterly refused, unless the rents were very much lowered,
there being other pipes in that street at that time (the London Bridge pipes;) after
having applied almost to a man, they refused to take it.
In the case or cases to which you allude, were the parties informed upon their
application what the water rents would be 2–Most assuredly so.
Previously to laying down the pipes?—Yes.
Then you mean to say, that with that information, and having made no objection
beforehand, they did, after you had laid down the pipes, object to take the water
unless the rent was lowered?—They did.
And in the cases you allude to, the London Bridge company had pipes in the
same street?—They had pipes in the same street. -
Are there not at Poplar whole streets in which your iron pipes are laid, and in
which, notwithstanding, there are no inhabitants taking the water —There are
many inhabitants who do not take the water; there is not a whole street, or any
thing like it, in Poplar, who do not take it; but many inhabitants do not take it:
say in the High-street of Poplar, it is probable that we are not supplying more than
two thirds of the inhabitants; that was the street I was alluding to, when I said two
thirds; they had means, I apprehend, of getting it clandestinely, and it has been
so in many instances; the other streets are supplied in much larger proportions.
Do you know of any street in which you have iron pipes, and in which the pro-
portion of inhabitants taking the water is so small as one third only 2—I am not
aware that that is the case in any street.
• . 706. Ş
Mr.
William Rudge.
S-S-7
(28 February.)
Mr.
Joseph Steecens.
X----> --—”
zo MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
James Weale.
(a March.)
Veneris, 2" die Martij, 1821.
WILLIAM HENRY FREMANTLE, ESQUIRE,
I N T H E C H A I R.
Mr. James Weale, Called in ; and Examined.
WHAT is your situation 2–I hold a situation under the crown, in the office
of Woods and Forests, and I reside in York-buildings, New-road.
Have you any connection of any sort or kind with any of the companies, or any
of the water undertakings of the metropolis 2—None whatever, and never have had.
No connection of any sort or kind?—None whatever; nor have I ever been
engaged in any scheme for raising a new company.
Has your attention been particularly directed to the subject referred to the con-
sideration of this Committee 2–It has ; besides the general knowledge I have had
of subjects of this kind for many years past, my attention has been particularly
directed to it since the partition of the town into districts. I was a petitioner against
the bill brought in by Mr. Michael Angelo Taylor, and I appeared personally in
support of that petition in the House of Lords; I heard all the evidence given by
the companies, and by the petitioners against that bill in the House of Lords, and
I was also heard against it; the documentary evidence delivered in to the Com-
mittee was also furnished to me : since that time, I have devoted almost the whole
of my leisure time to inquire into the grounds of the complaints which have been
made by the inhabitants of the western parishes of London, and have taken great
pains to inform myself generally upon the subject.
Are you of opinion. that works of the description now existing are essentially
necessary for the supply of the inhabitants of London with water –They are
essentially necessary, because a supply of water could not otherwise be furnished to
the inhabitants of the metropolis; that necessity arises from the nature of the strata
which forms the site of London. London is situated upon a bed of clay of great
thickness, and the ground rises gradually to the north and west, from the banks of
the Thames, so that the only means by which a supply of water could be procured
under ground would be by sinking wells of the depth of from one hundred to three
hundred feet and upwards, an operation which would be far too expensive for the
inhabitant householders generally; they cannot associate together to sink a well at
the expense of any given number of persons to supply themselves with water by
means of pipes to be laid down in the streets, because they have no power to break
up the pavements; then there are no back streams or rivers flowing through the town
into the Thames, from which the inhabitants in the upper districts might be sup-
plied. This want of water for the supply of the inhabitants of London was felt at
a very early period. It appears by Stowe, that as far back as the reign of Henry
the Third, the corporation of London constructed some conduits at Tyburn for the
supply of the inhabitants of that city; for it is upon record that the foreign mer-
chants, who had not at that time the privilege of housing their goods, but were
obliged to sell them on board their ships, purchased the privilege of housing woad
upon condition of paying to the corporation fifty marks yearly, and £. 100 towards
the improvement of the conduits at Tyburn. From that time down to the end
of the reign of Elizabeth, all the means resorted to for supplying London with
water proved to be insufficient, until the establishment of waterworks. There is
one other fact which I would wish to state: it has been said that water may be pro-
cured at a depth of twelve or fifteen feet beneath the surface generally. There are
a great variety of wells which furnish water at that depth, arising from the circum-
stance of there being inequalities in the surface of the clay, occasional hollows or.
basins, filled up with gravel, from which a moderate supply of hard water may be
procured. A case has occurred within these last three days, where the inhabitant
of a house in Conduit-street, who has a well which furnished him with hard water,
has had it laid dry by his next door neighbour also sinking a well.
State to the Committee any particulars concerning the old water companies,
which you think might elucidate the subject of their inquiry 2—The London Bridge
works were the first waterworks established, towards the close of the reign of
Elizabeth, and under the patronage of the corporation of London. In the early
part of the reign of James the First, the corporation of London took, by an act of
parliament,
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 7r
parliament, powers for constructing a trench, which is now called the New River. Mr.
The London Bridge works having succeeded in supplying a part of the city with James Weale.
an adequate quantity of water, the corporation began to think that it was an useless
expense going on with the New River, and they assigned their property to Sir (2 March.)
Hugh Myddelton, who undertook to complete the work at his own cost, upon con-
dition that all the rights and privileges of the city should be vested in him. Sir
Hugh Myddelton was under the necessity of taking partners to assist him in that
undertaking; and from the costliness of the work, his affairs fell into great embar-
rassments; and upon an application to the city to assist him, they refused, and he
then applied to the crown. The king took a moiety of the concern, under an
engagement to pay one half of the costs which had been incurred up to that time,
or which should thereafter be incurred in completing the New River. *
Will you state how far, in your opinion, the old waterworks companies accom-
plished the public purposes for which they were instituted, and what are the defects
to which you have alluded in the present system of supply -The defects to which
I have alluded are all involved in the fact, that the supply is vested in the hands of
trading joint stock companies: now the supply of a large town with water cannot be
assimilated, I conceive, to a trade in grain or other commodities. Water must be
considered as one of the elements necessary to existence, the same as light and air,
and not merely as an article of subsistence like corn, nor of convenience like coal ;
and therefore its artificial supply to a great city ought not to be the subject of free
trade, nor of any kind of trade : the supply ought not to be limited to the ordinary
wants of domestic consumption, nor ought that consumption to be kept down by
the artificial checks which a high price to be paid for it, or any price to be paid for
it, by the poor and needy, would produce; but on the contrary, the supply
should be profuse, rather than merely sufficient, and gratuitous to the poor.
The costs of the works required to provide the supply, and the expenses
attending the delivery of it, should be defrayed out of a local revenue, in the
same manner as the expenses of the pavements, drains, police, &c. are, raised
by an equitable assessment on the property of the district; and the management
of such an establishment should be placed in the hands of local commissioners,
under the like regulations as the commissioners of sewers, and other similar
bodies. These principles were sufficiently obvious to the ancients; and hence the
construction of their aqueducts, public fountains, and public baths at the public
expense: nor has a different system obtained in modern times in any great city
or town, except in the United Kingdom. That our practice is not in this respect
an improvement on the municipal polity of other countries, will not, I think, be
questioned by any reflecting person. The salutary principle of the system I have
attempted to explain was first broken in upon by the assignment to Sir Hugh
Myddelton of the privileges granted to the corporation of London, and afterwards
in the establishment of a succession of joint stock companies for the supply of water.
If the supply of water had been placed, as it ought to have been, under the exclusive
management of independent local public boards or commissioners, in the same manner
as the sewage, pavement, &c. of the metropolis are accomplished, it would not have
been necessary or expedient to incur the expense of two concurrent sets of works,
because the satisfaction of the public wants and convenience might have been fully
provided for by a single establishment on an adequate scale; while the inhabitants
would have had the best security that no higher rates would be imposed on them
than were required to discharge the necessary expenses of the works, and therefore
that they received the accommodation at the lowest possible charge. Not so while
the supply and the charge are left at the discretion of trading companies: the first
and sole principle to be observed in the administration of the affairs of such establish-
ments, must be the realization of profits; and to accomplish that object, it will be the
constant study of the directors to reduce their current expenses, and to increase their
revenue by every means within their power; to limit and reduce the quantity of
water supplied for a fixed rate; or if not fixed, to enhance the rates to be paid for
every given quantity of water. Upon the principle I have stated of its being
a local charge in the one case, it would be a charge regulated according to the
property; in the case of a trading company, it must be a charge on the quantity.
The New River company, however, did not follow that principle of charge, but ~.
looked also to the convenience afforded to the property which was supplied with the
water; and the rates which were existing in 1810, were rates assessed, not merely
with a view to the quantity of water consumed in that particular district or street,
but to the character of the property; and those rates had grown up during a long
706. : series
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
..Mr.
James Weale.
S–S--—/
(2 March.),
series of years, mutually acquiesced in by the public and by the companies who had
the exclusive supply of the town at that time. -
Of what nature were the complaints you represent to have been preferred against the
old companies at the formation of the new companies?—I think there were many more
complaints than were well founded; that the complaints which were brought forward
in the year 1810 were principally excited by the new speculators in waterworks; and
that the complainants being collected together for the purpose of giving evidence
on the West Middlesex bill of 1810, a colour was given to their representations;
for I beg to state, as a fact which is capable of proof before this Committee, that not
one of those new companies was promoted by any parochial body within the district
which they now supply; and if the Committee will give me leave, I will hand to
them copies of letters written by Mr. Sloper, them clerk to the West Middlesex
company, to the vestries of St. Mary-le-bone and St. Giles, to show that the parochial
bodies were not parties to the institution of the new works.
[A letter, dated Montagu-street, Russell-square, November 24th 1809, signed
Robert S. Sloper, addressed to John Jones, Esq, clerk to the Vestry Court-
house, St. Mary-le-bone, was read, as follows :]
“ Sir, -
“ I AM desired by the board of directors of the West Middlesex waterworks to
acknowledge your communication respecting the appointment of Mr. Marshall to be
surveyor or supervisor to the company, and to signify that a person shall be forth-
with selected, whom it is hoped, may prove agreeable and satisfactory to the parish
of Mary-le-bone.
“I am at the same time directed to signify, that if the gentlemen of the vestry
are still apprehensive that the pavements of the parish may be materially injured by
the laying down of pipes at this season of the year, the board of directors will order
that such work shall be immediately discontinued, hoping that the vestry will not
permit the other water companies to proceed with similar works, so as to forestall
the market for the supply of water in a part of the parish of Mary-le-bone, where
the West Middlesex company are invited to serve, and which they contemplate to do
at such reduced rates, and with water of such purity, as will insure the encouragement
of the parish at large, to an undertaking which has been carried into effect at so
large an expense, and with so much public spirit.”
[Another letter, dated 14th February 1810, signed R. S. Sloper, addressed to
the vestry of the parish of St. Giles's, was read, as follows:
“ I AM desired by the board of directors of the West Middlesex waterworks
to inform the vestry of the parish of St. Giles's-in-the-Fields and St. George
Bloomsbury, (through you,) that the company have now a bill pending in parlia-
ment, for the purpose of enabling them to extend their supply of water to your
parish, amongst others particularly enumerated. I am also earnestly to solicit their
approbation, and that they would please to concur in petitioning parliament to
sanction a measure which will add so materially to the domestic comfort and se-
curity of the inhabitants, it being the intention of the West Middlesex company
not only to lay down iron pipes throughout the whole of their service, and, thereby
save to each parish the expense and inconvenience so incessantly occasioned in
taking up the pavements on account of the wear and bursting of the wooden pipes,
but to give a most ample supply of perfectly settled soft water for domestic pur-
poses, and to make such arrangements with the different fire-offices as shall insure
an instantaneous supply of water for the use of the engines wherever fires happen.
“In consequence of the urgent press of business, before parliament, and being
conscious (as the directors are,) that a vestry cannot be convened, and a determina-
tion come to on this application, for, probably, several days, they have ventured to
direct, (in order to save time,) that a petition may be carried about for the signa-
tures of such individuals as may be disposed to sign ; a step which, under the cir-
cumstances of the case, the board hope will not be considered offensive by the vestry,
to whom, as the guardians of the parish at large, the company look up for their
important aid; and a blank is left at the head of the petition for the favour of
their names, should they be pleased to comply with this application, and which it
is anxiously hoped they will. You will of course understand, that no expense of
any kind will attach to the parish.” - . A
It is one of the grounds laid down by these companies for their increased rates,
that we, (the different parishes,) have been guilty of a breach of faith towards them;
- that
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
73
that we invited them to construct those works: I will explain that to the Committee.
In the House of Lords, they laid before the Committee petitions which had been
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-le-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 River company
could not, with the then power of their works, 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?—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-le-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 2–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 2–Yes; it is a house that be-
longed to me, 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
* by the interference of the Mary-le-bone vestry, and the correspondence
700. t()
}[r.
James lj'eale.
S->–’
(2 March.)
74
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
\--
Mr.
James Weale,
(; March.)
to which I have alluded in a preceding answer took place. They then found
themselves under the necessity of applying to parliament for new powers to autho-
rize them to come into London, and the bill of 1810 was accordingly presented.
Upon the evidence taken upon that bill, a scanty and insufficient supply to the new
buildings was represented to be a general insufficiency throughout the town, and
the advantages offered by the new companies were, an unlimited supply of water
to be given to the tops of the highest houses within those districts. The act of
1810 only recites that the works before constructed might be beneficially extended
to the parishes in London, and there was an obligation imposed upon the company
to lay down certain mains, which were to be kept constantly charged with water
for the extinction of fires; but it contains no regulations preventive of combination,
nor any regulations as to the amount of the rates, beyond a general provision that
the rates shall be reasonable. They were then admitted into competition with the
previously existing companies supplying those parishes, and upon that occasion the
Chelsea district was also thrown open to the West Middlesex company. Now it is
a most material fact to observe, that these works, which were originally constructed
for the supply of the out-parishes of London, became inadequate to that supply
which the West Middlesex proprietors, in the view they took of their speculation,
contemplated would be necessary for the supply of London; and the engines and
the principal main which they had laid down were taken up and replaced by
engines of larger powers, and mains of greater capacity. As soon as they had
brought their works to a certain state of completion, and were enabled to supply a
part of the parish of Paddington, and part of the parish of Mary-le-bone, they
circulated through those parts the papers which I will now lay before the Com-
mittee. *
[The following papers were read.]
“West Middlesex Waterworks, incorporated by Act of Parliament, 46th of Geo. 3.
“ The directors have the satisfaction to announce to the inhabitants of Mary-le-
bone and its vicinity, that the company’s works being now established with engines,
reservoirs, and a most extensive line of main pipes, they are ready to supply them
with water; and they trust that the exertions now making will enable them to
extend their supply in the course of the ensuing month to a large portion of the
districts adjacent, viz. the parishes of St. Giles and St. George Bloomsbury,
(including the Bedford estate,) Somers Town and the parish of St. Pancras
generally. - - -
“ In justice to themselves, as well as for the information of the public, it is incum-
bent on them concisely to state, - - - - -
“ First—That their supply is derived from the bed of the river Thames, from off
a fine gravelly bottom, thirteen miles above London Bridge, pure as it comes from
the country, of superior excellence and unlimited in quantity, and that it is received
in reservoirs, which, if it had any sediment to deposit, in times of rain or otherwise,
would transmit it perfectly clear and bright to their tenants.
“ Secondly—That from the power of their engines, and the matchless elevation
of their grand reservoir, they can convey the water to all tenants who desire it into
tanks, or other receptacles at the tops of their houses, thereby affording a consider-
able saving of expense and labour, in providing and working of force pumps for
domestic accommodation, and an invaluable security against fire, the ravages of which
may in most instances be stopped by such an immediate supply.
“ Thirdly—They are engaged by law to keep their main pipes full, night and day;
and these, from their magnitude and efficacy, will afford on the instant so large a body
of water to the fire engines, as must insure the safety and establish the security of
their tenants, with regard to so dreadful and destructive a calamity. :
“Fourthly—It is scarcely needful to detail the general benefits in point of domestic
conveniences, health and comfort, arising from a plentiful supply of pure water;
nor that the company is well enabled and disposed to afford the same on terms of .
the most liberal and reasonable nature. -
“ The directors also beg leave to inform the public, that the company’s office is
removed from Bridge-street, Blackfriars, to No. 51, Berners-street, Oxford-street,
where attendance is given daily (Sundays excepted) from nine o'clock in the
morning till six in the afternoon.
“August 21, 1811. “Jonathan Hardy, secretary.”
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
75
“West Middlesex Waterworks Office, 51, Berners-street, Oxford-street,
* “October 16, 1811.
“The directors of the West Middlesex waterworks have apprised the public, that
their works are in a state of forwardness to supply the parish of St. Mary-le-bone and
its neighbourhood with water of the purest quality, unlimited in quantity, and
delivered, if chosen, in the upper stories of the loftiest houses in London ; and the
encouragement already received, affords them the fairest prospect of success. They
have now to state, that in addition to these advantages, they are enabled to supply
their tenants at lower rates than those adopted by any existing establishment.
“In making this spontaneous reduction, it is not the wish of the West Middlesex
company to claim any merit at the expense of those who have come before them;
the price of every article of consumption naturally regulates itself by a comparison
of the supply with the demand; and in the present instance, the one having con-
tinued stationary for a series of years, while the other hās rapidly advanced, as well
by the augmented population of the metropolis, as by habits of increased comfort
and cleanliness among every class of consumers, an enhancement of price became
the necessary consequence. It is doubtless on this account that parliament has of
late thought fit to incorporate so many new water companies; by whose competition,
as the supply must of course increase, a corresponding diminution could not fail to
take place in the price of the commodity.
“The West Middlesex company have a pride in forwarding, thus early in their
career, the provident designs of the legislature; nor are they withheld from the
performance of this duty, though aware of the clamour likely to be raised by those
whom their example will compel (and compel them it must) to a proportionate
reduction in their demands. They feel confident that a discerning community will
at once perceive, in such proposed reduction, the natural effect of a widened compe-
tition, and that by holding forth every fair encouragement to the West Middlesex
company, the public will enable them to continue in the market; their expulsion
from which, by the operation of the unerring principle above adverted to, must
infallibly produce, first the re-establishment, and eventually an augmentation of the
present prices. *
“As houses, even of the same class, differ materially both in point of size, and the
habitual consumption of water, it has been found impracticable to frame any gene-
ral scale of charges, but the rates will be declared in each particular instance on
application at the company’s office, as above, where attendance is given daily,
(Sundays excepted) from nine in the morning till six in the evening.
- “Jonathan Hardy, secretary.
“Postscript, November 1.-That which was predicted in the above address, which
appeared in most of the newspapers, has actually occurred. The different water
companies are now offering to reduce their prices. It is sufficiently evident to what
cause the reduction is attributable ; and the directors of the West Middlesex com-
pany rely with increased confidence on the liberal support of the public.”
“Address to the Occupiers of Houses supplied with Water by the New River
Company.
“The present opposition to the New River company, and the unjust representa-
tions of their conduct, have rendered it a duty to make this appeal, and to show
their claims upon the public for support. *
“ They have served the metropolis with water nearly two centuries, at rates,
which have at no time yielded them above six-and-a-quarter per cent, and for many
years past not five per cent. on their capital; whether it be estimated by the original
cost of their works, by the actual value of those works, and of the company’s stock
in trade in its present state, or by the prices which the present proprietors have
paid for their shares. The property of the company has advanced less beyond its
original value than any species of real property since the commencement of their
undertaking.
“The absurd report that their shares (seventy-two in number) originally cost
only £. 1 oo each, needs no other refutation than the statement that their water
was brought to London through an aqueduct of forty miles in length. The forma-
tion of their works in the time of the original projector, Sir Hugh Middleton, cost,
according to the best authorities, £.500,000, and they yielded no dividend for
twenty years.
“ The New River actually discharges above 214,000 hogsheads of water in every
706. twenty-
\-
J1r.
James Weale.
-J-
(2 March.)
/
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
James IVeale.
(2 March.)
twenty-four hours into the town; the prices received for this water, and the average
rate of rents for its use, will show the extreme cheapness with which an abundant
supply of one of the greatest conveniences of life, has been afforded by the com-
pany to the public, and how little they deserve the imputation of abusing the ad-
vantage of a market without competition. Comparing the whole quantity supplied
in the year at 214,000 hogsheads per day, with the gross annual receipts of the
company, the gross price received for their water does not exceed 2s. for each
100 hogsheads. The average rental upon the houses supplied is something less
than 27s. per annum, or about 6d. per week for each house ; the most numerous
class of private houses is supplied at less than one third of this rate, this depression
of the rate in favour of the poorer inhabitants being of course compensated by a
rise on the higher class of houses proportioned to their magnitude, and to the greater
abundance of the supply. N -
“ Of these few facts, those which relate to the origin and ancient state of the New
River, are vouched by every authentic history of London, and to those concerning
its state in modern times, every man at all acquainted with the concerns of the
company can bear witness. They will be sufficient, it is hoped, to undeceive those
to whom the company has been represented as exercising an oppressive monopoly,
and with whom the speculators in new waterworks have claimed credit for the public
spirit of their projects, as aimed at the destruction of that monopoly. They may
also serve to show on what foundations are rested the hopes of those who look for
large returns from the investment of money in those speculations. The vast body
of water before stated to be actually supplied by the New River, in each twenty-four
hours, is received into the reservoir at Islington, at a natural elevation of eighty-five
feet above the level of the Thames; and from thence it is raised to a further height
of thirty-five feet, by powerful machinery. If the rental of the New River com-
pany has been hitherto such as to have afforded, with these advantages, a bare
interest on its capital, the most sanguine adventurer will hardly look for a better
return, where every ton of water must be raised by steam to the height of 120
feet, to bring it on a level with the present power of the New River company.
Whether water so raised can be profitably sold at the rate of 2s. for every 100 hogs-
heads, is matter of no difficult computation for those who are at all acquainted with
the powers of steam engines, and the expenses of maintaining and working them.
“ Thus far the directors have thought it due to themselves, and to the public, to
state, respecting the condition and conduct of their concern. It remains to give to
their numerous tenants the assurance, which they have a right to expect, that what-
ever be the expense or reduction of fair profit to the company, they shall be supplied
as effectually, in every respect, and at as low a price as they can possibly be, by
any other water company. It has been hitherto the object of the New River com-
pany to regulate their supply with a view to general cheapness and abundance.
They have never thought it expedient for themselves, or the public, to raise their
water, by a heavy cost of additional machinery, above the height to which the pur-
poses of domestic convenience require that it should be thrown. There is no diffi-
culty in an ostentatious display of the powers of a waterwork, while they are confined
to display alone ; but it is one thing to make a jet d’eau, and another to supply a
great city. If the New River had no other employment, nothing would be easier
than to throw its waters over the tops of the highest houses. It is obvious that
in the greater part of the town, the natural elevation of eighty-five feet would effect
this, without the aid of machinery, upon the principle that water will rise to its
level; but in the practical business of a water company, this principle is subject to
many disturbing causes ; indeed, the supply of every house which it takes in its
course, is a disturbing cause ; and in proportion as they are numerous, the natural
force of the water is dissipated and weakened, and can only be recruited by im-
pulse from additional steam engines and forcing mains. The New River company
speak from long experience, when they assert, that such must be the course of things
in every waterwork; and that a small portion of actual employment will oblige
their competitors either to retract the premises which they have holden forth as
to the height of their supply, or to resort to these means of fulfilling them.
“To these means they avow that they are themselves compelled to resort by the
challenge which has been thrown out to them ; they will occasion, undoubtedly, a
heavy expense to the company, even with the vantage ground which they possess:
and where the height of eighty-five feet is to be compensated by machinery, the
slightest consideration of the subject will show that the produce cannot equal the
expense. But, whatever may be their conviction as to the result, they cannot
expect
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
77
expect the public will take it for granted; and they admit the necessity of meeting
competition, in every respect, of cheapness and convenience : for the purpose of
doing this effectually, orders have been some time since given, for erecting the
necessary additional machinery, which will be completed and in action in the month
of August next. ~ *
“The directors of the New River company trust, that the tenants of the company
will honour them with their support, until an opportunity has been given of showing
that the resources of the company are abundantly sufficient to furnish and continue
to them every advantage which has been holden out by any of its competitors.
“J. P. Rowe, secretary.
“New River Office, Salisbury-square, Feb. 27, 1812.”
“To the Public.
“THE directors of the West Middlesex waterworks company consider themselves
called upon to notice an ‘appeal to the public,’ recently made by the New River
company, wherein they complain, that their conduct has been misrepresented.
Misrepresentation, or, indeed, any allusion whatever to the conduct of the New
River company, the directors of the West Middlesex must positively disavow. In
the address, which they some time since submitted to the public, they confined
themselves to a simple statement of the accommodation it is in their power to afford;
nor can that statement be construed into an attack on any existing establishment,
except by those who consider an attempt to improve on the present mode of supply-
ing the metropolis with water (confessedly of two centuries duration) as an unwar-
rantable invasion of their rights and privileges. *
“The New River company have not thought fit to practise the same moderation.
Impatient of the disturbance already given to their monopoly, and foreseeing its
utter extinction, unless the progress of the new companies be speedily arrested, they
proceed at once to denounce failure and discomfiture against their opponents;
alleging, that to construct and maintain a system of works on the mechanical
principle adequate to the requisite supply, must be attended with an expense which
will ruin them in the competition ; and further, that from certain disturbing
auses,’ the practical difficulty of delivering water at the promised elevation will be
found insuperable. J
“With regard to the first allegation, a short reference to the amount of the New
River capital, and to the annual expenditure entailed upon the very nature of that
concern, compared with those of any new establishment, will at once show, that in
provoking such an inquiry, the zeal of the New River directors has rather outstripped
their discretion.
“The New River directors do not condescend to specify the amount of the capital
on which the company have divided ‘6 #, and for many years past not more than
five per cent.” but estimated in either of two modes suggested by themselves, it
must be enormous. £.500,000, it seems, were expended in bringing their water
to London, through an aqueduct of forty miles; and as ‘the works yielded no
dividend for twenty years,’ the real amount of this outlay may be fairly stated at
£. 1,500,000. Taking, however, as a more correct mode of computation, the cost of
shares to the actual proprietors, or the sums at which they have been rated in be-
quests and inheritances for the last thirty years, which may be moderately averaged
at £. 12,000 each, this sum, multiplied by seventy-two, the number of shares, will
make a capital to be divided upon of near £.900,000 : but this is not all. On the
system of wooden pipes, adopted by the New River company, which require constant
repairs and renovation, together with river charges, &c. &c. the annual expendi-
ture incurred by them exceeds £. 50,000 ; so that upwards of f. 104,000 per annum
must be levied upon the community, before the proprietors can divide six per cent.
on their capital, the lowest rate of profit certainly, upon which any trade can be
carried on with advantage. How does the case stand at the present day? By
the progress of the arts during the last two centuries, (from the whole benefit
of which, the New River company would willingly exclude the public,) steam
engines and other mechanical powers are capable of forcing a level of sufficient
elevation to supply the upper stories of every house in London; and though our
ancestors, to whom these things were unknown, were compelled to go forty miles in
search of a similar, though not an equal facility, it does not seem very reasonable that the
present race should be assessed, in order to make good to their representatives this now
Superfluous expenditure. About half of the New River capital, taken at £. 900,000,
706. U would
Mr.
James Weale.
`------—
(2 March.)
_^
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
James Wedle.
(2 March.)
would suffice to construct works adequate to the supply of its actual tenants; while
under the system of iron pipes, the same might be administered at a third of its
annual expenditure. It follows, that a new company, when in equal service, would
be able, on the same scale of profits, to undersell the New River company in that
proportion.
“ Thus then it appears, with what little reason the directors of the New River
company take credit with the public for the cheap rate at which they have served
the metropolis. Cheapness is a relative term ; that article has reached its minimum,
which being brought to market at the least possible cost, is sold at the lowest
profit; but if an unnecessary expense be incurred in bringing it thither, the article
is comparatively dear; it matters not how small may be the rate of profit to the
dealer.
“With regard to the second point insisted on, namely, the mechanical difficulties
in delivering water at the promised elevations, it may be sufficient for the present
to observe, that if the West Middlesex company cannot accomplish what they have
undertaken, a little time will prove their inability, and the public will have its
remedy at hand. As far, however, as experience has gone, the supply to the upper
stories has flowed into the cisterns three times a week, with almost the regularity
of the tide; a fact on which they can confidently appeal to their high tenants,
situated as they are in scattered parts of their districts: nor can there be any rea-
son to doubt the continuance of what has been so successfully begun, the actual
supply to the high services bearing the same proportion to their present tenants as
may reasonably be expected on a more extensive scale.
“The New River company profess that they have hitherto confined their views to
abundance and cheapness of supply ; they allege that ‘ there is no difficulty in
the ostentatious display of the powers of a waterwork, while they are confined to
display alone; but it is one thing to make a jet d’eau, another to supply a great
city;’ and so, forsooth, to increase the comforts of the rich and diminish the
labours of the poor is mere ostentation an abundant and immediate supply at the
tops of houses to arrest the progress of fire is nothing but amusement the trouble
of carrying water up stairs in pitchers, or forcing it by pumps, is no inconvenienceſ
After this, however, it might have been expected that the New River company
would have allowed these schemes to waste themselves in their visionary projects,
and then have quietly resumed the dominion which they have so long and so vexa-
tiously exercised over the community. But no such thing; they conclude by declar-
ing themselves about to undertake the same folly they have ridiculed and reprobated
in others; for which purpose, ‘additional machinery will be completed and in
action in the month of August next.” Such inconsistencies it is sufficient to
state ; they can require no comment.
“Thus much the directors of the West Middlesex company have felt it their duty
to observe in answer to the unprovoked attacks of the New River directors. It
only remains for them to return thanks to the public for the encouragement already
shown to their infant undertaking—encouragement which has surpassed the most
sanguine expectation,--and to renew with increased confidence the assurance of their
ability to supply water in any quantity to the tops of the loftiest houses, incom-
parably pure in quality, and at rates far inferior to those hitherto demanded by any
existing establishment.
- - “Joseph Bailey, secretary.”
“West Middlesex Waterworks Office,
51, Berners-street, April 27th 1812.”
The fact which I wish to bring distinctly under the view of the Committee, with
reference to those papers, is, that notwithstanding all these advantages were held
out to the inhabitants, they procured but a very small proportion of the inhabitants
to deal with them ; a strong ground of presumption, I submit, that the supply
given by the New River and the old companies was not such as they represented,
insufficient and irregular. I would also observe, that it was impossible that the
inhabitants, who were disposed to deal with them, should doubt the truth of the
statements which were so repeatedly brought under their notice; for that the
West Middlesex company had, at the period of the date of the last of these papers,
had six years experience as a water company; and in that paper they also advert
to the objection which had been started by the New River company, as to their
power of affording high service gratuitously and regularly: they state distinctly
that
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 70
that, from the experience they had had, they were satisfied they could afford that Mr.
high service gratuitously, and that unlimited quantity for the low service, at the James Weale.
reduced rates at which they had offered it. These papers I, in common with the – 2–’
rest of the inhabitants, take to be a part of their engagement with the public ; and (2 March.)
we also apprehend that they are recognized, and distinctly recognized, in the
preamble of the act of 1813, which authorized them to raise a further sum of
money to enable them more effectually to carry on their works. Then as to the
Grand Junction company; the first public proposal which we received from the
Grand Junction company was an advertisement published in the newspapers and
otherwise circulated; it is dated the 15th of November 1810, and signed by Henry
Wright, their solicitor. - -
[It was read, as follows :]
- “GRAND JUNCTION WATERworks.
“By Act 38 Geo. 3, c. 33, the Grand Junction canal company are empowered
to make waterworks to supply the parish of Paddington, and parishes and streets
adjacent, with water pursuant to this act. Works are now constructing, and reser-
voirs making, under the direction of Mr. Rennie, the engineer, with powers to effect
their purpose far superior to any other in this kingdom, and calculated at once to give
to the inhabitants of the parishes and streets to be supplied an abundance of pure and
excellent soft water even in the upper stories of their houses or other buildings. This
the proprietors will be enabled to do at a comparatively small expense, from the
abundance of their sources, from the height of the ground whence the water will be
taken being so much above the level of the Thames, and its being so contiguous to
the parishes of Paddington, Mary-le-bone, and St. George’s Hanover-square, &c.
including all the new streets now making and intended to be made. The grand
main at present casting is thirty inches in diameter, and will extend down Oxford-
street, conveying a body of water unequalled in the metropolis, and affording an
immense advantage in the cases of fire to all the districts through which the pipes
will pass. Great attention being necessary in the execution of an undertaking of such
magnitude and public importance, the Grand Junction canal company have thought it
for the general good that it should be under a distinct and separate management from
their other concerns, which are at present sufficient to occupy the attention of any
company : they have therefore entered into an agreement with certain gentlemen
for the purpose of carrying it into effect, in pursuance of which, and for the more
effectual establishment of the undertaking, application will be made to parliament
the ensuing session, praying to have the agreement confirmed, and to have the
proprietors formed into a distinct company. In the mean time the works are carry-
ing on under the authority and direction of the Grand junction canal company, by
virtue of the act of parliament already made and provided. The fund for carrying
the waterworks into execution, is divided into 3,000 shares, of £. 50 each ; and
£. I per share thereon is already paid into the hands of the treasurer, William
Praed, esquire, of Fleet-street. The water in its present state has been analyzed,
and found excellent for all culinary and domestic purposes; it is also lighter, and
contains less foreign matter than the Thames water; besides which, the Grand
Junction canal company are now engaged in making additional reservoirs, and
introducing other streams of water, which are of the finest quality, and which will
enable them not only to perform their engagement of giving a supply for at least
40,000 houses, but also to meet the demand for water to any extent that may be
required. Hence it is obvious that the undertaking will be attended with great
public benefit, and the proprietors trust they have reason to feel confident of the
liberal support of the public. -
“By order of the Committee of Management for carrying the work into
execution, under the authority of the Grand Junction canal company.”
In 1811, the Grand Junction company obtained the act of parliament authoriz-
ing them to construct their works: from which it appears that the works were
originally intended, and likewise intended by that act, to be constructed for the
supply of Paddington. They, however, carried their works into Mary-le-bone, to
Open a new competition with the New River and Chelsea companies, and with the
West Middlesex company; and there is another paper issued from the Grand
Junction office, which I shall be anxious to put in to the Committee. :
[It was read, as follows: -
706. ‘‘ Grand
8O
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
James Weale,
\–V--→'
(2 March.)
“Grand Junction Waterworks Office, 46, Upper Seymour-street.
“The proprietors of the Grand Junction waterworks have proved the absolute
power of their works, the excellence of their water, and the certain success of their
plan. On these grounds they solicit support to an undertaking, combining the
welfare of the public with the company’s advantage.
“Their level is ten feet above the highest street in Mary-le-bone, and (what has
never before been effected) they give a supply so copious and regular, that the water
is always on; many of the new houses served by this company now do without .
cisterns. This abundant supply of water is always pure in the pipes; it is con-
stantly fresh, because it is always coming in. ---
“Their powers from height of situation and largeness of their main, aided by the
great force of a steam engine, raise water with ease above the highest house in Lon-
don, without any interruption of service to the tenants, which has not before been
done; and this economical accommodation is felt, not only in small houses, but in
laundries, water-closets, nurseries, &c. on upper stories, for which high service no
additional charge is made.
“Ravages of fire are increased by delay and scanty supply ; no houses watered by
this company can suffer in these respects; their water is never off; their pipes are
always full; and a leather hose attached to their plug, gives all the benefit of a fire
engine. The water being perfectly clear, would not, in case of fire, tarnish the
furniture, as that does, which is now supplied to the fire engines, loaded with the
filth of the kennel.
“The durability of their iron pipes (the only sort used by this company, and
which are always proved) relieves them from injuring the streets, because their pipes
can never want repair. ---
“The annexed analyses show the water to be peculiarly adapted to all domestic
purposes. It is drawn from two large filtering reservoirs, situated at Paddington,
the main supply to which is derived from the rivers Colne and Brent, and from
an immense reservoir of nearly 100 acres, fed by the streams of the vale of Ruislip;
and the water being taken at a considerable distance above the basin of the canal
at Paddington, is consequently as pure as if it were drawn immediately from those
permanent sources.
“ This water is laid on free of expense to the tenants.
“ W. M. Coe, chief clerk and secretary.”
“ The analysis I have made of the Grand Junction water is highly favourable to
the opinion of its salubrity and excellence, for the important public object which
it is intended to fulfil.
(signed) “C. R. Aikin, 4, Broad-street-buildings.”
“I have analyzed the Grand Junction water, and find it to be most excellent for
all domestic purposes, to be also lighter, and contain less foreign matter than the
Thames water.
(signed) “Frederick Accum, Compton-street.”
Looking at the description of persons among whom these several proposals were
circulated, it was too much to expect that they should withstand the advantages
and temptations which were held out to them. Many of them did accordingly
quit the old and deal with the new companies; but, as I said before, not to any
considerable amount, proportionally to the whole number of inhabitants within the
respective districts. They have attempted to show that they were compelled to
supply their water at those inadequate rates; but from the papers it appears that
the West Middlesex company was the first company that had recourse to that means
of getting customers; and when one company had reduced the rates, the other com-
panies were obliged to do it to retain their tenants. Their pipes were driven to an im-
mense distance from their own works. It is within my own knowledge, that the West
Middlesex company drove a pipe to the extreme of Somers Town, and in another
direction into St. Giles's. In faith of the assurances held out in these papers also,
as to a gratuitous high service, very many of the inhabitants were induced to take
down their force-pumps; and many were induced to erect water-closets in their
upper stories, who would not have gone to the expense of the machinery of force-
pumps to raise the water. |
You know this yourself?—I know a great many instances; nevertheless, this
kind of competition was persevered in, and very considerable sums were expended
by
4 ºf
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
by the companies in gratuities to agents, such as plumbers and people of that descrip-
tion, to seduce away people from the old companies. -
You know this of your own knowledge?–No, from information; but the parties
can be called before the Committee, if the facts are denied. I shall state nothing to
the Committee of which I have not taken the greatest pains to ascertain the truth.
It appears to me that the object of the competition, therefore, as prosecuted by the
new companies, was not to afford that abundant supply at a reduced rate permanently,
but at every expense to drive out the old companies, and get possession of the
market. The Committee will perhaps allow me to state an authority for that state-
ment, which can now be controverted, if I state it incorrectly: I heard at a public
meeting a director of the Grand Junction company say, that the object of the
establishment of these new works was to crush the old companies.
Who?– Captain Blagrave.
Where was this public meeting?—A public meeting of the householders of Mary-
le-bone, in their public building.
When 2–Last year.
How far in your opinion have the public purposes for which the new companies
were established been since accomplished –I think as to the enlargement of the
competition, which it must be obvious to the Committee, from a view of the acts,
was the object of the legislature in creating those new companies, they have wholly
failed, and that the mode in which the competition was carried on, as long as it was
persevered in, was nearly destructive of all the companies. That was seriously felt
by the companies as early as the year 1815, and an arrangement was entered into by
the New River company with the West Middlesex company, for the consolidation of
their concerns into one company ; and upon that arrangement a bill was prepared
and submitted to parliament early in the session of 1816, but was afterwards with-
drawn. The mischiefs which the public experienced from that competition were of
a very important nature, and to a very considerable amount, in the perpetual dis-
turbance of the pavements of the metropolis during the whole period that the
competition was carried on. The arrangement which has since taken place among
the several water companies for the partition of the town into districts, has left us in
a worse situation than we were previously to the establishment of the new companies,
as far as competition may be presumed to influence the price of the supply; for
before the establishment of the new companies there was a sort of quiescent com-
petition between the companies then established, not a competition of price; but
when a representation was made by the inhabitants of a street within the circle of
the works of one company, that they were inadequately supplied by the company then
supplying them, and that the company so applied to felt an assurance that if they did
lay out their capital in extending their works into the complaining street, they would
receive a fair remunerating price for the expenditure of capital, and the current
expense of a supply of water, the inhabitants were immediately relieved from the
grievance of which they had to complain; so that the public derived all the benefit
of an active competition : it was a bond fide competition, having regard only to the
fair price of the commodity. No such competition exists at this moment; the com-
bination has left the town subject to the uncontrolled monopoly of the supply,
inasmuch as the legislature, in passing the acts of parliament which authorized the
erection of these new companies, made no provision against the evil which has
resulted from that combination, and consequent partition of the town; and
all the evils which have been attributed in theoretical speculation to a
monopoly of the supply of any article of general consumption, have followed that
combination and partition, to which I have alluded, in a general enhancement of
the price usually paid for the commodity, previously to the establishment of the
monopoly. Another public injury which has resulted from the competition and sub-
sequent combination is, that the Chelsea company is left with so small a district as to
endanger the existence of that company: inasmuch as it must be obvious to the
Committee, that waterworks can be profitably carried on in the hands of a trading
joint stock company only when it has to supply a large district. The York Build-
ings company has actually been annihilated; and a competitor has been taken out of
the market, which existed before the establishment of these new water companies.
This is a short summary of the mischiefs which I apprehend have resulted from the
establishment of the new works. On the other hand, I think it cannot be doubted,
that not only the new works are constructed upon an improved principle, but that
there has been a corresponding improvement in the supply of water given to the
inhabitants generally: that the public benefit most materially, both in point of con-
e
706. X -- - venience
81
M.
**,
James Weale,
S--/
(2 March.),
82
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
James Weale,
\ /
(2 March.)
venience and in point of expense, by the less frequent occasion for the disturbance
of the pavements: and that the execution of these new works upon the improved
principle which I have mentioned, and the more certain, and certainly the more
abundant supply generally given by these new works, have spurred on and excited
the old companies to an improvement of their works, much more quickly than they
otherwise probably would. Then again, there is a more certain provision of water
for fire, than was found upon the erection of the new works, for which no specific
charge is made on the public ; but, on this point, I will here remark that it is the
interest not only of these new companies, but of every water company, to keep their
mains charged with water at might, or at least to charge their mains with water.
When their engines have accomplished the work necessary for the supply of the
inhabitants in the course of the day, if they were not to continue at work so as fully
to charge the mains, they would have to encounter on the following morning, when
they set their engines to work, a very considerable resistance to the passage of the
water, and consequently a waste of power for a certain time, in discharging the air
from those main pipes : I therefore say, that though it is a legal obligation upon the
companies, by their acts of parliament, to keep their mains charged with water, yet
it is not attended with any additional expense to them, but on the contrary, would
be done under a proper system of management in the ordinary course of the admini-
stration of their water. The New River company, I believe, is the only company
which is not, by law, required to keep their mains charged with water, but they have
invariably from the earliest times done it, and have never got any specific remunera-
tion for that supply, or for delivering it to fires, when that supply was called into
action. I think I have now given a fair view of the advantages and disadvantages
which have resulted from the establishment of these companies.
Do you think that any permanent public benefit would be produced by the erection
of any one or more new establishments of waterworks 2–In answer to that question,
I must go into some explanation. If such establishments were formed on the
principle of supplying a particular district at its own expense, to the exclusion of all
trading companies, there is no doubt that the population of that district, would be
materially benefited, as they would receive the water at prime cost. But it is a
very different thing to have a choice of the principle on which you would erect a
new institution, where no such institution has ever been established, from one where
establishments have grown up under the faith of legislative acts, however defective
in principle; all that can then be effected in justice to the two parties, that is, to the
public on the one hand, and to the companies on the other, is to endeavour to
reconcile and accommodate the adverse interests of the two parties. In this view,
therefore, I am of opinion that more trading companies would not be beneficial to
the public, but on the contrary prejudicial; as being likely to renew that compe-
tition which has just been put an end to, and which was carried on at the expense
of all parties engaged in it. So far from considering that more trading companies
would be beneficial, I think that there are already more than are desirable, if
cheapness of supply be the object; but if from the difficulties in the way of
regulating a trading monopoly, the monopoly should not be effectually controlled,
there is no doubt in my mind that the public would obtain a better and a cheaper
supply, under the bond fide competition of two trading companies, than it would
eventually from an uncontrolled monopoly. - *.
Do you believe that the inhabitants of the several parishes, supplied by the West
Middlesex and Grand Junction Companies, generally receive a more abundant supply
of water now, than previously to the year 1810; and if so, to what extent upon the
average of houses 2—In answering that question, it is necessary I should advert to the
relative quantities which have been stated by the companies in the House of Lords, as
the former supply and the present supply. The proportion in which it is stated that the
supply has been increased, is from 50 gallons to 250 gallons per diem per house on an
average; now I am quite satisfied, from my own personal knowledge, and from a great
variety of information which I have collected upon the subject from a great number
of persons, of whom I have inquired concerning the fact, that there is some fallacy
in the calculation upon which that statement is founded. The supply in 1810, as
I have stated in a preceding answer, was generally good; the answers which I have
received from nine tenths of the parties to whom I have applied for information,
have been, “Our cisterns were never empty, we always had water as long as we
wanted it; but whether our cisterns were half full, or a quarter full, we did not
know, but we had water.” I would explain myself by supposing that the average
ordinary consumption of a house in 1810 was 100 gallons per day, and that it
- received
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
83
received no more than 100 gallons per day from the company supplying it; that
would be the kind of supply which I apprehend was given in the year 1810; for,
as the use of water is not regularly the same from day to day, it would happen
occasionally that there was a scanty supply; but the ordinary consumption being
limited to 100 gallons, if the supply be increased to 11o gallons, which is one
tenth more, that supply, which before required an occasional regard to economy,
would be converted into an abundant supply ; and the result of all the informa-
tion I have collected upon the subject is to satisfy me, whatever may have been
the actual quantity delivered by the old companies in the year 1810 to the older
parts of the district in question, it is exceeded by the present supply only to the
amount of from one tenth to one eighth more than it then was. There can be
no doubt that into this district a larger quantity of water is delivered now than
there was in 1810, because there is a great increase of buildings since 1810; but
that is an advantage to the company supplying it. I think also that it must be
obvious to the Committee, as bearing upon the proposition which I have sub-
mitted to them, that the increase cannot exceed one eighth ; that if the present
consumption of a family were reduced by the amount of one eighth, the incon-
venience would be felt, and very materially felt. Them again, as to the cisternage
capable of receiving the alleged quantity of water; the average cisternage of this
district is not capable of receiving a greater supply than from 80 to 90 gallons
a day upon the average; supposing the supply to be 80 or 90 gallons a day, that is
the utmost extent of the capacity. The calculation is made also upon the assump-
tion that the services are four times a week, and not more frequently. - -
Which district do you speak of 2–The West Middlesex and the Grand Junction.
- Luna, 5’ die Martij, 1821.
WILLIAM HENRY FREMANTLE, ESQUIRE,
IN T H E C H AIR,
Mr. James Weale, Again called in ; and Examined.
HAVE you any reasons to offer to the consideration of the Committee, why it
would not be just and reasonable to grant to the companies for the future, some
addition to the rates of 1810, for a supply of water to be given equal to that now
afforded to them?–I have ; and, as I think, very strong reasons. Looking at the
terms of their contracts, as set forth in their proposals and undertakings, I would
say they are not entitled to any addition to the reduced rates, for they perform no
more than they voluntarily and spontaneously undertook to perform at those rates.
Numerous individuals have been deluded, by their proposals, into expenses far be-
yond the amount they have gained by the reduction of the rates, in the removal of
their force-pumps, cisterns, pipes, &c. which they have since been under the neces-
sity of reinstating; and others have been seduced into the erection of water-closets
on the upper stories of their houses, in the faith of receiving a gratuitous high
service: and the costs of providing and delivering the water are not greater now
than when the companies issued their proposals to serve at these reduced rates.
But I believe the public are not unwilling to dispense with a strict observance of
the companies proposals and undertakings, and to enter upon a new adjustment
of the terms of remuneration, provided security can be given for the continuance of
the supply now given. Still I conceive the only safe and fair principle on which
such adjustment can be founded, must be with reference to the supply and the rates
of 1810, not on collected accounts of income and expenditure, or of profit to be
divided on imaginary and fictitious capitals. In this view of the proposition, the
grounds laid by the companies for an increased rate may be stated to be, First,
high service; and for this particular service, I believe that the majority of the
tenants availing themselves of it, would consent to pay an extra rate, if the charge
be limited to cisterms at an elevation beyond the power of the old works. Secondly,
increased security against fire: in addition to what I have already stated, in relation
to the mains being kept charged with water during the night, I would observe that
no reduction in the premiums of insurance has taken place since the establishment
of the new waterworks, and that if fires prove less destructive of property now, than
twenty or thirty years since, it is almost wholly to be attributed to the less hazardous
Mr.
James Weale.
(2 March.)
706. . 4. quality
Mr.
James W.eale.
\—S2–’
(5 March.)
34 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
James Weale.
(5 March.)
quality of the buildings since erected. Thirdly, increased waste of water; an allega-
tion which I deny to be applicable to this division of the town. Fourthly, the
ordinary or low service, as increased in quantity and improved in regularity of
service; and on this point alone, in my opinion, does the whole question concern-
ing rates depend. If the increase amount only to a fraction of the old supply, as
I have endeavoured to show to the Committee, I know not on what equitable prin-
ciple it can be maintained that the charge should be increased, having regard to
the sacrifices which the public have made to enable these companies to construct
their works, and to carry on their trade. If the consumption had increased,
averagely, within the short period of five years, to three, four or five times its
former amount, as has been sometimes alleged, there would be some fair pretence
for an increased rate; and the Committee alone can determine how far that
allegation ought to be received as correct. Then, on the other hand, we must look
to the advantages possessed by the new companies in their improved system of works
as compared with the old works, and which improvement it was one of the objects
of the legislature to procure for the public in the erection of these corporations.
I state it as my opinion, founded on a great variety of information carefully digested,
that to perpetual corporations having large districts to supply under the like circum-
stances, the use of iron mains and pipes will produce a twofold profit; as compared
with the profits to be derived from the use of wood pipes, in the course of a period
not exceeding sixty years; and after making full allowance for the greater capital
required in the one case than in the other. If the public are to be charged for the
smallest benefit they can derive from these improvements in a more regular and
ample supply of water, I can perceive no advantage resulting to the public, as it
was held out there would be, from the construction of the new works. It is also
necessary to show to the Committee what the rates of 1810 really were. They
were rates assessed by companies which had long been in exclusive possession of
the supply; by companies not subject to any control over the amount of their
assessment; rates which had been within the five preceding years, increased to
their amount in that year, by an addition of from ten to fifteen per cent. on their
former amount, to meet the charge of the property tax, and increased prices of
labour and materials occasioned by the war; they were rates, even before they were
so increased, under which the old companies had not only progressively increased
tne amount of their real capitals in trade, by successive improvements of their
works, but from which they had also derived funds for dividends paid to their re-
spective proprietaries gradually, but progressively increasing in amount through a
long course of time terminating in that year. Since the year 1810, the price of
labour, and the prices of all kinds of materials used in these works, have been
considerably reduced; the property and other taxes have been repealed; and the
currency nearly restored to its ancient standard, and certainly improved to an
amount, as compared with its value in 1810, of twenty per cent. at the least. To
recur then to the rates of 1810, will alone be a grant to them of an additional
remuneration of twenty per cent. ; and if to that you grant a further addition, you
will enhance the price to be paid for the water supplied, far beyond the usual price
really paid for that supply in and previously to 1810, at the very moment that the
current costs of its provision and delivery are reduced considerably below what their
amount was in that year. Looking then to the improvements which have been
effected in the mode and amount of the supply; fairly apportioning between the
companies and the public a part only of the advantages derived from the improved
system of their works; and having regard to the progressive extension of the town,
I have no hesitation in submitting to the Committee my unqualified opinion, that
in recurring to the rates of 1810, the companies will be most generously and most
liberally dealt with on the part of the public, and that to sanction any increase of
those rates, would be pregnant with injustice to the community at large, and ex-
tremely oppressive on a very great proportion of the inhabitants, who do not partici-
pate in the alleged new luxuries of high services, baths, &c.
What particular proceedings of the water companies, arising out of the arrange-
ment for the partition of the town into districts, became the subject of public com-
plaint in the course of the year 1818 –I have already stated that a very large
proportion of the inhabitants adhered to and preferred the supply of the old com-
panies throughout the competition. Nevertheless, those inhabitants were suddenly
left without a supply of water, or they were transferred from that which they
esteemed to be good water to a supply of very indifferent water. The first intima-
tion which the inhabitants received of the old companies having withdrawn from
- their
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
85
their district, was by a printed circular letter, dated the 1st of January 1818, and
signed J. P. Rowe, secretary to the New River company. .
What do you mean by their being suddenly left without a supply of water?—. \
I mean that the New River company, for instance, ceased to supply its tenants in
the district from which it retired either at or soon after Christmas 1817.
Without any previous communication?– Without any previous communication to
their tenants.
Do you mean to say the water was taken away without any previous communica-
tion to the inhabitants?—I mean to say, that previously to Christmas 1817, when
the water ceased to be supplied by the New River company, no notice had been
given. The inhabitants were actually without a supply of water, and felt the want
of a supply of water before this letter of Mr. Rowe was received.
In point of fact, to your belief, was a transfer of the individuals made without
any previous communication to them at all?—I do believe so. I am referring now
to the early part of the month of January. This letter is signed by Mr. Rowe, secre-
tary to the New River company, and dated from the New River office, 1st of
January 1818.
[It was read.]
The Committee will observe that the letter is dated the 1st of January 1818; it
is a printed circular, and was not served upon the respective inhabitants until some
days afterwards. Towards the close of the month, the inhabitants so left by the
old companies received a circular letter from the West Middlesex waterworks office,
dated the 16th of January 1818, and signed by M. K. Knight, secretary.
[It was read.]
Now the fact of the old companies having abandoned their tenants, and the
receipt of this letter of Mr. Knight, created a strong feeling of indignation against
the companies; and the parties who were suffering from the want of a supply of
water, upon making application to the offices of the new companies, were there told
that they must pay five shillings for the transfer of their pipes from the mains or
pipes belonging to the old companies to the mains or pipes belonging to the new
companies. Many persons resisted the demand of five shillings : and so much pub-
lic discussion of the matter ensued, that the new companies thought fit at last to
abandon the demand, and laid on the pipes at their own expense. In consequence
of these proceedings, the Mary-le-bone vestry interfered and entered into a corre-
spondence, both with the new and the old companies: and in the course of that
correspondence, a letter was received by the Mary-le-bone vestry from Mr. Knight,
dated the 19th of February 1818, which I should wish also to be read.
[It was read.]
The assurances contained in the letter which has been just read were not deemed
satisfactory by the vestry of Mary-le-bone.
Was any answer given to that letter by the vestry, do you know?—No answer
whatever. The assurances contained in the letter were not deemed satisfactory;
and having ascertained that the partition of that district of the town had taken
place, the vestry came to a resolution to apply to parliament for leave to introduce
a bill to empower the vestrymen of Mary-le-bone to construct waterworks for the
supply of that parish, or to contract with any existing water company for the supply
of the parish with water.
Have you a copy of that resolution ?—I have a printed copy of the papers here:
the original documents can be produced, if the Committee desire to have the docu-
ments themselves. -
Have you the resolution?—I am only just adverting to these documents: if you
think they are essential to your inquiry, you can call for them from an authentic
Source, which must be more satisfactory to the Committee, and to me: I have them
only in a printed shape. The resolution is dated the 28th of February 1818: “Re-
solved unanimously, That the several reports and proceedings of this board, and its
committees, with the report of Mr. Potter, respecting the application to parliament
for better supplying the inhabitants of this parish with water, having been this day
taken into mature consideration, that application be made to parliament for carry-
ing the same into execution, and also for empowering this board to enter into
contracts with any water companies for the supplying this parish with water, and to
empower any such companies to contract with this vestry.” On the 2d of May
1818, a further communication was made from the clerk of the West Middlesex
company; from which it appeared that the directors of the West Middlesex com-
| 706. Y pany
Mr. *~
James Weale.
~~~
(5 March.)
A
86
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
James Weale.
S-S-'
(5 March.)
pany had mis-calculated the amount of rental which they would derive from a recur-
rence to the rates of 1810, and that the rates of 1810 would not, in fact, produce
such a gross sum from the district, to be supplied with water, as would, in their
opinion, be a fair remuneration to them for that supply.
In fact they retracted the declaration of the letter dated the 19th of February 2
—They retracted it, as I understand, in a verbal declaration that it was written an
€l'I'OI’.
[It was read.]
The Committee will be pleased to observe, that the companies hold themselves
at liberty to recede from that assurance which is held out in the letter of the 19th
of February 1818, because no answer was given to it by the Mary-le-bone vestry.
Founded on the report of the 2d of May 1818, which has just been read to the
Committee, the West Middlesex company issued a circular letter or printed handbill,
dated the 11th May 1818, which, I believe, was distributed throughout the parish.
It is a paper, intituled, “Case of the West Middlesex Waterworks against the Bill
“ now in Parliament for establishing a Parochial Water Company in St. Mary-le-
“bone;” and is dated, “ Office, 51, Berners-street, 11th May 1818;” and
signed “by Order of the Board of Directors, M. K. Knight, Secretary.”
[It was read.]
This paper was left at the houses of the inhabitants in the way all papers of this
description usually are ; and from what I have heard I believe that very few of
the inhabitants, comparatively, read it. It was treated as a handbill. The
Mary-le-bone Parochial Bill had then been introduced into parliament; but the
proceedings on it were soon afterwards suspended, on a suggestion of Mr. Michael
Angelo Taylor, that some arrangement might possibly be effected between the
parish and the companies during the summer recess. In the mean time the pipes
of the companies which had retired from that division of the town were taken up
and removed. After Midsummer 1818, the different collectors of the West
Middlesex company, in calling for payment of the half-year’s rates, which became
due at Midsummer 1818, gave receipts, on which this information was printed
“The company think it right to intimate to their customers that the advance
“ announced in their printed case, dated May the 11th, 1818, will not be collected
“ till after Christmas next.”
What proceedings, in relation to these subjects, took place subsequently to
Christmas 1818?—Soon after Christmas 1818, the increased rates were put in
charge of the collectors of the West Middlesex company, and the demand for
payment of them produced great indignation and a very considerable ferment
throughout the whole of that district. The Committee will recollect that the notice
upon the receipts last given, stated, that the advance would “not be collected till
“ after Christmas next.” Even those who knew that it was intended to increase
the rates, were not at all aware that those increased rates were to take place from a
period antecedent to the delivery of that notice. The Committee will also observe
the equivocal term which is used in that notice, “will not be collected till after
“Christmas next.” I now hold in my hand one of the receipts so given, dated
the 21st of December 1818; and I put it to the Committee whether the party
so paying could have conceived that the increased rate was to take effect from the
preceding Midsummer. e
})o you mean to state, that when the rates came to be collected, they were de-
manded from the Midsummer antecedent to that notice, or only from Midsummer ?
—From Midsummer 1818, which is antecedent to that notice.
[A receipt was produced, dated July 1st, 1818, without any such notice.]
There was a very considerable resistance to the demand so made. The Mary-le-bone
vestry again submitted their bill to parliament, and shortly afterwards Mr. Michael
Angelo Taylor presented that bill, which is since very well known as Mr. Taylor's
water bill. It passed the House of Commons; and it passed the House of Lords,
with an amendment, limiting the increased rates to the rates of 1810. On its
return to the House of Commons it was therefore withdrawn. During the whole of
the interval, the collectors were requiring the payment of the increased rates, and
by various representations did obtain payment from many individuals, At the time
the demand was made upon me, (in April 1819) I refused to pay it, and I stated
to the collector that if the company thought they were entitled to enforce the pay-
ment, I was quite ready to try the question with them. The general dissatisfaction
which
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
87
which prevailed throughout the parish led to the association of some of the house-
holders, who felt themselves aggrieved by the conduct of the companies; and a
public meeting was held for the purpose of raising a fund to defray the expenses -
which might be incurred in trying the right of the company to withhold a supply
of water for a refusal to pay this increased rate, and also to ascertain whether they
were entitled to demand any increase of the rates at all. A letter was written to
the solicitors for the West Middlesex and Grand Junction companies, on behalf of
the individuals so associated together, proposing that the matters in dispute should
be put into a shape for early trial. That proposal was not accepted. After
Michaelmas 1819 the Grand Junction company began to demand payment of in-
creased rates, and they were generally resisted. I would now explain that the
principle upon which the increase was charged in the case of the West Middlesex
company, was by adding to the rate charged upon the particular house in 1810,
five-and-twenty per cent. if situated southward of the New-road; but for houses
situated northward of the New-road, a charge was made, having no reference to the
rates paid in 1810 for houses which were built in and previously to that year. The
Grand Junction company did not follow that rule, but proceeded upon a principle
of equalization, so that in many instances the increased rate of the Grand Junction
company was, having regard to the rate charged in 1810 upon the particular
house, considerably more than twenty-five per cent. and in some few instances
certainly less.
What was the principle of equalization; how was that founded?—As far as I have
been able to judge from statements which have been laid before me of the rates
charged upon particular houses, I should say that no principle whatever was observed;
but that it was to exact the largest sum which could be obtained from the party. 4.
Will you state to whom this has been represented by the companies?—It has been
stated to me.
By an agent of the company ?—By Mr. Coe, clerk to the Grand Junction company,
who stated to me that the rates charged in 1810, on particular houses, bore no
proportion to the quantity of water or the quality of the house, and that remonstrances
having been made at an early period, they were induced to depart from the principle
of adding 25 per cent. to the rate charged upon the particular house in 1810, and to
equalize the rates, having regard to those two circumstances; but that, upon the whole,
they did not receive an additional rate beyond the amount of 25 per cent. upon the
aggregate rental of 1810. -
They represented that, upon the whole, they had not got a larger gross sum upon
the whole amount of the rates in 1810 than 25 per cent?—Yes. In January 1820, the
Mary-le-bone vestry offered again to try the questions in dispute, in the shape of an
amicable suit between the parties. In March 1820, a similar proposal was made on
behalf of the associated householders; and who further offered, through the medium
of their solicitor, to give an undertaking, to abide by the decision, and to pay the
rates in the mean time. In April 1820, the proposal was again renewed on behalf of
the associated householders, through the medium of the Chairman of this Committee;
and I should wish particularly that his letter should be read, to show that the house-
holders were willing to give the companies every possible security that they should not
be damaged by any delay which might take place in obtaining a judicial decision
upon the questions so disputed, the previous proposals having been declined. It is
a letter dated the 22d April, 1820, signed W. H. Fremantle, chairman of the general
committee of the Anti Water Monopoly Association, and is addressed to Mr. M. K.
Knight, clerk of the West Middlesex waterworks.
[It was read.]
A similar letter was sent to the clerk of the Grand Junction company. In answer
to that letter, a letter was received from Mr. Knight, dated the 28th April 1820.
[It was read.]
The answer of the Grand Junction company, dated the 2d of May 1820, is
signed W. M. Coe, secretary.
[It was read.]
The Committee will observe that this correspondence adverts to certain cases, in
which the companies had cut off the pipes for nonpayment of the increased rates;
but all those cases were of this description; namely, the parties had once paid the
increased rate, and, as they alleged, from a misapprehension of the powers of the
company, not willingly. The company had not ventured at that period to cut off
the º of any individuals who continued to occupy the same premises which º
7ob. Y & C
Mr.
James Weale.
--J
(5 March.)
_*
88 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
James Weale.
\-S
(5 March.)
had occupied during the half year ending Midsummer 1818, and who had throughout
the subsequent period refused to pay the increased rates. To those persons, a
circular notice was delivered previously to Lady-day 1820, which notice is framed
in these terms: it is dated the 11th March 1820, signed M. K. Knight.
[It was read.]
The terms of the circular notice from the Grand Junction company are not
precisely the same, but they are to the same effect ; it is dated the 1st of June 1820,
signed W. M. Coe.
[It was read.]
The Committee will observe that it was one of the objects of the several proposals
which were made to the companies, to put the questions in dispute between the
parties into a shape for trial, or for receiving the decision of a court of law, to
ascertain whether the householders were to be considered as yearly tenants under
their existing contracts (if they were contracts); or, whether the companies were
under a legal obligation to supply water to the inhabitants respectively resident
within the circle of their works, on payment of reasonable rates ; and in these
notices it is quite obvious, that the companies admit that the parties were yearly
tenants, and that they could not enforce the payment of increased rates without a
previous notice of six months. About this time the West Middlesex company
claimed a further additional rate from the householders who were supplied with the
high service, such additional rate to commence from Lady-day 1819. The Grand
Junction company’s demand for high service commenced from Michaelmas 1818.
The increased rates are demanded by the West Middlesex company, for the low
service from Midsummer 1818, and for the high service from Lady-day 1819 :
by the Grand Junction company, for both the low and the high services from
Michaelmas 1818. -.
That was the first time of their charging for high service P –Yes; but it was not
until after Michaelmas 1819 that the demand was made for the high service. The
West Middlesex company (and I believe the Grand Junction also), did give notice
that the high service would be made a matter of distinct charge.
Is that the notice you allude to [handing a paper to the witness]?—This is the
Sålſſlé.
- [It was read, dated the 19th February 1819.]
The refusal of the companies to accept the propositions which were made to them
for the trial of the questions in dispute, induced the inhabitants to present the
petitions to parliament towards the close of the sessions 1820, which have led to
this inquiry. -
Your answers have hitherto referred to the proceedings of the West Middlesex
and Grand Junction companies alone; do you know whether a similar course of
proceeding was followed by the New River and Chelsea companies in the adjacent
districts allotted to them 2–Yes; the Chelsea first assessed their tenants with an
increased rate in the autumn of 1818. I was abroad at that time; but all the
papers relating to it have since been put into my hands by the solicitor to the com-
mittee of householders appointed in that district. The Chelsea company required
payment of an increased rate, amounting to fifty per cent. on the rates in 1810, and
to enforce the payment of it, cut off some one or two pipes; a public meeting of the
householders was held, and a committee appointed to confer with the Chelsea com-
pany. Much correspondence took place between the parties, in which I think it
due to the Chelsea company to state, that every information desired by the parties
so in correspondence with them was afforded. When Mr. Taylor's bill was in pro-
gress in the House of Commons, and it was ascertained that the Committee of that
house would not sanction an increase of the rates beyond the amount of twenty-five
per cent. upon the rates of 1810, the Chelsea company publicly declared that they
would be satisfied with the like increase; and they issued a circular notice to all
their tenants, wherein they stated that one half of the increased rate which had been
collected at that time, would be returned to the inhabitants, and it has since been
returned to them accordingly. The notice is dated the 8th of May 1819, and
signed J. G. Lynde, secretary, Chelsea waterworks.
[It was read.]
The New River company have not, I believe, to this hour, (they had not within
the last fortnight) increased the rates in the districts which have been abandoned to
them; nor have they even re-established the rates of 1810, in the cases of the
tenantS
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
89
tenants who were re-transferred to them, but have been serving them at the reduced
rates which were set by the new companies when they seduced them away from the
old companies. - * -
State the most material points of the grievances complained of in relation to the
existing law on this subject, to which you would wish most particularly to point the
attention of the Committee ?—The first is, the breach of faith in the violation of
their engagements with individuals, as to the reduced rates and high services: the
injuries which the old companies have sustained from the unfair manner in which
they prosecuted their competition, and the consequent injury to the public in the
destruction of the previously existing competition : the amount of the increased
rates demanded, generally, in the older parts of the division, as compared with the
rates paid in 1810, and the inequality of the assessment of the increased rates, which
have been carried to a most enormous and arbitrary amount in numerous instances,
particularly on houses built since I 810, or situated northward of the New-road, and as
compared with their assessment on the older houses southward of the New-road :
the charge made for high service, in numerous instances, where the same cisterns
have been supplied in the ordinary service of the old companies, and without extra
charge : the extra rates charged on all tradesmen using water in their business,
although their consumption be not equal to the ordinary supply : the asserted right
of withholding a supply of water at their pleasure ; the power, consequent on that
assumption of right, of cutting off the supply, and which has been exercised in all
cases where the tenants have refused to conform to their terms of agreement, and
under various other pretences; and the extortion practised and enforced by the
exercise of that power, in regard to the period comprised in their own six months
notices. In explanation of the last sentence of my answer, I would state to the
Committee, that on the expiration of those notices, the companies refused to receive
payment of the sums therein specified and stated to be the rates at which they
were then under contract to serve, and told the parties that unless they would pay
the increased rates for the whole of the back period, or consent to pay a further
increase of rate, which should be equivalent to the difference between the rate then
payable and the amount of the increased rate demanded, the water would be cut
off. Where the party has refused to consent to those terms, the water has been
cut off; and, in some instances, before the water has been again laid on, they have
made the party pay that difference between the old and new rate, in the way of
a fine, or sign an agreement for the payment of a further increased rate, equivalent
to twenty per cent. on the amount of the increased rate, making a total increase of
fifty per cent on the rate of 1810. The next ground of complaint is, that there is
no security that an ample supply of water will continue to be given even in the cases
of individuals who submit to their terms ; and lastly, the expense and difficulties,
and almost utter hopelessness, of obtaining any redress at law, however grievous or
unjust the matter may be, in consequence of particular clauses contained in th
different acts of parliament. -
What are the clauses in the existing acts which you represent as interposing peculiar
difficulties in the prosecution of proceedings at law against the water companies 2–
The clauses to which I particularly allude, are clauses which have crept of late years
very commonly into acts of parliament of this description.
What act are you referring to now?—The West Middlesex act of the 46th
Mr.
James Weale.
\-2-—’
(5 March.)
Geo. 3, c. 119, sections 80 and 81, enacting, that a plaintiff shall not recover,
unless previous notice of the action be given to the company, and that he shall be
subject to double costs, if judgment be given against him.
[They were read.]
The Committee will observe that those clauses require a plaintiff to give notice of
the matter of his complaint to the company before instituting any action at law; the
practical effect of that provision is, that if there be the slightest variation between the
terms of the notice so served upon the company, and the declaration in the action,
the plaintiff will most certainly be monsuited upon proof of that variation; he is not
merely nonsuited, but he is also burthened with double costs.
Have you ever been advised by any professional man that you could not proceed
to bring an action for cutting off your water, without giving such notice as that?---
Jndoubtedly I have, by an eminent special pleader; I have had a case before him
for some months, for the purpose of drawing a notice. So that an individual has not
only to contend against a public company, dealing with a corporate fund, but he is
also met with this technical difficulty, and if successfully pleaded against him he has
706. Z to
90
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
James Weale.
\--— 2–~’
(5 March,)
to pay double costs; whereas in litigation between private parties he would only be
subjected to the ordinary taxed costs. . In the case of the Grand Junction company,
it is treble costs. I consider that at this moment I have a good right of action
against the West Middlesex company, even under their own construction of the law,
they having cut my water off, after having supplied me beyond Christmas, the term
of the current contract alleged in their notice; and if it were not for the clauses in
question, I should have instituted that action already; and unless some other means
be afforded by a new act of the legislature, even with the risk of double costs on my
own head, I will yet try an action on that matter. ~,
You have been advised you cannot, without giving that notice P-Yes, certainly.
What is the name of the lawyer who gave you that advise?—Mr. Littledale, and
my own attorney. Mr. Littledale finds a difficulty at this moment in drawing a
notice; we have been waiting a decision in the court of King’s Bench, to know what
the law is, to frame the notice accordingly. I would therefore wish to express my
earnest hope to the Committee, that if their inquiries should lead to the adoption of
any new legislative measure, provision will be made to afford an easy means of obtain-
ing redress against these companies for any complaints which may be made against
them, in regard to an insufficient supply of water, or the demand of an unreasonable
rate.
When the companies offer to supply at reduced rates, have you any reason to
believe that it was generally understood that the supply was to be afforded at those
rates for a short time only, or that the rates were to be reduced permanently 2–
I have good reason to believe that the general understanding, not only on the
part of the inhabitants so supplied at reduced rates, but also on the part of the agents
of the companies proposing to supply those inhabitants at reduced rates, from
communications which I have had with many of the persons acting as their agents
at that period, that the supply was to be given permanently at those reduced rates.
I do not mean to say, for all time; that they were never to be varied. I now hold
in my hand a document which, I think, will go to show, that such was the under-
standing of the Grand Junction waterworks company themselves. It is a printed
paper which was circulated generally among the more respectable inhabitants of the
parishes supplied by them.
[It was read.]
There is no date to that paper, but it refers to the minute of the board of directors
of the Grand Junction company, of the 4th of June 1812.
You have stated on a former day, and you have repeated it to-day, that when
this competition was begun, and was going on, by far the larger part of the in-
habitants adhered to the old companies; you yourself were one of those who adhered
to the old companies?—Yes.
You were served by the New River, and continued to be so served 2–Yes.
Because you thought the competition was begun and carried on upon an unjust
principle, with a view to drive out the old companies, and that the new companies
were offering to serve at rates which they could not afford for that purpose?—Yes.
When you state that this adherence to the old companies was general, do you
mean that the inhabitants generally adhered to the old companies, consenting to
pay the former rates, or that they adhered to them upon the condition of a con-
siderable abatement of their rates?–In answer to that question, it is only possible
for me to state what occurred in my own individual case. The new companies, when
they first came into those parishes, did not proceed to lay down their pipes regularly
through a portion of the district, but they drove their pipes forward into the best
streets, to occupy the best part of the different divisions, leaving all the inferior
streets unsupplied from their works. It was in those superior situations that the
competition first commenced, by the reduction of the rates. It had not reached me
at the time when the New River company’s collector put into my hands a printed
letter (to the best of my recollection, for I have not been able to find it), urging
the inhabitants generally not to withdraw their custom from their old friends,
the New River company, for that the New River company would be disposed to
continue to serve the inhabitants at as low rates as could possibly be afforded by any
new company: and at a very short period after that a notice was served, I should
rather say, at the time that the collector called for payment of the rates due,
he intimated that the rates would be reduced to what they were previously to
the last increase in 1806 or 1807; so that, unsolicited, the rates on my house were
reduced from 30s, to 24s. ; and I think the same thing occurred throughout the
district. º
Then
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
91
Then this adherence was purchased by a sacrifice of twenty per cent?—I cannot
say how far the householders would have been proof against the temptations of the
new companies, if the old companies had adhered to their old rates; but the
reduction of the rates of the old companies being made almost immediately after
the new companies were enabled to supply, and were offering to supply at reduced
rates, that portion of the inhabitants which I have before stated, did adhere to the
old companies.
Do you think there is the least chance in the world, that the inhabitants would
have adhered to the old companies, if the old companies had adhered to their old
rates?—Not upon a large scale; I do not think it possible that men could have
withstood those temptations. -
Would you yourself have adhered 2–I dare say not.
Your mind was under the impression that the reduction offered by the new com-
panies was an injustice to the old companies, and could not be afforded?—I may have
been acting under different feelings from the mass of the inhabitants. For the last
twenty years, my attention has been particularly directed to the operations of the
trading joint stock companies which have arisen within that period. About twenty
years ago, I commenced a literary work upon the Mississippi scheme of Law; and I was
a very close observer of all the operations which were carried on by the speculators,
who came forward with various projects between the years 1800 and 1810; so that
I was more alive to the subject than the great mass of people were : for I saw in the
greater part of those schemes the fraudful principle upon which they were brought
forward to the public, and felt assured that the greater part of them would prove to
be mere bubbles.
Fraudful you mean to the honest, plain-dealing trader, who had no such pro-
jects 2–No; I speak as to the public in general. There was no crying want of water
in these districts; but the new works originated in a set of city speculators, and the
clamour with which the old companies were met in 1810, when that West Middle-
sex bill was under the consideration of the House of Commons, was mainly excited
and instigated by those speculators, so as to give a colour to their representation that
there was a want of water.
That was your opinion then, and is now?—Yes; from the circumstances I have
mentioned: my inquiries were not particularly directed to water companies.
Do you mean to say that any set of gentlemen could persuade a set of inhabitants
they wanted water, when they did not?—No ; I have had before me the evidence
given in 1810, and in that evidence, I see individuals were collected together from
certain quarters of the town to state to the Committee that there was a want of
water; I say that they were collected together; and I say the ground upon which
I state my conviction of the fact is, that in such a wealthy division of the town as
that which comprises the parishes of St. Mary-le-bone, St. George and St. James,
if there had been so much inconvenience experienced from the insufficiency of the
supply given by the old companies, there can be no doubt that many of the principal
proprietors of property in that division of the town, and other wealthy individuals
resident there, would have come forward to propose the construction of such works
as were afterwards constructed, and to relieve themselves from that inconvenience ;
but, as you have already heard from one of the witnesses on the part of the com-
panies, the persons who first thought of supplying this want of water in St. George’s
and St. Mary-le-bone, were persons who were engaged in a speculation of con-
structing waterworks for Manchester.
Do you think there may not be very considerable inconvenience felt from want of
water short of the inconvenience which would instigate men of property having
nothing to do with such speculations or trade, to form a junction, raise a great
capital, enter into a new business, at that time comparatively unknown, and form
waterworks to relieve themselves?—I do not think it at all probable ; I do not think,
from my knowledge of works of that kind, that there ever was a great undertaking
carried into effect or projected, without the parties who have felt the inconvenience,
or the want of such an undertaking, first moving in it. I will refer to the docks,
and to the canals. -
You have stated that you believe this to be a mere speculation something of a
younger child of your Mississippi scheme; that it was fraudful towards the public,
and fraudful to those already engaged in the supply of the town, inasmuch as it
held out a hope, for which there was no real foundation, in its being possible that
the party should derive an honest profit from the terms on which they offered to
sell .." have a moral conviction of that fact, and I have a moral conviction of*.
706. act,
Mr.
James Weale.
`--—"
(5 March.)
92
MiNUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
James Weale.
\– 2–’
(5 March.)
fact, that after they became perfectly assured that it was morally impossible they
should be able to afford the supply they were holding out, they did go on prose-
cuting their works, and raising fresh funds by new subscriptions; and I would
refer to a pamphlet, which was compiled by the then secretary of the Chelsea
company (stating facts which must have come home to the understanding of every
man who had £.50 engaged in any one of those speculations), to show it was im-
possible they could ever succeed on the principle on which they were proceeding;
nevertheless, and for three years after the letters which formed the subject-matter of
the pamphlet had been published, they persevered in still holding forth those
promises to the public. - •
With all these impressions on your mind, did it never occur to you that you were,
in effect, to the extent of 6 s. a year assisting them in this fraud, by accepting a
tender of reduction that the old companies made, and could not afford to make,
in your own case?—I have no objection to answer the question, and I beg to be
allowed to answer it : I should say not, certainly ; because I do not conceive that
the ruin proceeded from the mere reduction of the rates; on the contrary, I think
that there was good ground for the public to expect a reduction of the rates. I know
that there was a general dissatisfaction prevailing at the increase of the rates a few
years before, which I have already stated ; and in making that reduction the New
River company was only recurring to the rates previously assessed upon the inha-
bitants. The circumstance, therefore, which bore upon my mind, was not the
fact of the new companies offering this unlimited and more commodious supply of
water at a reduced rate, but from the manner in which they were acting for the
purpose of obtaining customers; their proposals that they would lay down leaden
pipes; that they would do a great variety of things which the old companies never
would have done, as temptations and inducements to withdraw those tenants from
the old companies; and because they were in some instances, I believe I may
say in all, giving a gratuitous supply of water for a part of the year. Again, if
they could obtain a customer at the end of a street, they would run down a main
to the end of the street to obtain the custom of that customer. It was quite obvious
that the rental to be obtained from the single house could not afford a profit upon
the works laid down for the supply of that house.
When you say you think the public were entitled to a reduction of rate in 1810,
are you aware of the increased price of labour in London, within the few years that
preceded 1810?–I believe no man is more aware of the fact than I am.
What do you state to be the increase from 1795 or 1800 to 1810?–I should
think that the amount of the depreciation in the value of money, between the com-
mencement of the revolutionary war in 1793 and the year 1810, was at least 40 per
Cent.
Are you aware that labour had risen above 150 per cent 2–Yes, in some
Instances. .”
Rents continued to be paid in this depreciated money?—They did.
Are you aware that the price of timber had risen from 50 s. a load to £. 5 or £. 6 P
— You allude to elm timber. I do not carry the price in my mind, but I recollect
that there was an increase fully to that extent in oak timber.
Then you must be aware that the expenses of a company so carrying on their con-
cerns, must have been very considerably enhanced during the ten or fifteen years
you speak of 2–I have no doubt of it: but that the answers which I have given to your
questions may not carry an erroneous impression to the mind of the Committee, it is
necessary I should state that the public, and I in common with that public, were
utterly ignorant of the amount of the profit made by the New River or Chelsea
companies. There was a general impression abroad, that those companies, being in
possession of the monopoly of the supply, were, even with the rates before they were
so increased, realizing immense profits; and the public were not disposed, merely
from the circumstance of the increased prices of labour and materials, to concede
to the companies an increase of the rates; because it was thought that they might
continue to give the same supply for the same rates, though the currency in which
those rates were paid was depreciated; that the companies would still derive a very
considerable profit from those rates.
You say this impression was general; do you believe that the new companies were
not under the same sort of mistake as to the profits of the old companies 2—My
answer to that question can only go to show this; that if the new companies did
not inform themselves of the amount of rates paid within the district which they
proposed to supply, and compute how far the rates so paid were likely to afford º
* a profit
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
93
a profit upon the capital to be embarked in the construction of the works, and the
current expense of carrying on their works; it must be quite obvious to the Com-
mittee, as it is to me, that the speculation must have been commenced (I am re-
ferring to the original proprietors) without any permanent regard to the public
benefit, but merely to promote that which I have always looked upon to have been
their sole object, speculation in the shares of the companies; that they looked to
profit from increasing the market-price of the shares which they possessed, and
realizing the premiums which they could obtain upon a transfer of those shares.
For, it is an extraordinary fact, that the Grand Junction company, which upon the
face of the act of parliament itself appears to have been constituted for the purpose
of supplying the parish of Paddington with water, do not even at this moment,
though their works are situated in the very centre of that parish, supply only
part of it, and but a very small part of it. .
That was the result of the partition 2—No : they never had supplied the bishop
of London’s tenants, which was the origin and object of their appointment. I mean
to say this, that the apparent object of their institution was the last object which
those companies set about to perform. -
You mean to infer, that if their object had been to accommodate the public, they
would have supplied those tenants?—Yes: an application has been made on behalf
of a tenant of the bishop of London’s estate, for a supply of water from the works
of the Grand Junction company, and the answer given to that application was,
that the company had no mains or pipes laid down in that part of the bishop of
London’s estate.
- Mr. Charles Smith, Called in ; and Examined.
WHERE do you live?—No. 211, Piccadilly.
'What are you?—A superfine colourman. *
Are you one of the petitioners?—I am one of the petitioners, and one of the
opposers of the water monopolies. *
Is your name affixed to any of the petitions presented on Friday ?—No ; my
case is that of my water having been cut off. . . -
State your case ?–I did not know but that I was on the New River company
till they came and wanted two guineas instead of 24s.
When did they cut it off?—I think I came and complained to you [a member of
the Committee] when they did.
When did they cut off your supply 2—As nearly as I can calculate, three
weeks ago. - *
Have you any recollection to a certainty when it was cut off?—No ; but I can
tell within a few days; above three weeks. -
Do you happen to know whether this Committee was sitting at that time?–I
do not know. .
Was it before or since the 6th of February 2—I cannot tell exactly, they came
and made the demand after Christmas, and applied two or three times, and since
that they have cut it off; but they have been the cause of my sinking a pump. I
beg leave to state one thing that bears particularly upon the question before the
Committee, and that is in respect to the public’s withdrawing from the New River
company. I can only say that my own case is a case in point ; that I have been a
tenant for these last thirty years, as I thought, always of the New River company;
that I approve of the New River company’s water ; that I should not have taken any
other water on any terms or conditions; that a notice was served on me and appli-
cation made to me repeatedly by the other companies; I always refused, saying
the New River afforded me a good and proper supply, and I considered, although
they had advanced once, I considered it a rational advance and no imposition, and
therefore I should certainly not, from my own feelings, and I believe a great
many with whom I am acquainted would not have withdrawn, had the New River
company continued to supply.
You got an abatement of your rent before they went 2–No.
None?—They chose to take it off. I had no abatement, because they went back
to the old prices of their own accord. -
706. - A a
Mr.
James Weale.
\– –”
(5 March.)
- AIr,
Charles Smith.
94
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
W. J. Newton.
\––’
(7 March.)
Mercurij, 7° die Martij, 1821.
willIAM HENRY FREMANTLE, ESQUIRE,
IN THE CHAIR.
Mr. William John Newton, Called in ; and Examined.
W W WHAT is your situation, and where do you reside?–No. 8, Argyle-street;
I am an Artist by profession.
In what line?—Miniature painting.
How long have you resided there?—About six years; I have lived there since
Michaelmas 1814. . .
State to the Committee what the nature of your complaint is 2–I have lived, as
I have just stated, in Argyle-street, six years and rather better, during which time
I had occupied two houses, No. 34 and No. 8; I left No. 34 at Midsummer last;
a person waited upon me from the Grand Junction company about the latter end
of the year 1816, or the beginning of 1817, to ask me to take their water from
them, offering as an inducement a lower rate.
Do you happen to know who that person was 2—No, I cannot inform the Com-
mittee the name, but a person stating himself to come from the company; I refused,
by stating that I was very well satisfied with the New River company, and if they
did not continue to use me well I would apply to the Grand Junction. Some time
afterwards a person waited upon me from the New River company, hoping I
would not leave them; I told him a person had called upon me from the Grand
Junction. - :
Who was that person 2—The person whom I usually paid; I do not know his
name; it was the collector : I stated to him that I was satisfied with the supply of
water of the New River, and at the rate also ; that I would not leave them so long
as they continued to use me well; for I neither thought it honourable nor just
that such old servants of the public should be turned away without just cause.
Foreseeing the probability of a question being put to me to that effect, I thought
it advisable to put the receipts in my pocket; the receipts I paid regularly to the
New River company, wherein it will clearly appear, that after I had been so ap-
plied to there was no reduction of the rate ; I have brought them with me that
they may appear clearly before the Committee. I did not leave the New River
company, nor would I take any abatement of the price that had been charged to
me heretofore ; I had paid £. 2. 1 os. a year up to Michaelmas 1818, and this ap-
plication was made to me about 1816 or 1817. A person waited upon me some
time afterwards from the Grand Junction company for payment; not the same
person who came to me before. .
Do you recollect the time?—No, not exactly; it was after Michaelmas 1818.
This person from the Grand Junction Canal company informed me that the New
River company had left the street; this was the time they made the application
to me for payment, and I hesitated some time to pay them ; at last I paid up to
Michaelmas 1818, there being no alternative, at the same rate of £. 2. 10s. I paid
them three quarters. I paid that, finding there was no alternative, and as no
addition to the rate had been made, I thought it was but justice, in short: some time
after I received a circular letter from the Grand Junction water company, stating
their case with a view to a further demand; I refused to comply, in consequence
of an invitation from my neighbours to resist the demand. Some time afterwards
I think it was I received another circular, about the beginning of last year,
threatening, that if I did not comply with the additional rate they would cut off
the water. .
Have you that notice with you?—No, I have not ; but it was read the last time
I was here. I removed to my present residence about Midsummer last year; up
to the time of going into the house, and while I was living there, there was an
abundant supply of water, and during the time the repairs were going on, but in
three or four days afterwards there was a deficiency. I made an application to
the Grand Junction office to know the cause of this deficiency, and they informed
me that it was in consequence of my refusing to pay up the new rate at the house
I had
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
95
I had just left; that it was in consequence of that they had cut off the supply,
without making any previous application to me. -
What was the increase they demanded?—I think twenty-five per cent.
Which you had refused to pay?—Yes; upon the invitation of my neighbours.
Was the demand made upon a receipt 2–No ; it was a verbal demand of twenty-
five per cent. without any specific sum being mentioned. At this interview, at the
Grand Junction office, with Mr. Coe the secretary, suffering as I was, I was natu-
rally very much irritated, and there was an interview which does not redound to
the credit of Mr. Coe ; there was some very insulting language used, perhaps
I should say it was not very creditable to either, but I was determined I would not
in future expose myself to any thing of the like kind, and whatever I chose to
say afterwards should be by letter, in consequence of which this correspondence
took place.—|The witness here read the correspondence that had taken place between
himself and the officers of the Grand Junction water company : and added, J–
I have therefore not been supplied with water from this company, nor from any
exterior mode, since Midsummer, so that I have been compelled to resort to other
means. I have a pump in the house which supplies me with water; I have fixed a
force pump to it, which supplies the upper and lower parts of the house. I have
made a large tank, so that I am abundantly supplied with rain water, and I shall
not take any water of them at all; I have rendered myself independent of them;
I am better supplied, and the water is infinitely better than the water I received
before. The house I now occupy had been empty eight years, and was fully supplied
with water. :
Mr. W. M. Coe, further Examined.
YOU have heard the statement of facts made by Mr. Newton; will you be so good
as to state what you have to say in answer to them 2–The facts are generally true,
except as to his receiving no answer to his first three letters, and in answer to those
letters there was no written communication but a verbal one, by the collector
calling for the payment of the rate, Mr. Newton having stated that he would pay it,
although by compulsion.
Had he directions immediately to call?—He had.
What were your directions to the collector?—To call upon Mr. Newton for the
increased rate, and upon that the water would be laid on.
You, as the officer of the company, directed the collector to call upon Mr. Newton
and inform him that if he paid the additional rate, the water would be immediately
laid on 2–I did. It is also necessary to state with regard to the reason why the supply
of water to this house was first taken off, (No. 8); it had been some time empty, and
the foreman had received directions to take the water off the house during its being
empty, to prevent waste, which is a common practice with the company; he had
neglected so to do; and when the house was under repair, I inquired whether the water
had been taken off; the foreman upon examining his books found it was not. It
was then thought necessary to take the water off, for the purpose of entering into
an agreement with the person who should occupy that house, to prevent any future
disputes as to the rate that might be required from him, and the water was taken off
without the company knowing that Mr. Newton was going to occupy it.
Has not the Grand Junction company refused to restore the supply of water
after the termination of the notices, unless the customer submitted to pay the
arrears, after the rate insisted on by the company, as the rate in future ?—Yes,
I admit that, that those rates should be paid.
Arrears running from what time ?—From the time the increased rate commenced,
Michaelmas 1818, collected at 1819.
When was the notice given 2–It has been given not in many instances with
regard to the number of persons we supply; I should think 1,500 were issued.
I should say first that a notice was delivered by the Grand Junction company in
July and August 1818, that the rise would take place at the subsequent Michael-
mas, expecting that persons would make their inquiries as to what that rise would
be, and make their agreement for that purpose; there were very few persons who
did apply, and in cases where they had so applied, they were informed what the
rise was that would be made after Lady-day 1819; it was stated in that notice,
that the rise would commence in 1818, and be collected at Lady-day 1819; and at
Lady-day 1819 the collectors were sent round with their increased rates; a vast
wº of persons had paid during that collection ; petitions ****
700. ary-
Mr.
W. J. Newton.
`--~~~~
(7 March.)
Mr.
W. M. Coe.
96
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
AIr,
HP. M. Coe.
S-S 2—
(7 March.)
Mary-le-bone, and Mr. Taylor's bill was introduced after Lady-day 1819, and we
suspended our collection, pursuant to the recommendation of that Committee, till
it had gone through the House; after the bill had been thrown out of the House
of Lords, we then proceeded with the collection in the same way as we had pre-
viously intended, but then there were a number of persons who refused to pay that
increased rate, and to those persons who so refused, we issued the second six months
notice. -
When did you begin to act upon these notices?—After Christmas.
In any case, where you acted upon those notices, have you demanded the
increased rate of the party —Yes; as the ground of the new contract. -
Did you demand any arrears of that increase over-reaching this term of the six
months notice f—Supposing the party receiving that notice had been assessed at the
increased rate at three guineas instead of fifty shillings, we gave him this notice,
that we should serve him at fifty shillings till the period named there, in 1818.
I will suppose we had made a demand upon that person for £. 3, his old rent being
£. 2. 10s. that then he refused to pay it, we issued that notice to him, and at the
expiration of that notice we should state what is there stated in the letter, we should
take the £. 2. Io S. r -
Waving your claim to the £. 3?–Yes. *
Did you ever, in any instance, say you would not take the 50s, but the £. 32
—During that notice the collectors would not receive it until the notice expired,
and then they were desired to take the sum therein stated, 50s. and if the party
would not agree with the company for his future supply, to take off his water.
Fs this 50 s. supposed to be the old rate?—Yes.
The collector was instructed to collect, after the expiration of this notice, nothing
more than the old rate P-Yes. -
Did you in any case authorize the collector to go further, and not only demand
the old rate but the arrears at the increased rate, during the period to which this
relates?—He has had no such instruction from our office, but to receive the old
rate, and if the party would not enter into an agreement for his further supply, to
have the water taken off.
Have you in any instance found that the collectors have received more than the
old rate 2–They have not demanded it, but they have received it upon an expla-
nation of what the nature of that contract was ; by far the greater majority of the
company’s tenants having paid the rate, vast numbers of them had made inquiry
whether the whole body of the tenants would be charged upon the same principle ;
whether any difference would be made to a person who withheld the payment of
his rate because he had been so advised: that being the case, the directors thought
it would be fair and just to those who had paid that increased rate, that those who
had not paid it should be placed upon the same footing, and therefore they had
determined that the grounds of the future contract for their supply should compre-
hend that which they left unpaid. --
Then where the party at No. 9 had paid the increase without objection, and his
neighbour at No. 10 had refused to pay, when you came to increase the rate of
No. 10, after the expiration of the six months, although the supply would be the
same, you would put No. 10 at a higher rate than No. 9?–Yes, at the following
€8]'. .
y Only for one year —Only for one year. -
What No. 10 had refused to pay would have included what No. 9 had consented
to pay ; the increase you had made would have been with a view to make No. 1 o
pay the same as No. 9, the consenter, had paid 2–Yes.
Then in truth what appeared in the shape of increased rate would have been a
demand from the refuser of the arrears which No. 9 had consented to pay ?—Yes.
. So that it was one and the same thing whether you say we will charge you so
much more and call it arrear or an additional rate for the next year amounting to
the same sum ?—Yes it was. *
From what period did the court of directors appoint the new rates ?—From
Michaelmas 1818. - -
At what period did the six months notice commence 2—That six months notice
was given at various periods; there were about 1,500 persons who had not paid
the increased rate, and to those 1,500 the notices were issued at different periods,
there having been a previous notice given, not the six months notice, but that the
rate would be increased at Michaelmas 1818. -
- The
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
97
The period fixed for the increase of the rate by the directors of the Grand
Junction company, was Michaelmas 1818, and those notices you say were given at
various times; all subsequent engagements with the tenants included a period cover-
ing the lapse of time between the Michaelmas of 1818 and the re-engagement of
the tenants with the Grand Junction company 2–Yes, it did.
Mr. Matthias Koops Knight, further Examined.
HAS not the West Middlesex company refused to restore the supply of water,
after the termination of the notices, unless the customer submitted to pay the arrears
after the rate insisted on by the company as the rate in future?—I concur in a great
part of what Mr. Coe has said as to the effect of it; but it is necessary I should
explain shortly how the facts really stood, and what were the objects of giving that
second notice. The Committee have already had before them the notice dated the
11th May 1818, and also the further notice on the receipts given in the course of
the collection from Midsummer 1818 to the following Christmas (which was the
current half-year of the increased rates) that the rates would “be collected at
the Christmas following,” it being always the custom to suffer six months to elapse
before the water rate is called for. At Christmas 1818, the books of the company
were delivered to the collectors, and they proceeded to receive the increased rates:
at that time the gentleman, who has since written so much upon the subject, had
not begun his publications. The company proceeded to collect their rates; the
Mary-le-bone vestry, in February, had proceeded with their parochial bill ; still the
collection went on, and at the end of the half-year, notwithstanding all the proceed-
ings which had taken place between the company and the Mary-le-bone vestry, a
very large portion (I think very nearly nine-tenths) had paid the increased rate in
the course of the first half-year, so that only £. 3,000 of arrears were left at Mid-
summer 1819; subsequently, the publications I have just alluded to, appeared; papers
were sent into every house in the parish, not only by the committee called the
Anti Monopoly Association, but also by the vestry in their collective capacity, papers
signed by the vestry clerk by order of the vestry; those papers were various; all of
them calculated to excite the greatest discontent, most of them containing misrepre-
sentations of facts, and inclosing papers identifying the vestry to a great extent with
the proceedings of the association ; I will give this as an instance, that a paper of
the association was inclosed in a letter of the vestry clerk, and left at almost every
house in the parish. It must at once strike the Committee, that these documents,
in which the inhabitants generally were informed that they were paying an enor-
mous rate that could not be legally justified, would make a very great impression in
the parish, particularly the poorer class, coming as it did from the vestry of the
parish, the select vestry of the parish, composed of noblemen and gentlemen; and
it is not to be wondered at that their complaints of the increase began to be heard :
complaints then did arise certainly as to the amount of the rate, and that led to a
degree of irritation in the public mind; so that for the last two years, the officers
of the company have not been in a very enviable situation; it was almost as
much as one could do to hear and talk to the people who came there, their
violence was so extreme. In the course of the following year a great variety of
discussions took place, public meetings were called, and the gentleman who formed
the association went from parish to parish to excite that spirit; I believe he was the
author of almost all the publications that appeared circulated in St. George's,
St. Pancras, Paddington, Mary-le-bone, and in St. James’s ; in all of which, meet-
ings of the inhabitants were called, at coffee-houses and places of that sort, and all
the malcontents of the parish would naturally flock to that meeting; those who
were dissatisfied would go, and those who were satisfied would not make their
appearance. The Committee, I believe, are well aware of what the results of those
meetings were, actions were threatened to be brought against the company; we
represented to the individuals that we were disposed to show every forbearance, that
we did not mean to press unnecessarily upon them for payment, but we wished to
give them every means of satisfying themselves as to the fairness of our proceeding;
we were constantly in attendance, all our books were open to every body, even to
the meanest in the parish, and I, as well as the other officers, were always ready to
give any explanation as to the cause of the rise, and to show the necessity for it.
I have no hesitation in saying, that in nine cases out of ten, those who sought the
information were satisfied with the information they received. I myself, in the
course of two years that this has lasted, have seen a vast number of noblemen and
gentlemen, and the poorer class of inhabitants, and I think I have the means of
706. W. B b speaking
Mr.
W. M. Coe.
S-Q –
(7 March.)
Mr.
M. K. Knight,
\-——
g8
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
M. K. Knight.
\––’
(7 March.)
speaking from that circumstance a little more accurately of what the feeling of the
parish is, than a person who has not been so situated; it has been my duty and my
inclination also ; and I do most distinctly deny that this is a public grievance, it has
been fomented by party, kept up by party, and still maintained by party, for the
great bulk of the inhabitants of Mary-le-bone, I will boldly say, are no parties to
these proceedings, certainly the respectable part are not; and in order to go a little
further into this, I will allude to the sources from whence I have derived my
information; I allude to the collectors and other officers of the company: the
Committee will at once see, that where so much clamour existed, where so much
was at stake for the company, I should be most anxious daily to ascertain how it was
proceeding; I therefore every week made it my business particularly to inquire of
the collectors as to the general impression upon their minds of the feeling of the
parties that they had that week called upon, and until these circulars of the vestry
and the association had inundated almost every house, I still insist that there was
nothing like an extensive complaint. I will mention another fact, in which I can be
controverted if I state an untruth : there has been a subscription, that subscription
has been fomented and assisted by the greatest possible activity, a collector of the
poor rates of the parish of Mary-le-bone made it his business, I would only charge
one, I have him particularly in my mind, I will not say he was instructed, I have
no right to state that, but a collector of the poor rates in the parish of Mary-le-bone
was a collector of the subscriptions, I know, for I have been told by dozens, I may
say scores of individuals called upon, that he has used every means in his power to
obtain subscriptions, that he has received subscriptions from all those who would
subscribe, down almost to a shilling; from a guinea to a shilling, or any sum they
would pay; that individual was also treasurer of the association, and he made it his
business, as well as that of collecting the poor rates as parish officer, to poison the
mindsof every one in his walk against the company, telling them they were fools for pay-
ing their rates, that the company had no right to them, that they were acting illegally,
that they must reduce them, and statements of the like tendency; I should state
further, that he himself was a name given to me as complaining that intimidation
and false representation were used on the part of the company, and that the com-
pany obtained payment of their rates by those means.
What name was that P−Michael Smith.
Who was it handed to you by 2—Mr. Weale. Mr. Smith proceeded in this
course for a time, till the committee certainly was composed of more honourable
men; this was previous to the meeting at Willis's rooms; previous to that time the
committee consisted of men in a more humble sphere of life, all of whom were most
active in their own sphere in persuading people not to pay, and collecting sums of
the description I have mentioned; in poor streets begging for half-a-crown or a
shilling, any thing they could get. As so much has been said of the great popular
feeling against the increased rate, I think that subscription will be the best possi-
ble test of the feeling of the parish ; subscriptions obtained from all those sources
of irritation ; if there was a general discontent in the parish, surely a great majority
of the inhabitants would subscribe to a fund to protect themselves; if it is not so,
then I say, that if I had no other fact to stand upon, that there I am upon a rock,
and I deny the assertion that it is a public grievance; I think that is all that is
meeessary to state upon that head. I will go back now to the notice. With regard
to the notice, and the immediate proceedings of the company upon those notices,
on the 11th of May 1811 a notice was given, as I stated, generally to the inhabit-
ants, that a rise in rates must certainly take place, and stating that the rise should
not exceed twenty-five per cent. upon the rate paid in 1810, saving for high services;
I will repeat that that was followed in order to prevent mistake, that it should not
be considered they were going to collect the advanced rate, but that the current
half-year would be suffered to elapse, and that the increased rate would be collected
at Christmas; that word, collected, infers that the rate commenced at Midsummer,
it being always the case to suffer half a year to become due before it was called for;
at Christmas 1818 it was collected, and received to the extent of eight or nine
tenths of the inhabitants.
Were the receipts printed for the half year 2—They were.
Were they sent immediately?—Yes; I have looked at the books this morning,
and I find the collection began the 1st of July.
Was there any idea of reserving them, or were they brought into use directly 2–
They were the remnants of the preceding half-year. I state this boldly, that a
vast majority of those receipts bore that which is called a notice, but which I call
s ' ' ... ' 4 - 1 º • A.H.
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
99
an intimation that the rates would be collected at Christmas, to explain what was
not specific, and that leads me to the reason for giving this subsequent notice. If
the papers which were circulating in the parish are put in, the Committee will see
that the company was threatened with a series of law proceedings; it naturally led
them to consult their counsel as to how they might be affected by those proceed-
ings; upon which consultation, that notice of the 11th of May was submitted to
them. I might here simply mention, that up to that period the custom of all the
water companies was merely to give verbal notices in every thing that took place
in their concerns; written notices were never expected nor requested ; if a person
discontinued taking water, it was sufficient for him to say it, merely that he was
going to leave that house, and paying up to the end of the current quarter; but
this notice having been given, and actions being threatened, that led the company
naturally to consider how they stood with regard to the public, what was the nature
of the contract between them and the public ; and several of the most eminent
counsel now at the bar, all concurred in treating it as a personal contract between
A. B. and the company; that as the supply, according to the act of parliament,
was quarterly, half-yearly, or yearly, it was a contract for an annual supply of
water; and if we wished to put an end to that contract, or if either party wished
to put an end to it, they considered that the courts would hold, in case of an
action being brought against the company, it would be necessary for them to
show that they had ceased their contract, upon a reasonable notice, clearly and
specifically stating that they did not conceive that a six months notice, or three
months, or for any specific period, was necessary, but that a notice was necessary
in order that the party might be aware that the contract then subsisting should
cease at a certain period. The committee, in anticipation of the action held out,
said they only waited for a case to bring the action ; we considered it certain that
it would come ; they therefore advised a six months notice to be given, and they
also adverted to the notice that had been given; they said it would be very simple
of the company to go into court upon a case, and be turned round upon a point
of form ; it was very possible, though they did not say it would be so, that the
notice of the 11th of May, being a paper addressed merely to the inhabitants, that
an individual would say that is no notice to me; it is not specific, it is not
addressed to me, it only says such a sum shall be given, and therefore in order
to be quite safe, not to be turned round upon a point of form, they advised
in all those cases which, up to that period, had not paid the increased rate of
twenty-five per cent. that a specific notice, addressed to A. B. specifying the
sum at which he had been charged, should be given, and they recommended that
it should not be given for less than six months; that it would show greater
moderation, as there were so many complaints: that is the history of the second
notice being given. In the case of the West Middlesex company, very few of those
notices were required, because the great bulk of the people had paid the increased
rate; some were given in March 1820, to discontinue at the following Michaelmas;
some other few were given at Midsummer 1820, to discontinue at the following
Christmas, and that disposed of all our cases. At Michaelmas 1820, the company
sent the collectors round to receive the rates; many had made tenders during that
time, some of which were paid, some we thought it better to stand over, but generall
speaking, the collectors were told they had much better confine their attention º
that notice expired to those who paid readily, but those who refused once or twice,
after that notice, agreed to pay the third and fourth time; they said very naturally,
my neighbour A. B. has not paid you for three or four years, I only owe
half a year, why not make him pay before you call upon me for payment. The
Committee will see the situation in which the company was placed between
friends and foes. The persons who had regularly paid, and were satisfied to pay the
increased rate, finding that their neighbours had not paid it at all, called upon the
company for an explanation of it. At the Michaelmas of 1820, they therefore pro-
ceeded in all those cases that were then remaining; a great many had paid in the
interim, and a great number were cut off at Michaelmas, the company receiving
up to Michaelmas the old rate of those who insisted upon paying it; but it is fair
I should state, that before they did so pay, we told them inasmuch as the great bulk
of the inhabitants had paid from Midsummer 1818, we give you the option of either
paying the increased rate the same as they had paid for that period, or we decline
to make a new contract with you unless you will enter into a contract for the ensuing
year to the amount of the increased rate with one fifth addition, conceiving that
Ill º course of five years the difference would be made up to the company, and
706. 3. that
Mr.
M. K. Knight.
\ – sy
(7 March.)
100 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr. that the twentieth part of the inhabitants would, by that means, be placed nearly
* * **, in the same situation (not quite so good) as the other nineteen; and in doing this
S-- I can most unequivocally bear testimony to the honourable intention of the board for
(7 *) adopting that course; whether it was wise or not is another matter, but it was fair
dealing. -
Could you state the amount in money to which those cases would have extended,
where you had to demand this retrospective arrear, in fact?—I can give the Com-
mittee an idea of the thing, which I think will be quite sufficient; it is really so
inconsiderable, I do not think it would altogether amount to £. 100 ; I believe in
all the cases where the parties have signed the agreement, that those cases did not
amount to twenty. -
Can you furnish the Committee with those cases?—I can furnish the agreements,
Mr. Harris was one, of 27 Norton-street. I can state to the Committee that the
amount was never taken into consideration, but proceeded upon what they consi-
dered fair dealing, I just wish here to state, that up to this moment, a legal
decision upon this point has not been given; they have all along considered them-
selves entitled to the increased rate from Midsummer 1818; but that is not decided
yet.
Though you state that the amount of arrear upon this particular point is only
about £. 100, and inconsiderable, yet in point of fact, upon that principle, you would
have made the demand had it amounted to £. 1,000?—Yes, certainly.
You consider yourself of course, in the situation of secretary, as the authorized
organ of the company you represent P—Doubtless. -
And in any official communication you make to the public, they must be bound by
it?—I consider so. - -
Was that letter written by you—[handing a paper to the witness]?—I will not
call it a letter; it is a garbled extract; that letter is before the Committee; it is the
publication of that paper we complain of as the greatest grievance that has been
practised towards us. - -
As a misrepresentation ?—Misrepresentation and grievance.
Is this only an extract?—Yes; it stops in the middle of a sentence.
Did that letter distinctly taken with the whole context, state that no advance
whatever would take place upon the usual supply of water beyond what the inhabit-
ants paid to the old companies in 1810?–My answer to that will involve a state-
ment. I mean to state, that it was a letter written in the haste of the moment,
pressed as the directors were by the Mary-le-bone vestry; they were urged by the
most gross representations, not by them collectively, but they were urged by state-
ments, that the water rates were to be increased to £. 20 and £.30 a house ; the
Mary-le-bone vestry were proceeding with the parochial bill, inflaming the parish :
with those representations, the company felt their existence struck at, and they
naturally were very anxious upon the subject; they had a meeting with the Mary-
le-bone vestry upon the 3d of February (that letter is dated the 18th), upon which
that vestry was informed that no increase at all was contemplated at present; the
words at present seemed to excite a flame, and the company were called upon to say
distinctly what it would be ; they were told, that until the works were completed,
they could not tell; they were then in a very confused state; they had a great
many pipes to lay down; the change having just taken place, the attention of the
company was naturally directed first to give the town an abundant supply of water,
to take every precaution as a security against fire, and to complete their works :
although that was not stated, I know what the intention was among all the com-
panies; the intention was, when the old companies retired, that the rates should
not be advanced for I believe a period of two years, until those measures I have
alluded to had taken place: notwithstanding this representation on the 3d of
February, the proceedings were continued ; estimates were ordered to be given ; a
great deal of anxiety and alarm was felt; seeing the vestry was partly composed of
nobility and members of parliament, the company could not tell to what extent that
opposition might be carried. -
[The letter and the extract alluded to were read.]
On the 11th of May, three months after this letter was written, was not there a
notice given to the parish of an intention to raise them 25 per cent. on the rates of
1810? As an individual of that parish, seeing that letter, and contrasting it with the
Subsequent conduct of the companies, am not I entitled to consider that as a public
grievance?—That question enables me to go on with what Ileft off stating. I have
- stated
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
1 0 1
stated that that letter was written to the Mary-le-bone vestry (from the great pres-
sure which the Mary-le-bone vestry were throwing upon the company, and from
the misrepresentation that the rates would be £. 20 and £. 30 per house,) to come
to something like a specific statement of what they meant by the words “at present,”
which had been used at the first meeting; they had turned to the documents in their
possession to see what the rates of 1810 were ; every thing up to that period had
been estimated, but the company considered when they wrote that letter that the
rates of 1810 amounted to a considerable sum more than they afterwards turned out
to be. I should state, that that letter, about which I have been asked this question,
was addressed by me, as the officer of the company, to the vestry of Mary-le-bone,
and was never intended for publication; it was never intended to guide the case of
A. B. and C. D. it was a letter of communication from one body to another. On
their presenting their parochial bill, Mr. Michael Angelo Taylor suggested, that the
repeated invitations of the West Middlesex company to the vestry, to appoint a
committee to go into the question to examine what would be a fair rate to be
charged, should be acted upon ; he considered that more might be settled in two
or three discussions of that sort, than in angry altercations; he therefore pressed
that upon the gentlemen of the Mary-le-bone vestry when they appeared upon his
bill. The company had repeatedly solicited this appointment of a committee.
Mr. Taylor suggested, as well as another gentleman upon the committee, that the
committee to be appointed (which they had assented to) should not be composed
of the gentlemen who had taken a part in and originated this dispute, but that it
should be left to unbiassed and impartial men, those who had not taken part either
way up to that period, (this was the beginning of April, I think;) up to which period
no notice had been taken of that letter; this is a most material thing, that it was
not answered in any way, or alluded to in any way. The vestry of Mary-le-bone
did then appoint a committee of three gentlemen to meet three gentlemen from the
three water companies touching upon their parish, the Grand Junction, the New
River and the West Middlesex; from some cause they did not think proper to
follow the other part of the recommendation, but they nominated three gentlemen
who we had good reason for believing were the beginners of the dispute, and took
an active part against the company. The committee met, (I was not present)
but I apprehend the letter that has just been read was not alluded to, but they
began de novo, as I was informed by the gentlemen of the West Middlesex
company, with an understanding that nothing that had passed or should pass up to
that period should operate to the prejudice of either party if they should not come
to an agreement. The first thing that was done was an order to the officers of the
companies to ascertain what the rates of 1810 really were ; the New River com-
pany allowed us access to their books, their officers assisted in the examination, and
an accurate account was taken of the rates of 1810; the rates were stated of the
same buildings, in some instances it was very difficult to identify the houses, a con-
siderable part of Mary-le-bone being then building and not finished, but still an
account was rendered, and to the great surprise and regret of the West Middlesex
company, it appeared that the rates of 1810 were much less than they before had
reason to believe they were, and therefore they made a report, upon consultation
of the Grand Junction and West Middlesex companies to that committee, in writ-
ing, which has been given in to this Committee, and has been read, dated the 1st
or 2d of May, in which they stated distinctly what would satisfy them, and what
rates they were willing to be bound by. I have already said, and I wish to repeat
it, that that letter of the 19th of February had never been acted on in any way;
it was a private letter from one board to another in the early part of the discussion ;
the report therefore of the 1st or 2d of May 1818, corrected the error which the com-
mittee were then informed they had fallen into, and an account was then rendered
as to what would satisfy them. Without any intimation from that committee whether
the proposal was acceded to or not, the companies were astonished two or three
days afterwards to find that they had introduced their bill before Parliament; that
bill was read a first time on the 6th of May, without any assent or dissent to the
terms given in by the companies, and proceedings took place upon that bill, it
having been understood on both sides that what had taken place, or should take
place, should be without prejudice. Upon that bill being read in Parliament, the
company then issued to the parish and to the public their case of the 11th of
May; till that paper was issued, they did not consider themselves bound in any
way ; an error had been made unfortunately, and the only way they had of correct-
Ing % was by the report of the 11th of º ; they considered that in the eyes of
700. C * all
Mr.
M. K. Knight.
(7 March.)
#,G)2
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
A44.
Aºi. K. Knight.
S--—’
(7 March.)
all honourable men, it would be ample and sufficient ; they were astonished to find
that letter circulated in the way it had been ; that all the correspondence that had
taken place previously had been kept out of view, and that that extract, ending
particularly at a strong point, should be called a copy of a letter, and my name was
put, as signing that letter ending in that manner; it is before the Committee, and
no man looking at that paper would imagine for an instant that there was a single
word more than what is there stated.
Was there ever any regret expressed on the part of this company for having
made this mistake P-To that committee I apprehend it was fully explained.
There is nothing in this report of it 2–Up to that period it was considered
as if nothing had passed, and therefore they thought it not necessary to advert
to this fact.
Am I expecting too much when I say I should expect that the company would
not have made this communication, without examining the amount of the rate ; from
whence did they derive this calculation?—From the report of their committee.
Was there, in point of fact, regret expressed by the directors of the West
Middlesex company for having made this mistake 2–I was not present, but I take
it for granted it was adverted to ; the letter was a very hasty ill-advised thing, and
we now know it.
You have stated that it was hardly to be expected that persons of fortune should
feel this addition of rate, or that persons of very little money should interfere to
redress their wrongs, therefore it fell upon that class of society between the two
extremes?—I will confine my answer to those persons I have seen ; it has been
almost invariably those that have been satisfied, upon the explanation given, that
the advance was fair. -
When you say upon comparison very few remained, do you mean comparison
with the rich or otherwise 2–1 mean a comparison of the whole population of
Paddington, Mary-le-bone and Pancras, that there is only one in forty who has
not paid the rate ; the majority of those who complained before, are now satisfied,
and go on to pay their rates; after Mr. Taylor’s bill, which limited the company
(before they were considered not limited, nor do I consider they are,) Mr. Taylor’s
bill was brought in to restrain them, and after it was thrown out, they said such
a measure seems to be advisable and necessary, we ought not to be at your mercy;
if you will give us an assurance that you mean to abide by that bill, as if it had
passed, we are content; I speak of some who had opposed us before, now quiescent.
There is a paper delivered in, which the company, upon representations coming from
various sources, sent round to say that they meant to abide by those rates, and
that all those persons who would not take the company’s assurance, (we had been
accused of a breach of faith, and almost every thing that man could be accused
of) that we would give them contracts for terms of years, to bind ourselves mutually.
to the rate we had charged; and what is most extraordinary, the board of guar-
dians of the poor of the parish of Mary-le-bone, composed wholly of vestrymen,
who had originated and carried on this discussion, were the very first to enter
into a contract with us, and it is now subsisting, for the supply of their poorhouse,
which is the only way in which they could recognize each other; that agreement
is now subsisting for fourteen years. Lord Hertford has applied, also Lord Robert
Seymour, Lord Walsingham, and several gentlemen; Mr. Pitt, of Wimpole-street,
a vestryman, was content to take our representation.
Do you not conceive that by this communication between you and those persons,
that their feelings were much more directed to the uncertainty in which they were
placed as to the engagement between the company and the public, and the possibility
of the company at any future period extending their rates to any amount, than as
to their satisfaction with the mode of increase of the rates they had adopted at that
moment?—I think it very probable.
It was rather to secure themselves against any further advance, than to denote
satisfaction at the increase?—Yes.
In point of fact, it is possible that a person may acquiesce in the addition of
25 per cent, but he could not be supposed to acquiesce in case persons had been
raised more than that ; do you admit that any persons have been rated more than
that 2—Not to my knowledge south of the New-road.
The rates of 1810 were paid by persons north of the New.road?—To a certain
extent.
You say that north of the New Road, persons were requested to pay more than
25 percent 2—Yes. ~3 * ..
- That
Q.
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 103
That an individual who paid the rate of 1810 has been requested to pay an Mr.
increase above 25 per cent?—Yes, for this reason, that all north of the New-road M. K. Knight.
is a very high service, and we found it necessary upon that, as they were building `--—'
houses detached and in gardens, requiring a great outlay of capital to supply them, (7 March.)
that in order to fix rates for those houses, which would at all pay any thing like t
interest for the capital so to be expended, the rates must be very considerable, and
in proportion to the houses. In some few that had been built in 1810, (say about
Bell-street, and just across the New-road) the new rate does not exceed 25 per
cent. on the rate paid in 1810; and when the bill was before the Committee,
Lord Shaftesbury suggested there should be a distinction, and he suggested that the
New-road being the natural boundary for the town, should be the line fixed
upon, and that all above that should be subject to an additional rate, to meet this
difficulty.
Have you any definite proportion north of the New-road?—No.
Upon what principle have you made that distinction?—The elevation, the
expense of supply, and the class of inhabitants.
Has that led to any particular rule —Not any particular rule; it has already
been stated to the Committee, that to fix a rule for rating houses is one of the most
difficult things in our business.
The directors of the company, through you, informed their tenants generally,
without exception, there would be no rise beyond twenty-five per cent. upon the
rates of 1810; they never at that period marked the distinction between north and
south of the New-road 2–No, they did not. -
Then, notwithstanding the assurance of the company not to exceed twenty-five
per cent, they did take upon themselves to change, alter or increase this demand?—
That arose from Mr. Taylor’s bill ; when the bill had passed the Commons and
was thrown out of the Lords, from that hour did Mr. Taylor desire the company
would take the bill for their standard and guide. That bill did make a particular
exception. An honourable member on this Committee himself put in a clause
limiting the profits of the company to ten per cent. in order to govern their charges
north of the New-road. 4. -
It not being a legislative measure it amounted only to advice given to you ?—
Surely.
Have you in any instance southward of the New-road gone beyond that rate?—
No, not to my knowledge; north of the New-road by far the greater proportion
of houses built since 1810 have been only charged twenty-five per cent; I mean
all those immediately abutting on the New-road, such as Upper Baker-street, the
rate has been confined to that; but in the Alpha cottages, which is the only part
that strikes me where we have come to the new rating, in consequence of the very
great expense of iron pipes, (for those cottages are detached in large gardens, with
ponds and various means of consuming water which the inhabitants of London have
not,) the new rating took place, and a very great increase; a house that had
paid two guineas was charged four; and I would mention this one fact of a house
north of the New-road, that those houses in point of proportion, where they have
no gardens, are now, in my opinion, rated much lower than even houses in Oxford-
street: in this way, a house in Oxford-street which paid 30s. is now charged for
the basement 37 s. and for a water-closet on the upper part of the house, above the
second floor, f. 2, making £. 3. 17s. Now I state that all the water sent to a house
at the Alpha cottages, which is perhaps rated from £.3 to £ 4, that every drop of
that is high service water, served at a greater expense of fuel than a house in Oxford-
street, so that that class of our customers who feel themselves aggrieved, are in a
better situation than those in Oxford-street who do not feel themselves aggrieved.
South of the New-road do you say the charge in advance is only twenty-five
per cent?—Yes. - -
Daniel Robert Barker, Esq. Called in ; and Examined.
WHERE do you reside?—The complaint I have to make is of a house p. m. Barker,
No. 43, York-street, Baker-street. - . . Esq.
Have you any profession ?—No, I am living upon my means; the house I am --~ *
speaking of was built in 1810, it is one of seven houses, which are all, I conceive,
to be within one brick in point of size alike ; they were originally supplied by the
New River company, I believe at 36 s. but it might be 40s, each, ordinary
service, that is, a cistern on the basement, and a water-closet on the ground floor:
this * of mine had a green-house besides: that rate was reduced in *
700. . . Of
1 04 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
D. R. Barker, of a circular issued by the West Middlesex company. I bought the house of Lady
Esq.
\–—— ...”
(7 March.)
Murray, or rather I took it in exchange for a house which was served by the New
River company, in which direction I had a great many personal friends, and it
was a part of our bargain that she should continue with the New River company,
by whom I had been plentifully supplied; some of my friends were directors:
some time after, Lady Murray informed me she had left the New River company,
in consequence of an offer made by the West Middlesex company to serve her
more abundantly and at a cheaper rate, in consequence of a circular; in fact
Lady Murray had always high service, and the West Middlesex served her this high
service, and continued to do so till 1817 or 1818.
It had been higher than what you paid 2–I do not know really what it was ;
I will allow it to be 40s.; then after a year had elapsed, and I had no notice of
any rise in the water, or being turned over from one company to another, then
comes the collector, and says, Sir, I want three guineas from you, for one year's
water service ; I asked him whether he was a good calculator, and how far that
amounted to twenty-five per cent; that l was not disposed to pay more under any
consideration whatever; his answer was, he was ordered to receive it from the board,
and I must settle it with Mr. Knight, in consequence of which I had many pleasant
conversations with Mr. Knight, but never got my rate reduced; that is the fact,
as far as that year goes. I then informed Mr. Knight that I should be much
obliged to him to know how I was to proceed, as he had been so kind as to give
me notice it was to be cut off at Christmas, that I was still in the same disposition
I had been in before to resist the overcharge, because I conceived they had not
any right to make the demand of any addition, but I should be glad to be intro-
duced to the board, as I was about to let my house ; I received an assurance from
the board that my water should not be cut off till after Christmas, and the chair-
man jocosely said to me, that he would give me one day to reconsider the matter,
I persisting not to pay the advance. I let my house on the 29th of September,
Michaelmas day, this last year, and the water was cut off in October, contrary to
their assurance, being made two months previous to the time. I do not mean to
say any thing against the company about cutting the water off, because I am ready
to acknowledge, from the apology I had, that it was an error. Mr. Knight said he
was very willing to replace it. I mention that, merely to state the circumstance in
which the company have been extremely negligent through their agent. Mr. Knight
had refused to put on the water to my tenant at the old price, or on any other
terms than having the arrears paid up for the time I had refused to pay it. I had
been at the office and paid up the old rate of 36s. in the presence of Mr. Knight,
the nine quarters that were in arrear, and had the receipt delivered me by the clerk
in the presence of Mr. Knight, and the water is now cut off, and in consequence of
that I have dug a well, which answers every purpose for that house. I let it to a
lady, who finds the water softer than where she lives at Clapham, and she is
satisfied with it. I would wish to add, that I have no animosity whatever against
the company. - - - - - . . . .
(Mr. Knight.)—In explanation of what has just been stated, I would draw the
attention of the Committee to this fact, that York-street was precisely one of the
streets I alluded to as being building in 1810; here is the book made out two
'years and a half ago. I have got in York-street the rates of ten houses, from one
to ten inclusive, which were rated in 1810 in the New River books.
Was this one of them?—No. -
Was that house inhabited?—I have every reason to believe it was not; there
were a good many houses built in York-street straggling about, and in those
streets I have not the means of identifying the houses; in this street no regular
survey took place, it was rated by me on the 17th July 1819. The Committee
will see from the few rates I have got here of 1810 I have adhered as nearly as
possible to twenty-five per cent. upon those rates; they are charged some £, 2, some
£. 2. Los ; this street was a new street, and I went through it de novo to put all the
houses appearing of the same class upon the same footing, and I did it on the date
I have mentioned, from No. 1 to No. 15; I have rated them all at three guineas
each for the ordinary service, considering all those houses to be of the same class
as nearly as possible. Mr. Barker's house is precisely opposite the first ten; it
appeared to me from the exterior view to be a house of the same class as those
rated in 1810 : twenty-five per cent. upon 50s. would be £ 3, 2s; that is all I
have to say upon that subject; that is precisely the case. I excepted, and I still
- adhere
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
105
adhere to what I have asserted, that in all the houses in that part of the parish
that book will show that where the houses could be identified we have adhered to
the twenty-five per cent.
(Mr. Barker.)—Those houses opposite have three windows in front, the houses
on our side of the way are all of them very moderate small houses, so low that you go
off the pavement into them; they are small houses with two windows and eighteen
feet front. * .
What does it let for 2–From £. 70 to £ 100 a year.
Do you know what the opposite houses let for 2–From £. 140 to £. 150.
I dined in one of them the other day, and the dining-parlour is about as big as the
floor in my house.
(Mr. Knight.)—The size and value of the house is mere matter of opinion, I did
not go into them, but according to the frontage and the rating in the parish books,
I say that Mr. Barker is fairly rated.
Does this column, under the head of rate now paid, relate to the rates as your
company found them, without any addition ?—Unquestionably as we found them ;
they are the competition rates.
- Jonas Hall Pope, Esq. Called in; and Examined.
YOU are a Surgeon?—Yes.
In what street is the house situated respecting which you have to make a com-
plaint 2-—Somerset street, Portman-square. I paid the Grand Junction water
company till Midsummer 1819, at the rate of 24s. a year, for a house No. 26, Duke-
street, Grosvenor-square; at Midsummer 1819, I took possession of the house in
Somerset-street, No. 6.
At what rate?—At the rate of £. 2. 5s, where I had no greater supply of water,
but rather less, for I had a supply in the old house on the first floor. A few weeks
after I commenced the new house, a demand was made upon me for three quarters
of a year of arrears, for this new house, by the company.
Upon your taking possession ?–Yes. :
For what, in fact, you suppose ought to have been paid by the preceding tenant?—
Yes; and therefore I did not conceive myself justified in paying it; they suffered
me to continue in this situation six months, and they then demanded my rate with
the arrears; I refused to pay the arrears, and at the end of twelve months, Mid-
summer 1820, the collector applied for twelve months rate, and an additional three
quarters of arrears. The arrears I positively refused, but I offered to pay the year's
rate, under a protest that I would not pay it if I was not obliged or had had my
water cut off. § -
You refused to pay £. 2. 5 s, for the year 2–Yes, considering it a very great
increase from £. 1. 4s. to £. 2. 5 s, from the same company with a less supply of
Water. *,
Was it a larger house?–Rather a larger house.
In point of fact, you agreed to pay that increased rate under a protest, but you
objected to pay the arrears under any circumstances?—Yes.
What was the arrear 2—At the rate of £. 2. 5s. having paid them £. 1. 4s; on
my refusing to pay this, they cut off the pipe directly after Midsummer 1820;
it was in the month of July, some correspondence took place, but it was in Sep-
tember they cut it off, and not before, and so it has continued ever since, and I am
now without water, and have been these three months.
Have you paid any thing subject to that protest you made?—Not at all; I offered
to pay Mr. Coe at the office £. 2. 5 s. a year’s rate, but he refused.
Were you aware, when you took this new house, that there were any demands.
made for arrears?—Not at all; the former tenant, I believe, only made use of the
house for receiving letters, there was no family there, and consequently no water was
used, the individual I took the house of I have not seen from that time.
Upon taking the house did you make any such inquiry 2—When the agreement
was made between him and me, the receipts of taxes were produced, and he said
nothing more was owing. -
Was the receipt for water produced?—No ; and I conceive upon that principle
they might demand five years rate of me. With respect to refusing the advanced rate,
| º it upon the ground of not having any security what might be advanced
urther.
706. D d Did
D. R. Barker,
Esq.
~~~
(7 March)
J. H. Pope,
\—S
->
106
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
J. H. Pope,
Esq.
\– /
(7 March.)
Did you let your own house where you resided before ?–Yes.
Was there any communication between you and the other person about the water
rate?—Yes, the receipts were produced. -
Why did not you make any inquiry about the water of the preceding tenant 2–It
was not let till the quarter afterwards.
Was it in consequence of this claim of three quarters having been made upon
you that induced you to make that communication to him?—Yes, that induced
me to make that provision for his security, lest he should be placed in the same
situation.
(Mr. Coe.)—This is a case of arrears, and the information I get from the collector
is this, that No. 6, Somerset-street, was occupied by a Mr. Carr, who paid the water
rate to Michaelmas 1818, and when the collector called for the half-year's rate due
at Lady-day 1819, he found Mr. Pope instead of Mr. Carr in the house; the
company had no notice of Mr. Carr having left the house, and if he did so at Lady-
day, the company could not send for the rate previous to that period, as it was not
due ; the company could get no information from Mr. Pope where Mr. Carr was
to be found, and he was informed that they looked to the occupier of the premises
for the payment, unless he could inform the company where Mr. Carr was to be
found; Mr. Pope had time allowed for this purpose until the 11th September 1820,
and as the company could neither procure payment nor information as to Mr. Carr’s
residence, the water was ordered to be taken off.
(Mr. Pope.)—Mr. Carr did not occupy the house to Michaelmas, but only till
Christmas, he had never paid a shilling of rent; I stated to Mr. Coe at the office
that my reason for not being able to get the information was, that I did not know
where Mr. Carr was, I thought he was gone out of the way; I believe he was either
in confinement, or obliged to be out of the way to escape his creditors, so that
Mr. Carr did not occupy that house to Michaelmas 1818, nor did he pay the rate,
somebody paid the rate up to that time, and probably the collector put his name
down.
(Mr. Coe.)—After the water was taken off and Mr. Pope laid it on again.
(Mr. Pope.)—The water is not on, and I have been without it for four months,
hoping I might be brought into the situation I now stand in : I did it solely for the
purpose of bringing the company to an arrangement, either to induce them to act
according to their own act of parliament, by laying an information against me, or
any other steps that act will justify. I would make another observation, to show
how the water companies are disposed to annoy and aggravate ; I have no party
feeling towards the company; but within this last fortnight one of the officers from
the Grand Junction waterworks came to my coachman outside the door, (during
this time I have been supplied from a stable where they have two or three pumps),
the man came up and said, Tell your master I shall soon put a stop to this supply;
my young man heard it and came and told me ; I went out to him and said, Have
you any message to deliver to me, if you have, I shall be very happy to hear it.
Was that the man who had usually collected the rate 2–No, the turncock; he
said he should very soon put a stop to it by taking their water off.
Their pumps were not supplied by the Grand Junction water 2—No, the wells
are sunk. -
Was the water with which you were supplied by these other parties who assisted
you from the well sunk in the land, or tank, or reservoir, or cistern supplied by
the Grand Junction water company —From a well sunk in the land, declared by
the party who sent it to me to be so.
Did he repeat the threat to you?—He did, and I told him to make my com-
pliments to the company, and say, that I should be very glad to receive that com-
munication officially.
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS,
7
1 O
Veneris, 9° die Martij, 1821.
WILLIAM HENRY FREMANTLE, ESQUIRE,
I N T H E C H AIR.
[Mr. W. M. Coe delivered in a notice, dated Grand Junction waterworks
office, Union-street, Bond-street, 11th August 1818, which was read.]
[Mr. William Anderson, was called in, and stated, in explanation of Mr. Pope’s
evidence, that he saw Mr. Dickenson this morning, who informed him that
Mr. Pope's servant used to come generally every morning for water out of the
tank that was supplied by the Grand Junction company, and that he should be
very glad when Mr. Pope received his supply from the company, for it was an
inconvenience to him, and he did not like to have his pump worn out.]
[Mr. Knight, in reference to the evidence given by Mr. Barker, stated that the
houses Nos. 40, 41, 42 and 43, in York-street, were originally laid on to the works of
the West Middlesex company a few days previous to Michaelmas 1811; that there is a
memorandum in his book which is not very distinct; there is the word ditto written
upon the four, but it is upon the line of only one, and therefore he could not say
whether all the houses were uninhabited or some only ; but from Michaelmas
1811, when those houses first came in charge (confining himself particularly to
Mr. Barker’s house and the two adjoining houses,) Lady Murray, at No. 43, paid
£. 2 1 os. per annum to Michaelmas 1813; that the West Middlesex company
actually received £. 5 from that house; that it was then taken from them in the
competition by the New River company; that he had seen the New River com-
pany’s book, and he had also a note in his own book, that on the 27th of Sep-
tember 1813 it was taken from his works and laid on to the works of the New
River company at the reduced rate of 36.s. per annum. Mr. Barker’s house was
rated in July 1819 at three guineas; that York-street being a street building
(as it will appear by the New River book,) in 1810, the rates of that street could
not of course find their way into his book, and that the principle of twenty-five
er cent. was not acted upon there, but that it was an entire new rating ; that he
took the best guides he had, what they paid when they first came into charge
and what the neighbouring houses paid in 1810, and to the best of his judgment
they were fairly worth 5os. or £. 2. 10s. ; that therefore he put the better classes
of houses at three guineas a year, and the inferior classes at £. 2. 16s.]
Mr. James Day, Called in ; and Examined.
WHAT is your situation, and where do you reside 2–26, Duke-street, Man-
chester-square, and I am a Hatter.
State distinctly what is the nature of your grievance, whether it arises from
over-rating, the diminution of supply, or what are the grounds of your complaint?—
From being over-rated.
Now state your case?—In 1810 I paid to the New River company £. I. 16s.
per year. &
How long had you resided at Duke-street at that time, and how long had you
paid that amount?—I have been there now twenty-two years; I have entered upon
my twenty-second year; after that time I was supplied by the Grand Junction.
That is, in 181 i you were supplied by the Grand Junction?—It was after that
eriod.
p When was the first rate you paid the Grand Junction ?—I have not the receipt
by me; I have only the receipts of the West Middlesex.
What was your charge by them?—£. 1. 2 s. a year. Some time elapsed, and,
without my knowledge, I found that the concern was changed from the Grand
Junction to the West Middlesex, which supplied me upon the same terms.
What year was that?—I have left some of the receipts at home, but I have the
last receipt of the 30th of September 1820, for nine quarters £.2. 9s. 6d. that is
at the rate of £. I. 2s. per year; previous to paying that nine quarters, their
demand was
Up to what period was that receipt 2–To March 1820.
706. * * º That
Mr.
James Day.
\—J.-->
(9 March.)
los MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr. That is just all the years 1818 and 1819?—Yes; they received that money, but
James Day. , then they made a demand upon me of £, 4 more for 1818 up to 1820, from Mid-
- summer 1818 to Midsummer 1820, which I refused to pay them : in consequence
9°9′ of that, I received a letter from Mr. Knight, as follows:--Mr. Knight’s compli-
ments to Mr. Day, requests him to bring down with him his receipt for Midsummer
1810.-I went to Mr. Knight, but found I could have no sort of redress; I pro-
duced to him the receipt of 1810, but that seemed to have no sort of avail with Mr.
Knight, for he treated the matter as cavalierly as possible; he said he had referred
to the New River books, wherein the Midsummer half-year I paid in proportion to,
the '50s. a year: however, it was with some difficulty I could find this receipt
which I have produced to you : in consequence of my not complying with Mr.
Knight’s wish, they took my water from me. - -
When did they take the water from you?—Shortly after I received this letter,
within a few days.
What is the date of the letter —The 25th of last November,
You had resided in 1810 near ten years in that house?—Yes.
Do you recollect having paid at any time at a greater rate than £. I. 16s. a
year?—Yes, previous to 1810 I did ; but I appealed to the board somewhere near
Salisbury-square, and I stated that I considered I paid too much as a shopkeeper,
and they reduced it to £. I. 16s.
Do you recollect the time of that appeal P-No, I do not.
Can you fix the time with any precision ?–No, I cannot. ar -
What time was the water cut off?—Shortly after I received this letter, which I
received in November last.
It was cut off because you refused to pay the £. 4. —Yes, for the two last years,
from 1818 to 1820. - - *.
With regard to the service that was afforded to you when you paid the £. I. 16s.
or the rate of £. 2. 5s. what was the nature of it?—There was a water cask in the
area, and a cistern in the kitchen. **
You had no forced service?—No.
No high service?—No.
What was the height of the water thrown into your house above the pavement?—
I should think not above three or four feet from the pavement.
Which would that be, the kitchen one P-That would be the cistern, the cask is
below the area rails.
You had nothing above the ground floor served you?—No. -
. How was this £.4 said to arise 2–It was in consequence of the rise which took
place from the West Middlesex water company in the year 1818. -
It was for the arrear of that advance?—Yes; in consequence of my refusing to
pay that, they advanced it to £. 3. 14s. ; their demand now is £. 3. 14s. annually.
Do you include the high service in the £. 3. 14 s. as well as low?—Yes.
Have you altered your cistern ?—Yes, I have now. ſ -
What do they charge for that?—Three pounds a year. -
Distinct from the ordinary service?—Yes. - -
(Mr. Knight.)—The ordinary service at Midsummer 1810, which is the date
I take throughout the whole of the book, appears to be £. 2. 10s; the adjoining
houses, 26, 28 and 29, were all £. 2 in that year; Mr. Day's is about of the same
class; if it were not, I should make no alteration, but take it as it stood; it was
therefore under the principle that we raised the whole of the parish to £. 3. 2 s.
which was something under the twenty-five per cent. Mr. Day is one of those
ersons who refused to pay from Midsummer 1818, under the original notice we
gave, and therefore he was one of those parties who was served with a six months
notice; he must have been served with a six months notice from Midsummer,
expiring at Christmas. I apprehend at Christmas Mr. Day was applied to to pay
his rate, and he was then told, of course, that the water would be cut off; Mr. Day
came to the office, and paid the old rate, according to the notice, of £. 1. 2 s.
a year, which I received; he paid up to Christmas last, at the reduced rate. I told
him, before I gave him a receipt, what other course of proceeding would be taken
in order to put him on the same footing with his neighbours; that he would have
the option either of paying £3.2s, a year from Midsummer 1818, or that for the
future supply he would be charged f. 3. 12s, or £. 3. 14s, upon the principle that
I explained on Monday. -
(To Mr. Knight.)—Did you explain to any of your tenants who refused to pay
up
*
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
109
up arrears, that they would be charged one-fifth of those arrears for five years
only?—Certainly not; I do not recollect anything of the sort; I take it for granted
I did not. I had several conversations with Mr. Day, and he repeatedly asserted
to me that he had paid only 36s. in the year 1810, and I said, that of course
would settle the question between us, for that my books stated 50s. and I
relied upon the correctness of my own book; it has got my own mark against it
Mr.
James Day.
(9 March.)
of examination, for I compared this book with that book; I examined it myself,
and I can vouch for the correctness of it. Mr. Day denied the correctness of my
book, and insisted upon the correctness of his statement; then I said to Mr. Day,
the receipt will decide the dispute, bring it down; he promised to do so; he failed;
and it was one of those ordered to be cut off.
Did he ever produce that receipt to you ?–He did, the one now produced; and
I immediately pointed out to him, “Mr. Day, this makes my case good; this
receipt is up to Christmas 1810, and this to Midsummer-day.” *.
Did he state to you that he had obtained an abatement between one period and
the other?—No, he did not ; but still I am correct in my charge; Midsummer-day
is the time I have taken in every instance; Mr. Day’s house is the same as his
neighbours; I took the rents to Midsummer 1810; Mr. Day states that he ap-
pealed, because he was a tradesman ; that is no ground for reduction; the New
River company in liberality might reduce it, but we did not do it then. •
Did he state he had obtained an abatement?—Certainly not, to the best of my
recollection.
In point of fact, when you give the tenants the alternative of paying arrears,
or of paying some addition for five years, you charged interest and compound
interest; is that the case ?—No ; it is one-fifth on the rate; that would have stood
£. 3. los ; the board entered into no calculation as to the precise effect ; they
did it to satisfy themselves, and other parties, that those persons who had resisted
the rate from Midsummer 1818, should not be in a better situation than those who
had not. - & ! - - . º
Upon what principle do you explain that this 12 s. superadded is the fifth of the
arrear 2–It is not the fifth of the arrear, but one-fifth of £. 3. 2 s; in one word,
instead of an advance from Midsummer 1818 of twenty-five per cent. it is equal to
an advance from Christmas 1820 of fifty per cent.
(To Mr. Day.)—You stated that you paid 50s, for your ordinary service in
1810 2–I paid less than that in 1810. +. wº
For which you have been asked since, £. 3. 2s –Yes. .
Then you have said, since that, that you have had high service 2–That is
recently. --
What do you pay for your high service?—They have charged me £.3 a year.
Exclusive of your other service 2–Yes.
(Mr. Knight.)—If a tenant was to quit a house in two years, or half a year, or any
certain period, and a new tenant came in, and that person had applied, which they
naturally would do, (for the collectors show the books to every body,) a new tenant
would see the house No. 5 was £. 3. 12 s. and the house No. 4 was £. 3. 2 s. and a
new tenant would require an explanation; he would be informed ; he would make
his complaint and be restored to £. 3. 28. ; and it was only meant to apply to that
individual so long as he was in the house. -
Have you had any instances of any such restoration 2–No, it is only within
these three months.
When it was determined at a board of directors that it should be an optional
thing for a tenant to pay up the arrears or to pay a fifth for five years, were you
authorized by the directors to state distinctly that option to the tenants of the
company 2–Certainly.
You were authorized by the directors to make that plain proposition to the tenants
of the company with a distinct period of five years?—I do not recollect the precise
terms you mention, but it was an understanding. -
Have you any minute of that kind on your proceedings 2—No, I have not.
Did you give that intimation ?—No, certainly ; in the case of a change of a
tenant within the five years or any other period, certainly that additional fifth would
have been taken off that individual. . -
|Mr. Coe stated, that where applications had been made to know whether the
increased rate was to continue, he had uniformly stated that the difference was to
be paid in the ensuing year only, and that upon the principle of equalization now
706. *. € proceeded
116
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
James Day.
S.-- --->}
~-
(9 March.)
Mr.
Seth Smith.
\ –)
~~~
Mr.
AEichard Dennison.
\--—’
proceeded upon, he did not see how it was possible that the house of the person in
question who had made the application, could be continued at that high rate with
reference to other houses.]
Mr. Seth Smith, Called in ; and Examined.
WHAT is your situation and residence 2–11, Davies-street, Berkley-square.
What are you ?—A Builder.
What is the nature of your complaint 2–It is a complaint of surcharge. Early in
1819 I bought the lease of a house of Mr. Dennison, the corner of Edward-
street in Duke-street; the house was very much out of repair, and the water had
been cut off; it was off when I took to the house. I applied to the office to have
the water put on ; they told me there were five quarters rent in arrear, and that
they must refuse to put it on till that was paid. I asked what there was to pay,
and they said then f. 2. 7S, for the five quarters. I did not consider it too much ;
I thought it for so large a house very moderate; I thought it very hard I should
be obliged to pay it, and I applied to Mr. Dennison, and he said he should have
nothing to do with it, he had tendered the money as usual and they refused to
take it, and I was obliged to pay the £. 2. 7 s. and afterwards the water was imme-
diately laid on, and I was well supplied at the same rate.
You were obliged to pay the arrear of Mr. Dennison before you occupied the
house?—Before they would put on the water; I never occupied that house; I
bought it on speculation.
[Mr. Coe stated, that Mr. Smith, when he applied at the office, informed him
that Mr. Dennison had agreed to pay up all rates and taxes; Mr. Dennison was
one of those gentlemen whose rate had been increased, and left the house after
repeated applications by the collector for this rate which was unpaid, and then the
water was taken off.]
(To Mr. Coe.)—What was the increase ?—From 30s. to 38s, a year.
Mr. Richard Dennison, Called in ; and Examined.
WHERE do you live?—At No. 10, Upper York-street; I am a Surgeon : I have
been a tenant to the house for forty-three years, from the building of it, and the New
River company served me till they left me; I was waited upon by a gentleman of
the new company, and indeed I attended some of the great proprietors, two of
them in my neighbourhood, and they came to prevail upon me to change the New
River, but nothing could persuade me to do it; they had served me all along at 24s.
a year.
Up to 1806?—Yes, from the year 1777 till 1806; then there was a rise of from
24 S. to 308, by the New River. Mr. Knight came as usual, “Mr. Dennison,
I have increased you a little now, you must pay 30s.” “Very well, there it is,
it is cheap enough.” By and by he came again, “Well, old neighbour, you have
come down to the old price again, are you getting richer?” and he reduced it of his
own accord to 24s. ; I paid at that rate till the West Middlesex served me ; then
they left me again, and juggled one among another till I never knew who served
me; sometimes I had thick water and sometimes thin, but I never knew who
served me. Mr. Barnes, the collector, is in the room now, and he is very unwell,
but we always went on extremely civilly; Mr. Barnes called on me and stated the
1ſt Cºë3Se.
You say you refused to pay the arrears?—Yes; Mr. Barnes came, “Well
Mr. Dennison, will you pay me now?” “No, you know I am so concerned with
Mr. Weale (we were the first stirrers up to protect the public from the oppression),
and if I was to fetch it in a tea-cup I will not pay you more.”
More than the 24's, 2–Yes; and when Mr. Barnes called, I said I am going to
leave the house, (which I did at Christmas), you had better take it now, I am going.
Ah, says he, you will not go far, I know where to call. I made the offer and he
refused it, and I went away, and then Mr. Smith and I had certainly a promise on
my part to pay all taxes, but there was something not quite settled about insurance
with my attorney and Mr. Smith's attorney; the increase was from 24s.
They asked you for twenty-five per cent. upon the rate for 1810?–Yes, they
asked me £. I. 18s.
. As you have lived so long in the parish, can you speak to the nature of the supply
in 1810, generally?—All the time I was in my house, mine is a common sized cis-
tern across one of the areas, about four feet six inches long, and may hold ninety
gallons,
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
111
gallons, I never knew it empty either in 1810 or in 1777 when I came to the
house.
To what height did the New River supply your house?—The house never had
a water-closet; in those days they had not those indulgences; our convenience was
upon a level with the street; water was upon the ground floor, and therefore it had no
connection with the water being served; but when I had a convenience to wash my
hands, I tried whether it would rise, and it would always rise to that, which was
about four feet above the first floor.
Do you mean the drawing-room floor?—The drawing-room floor.
That must have been from the ground at least fourteen or fifteen feet high?—
I suppose mine are ten feet ceilings; I have no step, from the street it is pretty
level.
In what year was that?—Twenty years ago, five-and-twenty years ago, it was not
at first when I went into the house. -
You are an old inhabitant and have paid attention to this part of the subject; do
you happen to know of your knowledge whether these increased rates have been paid
voluntarily by any one?—I do not know one ; I am a very long practitioner as you
may see, and I am in the habit of attending very superior people, and in my pro-
fession very low ones. -
You have been acting a good deal with Mr. Weale?—Yes.
You took the greatest care in going round to the people never to say a word
whether they had been compelled to pay ?—Yes, I did.
You did not, as a surgeon, feel their pulse on the subject 2—I scarce waited for
that, I always gave them my advice; and some of the first and best subscriptions
I have collected from the highest people; but I understand Mr. Knight has said we
got shilling subscriptions to pay it, but they did not happen to be collected by me,
I got nothing less than a guinea; but perhaps a large sum of money of a thousand
pounds being collected by shillings would show a large majority of people.
You are a very old inhabitant, and you have attended to these proceedings of
water companies; do you recollect that notice having been left at your house [the
notice produced by Mr. Coel?—I dare say it was, I had a quantity of notices.
You have no doubt it was left at your house?—I have not a doubt but it was ;
they never neglected calling upon me. Now I have a small complaint to make.
What is the nature of it?—Increase of rent.
To what amount 2—The old was £. 3. 2s. the new rate £. 5. 5s.
º you mean the old rate for 1810, or an abated rate?—I suppose it was
Iłl I & H. O.
What house is it?–Colonel Martin’s, No. 8, Stratford-place, served by the
Grand Junction; he was out of town, and he wrote and begged I would prevent the
water being cut off from the servants, and Mr. Barnes was good enough to promise
me it should not, which it has not; he has kept his word; here is the last receipt to
Lady-day 1820, six quarters, £, 7.17s.6d.
l How much of that is for high service?—No high service, there is none in the
iOllSe.
(To Mr. Coe.)—It appears that the arrears that were personally due from
Mr. Dennison, were claimed from Mr. Smith, and received from him?—Yes.
Mr. Dennison appearing to be a solvent and responsible person, and living
Mr.
Richard Dennison.
(9 March.)
within the parish, and known to be so to your collector?—He had removed out of
our district.
It was known where he was 2—Yes.
Upon what principle do your company act in respect to arrears; do you in the
first instance claim from the occupant of the house, or follow the tenant and seek
for recovery from him personally, so long as he is forthcoming 2—Our usual course
is to apply to the present occupier first.
Suppose the occupier in any instance to say, this is not for my time, Mr. A. B.
owes this money, and lives at such a place, and is solvent, should you think it your
duty to seek payment from that person before you came upon the occupier?—
Undoubtedly.
Are we to understand that in general cases you resort only to the occupier for
*Years not in his own time, when you cannot find the person who incurred them?—
That is generally the case. $
Why, in this case, did you depart from that rule?—Because Mr. Dennison had
refused to pay the rent.
Yºº to the extent of your power with the old occupier before you go to the
700. IlêW
H I 2
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Richard Dennis
\.
Afr.
~~
(9 March.)
M?.
O??.
_/
John T 'horowgoodſº
\
TNL-T
–Z
new one –Not in this instance; if Mr. Dennison had occupied in the place we
supplied with water, we should have cut the water off of that house.
In point of fact, you consider the house responsible?—Yes.
Looking to the house, have you any limit of time to which you carry back
arrears —Where cases have come before us we have seldom taken, I think, mor
than a twelvemonth. \
That is your general limit 2–Yes.
In this instance it is more; did you remit a quarter –I understood so from the
collector.
What was received from Mr. Smith ?—Two pounds seventeen shillings and six-
pence.
Was that for five quarters, or for four –It appears by Mr. Smith’s statement that
£. 2. 7 s. has been received, which is five quarters; but the information that I got
from the collector was that an allowance had been made to Mr. Smith, because
Mr. Smith had stated that he could not get the whole from Mr. Dennison, although
he had promised to pay up all rates and taxes.
Do you not recollect any instance where you have received beyond four quar-
ters ?–O, I think it is possible.
What is the general principle on which you claim the arrears from the outgoing
tenant 2—That we consider the premises liable for the payment of what is due from
them.
(Mr. Knight.)—I concur, on the part of the West Middlesex company, subject
to a modification, according to circumstances.
(To Mr. Coe.)—Is there any limitation of time as to the liability of the premises
beyond which you do not go back 2–I do not know that there is, except where
cases of appeal have been taken into consideration.
(To Mr. Knight.)—Is that so with you?—Yes.
Mr. John Thorowgood, Called in ; and Examined.
WHERE do you reside?—In Southmolton-street, and am a Plasterer by trade.
What is the nature of your complaint?—The nature of my complaint first begins
with the gross deception practised upon me by the company and its agents, with
regard to the price at which they would supply me with water; their subsequent
advance; their not offering me any agreement, unless I paid up what they were
pleased to term money due to them for two years, which I considered I had no right
to pay. # *
What was the first application made to you; at what period?—The last money that
I paid to the Chelsea company, was in the year 1814, at Michaelmas; a few weeks
previous to that, I believe I had become a tenant to the Grand Junction company;
I find from the year 1808 to 1814, I paid £. i. 6 s. annually; and I would beg to
observe, that during twenty years residence in Southmolton-street, I never found
any inadequacy of supply from the Chelsea company.
Have your cisterns been altered, enlarged, increased or diminished 2–Not so ;
they were the same when I first became a tenant of the Grand Junction company
as before I commenced it; I had had a vast number of applications from their agents,
and representations that I should oblige certain persons with whom I was con-
nected in trade, by taking water from them; I resisted it until I was informed by
Mr. Purkis that I might as well make a merit of leaving the Chelsea company
instead of letting it go till they were obliged to leave the district ; I then applied
to the Grand Junction, and saw Mr. Bateman Robson, and several other gentle-
men; having known Mr. Robson many years, I communicated to him my wish to
become a tenant, and to know on what terms they would serve me ; he inquired
what I paid; I told him ; indeed I believe I took a receipt ; Mr. Robson said, very
good, Mr. Thorowgood, we profess to serve cheaper than the other company, we
will serve you for a pound; I observed to him that it was not what I paid was the
object, it was certain conveniences which they promised, and the other company
could not give me, which induced me to change.
What was the nature of those conveniences?—That the water was always on ;
that it would rise to any height; that I had an additional safeguard from fire by
that means, and also that I should pay more reasonably was a secondary object ;
I then told him, instead of a pound suppose you make it a guinea; he said, very
well; and at a guinea we went on until about two years from last Michaelmas.
Till
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
1 13
Till the year 1817 then P-Until the year 1818; during the year 1818 I was
waited on several times by the collector, who demanded an increased rate of me, to
the amount of 33 s. a year; I told him I was very much surprised at such a de-
mand, I had agreed to be served at a guinea, and I never would pay an increase
unless I was compelled so to do : some time afterwards you are aware that the
Anti Water Monopoly Association took place, and feeling myself aggrieved, I be-
came a member, and a very active one. I had made this resistance previously, and
told the collector I would not pay unless I was compelled, every time he came
offering him the old rate. I then received a notice, inviting me to go to the office,
where my complaint would be heard. -
[The notice was read.]
In consequence of that notice, in company with two of my neighbours, house-
keepers in the same street, I went to see the directors, and hear what they had to
say; they told me they were empowered by an act of parliament to charge twenty-
five per cent. upon the rates of 1810; I replied it was not so, for they took nothing
by that pretended act, it was thrown out; and I made my former observation that
I should resist the payment till I was compelled; that they had totally failed in all
their promises made to me, and I felt myself seriously disappointed and very much
injured in consequence thereof, for that I had been at an expense of near twenty
pounds in different shapes, in consequence of the promises they had made to me.
What was that expense?—In my sheds; for the supply of my business I had
a tank or reservoir of water, which was always filled by the Chelsea company three
times a week; from that I had a pump to serve from the tank, and in addition
to this, as their water was to come such a great height, I thought I might as well
enjoy some of the comforts to be enjoyed, and in a small dressing closet, on the
first floor, I put a wash-hand basin.
After you were served by the Grand Junction you added this luxury 2—Yes,
I did, and I had my water come in very copiously at first ; I could draw water
at any time of the day. I told them I had taken down the pump, and sold it for
old lead; I had filled up my tank, and that very soon after I became a tenant of
theirs I had only the water come in about an hour and a half a day instead of
being always on. * - - -
You were assured by Mr. Robson originally that you should have it always on?—
That was my agreement. I should observe, when I made the agreement with the
directors, I inquired what security I should have, that when they had driven the
other companies out of the street I should not be raised, and the answer of
Mr. Robson was, , Mr. Thorowgood, if you have any doubts of that description
we will give you a lease for any number of years; I said, I have known you many
years, and I think your word will answer my purpose as well; we went on com-
plaining; I frequently made complaints personally, never by letter till I received
this six months notice, which expired last Michaelmas; a few days before Michael-
mas I went to the office with a neighbour, Mr. Wilson, and wished to know in
what way they regarded this notice, for I confessed I did not perfectly compre-
hend it, but if I understood it right, I presumed that they undertook to serve me
at the old rate of one guinea a year until Michaelmas 1820; Mr. Coe at that time
was out of town, Mr. Robson and Major Blagrave I saw ; those gentlemen told me
they had not quite made up their mind on the subject, and as Mr. Coe was out of
town, if I would take the trouble to look in in a few days I should have some fur-
ther information; accordingly when Mr. Coe came to town, I again applied at the
office, and Mr. Coe said, I understood it correctly, the notice was to that effect,
that they were bound to take the old rate until the expiration of this notice; I was
then indebted to them for eight quarters, -
The notice is Lady-day 1820?–Yes, it is ; we then went on for some few
days afterwards, but I believe I told Mr. Coe before I left the office, then you
may send the collector for the rate when you please, I shall be ready to pay him ;
and on the 12th of October the collector called with a receipt ready written.
Read that receipt 2–“ Received, the 12th day of October 1820, of Mr. Thorow-
good, the sum of £. 2. 2s. for eight quarters water rent due to the Grand Junction
company at Michaelmas 1820;” signed, “Richard Nicholson.” -
That was the expiration of your notice?—Yes; I paid this rate, and I then told
him my neighbour Mr. Wilson was down at Brighton, and he had commissioned
me to pay his rate upon the same terms. “The old rate,” he said ; “Yes, and no
more, he is served with the same notice.” The collector was a little irritated, and
796. Ff - Nº. Wrote
Mr.
John Thorowgood.
(9 March)
114
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
John Thorowgood.
(9 March.)
wrote out the receipt, and forgot to sign his name to it, but I paid him ; as soon
as I paid the money, he asked, “Have you made any new agreement with the
company?” “No, I have not; they have never tendered any agreement to me,
or called on me to make one:” “Then, sir, your water will be cut off imme-
diately,” was his very short reply; I observed, upon such information, that it was
at his peril to cut off my water, or to deprive me of the supply, as it was likely
some further proceedings would be taken on it; he took no notice, but in half an
hour afterwards some men came and withdrew my ferrule of service from the main
plpe. -
"was this before the expiration of the notice 2–No, it was in October, some days
after ; and I really thought myself, as they had entered into another year, that
they had a right to serve me to the end of that year; the same operation was per-
formed on my neighbour Mr. Wilson’s pipe also ; I went to the men who were
opening the ground, and inquired by whose authority they were so doing; they
told me, by the authority of the Grand Junction company; I said, I believe you
are right, for I know you, I have seen you at the office; the next morning I again
opened the ground, and I employed a plumber, and laid my water on myself, and
also my neighbour Wilson’s ; and I did it by open day-light, in hopes that some
of their agents might observe it, and that they would commence some proceedings;
however, if they knew it, they took no notice of it ; and some short time after-
wards I wrote a note to Mr. Coe, and complained that I thought they had visited
me with the utmost vengeance, and asked on what terms they would give me a
new supply.
Did you mention to him that you had got it?—No, I did not ; I did not receive
any answer to my first application ; I wrote a second, complaining of neglect, to
Mr. Coe, in not answering the first application; Mr. Coe then called on me the
next day, or a day or two afterwards, and in justice to Mr. Coe I must say he
behaved very politely on the subject; we had a long conversation, but in the end
he failed in convincing me I was not right.
Was Mr. Coe aware of the water being put on again?—No. t
You did not inform him upon that visit?—Yes; but afterwards, after a long
conversation, I told Mr. Coe it was very apparent I could no more do without
water than without bread, and as they were the only persons in the market, I was
obliged to take it of them, and therefore I wanted to know the terms. Mr. Coe
observed I could not expect to be in a better situation than my neighbours, and I
must pay all arrears, (I disclaimed any being due,) which amounted to £. 1. 4s ; he
called on me on the first of November, at my dwelling house, for the purpose
of arranging terms for my future supply of water; he wished me to give up my
receipt, a receipt which I now have here, to Michaelmas, and take a new one for
the advanced rate, for the two years past, amounting to £. 1. 4s. more than I had
paid the collector up to Michaelmas last. --
And of course to pay the difference?—Yes; on my refusal to give up the receipt
he agreed to send the collector for £. 1. 4s. and to serve me in future at the rate
of £. 1. 13s. per year; then I had this signed by a witness, (for I did not know
what use I might make of it,) that I this day paid the collector £. 1. 4s. because
I could not have a receipt. - -
And since that you have stood at the rate of £. 1: 1382–Yes. -
And you have the water now 2–Yes; before Mr. Coe parted from me, he said
he would send a man to lay the water on, and I informed Mr. Coe then that I
had it. The Committee will permit me to observe on what I have heard in this
room. I have heard it stated by the secretaries from the different companies, that
very few persons, compared with the mass, resisted this advance. In Southmolton-
street the majority resisted, and that, with very few exceptions, they did not pay
until they brought their instruments of destruction in a wheelbarrow to their doors.
With regard to the quantity, on a former day I heard it named before this Com-
mittee, that each house received a considerable quantity of water; I have taken the
trouble to measure six following houses in Albemarle-street, Piccadilly, considering
they were houses moderately sized, between very large and very small, and I found
the average quantity, supposing they used the whole which their cisterns would
contain, and that their cisterns were always emptied, when they were filled they
amounted to 1373 gallons each day. w
Upon a calculation of how many days service to a house 2–Seven ; that will
give you, first, a description of the house, the number of cisterns, the contents of
each cistern, the number of days served in each week, the number of gallons served
* . . . 1I]
ON THE SUPPLY OF water. To THE METROPOLIS.
I 15
in each week, the average quantity of gallons per day to each house, the yearly
Mr.
water rent (where I could get at it) formerly paid, and that now paid : among these John Thorowgood.
houses I have taken two hotels, whose consumption cannot be considered small.
[The paper was delivered in.]
Dr. Robert Masters Kerrison, Called in ; and Examined.
WHAT is your situation?—No. 12, New Burlington-street.
Are you a physician?—I am.
Will you be so good as to state, in a very few words, what the nature of your
complaint is?—Between 1808 and 1812 or 1813, I paid two guineas a year to the
New River company; about that time I was solicited by a gentleman, whom I con-
sider a personal friend, Mr. Cockerell, to take the water from the Grand Junction
company ; I did so, without any stipulation as to price; at the expiration of the usual
\—J.--—'
(9 March.)
Dr.
R. M. Kerrison.
term of half a year, the collector called on me, and I paid £. 1 for half a year, and
continued from that period either the end of 1812 or 1813 (the books of the com-
pany can of course elucidate that point) paying at the rate of £, 2 a year until
1819, a period of five or six years. .
Till what period?—The demand was made at Michaelmas; it must have been up
to Michaelmas 1818 that I paid it.
Do you pay yearly or half-yearly 2—Half-yearly ; but in the month of July
1819, I received a printed notice, which I have in my pocket, that the water rate
was increased to six guineas and a half a year; this was in the last week of July
1819; this notice was left in my absence, and I thought some error might have crept
into the account, but the next day or the day after, my next door neighbour, oc-
cupying No. 11, Mr. Mathias, whose house is like mine in dimensions and form,
without coach-house and stables, called on me and asked me whether I had received
any notice about the advance of the water rate; I said, yes I have, and here it is ;
what has happened to you? “I have received notice also, and they have advanced
me to seven guineas from £, 2.” I have brought with me the notice that had been
left at his house; and being at home when the collector called, he spoke to the col-
Hector, he remonstrated with him on the great increase of charge, and the collector
said, Sir, do you consider it too much, or words to that effect; the collector actually
in this notice made a deduction of 5s. 3d. from £. 3. 13s. 6d. upon the assessment
of Mr. Mathias, leaving him at six guineas and a half from seven guineas. It
appears to me, and I think it will appear to you, gentlemen, that there has been
some alteration of figures here, of course prior to the time of this being delivered to
the tenant Mr. Mathias, because a deduction of 5 s. 3d. leaving a sum of £.3. 8s. 3d.
will prove the previous sum, if it had been altered, had been altered prior to that
time; it looks as if it had been £. 2. 12 s. I happen to have one of my old receipts, of
November 1818 before, the half-yearly rate of £. 2.
Mr. Mathias never paid the seven guineas, because it was reduced to £.6. 16s. 6d;
—Yes; but I think that deduction was made on leaving my notice, or prior to leaving
my notice, so that whether I had been originally at six guineas and a half, and
whether Mr. Mathias had been assessed at seven guineas, and that conversation
left an impression on the mind of the collector that six guineas and a half had been
the sort of thing for me to pay, and figured mine in equally, I do not know. On
the receipt of that information, I considered it proper to inquire of the gentleman
who requested me to take water from this company, the meaning of this great ad-
vance; I accordingly wrote to Mr. Cockerell, and he replied to me very properly.
He is one of the directors?—I believe he is interested in the affairs of the com-
pany; he replied to me in the manner a gentleman would be expected to reply, and
said in his letter, which I have in my pocket, that the fair interests of the company
required an advance of twenty-five per cent. upon the rates of 1810. I immediately
replied to him, that I was willing to make an advance of twenty-five per cent. upon
the rate of 1810; and as that was a rate of two guineas a year, I was desirous it
should be an advance upon that rate. Mr. Cockerell wrote to me in answer,
that he had referred my letter to the company, and there our correspondence
ceased : I heard nothing directly : I had one or two indirect communications
from the company, at least I presume they were indirect communications from
the company, because they were from personal friends of the directors. I men-
tioned it to Mr. Chilver, requesting him as he wished to adjust any thing that
might be a cause of dispute; I repeated to him in writing, after having offered in
wº to Mr. Cockerell five-and-twenty per cent. advance, my wish to prevent all
706. * \ -. • future
I 16
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
}}r.
R. M. Kerrison.
S—sº-
(9 March.)
future trouble or difficulties, and stated my readiness to advance twenty-five per cent.
on the rate of 1810; and by that time I had become acquainted with the proceed-
ings in Parliament in the preceding session, which I was unacquainted with up to
that time, and I repeated my offer of twenty-five per cent. advance, and pledged
myself to continue that advance, whether, the company were or were not legally
entitled to make that advance. I heard nothing from Mr. Chilver; this carried me
to the end of December : in the interim I had seen by the papers, that there was
a general dissatisfaction respecting the water companies, and I then was disposed
to wait the result of that public inquiry, but I thought it gentlemanly and proper,
to prevent all future misunderstanding of my motives, to write a letter to the directors
officially, stating my two previous offers of twenty-five per cent, on the old rate,
which I did, and which letter I will hand to the Chairman if he pleases. Previously
to that letter, in September 1819, the secretary of the Grand Junction company
called on me, and he then assured me that the company was willing to make some
abatement of the demand of £.6. 16 s. 6d ; I said “what is the nature of that
abatement?” he said, “Sir, you will be charged £. 3. 15s. for the usual supply, and
£. I. 15s, for high service;” my remark upon that was, that I had been supplied
for several years with water in the cistern, that originally I had a forcing-pump,
but that in consequence of the water being offered to me at any part of the house
my forcing-pump had been suffered to go to decay and had been then removed.
Is there any difference of cisternage between the periods you speak of 2–Not any,
nor up to this hour. -
None from 1810?–None from 1808; the forcing-pump had gone to decay,
and as I had been supplied for several years and without any claim for extra charge
on account of water rising to the level of the second floor, I did not see how, in
fairness, that charge could be assumed now ; therefore I resisted the propriety of
such a charge after having been supplied for several years with water in that situa-
tion without any intimation except the notice respecting the intention of the com-
pany to make a charge; the conversation with Mr. Coe ended, I believe, not to
our mutual satisfaction ; I was not convinced by his arguments of the propriety of
such an advance, and Mr. Coe left me. Mr. Coe the secretary conducted himself
with the propriety and manners of a gentleman, but failing to convince me on the
propriety of the advance, on rising from his chair he said, “very well, sir, then
the company will act accordingly ;” upon which I replied, “very well, I am pre-
pared for that ; good morning to you.” I state these words as the only words on
my memory bearing on that point; and I beg to state that I have nothing like a
feeling of personal disrespect to Mr. Coe. I received a reply from the secretary
of the company of September the 29th, merely stating my letter had been received;
then, wishing not to get into any error, and there being a year’s rate due at
Michaelmas 1819, I sent to the collector a tender of the usual year’s rate. I had
only received notice of the assessment in the fourth quarter of the year, so that I
had been incurring a charge of six guineas and a half a year, according to the
assessment, for three quarters and above, prior to my knowledge of that advance.
I sent a brief note to the collector, with a tender of the money then due at the old
rate, £. 2; the collector hesitated to receive it and did not receive it, but sent a
civil message stating that the sum not corresponding with the sum in his books,
he could not receive it, but would call the next day; he did so, and explained to me
that the sum not corresponding with his books he could not receive it; that he was
only a servant of the company and could only do his duty. I got a letter of the
19th of October in these words, , , , ,
[It was read..] .
Having received this official reply that my twenty-five per cent. on the rate of 1810,
would not be accepted after having been reiterated twice, I then attended a meeting
of those who conceived themselves aggrieved, at Willis's rooms, on the 25th of October;
there was a meeting advertised for the parish of Mary-le-bone prior to that time, be-
tween the period of my sending the letter to the directors and receiving an official
answer, but considering that as I had not received an answer it would be rejected, it
was proper to abstain from all intercourse with those in opposition to the company
till I had their reply; but when I had the reply, and found I was to be assessed at
£.5. 10s. I considered it my duty to resist the demand unless it was legalized ; I
therefore attended, and stated briefly what I have now said; a few days afterwards
I was informed that a very erroneous account of what I had said was put in a public’
mewspaper, the Morning Post; I obtained the Morning Post of the 1st Nºmº,
* a Il
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS,
1 1 7
and saw certainly that it was very contrary to my expressions, and very contrary to
the real state of the case, as, it concerned me; I therefore sent a letter to the
editor of the Post, requesting him to contradict, or at least to state what I did
say. I received notice in March 1820 that the period of supply would terminate
at the next Christmas; I sent the money to the office for two years rates then due,
at the old rate; it was not received then, but a message was returned that the
secretary would call on me; the secretary called a day or two afterwards, and
received the old rate, and gave me a receipt up to Michaelmas last : in my commu-
nication to the secretary I had stated my readiness to pay the old rate, and the
thing being then sub judice no more than the old rate, the collector waited on me
and received the rate. In the course of that day three men came into the street,
and with the usual implements for removing stones, were taking up the pavement;
I called them in to ascertain their intention, in the presence of a carpenter at work
in my house, and the man said he came by order of Mr. Baker, the collector, to
remove the service of water, and that it was his business to do so upon all defaulters;
I showed my receipt to prove that 1 was at least not a defaulter; and he then said,
I will go up to the office, (leaving the men in the street till his return,) for authority
to act; he returned; I told him before he went, in the presence of the carpenter,
that I was willing to continue paying, that it was contrary to my wish that the sup-
ply of water should be taken off, and that I was not a defaulter; a man came and
told the carpenter that he had orders to do his duty; the stones were removed, and
the service taken off, and I was left without water from the company; I was then
thrown upon the necessity of obtaining what I could, which was at considerable
expense to dig a well, which I did, and erected a pump, and had plenty of water,
5 * ...
but not fit for culinary purposes, but hard water; and I have here an account of
the expenses incurred in consequence of cutting off the supply, contrary to my ex-
press injunctions; the amount of the bill was £. 32. 2 s. 3 # d. and I am still of course
without any supply except that which I obtained from a well, and which, from
the wells of my neighbours, must be very precarious, because the wells to the right
and left are dry. .
What do you now do for water for culinary purposes?—My washing is sent out,
and for other purposes I use this water; my servants tell me it uses a great deal of
soap, and then answers very inadequately.
You do not borrow of your neighbours?—Not at all. .
You are noways connected with the association that was formed 2–Yes; on the
25th of October 1819, after receiving the refusal of the company to lower the
demands below £. 5. 10 s. but before that I had had no communication direct or
indirect with any one of the members, except with Mr. Mathias my neighbour.
You say the collector informed you that the charge of £.6. 16s. 6d. would be
reduced to £.5. 10s. ?—Not the collector, the secretary.
The arrears are claimed on £. 5. los. 2–The arrears were asked for, but not
insisted on last October.
In point of fact, is the claim made upon you now by the company upon the
arrear of £. 5. 10s, or £. 6. 16s. 6d P-It has never been stated ; I give the com-
pany the credit of believing it would be on the minor rate.
A demand in money has been made?—Yes, twice, £. 5. 10s. instead of £. 2.
(To Mr. Coe. J–How was the first assessment of six guineas and a half made?—
Upon an external examination of the house.
Not upon any reference to the rates of 1810?–No; then I afterwards saw
Mr. Kerrison’s house internally; and the house is much smaller than I had reason
to believe from its external appearance. ... -
And the letter you wrote had reference to that more correct knowledge of the
house 2–Yes.
In your mode of rating this house of Dr. Kerrison you proceeded at once upon
the principle of judging what your charge for the supply of such a house should
be, without any reference to the rates of 1810?–Yes. -
In making this assessment upon this particular house, had you or had you not a
general reference to the rates of 1810?–Yes, with regard to other houses.
Your object was to correct disproportions which you considered existed between
some house and another?—Yes.
}}r.
R. M. Kerrison.
S--→
(9 March.)
Mi Nijº'ÉS ſº EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEF
JM
7".
William Harris.
\–--~~~~
(12 March.)
Mr.
William Amsted.
S-C –’
Mr.
William Harris.
\
~~
Luna, 12" die Martij, 1821.
WILLIAM HENRY FREMANTLE, ESQUIRE,
I N T H E C H A R R.
Mr. William Harris, Called in ; and Examined.
$7 IL L you state your residence and your situation ? — Auctioneer and
Appraiser, 27, Norton-street, Mary-le-bone.
What rate did you pay up to 1810 2–I cannot exactly state; I do not think
I ever paid more than 30 S. -
[It appeared from the books that the rate in 1810 was 30s.]
In what year did you change your water from the New River to the West
Middlesex company 2–– In January 1818. -
When did they make the rise upon you ?–I believe very soon after that. *
Do you recollect at what period 2–I believe it ran on for two years; and I always.
resisted the payment of it; I tendered the old rates, but resisted the new ones.
Did you continue to pay the 30s, after that period?—No ; I believe I did not
pay any increased rate.
What are you now paying?—£. 1. 48.
What does the arrear upon that amount to ?—They gave me a notice charging
me 37s ; that I objected to ; and when I went to Mr. Knight the last time, he.
told me I must pay 45s. and they had the day before cut off the water; and he
said, if I meant to have the water at all, I must enter into an agreement in writing;
I wished to see what the agreement was, and he put it in annually, and I objected
to that, because I expected to get redress before that year was out from the
honourable House of Commons.
Was this stated to be a fifth added by way of arrear 2–It was not stated in
any way.
It was not stated it was to last for five years?—No such thing; I never heard of
that till I heard it in this room.
Mr. H/illiam Amsted, Called in ; and Examined.
STATE the grounds of this charge?–It is one of those cases of which you have
had other instances of a fifth added. In 1810 Mr. Harris’s house was charged
30s a year; it was increased to 37 s. a year, and Mr. Harris paid his old rate up
to Christmas 1820, and the water was then cut off, and I gave him the option to
pay the arrears, or to sign an agreement to pay 45s, and he preferred signing an
agreement for one year only, and I have the agreement here.
[The agreement was read.] - º
(To Mr. Harris.)—Will you go to the next case you have to state 2—The next
is a case of surcharge from £. I. 1 S. to £. I. 10.S. for small houses, where I have
tenants, in the upper part of Mary-le-bone. I have two houses in that state,
Nos. I 1 and 12, Newnham-street, and premises in Mary-le-bone-lane under similar
circumstances. *
What is the amount of charge 2–The charge originally was 17s. I think for the
year, and now it is £. 1. 4s. f
What number is that in Mary-le-bone-lane –35; I have some houses in Crown-
street, Soho. & - -
What are the houses?—Nos. 24 and 27 ; and here is another, No. 57, Dean-
street, of the same description; I had to distrain for the rent there, and I did not
get enough to pay myself, and they would not put on the water for the new tenant
till I had paid up the arrears.
What were the arrears P-Two quarters, for 24 and 27, ‘. 1 due at Midsummer
1820; in Dean-street, the receipt is dated the 11th of October 1820, received
16s. 6d. three quarters rent for water due to the New River company Lady-day
1820 : there are two houses of mine, Nos. 3 and 4, Rose-street, Soho, in the same
predicalment. -
This all fell out in the year 1820?– Yes, that I paid them ; the former tenants
leases expired at Christmas, and it was for water rent previous to that time. -
* T}o
oN THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 1 19
,”
Do you say, with regard to those houses, that you distrained for your rent 2— ... Mr.
I did on that one in Dean-street. William Harris.
How much did you recover of that rent 2–Within four or five pounds. \-J-7|
* , º •ol
How much rent was due when you distrained, what does the house let for a * March,
year?—Fifty guineas. -
You lost a tenth of the year’s rent?—I do not know exactly.
As to the others in Crown-street, did you get your own rent?—Yes.
Did you ever go before the New River board upon these cases, or appeal to
them P−No, never.
[Mr. Rowe, on the part of the New River company, admitted the truth of
the statement of Mr. Harris.] *
What is the next case?—A case of the Chelsea company; this is a house I let to
the Duke of Cambridge, on the south side of Saint James’s park, and he uses it for
a military depot; I pay all the taxes, and he pays me a certain rent per annum ; it
is called the Sheepcote. f
State the case ?—They have raised me from £. I. 1 S. to £. 3. 3s. I wish to give
some explanation upon that: when I first made the purchase there were two com-
panies served that situation, the Grand Junction and the Chelsea ; the Chelsea
being attempting to continue the service, asked me to continue with them ; I told
them, if they served on the same principle as others, I would ; they took at the rate
of one guinea per annum until this combination among the companies took place,
and then they sent me a letter, which I have here, demanding at the rate of three
guineas; there was some alteration made in the premises; there was a cistern in the
wash-house, and to accommodate the quarter-master, I converted a building called
the stable into a kitchen for his use, and I removed the cistern into this place, and
they charge me now two supplies. .
You have no cistern in the old place?—No ; it is made into a parlour that room.
Youssay you abided by the Chelsea company; did not you pay two guineas a
year before ?—Not to my knowledge; I do not recollect; they took a guinea a year
for some years. t
When did you put up this cistern ?—five or six years ago.
Anciently there was a water butt or cistern ?—-A cistern, and that cistern I re-
moved from one place to another.
But you have since put up a water butt in the old situation ?—There is a water
butt put there, and I put it there.
In point of fact, you have two supplies instead of one?—Yes; but it is on the
same premises. ſ *
Is it the same house or a distinct and separate house 2–It is a distinct kitchen.
Was the spot in which you have placed the cistern a part of the house which you
took and let originally to the quarter-master-general?—Yes; it was a stable.
It is not a part of the house P-No; it is at a distance from the house.
Was there any supply to that stable originally 2–No.
You took no pains to make any communication to the company, that you had taken
on this fresh supply of yourself?—No, I did not.
(Mr. Lynde...)--The house that Mr. Harris has taken, paid since the year 1810,
two guineas per annum; when he first came into it he applied to the collector to
know the rate, he was told two guineas per annum ; he said if you will reduce it to
one guinea I will continue with you. *
Mr. William Knowles, Called in ; and Examined.
Mr. *
HOW long have you collected in this district?—Nearly eight years. William Knowles.
When did you first communicate with Mr. Harris 2—In the year 1815. \–~~"
What did you then collect from him for water rate?—Mr. Rock left the premises at
Christmas 1814, and he paid me three quarters of a year at Christmas 1814, at the rate
of two guineas per annum. Shortly afterwards Mr. Harris called on me, and told
me he had purchased the house of Mr. Rock, and that if I would reduce him to a
guinea he would stay with the company, and if I would not he would go to the
Grand Junction company, who had a few weeks before drove pipes into York-street;
I, told Mr. Harris I could not possibly reduce the house without consulting
with my superior officers; I consulted with Mr. Simpson; Mr. Simpson advised me
to mention it to the board; I did so ; the board said they would not allow me to make
the reduction, but I stated as a reason why I wished the reduction, or why I thought
it would be better to comply with it, that to get to Mr. Harris's house, the Grand
706. Junction.
3 2 Q
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
William Knowles.
S--—
(12 March.)
Junction company would have to pass through a court containing twelve houses that
paid £.6. 12s. to the company, twelve small houses; the board then said, settle the busi-
mess as well as you can. I saw Mr. Harris afterwards, and I did agree with Mr. Harris,
my principal motive for agreeing with him, was to keep the pipes out of that court, and
where I should have lost twelve houses had I not complied. I have made a draft of
the situation on a paper here, which I would hand to the Committee. In 1818,
when the alteration took place, Mr. Harris was put upon the old rent of two guineas
and raised to three, but in a very short period of time the company agreed to take off
five-and-twenty per cent. and it was reduced to £. 2. 13 s. instead of three guineas.
Mr. Harris has called upon me frequently and has tendered me a guinea a year,
but as I could not take that, I have not taken any thing from Mr. Harris, and he
owes at Lady-day three years rent. I went with Mr. Simpson to see that the
'house was not overrated at the two guineas, and Mr. Simpson measured it, and he
found it measured fifty-four feet by eighteen, which was within the rate the company
charged at that time; but in going through this we discovered a very meat little
cottage on one side of the garden (the house stands in a garden,) and on one side
was a small dwelling. Mr. Harris has explained that, by saying he had removed
the cistern that was in the scullery to this new building; that Mr. Dwelley who
inhabited the house wanted that part where the water used to be conveyed for his own
dwelling; he made a parlour of this place; the new building is a totally new service,
and the old pipe which used originally to serve the old house in what was called
Mír.
S. D. Beare.
S--—’
the scullery, is removed into the centre of the building, or some other part, to supply
Mr. Dwelley’s foreman, whose family live in that part of the house.
You say that the same supply which was afforded to the house, previous to the
removal of the cistern, is still supplied?—The same pipe that supplied originally
serves now with the addition of this pipe.
And an additional water butt is put up 2–Yes; if there are two services theſe
must be two receptacles.
You have stated as a reason for accepting his proposal, that it was in conse-
quence of the plain and palpable injury to you from others driving pipes in that
neighbourhood —Yes. w - -
Therefore if he had made a lower proposal you would have accepted it?—It is
very probable I might, after consulting the board.
(Mr. Coe.)—As to the rates of Nos. 11 and 12, Newnham-street, they were 258.
each in 1810.
Mr. Shirley David Beare, Called in...; and Examined.
YOU are partner with Mr. Hatchett, are not you?—Yes.
‘Hotel-keepers in Piccadilly?—Yes.
How long have you resided in that house 2–Only two years and a half: if Mr.
Hatchett had been in town he would have attended the Committee. A.
How long has Mr. Hatchett resided there?—He and his father and grandfather
have had it near a century. - -
What rent did you pay in 1810?–I have not the receipts for that year; I have
the receipts for 1813 and 1814; we were supplied up to Lady-day 1814 by the
"Chelsea and New River companies.
What did you pay up to Lady-day 18; 42—f. 11. 4s. the two together; two
guineas a year to the New River; £. 9. 2 S. to the Chelsea,
When did you change to the Grand Junction company?—From Lady-day to
Michaelmas 1814 was the first change ; in the early part of 1814 some gentlemen,
representing themselves agents of that company, waited on Mr. Hatchett, and
begged his house might be supplied by that company instead of the two former
companies; those gentlemen promised the supply should be superior, as there would
be high services, and the charge would be much lower. -
Was this representation made to you ?—No, to Mr. Hatchett.
Not in your presence?—No ; Mr Hatchett is very ill in the country, and he
has given me these particulars, but he will verify them at any time: those gentlemen.
proposed not only a superior supply, but that they would give it for £.6 per
3][]]] Ull]] . -
The whole —The whole house, high and low service; the house has not been
increased in size since they stated that the supply should be from the main, which
was always to be charged with water; and Mr. Hatchett was told by them that he
might confidently do away with many cisterns which were then necessary as reser-
voirs from the two former companies; and as a further inducement, Mr. Hatchett
informs
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
| 2 ||
informs me that they said, that if he would not then consent to take the water, that
he must soon, as the two companies would not have it in their power, or would not
serve him any length of time longer. -
Is that a statement given to you by Mr. Hatchett himself?—Yes; the water
from the Grand Junction company was laid on in the early part of 1814, at £.6
per annum. I have the receipt for the first two quarters.
Is Mr. Hatchett in town?—He is at Brighton. I have receipts as far back as
1813, up to the last payment but one that was made to the Grand Junction com-
pany; our plumber is in court who worked in the house for twelve or fourteen years,
he can speak to many questions I cannot answer; many cisterns were destroyed,
a large tank and a force pump; the supply I understood was very good from the
Grand Junction company at first ; it was not necessary to have large reservoirs in
the house; this good supply was discontinued about the latter end of the year 1818.
The water about this time, we can prove by some old servants in the house, who
will speak to the fact, came in only three or four times a week, and then only for
a few hours of a morning, and frequently left off coming in before the small cisterns
which were left were filled, consequently the supply was very inadequate to the
consumption of water requisite for the house, and great expense and serious incon-
venience was occasioned thereby ; instead of coming in every day, and at all times,
as I am informed, it only cane in three or four times a week, for an hour in the
morning; new cisterns were erected, three or four water-closets were destroyed,
on account of the scanty supply of water, the drains in almost every part of the
house were stopped, and new ones were made on a larger scale, in order that the
soil might be carried off with less water, because they became stopped, and it was
of serious consequence to the house; and to prevent any waste of this water, the
closets were altered to the self-acting principle, in order that a limited quantity of
water might be discharged, instead of any waste which otherwise might have taken
place ; the discharge at each time was reduced one half, so that the consumption
of water was lessened as we found the supply was lessened. The last payment for
the water was up to Michaelmas 1818, at the rate of £.6 per annum, and no notice
was given at this time of any intended advance; twelve months and more passed
on without any collector calling for the usual rate, and Mr. Hatchett sent to the
office some time in the year 1820 to inquire what was due, wishing to settle up to
the twelvemonth that was due at Michaelmas, and they then informed him that
there would be an advance, and the person who was sent there to pay offered the
money, and it was refused ; that it could not be taken, as there was to be an
advance, and the gentleman could not then determine what that advance would be.
The two years were nearly expired from Michaelmas 1818 when the demand was
made from the company upon Mr. Hatchett for the sum of twenty-five guineas
per annum for water from Michaelmas 1818, instead of £.6, at which they promised
to serve, with a considerably less supply of water, consequently there was nearly
fifty guineas due at the time, and I found it was to be continued at that rate.
It was demanded from Michaelmas 1818 P--Yes.
No notice had been given to you of an advance?—No.
It was in consequence of Mr. Hatchett's application that he found out the
advance 2–Yes; I believe Mr. Hatchett never received any printed notice, I am
confident I never did. Mr. Hatchett, when he was waited upon by these gentle-
smen from the company, told them he considered it a very exorbitant rate, and he
offered to pay some gentleman from the company, not what they demanded for the
past time, but he said he would pay them double or treble if they were not suffi-
ciently paid, but he would not submit to pay them such an extravagant rate ; I
believe he offered them £.20 a year as an advanced rate; he informed me so ;
I was not present. I can answer for it we should not have objected to pay double
or treble, but we did not think it was fair to charge us so far back as 1818. In
consequence of this proceeding of the company, we commenced sinking a well in
December, at a very considerable expense; the well is now 240 feet deep, and
£. 130 has been paid for digging and boring. The chief pipe was cut off in
February last, in consequence of not paying the former rates.
Was it in consequence of that you began sinking the well ?—Expecting they
would cut it off. -
You had commenced the well previously 2–Yes, in December.
State if you can the extent of your expenses that have been incurred, first by
the removal of all your cisterns and your reservoirs for supplying in 1810, and
subsequently to this company’s supply, and exclusive of the well ?–Near £400,
706. h exclusive
Mr.
S. D. Beare.
*—J’
(12 March.)
12.2 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr. exclusive of the well ; by alterations of water-closets, by destroying cisterns which
S. D. Beare. were valuable, including bricklayers work, in making new drains, of between £. 30.
*—S-' and £40 ; the drains were never stopped while the house was well supplied.
(12 March.) You consider these expenses would not have been incurred had the change of
the companies not taken place?–Yes, I am estimating the expense on those grounds,
What do you state the expense of sinking the well now P-Sinking the well and
fixing the pump, together I think I may estimate at nearly £. 200. -
And what is the supply of water?—The supply of water will be quite sufficient
for all purposes of the house, we confidently expect.
You expect to supply your house without any recourse to the companies at all 2–
We hope to do so, and our neighbours if they want a little spring water.
Has the house been increased since 1814?–Certainly not.
There have been no additional premises added to the White Horse Cellar 2—No,
Have you found water at the depth of 240 feet?—We have water, but we have
not the main spring, we could bore it at a day’s notice, and men are now at work
on the well and have been at it for four months; we have a land spring, but we
cannot depend upon it as being sufficient for the supply of the house.
Is your well dug down to 240 feet, or is it by digging and boring?—Digging and
boring. w
Are not water-closets at the hotels constantly out of order in consequence of
the mismanagement of people who use them P-Ours are not.
Do you mean to say it depends on the water company whether they are out of
order or not ?–Ours are seldom out of order, they are put to rights in a few minutes
if they are. - | -
Does it depend on the water company whether they are in or out of order, or
upon the persons who use them 2–It depends upon the water company if the supply
is not good.
* Mr. Joseph Simpkin, Called in ; and Examined.
Mr. . . YOU heard the evidence given by Mr. Beare 2–Yes, and I confirm it; and we
Joseph simplin, do not use so much water in that house as we did in 1812, not by a considerable
~~~ deal ; there are three water-closets less, and we have less water ; the supply is now
not sufficient. Mr. Anderson came after the supply of water was not sufficient,
and recommended to Mr. Hatchett to erect a cistern, the expense of which would
be £. 200, and the alteration in the pipes, which would increase Mr. Hatchett's
expense more than £. 500. w -
Did Mr. Hatchett do that 2–He did not ; he sent for Mr. Anderson who re-
commended this, but of the two evils they chose to sink a well and supply them-
selves; and the water-closets now do not take half the quantity of water, and no
person can use more than a certain quantity ; and if twenty people go in, we know
what they take to half a pint. *-
(Mr. Anderson.)—if the Committee will allow me, I will explain as far as the
service goes. When Mr. Hatchett's house was first laid on to the company, we
generally kept the water on in all the services nearly night and day; the conse-
quence was, that Mr. Hatchett found great benefit from such a service as was then
given by the company; and I believe two very small cisterns supplied all the water.
closets that were then necessary. In the alteration that took place with the com-
panies, the supply was then reduced very much in the services, and Mr. Hatchett's
cisterns became inadequate for the supply of his water-chosets ; there have been
several complaints made to me, and I always recommended additional cisterns;
instead of their getting additional cisterns, they got additional water butts, I think
four or five additional water butts, placing them side by side, and these were put
instead of the very extraordinary expense of £. 400 that has been named ; these
were the chief expenses that seem to be attached for the want of a supply of water
at Mr. Hatchett’s ; the plumber, Mr. Simpkin, called and stated, that notwith-
standing the additional butts, that they were then at times without water, and the
plumber proposed that we should lay it upon the main pipe, which was done ac-
cordingly ; and with the exception of perhaps once or twice up to last September,
from the time that it was laid upon the main, I do not recollect any complaints
having been made from Mr. Hatchett's. - --
hea was it laid on the main --About two years ago. W
The main gave a perpetual supply, of course –It was not perpetual, because
once or twice in the course of the day, for an hour or two, it was shut off;
but we had one screw of the main on to give it almost perpetual. I have stated
- * *. already,
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
#23.
already, that I heard no complaint up to last September, when the increased rate
was demanded ; and Mr. Coe and myself waited upon Mr. Hatchett, and he stated
then a number of grievances about the supply of water, which referred chiefly to
the first supply that was given him in 1814, namely, that he had put up addi-
tional eisterns, which cisterns I described as nothing more than the butts, that
expense was very trifling; but the main point Mr. Hatchett went to was, as .
to the price ; it was stated to him at that time that the Pulteney Hotel in
Piccadily had paid £. 25 a year, and it was then (Mr. Hatchett taking it for
granted that that was to be his rate) he stated that he had no objections to paying
double what he had paid to the company, namely, twice six pounds, about twelve
pounds, or something of that ; Mr. Coe and myself stated to him then, that it was
impossible to supply such a demand of water as that of Mr. Hatchett’s for such a
Sum ; he said he would give no more, and he was determined he would sink a
well. The observation that we made then was, that in order that you shall not be
put to any inconvenience, we will keep the water on till you sink a well, provided
you do it in some reasonable time; he stated that he should set to work imme-
diately, and when the year expired his water was then not cut off, and we
expected of course that the well had been sunk, and the water was taken off last
February. º - -
Did you wait for notice that his well was sunk before it was cut off?—No,
because we confined him to a period to do it; he said he could do it in a month or
so; the offer was made liberally to him, provided he could state some time. :
Did you point out the necessity of such a large cisternage as would cost the
expense of £. 2002–By no means; I deny it ; the cistern that I pointed out would
not have been more than £. 20 expense.
In effect, what cisternage did you point out 2—That was the only one.
You pointed out a particular cistern ?—Yes.
in the house then?—In the house them.
Necessary to be put up in the house?—From the complaint.
Which, in your judgment, would cost £. 20 –I am sure it would not have cost
more ; we took the size of a cistern.
What was the size of the cistern ?—It would have held six or seven hundred gallons
of water. - -
Do you mean to say you could construct a cistern to hold six or seven hundred
gallons of water for £. 20 —Thereabouts. -
How much of the expense of £. 400 do you state to be attributable to the water
companies?—I have stated six water butts; I know of nothing else.
Do you think it is owing to any misconduct of the water companies that those
sewers have gone to decay, or been silted up 2–1 consider the companies not
answerable for that, because they would always have had water if they had cisterns.
After the cisternage was destroyed, and the water put on the main, at times the
water was off the mains, does that account for their being at times badly supplied?—
No.
If they had no cisternage, and the water was on the main, how could they have
a supply?—When the supply was bad it was on the service.
You say they could not have wanted water from the time they were put on the
main?—Certainly not; I would consider it their fault and not mine.
Do you consider the £. 12 an adequate sum for the water with which you are now
supplying them?—I consider not.
What do you think would be a fair charge in proportion with other people?—If
you will give me leave, I will state my reasons: I think it was one of the waiters of
the hotel, who had been set to watch the quantity of water that was used, and he
stated that after having ascertained for a number of days, he took the average
quantity of the water-closets at two hundred falls a day, and about eight gallons per
fall for each day; the whole of this, whatever the quantity may be, is high service
only; I considered, and an observation was made to Mr. Hatchett at the same time,
that taking the whole of his houses that were turned into the hotel, which were four,
I think, and taking them at the ordinary price of other houses, would warrant nearly
the rent that we were then asking: every person who knows the White Horse Cellar
must know that it is a house of very great consumption of water. -
When you say that the number of houses would nearly warrant the rent, you
mean if they were private houses and not public houses —Yes. -
Was there in fact any increase or enlargement of cisterns or closets after the first
agreement?—There was the increase of the water butts. 7. ... tº
706. ~ * After
Mír,
Joseph Simpkin.
(12 March.)
124 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
Joseph Simpkin.
\-2–’
(l 2 March.
After the first agreement there was no other increase of water-closets or cisterns
than those water butts you have mentioned?—No. -
Is it within your knowledge that the increase of water butts was exactly in pro-
portion to the deduction of cisterns —I never knew what the cisterns were. -
You state that the proprietor of the Pultney Hotel paid £. 25, has he ever made
any remonstrance to that?—It was paid to the old companies at that rate.
To the Chelsea?—I believe it was.
Have you had any complaint of that rent 2–Not that I know of.
When the waiter stated to you there was eight gallons a fall, did he tell you upon
what principle he calculated it?—No ; the quantity of water used in the water-
closet in an hotel it is almost impossible to get at, except by gauging it in the
cistern.”
How long would it require to hold up the plug to put off 1,600 gallons?—It
might be let off very soon, in a very few seconds.
Do you know of any private houses that pay as large a sum as is demanded of
Mr. Hatchett?—I believe the Duke of Wellington pays us that sum, a nd the
Marquis of Stafford paid as much in 1810 as we charge to Mr. Hatchett.
Do you know any thing of any representations made to Mr. Hatchett to in-
duce him to be served by the Grand Junction company originally?—None that I
know of - * * - -
Did you serve him all the time he asked for making his well before you withdrew
the water?—Considerably beyond it. -
You kept faith with him on that subject?—I did.
You went with Mr. Coe to Mr. Hatchett on this subject?—Yes. \
Mr. Hatchett entered into the case, and made representations to you?—He did.
Did he say any thing about this being a departure from your engagement —
There was a general observation that the company had not fulfilled their engage-
ment as to the water being always on. -
Did he state any thing to you as if the company had originally engaged at a fixed
price with him, and had now departed from it –I think that was generally stated
by him, but the particulars I do not recollect.
(To Mr. Simpkin.)—Was there any additional number of water-closets set up
in the house after you were supplied with the new companies 2–There are three
less water-closets now than there were in 1812. - -
Were there any new water-closets erected between 1814 and 1820?—There were
two water-closets destroyed during that time.
And none erected P-None erected after 1814. -
Were any of the water-closets in the White Horse Cellar supplied with a forcing
pump previous to the Grand Junction supplying the house?–All, except two.
And where were those that were supplied without a forcing pump situated?–On
the first floor, where they are now. - --
The water-closets above the first floor were obliged to be supplied by the forcing
pump 2–Yes. -- - - -
(To Mr. Beare.)—Have you within the last twelve months repeatedly applied
to the office, complaining of a deficiency in the supply of water P-Yes.
Was it before September last 2–Before September last.
(Mr. Anderson.)—With regard to the complaints, I do not know of any complaints
having been made at the office, excepting when the plumber complained of a want
of water when the pipe was on the service ; when it was laid on the main, I have mo
recollection of any complaint, with this exception, that the plumber called to say that
there was still a want of water in one particular part of the hotel, I think it was the
bar, and it was then that I proposed the cistern, and which the plumber knows very
well himself that the supply could not be secured without this additional cistern,
and which cistern never was put up to my knowledge.
(Mr. Coe.)—I beg to state, that when I last saw Mr. Beare at the hotel, he made
a similar complaint; I observed to him that I did not see how it was possible that
eould occur, when his pipe was on the main; his answer was, I will take you to the
cook in the kitchen to prove this is the case, I went with him to the head of the
stairs and met her, and he asked her, “Have not we been often without water,” and
she said, “No, I think it has been as good as it could be.” i
(To Mr. Anderson.)—Do you think it possible that this hotel being on the main
they could have wanted water at any time when that main was running?–Cer-
tainly not. A. * -
Was
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
125
Was that main generally running except about an hour a day ?—I can hardly
state to an hour, particularly, but my orders were to keep that main charged as far as
would supply Mr. Hatchett, nearly night and day.
How far did you keep it charged 2–As near that as possible.
What exception ?—When a change of service took place.
What time did that take place –Perhaps an hour or two a day.
Not more than that 2–I think not. .
Can you give any reason why his house being on the main they might have felt
a want of water 2–The drawing of water below in various places, and the very
great consumption of water below, and that from one pipe, will frequently prevent
the water from reaching the upper cisterns. .
But in point of fact that drawing could not go on continuously for an hour?—
It depends entirely upon the consumption.
Do you think you can safely state the water was on twenty hours a day at Mr.
Hatchett's 2–Yes, I think I can ; when the complaint was made of the want of
water, I ordered that the cock of the main should be opened one screw, in order
to give a supply to Mr. Hatchett; you will observe that the main for high service
is not charged above twelve hours in the day. - --
How high, when it is charged for low service in such a house as that, will it go?—
I do not think it would reach the height of those butts which I named ; they
were situated, I think, about sixteen or seventeen feet above the street, the top of
the butts. -
Then the effect of being on the main was only to give him a supply of twelve
hours a day for the upper part of his house 2–Yes; there never being any defi-
ciency in the lower part.
If there had been a proper cisternage, would Mr. Hatchett have ever experienced
any want of supply of water?—Certainly not.
Were the butts in addition to the cisterns a proper substitute for cisterns?—
I should think not.
Was the deficiency of supply to be ascribed to the company, or to the deficiency
of cisternage 2–I should certainly consider to the deficiency of cisternage.
(Mr. Simpkin.)—The butts are situated to serve the water-closets on the first
floor, and from twelve o’clock on Friday to nine o’clock on Monday morning no
water came into those butts. -
Was that so week after week?—I can bring proof that it was so for twelve or
eighteen months; and with respect to those water-closets being without supply, the
Chelsea water company used to supply those very water-closets, where a deficiency
has been from this company. .
(To Mr. Anderson.)—You have heard what has been stated by Mr. Simpkin,
that from twelve o’clock on Friday till nine o’clock on Monday morning no water
came into those water butts?—He is alluding to what took place originally, and
then i directed the screw to be turned.
Apply that to the last two years?—Since the complaint has been made.
Is that more than a year ago?—Yes, I should consider so.
Do you think since that time that can have been the case?—I have heard no
complaints. -
(To Mr. Simpkin.)—Do you confine yourself to the period of the last year
and a half?—To the last year and a half, till the water was cut off; every Monday
morning I go down to see what is wanting, and to see no water goes to waste,
and I noticed those butts were generally out; we had the water four times a week
in the butts, but from Friday to Monday we had none, and then we were deficient,
and then Mr. Anderson recommended this cistern which was to hold two thousand
gallons, and it was to be supported by iron columns through the kitchen, and I leave
to any gentleman whether that can be erected for £. 20. -
(To Mr. Anderson.)—Do you apprehend that from the means you took the
house would have been supplied?—No doubt of it. -
Supposing the turncock had obeyed your orders would it have been supplied
during those times 2–I have no doubt of it. -
Can you ascertain any reason for Mr. Hatchett not being served?—No, only in
the turncock leaving some side supplies open.
If that had been done which you ordered would they have been supplied ?–I
have no doubt of it. -
(To Mr. Simpkin.)—After the pipes were opened wider did you complain —
706. - I i * I went
... Mr.
, Joseph Simpkin.
\-Q –”
(12 March.)
126
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
Joseph Simpkin.
(12 March.)
Mr.
John Richardson.
\-
I went up to the engine-house to Mr. Anderson eighteen months since, I have
gone to the turncock, living very contiguous, and requested he would turn the
Water On. -
The last time you went to Mr. Anderson was eighteen months ago?—Yes.
Can you state what Mr. Anderson said to you?—Mr. Anderson came down to
Mr. Hatchett’s, and we had a conversation with him and Mr. Coe, and Mr. Ander-
son recommended this cistern to supply the whole house.
What size was the cistern ?—About ten feet long, eight feet wide and four feet
deep.
ſia Mr. Anderson at that time tell you that he would open any screw of the
main, or any thing of that kind?—No, never; I contradict it. . . • .
Then what did Mr. Hatchett say to this recommendation ?—He said he would
discover it; and with respect to the well, with respect to Mr. Anderson or Mr.
Coe saying, in my hearing, they would keep the water on till the well was sunk,
it never was. * -
This defect continued week after week after that representation ?—Yes.
Did you ever represent it to Mr. Anderson?—No, only to the turncock to turn
the water on.
Have you frequently mentioned it to the turncock?—Three or four times since
that period. *
(To Mr. Anderson.)—Have you any rule or regulation to explain the systematic
want of supply from Friday to Monday ?–No, we had our engine working every
day, Sunday excepted.
Then you cannot account for it 2–No, I cannot.
(Mr. Beare).-Complaints have been made to the company from time to tim
by letters, which can be produced if they have been filed. -
(Mr. Coe.)--Whenever a complaint comes to the office it is entered in a book,
and the turncock gives his account of it; and if it is repeated, Mr. Anderson looks
into it.
Mr. John Richardson, Called in ; and Examined.
WHERE do you reside 2–In Tichborne-street.
What are you?—I am a mourning coach master.
What is the nature of your case?—An extra charge; it is a charge from £.3 to
ten guineas. I entered upon my premises in July 1801, and was served with the
water of the New River company to my entire satisfaction, and my consumption
of water at that time was considerably more than it has been of late years. Two
agents from the Grand Junction company waited on me in the year 1813, and
inquired if I was well supplied with water; I replied I was ; they then inquired the
price I might pay the New River company for such supply; I told them that I
formerly used to pay £.7 per annum, but of late years they had raised me to £.8
per annum; after making some inquiry of me into the consumption, they said the
charge was an imposition; I told them I never troubled myself about these sort of
matters, I always considered myself charged equally with my neighbours; they
said they served the stables a little higher up, in the same street, which had a
greater demand for water, at £. 3 per annum, and should be very happy to serve
me upon those terms. I did not desire better water or a better supply; I had
no complaint to make upon that point, I had a large tank, with a ball-cock that
prevented any waste of water, and therefore turning it on for a longer time would
be of no benefit to me; I agreed however to take their water. -
At that reduced rate 2–At £. 3; they said it was high time there should be
competition to put an end to the monopoly of the New River company, and the
benefit the town would derive from their coming in ought to induce them to en-
courage their undertaking. After being supplied a very short time by the Grand
Junction, my family complained that the water was very dirty, and were much
dissatisfied with it; they produced me a mug which had been filled with the water
over-night, and there was a very heavy sediment at the bottom, so much so, that
we were set against it for domestic purposes, and determined to have the New
River water again ; I went to the New River company’s collector for that purpose,
who as soon as he saw me said, Mr. Richardson, I am sorry you should have
discontinued our supply of water, as I never heard any complaint from you; I
told him the terms I was supplied upon by the Grand Junction company, and I
also remarked that the New River company, having the public so completely in their
power, ought not to have put such high prices on the public as to induce any other
- company
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS, 1:
27
company to underwork them; this was general conversation; but I went for the Mr.
purpose of having it put on at all events; I explained to him the nature of my John Richardson,
consumption, and that the horses were the greater part of their time from home S Tº —”
on long journies, and he said if I would come to their board and explain those (12 March.)
circumstances he had no doubt they would reduce my charge of £.8, as under all
the bearings of the case, he thought I had been charged too much, but it was my
own fault, as it was not to be expected they should know my business; he said they
should be very happy to serve the premises again; I said, if they would remunerate
the Grand Junction for the expense they had been at in placing the water on my
premises I would return to them, otherwise I should think I had been treating
them very unhandsome ; they agreed, and I was again supplied with water from the
New River company. - -
At what rate 2–At the £. 3, until the coalition took place in the year 1818;
I had not the Grand Junction company’s water on my premises, except for a week,
or a short time, and paid them no rates. In 1818 I was transferred back to the
Grand Junction company, without any previous notice being given me, or first
obtaining my consent. At Michaelmas 1819 a demand was made on me for ten
guineas, for four quarters rates due at Michaelmas 1819; I refused to pay it, as
I thought it was too much for those parties who had told me in the year 1813 that
I was imposed on by the New River company, to turn round on me, and in the year
1819 charge me ten guineas. In the March following I was served with a motice
at six months, to say if I would not consent to pay the ten guineas per annum,
I should be deprived of my water. At Michaelmas 1820, I called at their office
and paid the reduced rate, and about the 9th of November following, they cut my
pipe off, and I have been without ever since, which is four months. I have had two
or three interviews with Mr. Coe, and stated to him, that I should be willing to pay,
provided my water was put on again, any rate they may be legally entitled to, as
may be decided by Parliament hereafter, or otherwise they would be kind enough to
place me where they found me, as I did not send for them, and I was very well
supplied by the New River company.
Did not the Grand Junction company incur a considerable expense in laying
down a pipe in the upper part of your yard 2–Yes; I did not like to go back unless
the New River company made them a remuneration ; I thought it very unfair with-
out remunerating them their expense. . -
Did the New River remunerate the Grand Junction ?—They told me to leave it
to them, it should all be put to rights, and I should hear no more of it.
(Mr. Coe.)—Upon Mr. Richardson's refusal to pay the rate which was demanded
of him, and wishing his premises to be inspected, I waited upon him for that purpose
in November, shortly after the water was cut off, or just previous to it; and from the
explanation that I received from Mr. Richardson, and the calculation I made as to
the number of stalls and coach-houses which he had, I stated that his rate appeared
to be overcharged at the former calculation, and the company would reduce it to
eight guineas; Mr. Richardson, however, refused to pay this. I did not know at
the time that Mr. Richardson had paid £. 8 in 1810.
Upon what ground did you make up your calculation of rate which you did
charge him —When we first began to rate stables on the new rate, we took them at
four shillings a stall, and I made inquiry subsequent to that, (finding many persons
had objected to the rate of four shillings a stall,) as to what the Chelsea company
used to charge ; and I was informed by their engineer that they had charged three
shillings a stall, and that they had put the twenty-five per cent. On that ; and since
that we have calculated at three shillings, and five-and-twenty per cent, making
3s. 9d ; and I think Mr. Richardson's calculation was made on that.
Upon taking the number of stalls actually on his premises, did you reduce it
according to your rule?—Yes.
And that reduced rate turned out eight guineas 2—Yes.
At the time that you proposed to reduce this to eight guineas, did you also forego
the arrear of what turned out to be in your latter apprehension an overcharge?--
I forget whether that became the subject of conversation or not; but I am sure if it
had been we should have told him that we expected the arrears.
If you told him ten guineas was too high, would you then have followed the
arrears of the ten guineas?—No.
But the arrears would have followed the reduction of the principal 2–Certainly.
You would have expected the arrears of the eight guineas —Yes.
796. (To
128 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr. (To Mr. Richardson.)—From the moment they reduced the amount from tén to
John Richardson, eight guineas, you did not expect they would insist on the arrears of the ten –
Certainly not. 4.
(12 March.) Mr. Michael Smith, Called in ; and Examjned.
Mr. WHERE do you reside?—No. 17, Gloucester-place, New-road.
** Smith. What is your situation ?–Collector of the parochial rates for Mary-le-bone.
S-- What is the nature of your complaint –I went to that house at Midsummer
1818, and after Christmas the collector called upon me for half a year’s rates,
amounting to £. 1. 2s. 6d. ; I refused to pay that rate, being more than had been
paid before ; then he called upon me two or three times, and I still refused him;
I then one day met the collector in Gloucester-street, and he accosted me in the
street; Now, says he, you may as well pay me, because, says he, we shall
beat you (it was then pending in Parliament, I believe.) Well, says I, Wil-
cock, we will beat you; I had then taken a little active part, but not much ;
I did not like to be accosted on the highway for the sum of £. 1. 2s. 6d. and I
said, Come into Mr. Henshaw’s and I will pay you ; so we went in, and I said,
Now Wilcock, I am a collector, and I have a brother feeling for you, and I will
pay you. When he went in I said, Wilcock I will pay you, but remember,
with a protest of this kind, if it does not pass Parliament you shall refund;
he did not say he would, but he gave me one of his smiles, which he very often
does.
Which collectors understand between each other?—Yes; I made an observation
about a physician at the time, but that has nothing to do with it; he never refunded
it; collectors never do when they can hold it; I did not mind the money much,
but being a servant of the parish, I had these delivered from the vestry, wishing
I would circulate six or seven hundred of them in my division.
[The witness delivered in a paper, which was read.]
You were directed by the vestry, as their servant, to deliver them —Yes; but
previous to that I had paid my rate, and therefore perhaps I did not take so
active a part, except from a sense of duty as a parish officer, and much more so as
a housekeeper.
It was subsequent to the payment of your rate that you circulated that paper?
—Yes.
When did you distribute that?—A few days after the date of it, and before I had
done, I had another to distribute, which I believe was not from the vestry, there-
fore it is not necessary perhaps to produce it.
Who was it from ?—I cannot state ; it came in a bundle, but I do not know
from whence.
You received this to distribute —Yes.
How did it come to your hands 2—I really cannot say who sent it.
[Another notice was read.]
Do you know whether this came from the vestry or not 2—I do not know.
Do you know that it did not come from the vestry P--No, I do not.
What happened after this, you had paid this increased rate 2–I had paid it, and
I went about, and I could not go on with my collection without saying, here is a
fine business to come about now a fine per centage on the water well, says I, I have
paid mine.
Did you circulate that second paper?—I did, but not so numerous as the other.
You paid your rate 2–Yes.
You took an active part in resisting the demand of the water companies?—Yes.
In the course of your collection have you reason to think that the generality of
the public whom you were collecting from, for your parochial rates, paid these
demands willingly or unwillingly 2–Unwillingly, undoubtedly; I will venture to
say not two in a hundred paid without grumbling; my friend Mr. Knight called on
me on the 25th of March, (I was lying on the sofa, not very well,) and he told me
I had better pay it; I tendered the old rate, and it was not received, and on the 27th
of March Mr. Knight came with his men, and they cut me off; I was without water
till the 10th of July; I then went into the country to dine, and Mrs. Smith, who
had felt a little inconvenience from want of water, went and paid the rate, and
Mr. Knight said Mr. Smith has taken an active part, I do not complain; as to
getting contributions, I do not think I need, nor am I competent to go into so
large a field as Mr. Knight did.
(Mr.
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS,
i 29.
(Áſr. Knight.)—Mr. Smith has stated that the collector called upon him after
Christmas 1818, and demanded the rate, and afterwards called upon him two or
three times, and he refused to pay the rate, but afterwards he met him in the street
and they had some conversation, they then went to Mr. Henshaw's shop and paid the
rate. I have simply to remark, that the collector told me that the first time he went
his round (the collection commenced only on the first of March), the collector left
his notice paper for £. 1. 2s. 6d. the half year’s rate, he only called that once on
ſr. Smith ; in collecting in the neighbourhood he went to Mr. Henshaw's shop in
the course of his first round, he saw Mr. Smith in the shop, Mr. Smith actually paid
him the £. 1. 2s. 6d. without his even asking him for it, and the collector stated to
me that Mr. Smith made this observation, that he thought the company ought to be
paid. -
Is this more than a twenty-five per cent. case ?—No, it is not ; Mr. Smith paid
the £. 1. 2s. 6d. on the 23d of April. Mr. Smith some time afterwards, when he
was instructed so to do by the vestry, was extremely active in going round from
house to house, and I do not blame him ; but with regard to this paper I wish to say
one word about that ; there were various papers in Mary-le-bone, the walls were
covered with them, and this caution was put on all the walls, with the words, “It
is false,” very large, namely, that the parish were going for a parochial bill; I have
very little doubt it was a paper of vestrymen. Mr. Smith and others, after Midsum-
mer, when that bill was in the House, were most active in stimulating the public
against the companies, as I have got a paper here to show.
Mr. John Bullock, Called in ; and Examined.
WHAT is your situation ?–19, Duke-street, Grosvenor-square.
What are you ?—I am a grocer.
Your’s was an increased rate, was it?—Yes it was.
By what company P-By the Grand Junction; I paid it once ; the first time was
Rader a personal threat from Mr. Coe, and the second time was in consequence of
this letter. . * * -
What was the increase ?—They demanded from 24s. to 38s.
What was the rate in 1810?–Thirty shillings.
What is the reason given in the letter?—
[The letter was read, dated April 28, 1820.]
- Mercurij, 14° die Marij, 1821.
WILLIAM HENRY FREMANTLE, ESQUIRE,
I N T H E C H A I R.
Mr. James Weale, again called in ; and Examined.
| HAVE stated in my evidence that the demand of the increased rates came on the
inhabitants by surprise; that the Grand Junction company had not given any.
notice. In saying they had given no notice, I did not mean to say they had not given
an intimation of their intention, but they had not given regular notices to the inhabit-
ants. Upon a subsequent day Mr. Coe delivered in that printed notice, to show that
notices had been served upon the inhabitants generally. The fact to which I wish
to call the attention of the Committee is this, that the increased rates of the Grand
Junction company have been demanded from Michaelmas 1818, and that on the
11th of June 1818, mine months after that time, Mr. Coe in his evidence on oath
before the Committee of the House of Lords, stated, that they had not up to that
hour increased the rates, and if the Committee will give me leave, I will read the
passages upon that very point, nothing can be stronger. .
[An extract from the evidence of Mr. Coe, in p. lor of the Committee’s
copy of the Minutes of the Committee of the House of Lords, was read.]
(To Mr. Coe.)—Have you heard your evidence before the House of Lords
read?–Yes; I conceive that evidence to go to this, that we had not raised the rate,
not that we had not an intention to raise it, because I think the evidence shows
we had given notice to that effect, and we were just on the point of collection
706. K k when
Mr.
Michael Smith,
(12 March.)
\ -
S-S 2—º
Mr.
John Bullock.
-s/-
A
Mr.
James Weale.
(14 March.)
130 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
James [i eale,
(14 March.)
J. T. Hope.
when we went into the House of Commons, and I think a charge was brought
against us by Mr. Sumner, that we had employed additional collectors to get in
the rate, we were in such a hurry, and it was suggested it would be better to wait
till that Committee had gone through the inquiry, and we not only waited through
the inquiry of that Committee, but till the bill was thrown out in the House of
Lords. *
(Mr Knight.)—I wish simply to add to my evidence of Monday, in explanation
of Mr. Day’s case, No. 26, Manchester-square, who produced a receipt, purporting to
be for half a year’s water rate up to Christmas 1810, at the rate of 368, a year,
that Mr. Day actually paid the New River company at the rate of 50s, a year up
to Midsummer 1810; that on the 4th of May 1811, after the West Middlesex
pipes had been brought into his neighbourhood, he went to the New River company,
as appears from this book, and on that date, namely the 4th of May 1811, obtained
a reduction of his rate from 50s. to 368.
Mr. John Thomas Hope, called in ; and Examined.
WHAT are you ?—I am a resident in the parish of Mary-le-bone, and a member
of the vestry.
What is the nature of your case ?—I have been an inhabitant of No. 37, Upper
Seymour-street, which is situated on the highest ground in Mary-le-bone, twenty-
seven years, and part of my family several years before that, during which period I
have been supplied with water to a cistern below the ground, and another to a water-
closet in the yard, and never was short of water, except in frost: and as I am
informed, when I make those observations, I shall be open to any contradictions
persons present may be able to give me, as I am informed I was served with
water three times a week. I could not have received more for domestic purposes
than ten hogsheads and a half per week whilst in town, even if the cistern was
always emptied before it came on again, and was filled each time, as it will only
hold 190 gallons, and about seventy gallons for the water-closet, and with that
cistern I could not have consumed more than the quantity I first stated.
Was the water-closet cistern as large as the other ?– No.
You had about 260 gallons together?—Yes, thereabouts; for that supply I paid
40s. per annum to the New River company. My coach-house was supplied by
the Chelsea company at 14s, per annum, and my stables by the same company at
20s. per annum, and I never recollect that they were short of water, except in
frost; and I believe I may say as much of all my neighbours round about, that I.
never heard of any want of water, except in frost, on the highest ground, where
there was greater difficulty to serve than in any other. About 1812 or 1813,
I was solicited by a person calling himself an agent of the West Middlesex com-
pany, to take water of them, and about 1814 or 1815 of the Grand Junction com-
pany: from the first I was offered an abatement of more than ten per cent. from
the latter but ten per cent, which I was told had been the usual deduction, and
I was to have all the advantages held out in this card, [producing a card, which
had been left inclosed in a cover a day or two previously; I refused both, because
I was very well supplied, and preferred to my own mind the New River water to
that of either of the other companies, particularly to that of the Grand Junction
company, which at that time was not well spoken of, and I was fully satisfied of
the explanation I had previously received by the circular address of the New River
company of February 27, 1812; this paper was given to me by Mr. Nott, the
collector, and it satisfied my mind, particularly from one or two passages, which
I want to point out to the Committee ; the only object that I have in view is,
to lay the whole matter before the Committee, that they may in their wisdom
devise such means as they think will prevent the recurrence of such things in future.
One reason I was satisfied was from the circumstance of a declaration of theirs,
that the average rental upon the houses supplied is something less than 27 S. per
annum ; that, in all the average of the different matters I compared, seemed
to correspond very well; and also from the circumstance that they mentioned, that
in general the charge did not exceed 2s. for each hundred hogsheads; and from
another observation of theirs, that whenever the company felt themselves bound
to do it, they admitted the necessity of meeting competition in every respect of
cheapness and convenience. -- i *
Stating at the same time that they should do so under great disadvantage of price P
—Yes, I believe so ; I was satisfied, especially as their average charge of 27s. per
annum So nearly corresponded with that of the Chelsea charge of 28s, per annum,
&S
ON THE SUPPLY OF wATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
131
as had been shown to a Committee of the House of Commons, and as the average
charge on my three tenements was under both those averages, I considered also
that the West Middlesex company was acting under a delusion, or attempting to
impose upon the public, in pretending to supply so many parishes for the small sum
of £. 30,000 which was the first grant they received from Parliament; then there is a
proviso at the end of that act, that they should be able to ask for a larger sum : I men-
tion this, to call the attention of the Committee to those points which probably
they might not have been aware of before. The result has proved so ; they have
been obliged to get more money. The next time I paid rent to the New River
company, they deducted, unasked, ten per cent; the Chelsea company con-
tinued their old charge. At Christmas 1817, when I arrived in town, I learned
that the Chelsea company had cut off the supply of water to my coach-house and
stables from about the Michaelmas preceding, and reduced the tenants who lodged
above them to the necessity of going about begging for water wherever they could
get it. The 21st December 1817, was the last day the New River water was
served to my house. On the 18th of January 1818, which was twenty-eight days
after the last coming in of the water, I received this notice from the New River
company, and I wish to point out a particular passage in it, stating that they had
stopped the water since Christmas last, and also stating their reasons for so doing.
The Chelsea company never gave me any notice, nor sent me any apology. A par-
ticular passage struck me, with respect to this circular of the New River company:
“ and they can truly say, with reference to their own concern, the unreasonable
reduction of water rates, and the increased difficulty of collecting those reduced
rates;” from which I argue, if there was a difficulty in collecting the reduced rates,
how much more difficulty there must be in collecting the increased rates. On the
21st of January 1818, I received this circular from the West Middlesex water
company, dated the 16th January 1818, requesting to supply me with water, but
as I knew that a general discontent prevailed throughout the parish, and complaints
had been made to the vestry of Mary-le-bone of the conduct of all the companies,
who, to satisfy the complainants and themselves, intended to inquire into the affair,
I determined to wait the result of that inquiry, hoping the legislature would shortly
interfere in behalf of the inhabitants at the west end of the town, who suffered
several weeks the privation of water; but when I found there were no hopes of that,
on or about the 21st of June I desired my plumber to apply to the West Middlesex
company for water; I mention this circumstance, to show that different changes in
their own system had taken place; he brought me word that the West Middlesex
company, to whom he had paid 5.S. for laying on the water, had returned it again,
telling him, that since the circular of the West Middlesex company, it had been
settled that the Grand Junction company was to supply my house, showing that
even after the period that this commutation, if I may so call it, had taken place,
their plans were not arranged, otherwise it never could have been in the con-
templation of the West Middlesex company to send to me, to offer to supply me,
and that he had paid I os. to that company for laying on the water to both house
and offices: my tenant also, whom I gave leave to apply for water, paid 5s, which he
afterwards received back; my los. were never received back; I have understood that
I might have applied for it since, but I did not know till twelve months after, when
my bill came in, that it had been charged, and the matter was still going on, and
I did not trouble myself about it ; I have been supplied since Midsummer 1818 at
the same price the old companies charged, which I considered tantamount to a new
agreement, and binding on them for a similar supply as formerly, for they could not
supply me more abundantly, however capable they might be of doing so, as long as
the water was not suffered to run to waste, and I had no occasion for the further
increase of it : I paid them once, at the same rate as I paid the other companies, at
the reduced rate. My rate was reduced from 40s. to 36s. I had a receipt which
I considered as tantamount to a new agreement; I was not aware of the possibility of
any change being made.
Who served your coach-house 2–The Grand Junction served them all.
For 36s 2–No ; the house for 36 S. and the other places as I had been charged
by the old company. In January 1820, the Grand Junction collector called to
demand f. 2. 1 os. for a year’s water rent to Michaelmas 1819, instead of £. 1. 16s.
last paid for the house, and £. 2. 2 s, instead of £. 1. 14.s. last paid for the coach-
house and stables, and that without any previous notice of an intention so to do,
which is twenty-five per cent, on the rate of 1810. Now I must beg leave
here to make an observation as to what has passed, if any of the Committee will
700, - +- . . . - look
Mr.
J. T. Hope.
S---—”
(14 March.)
132
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
J. T. Hope.
look at what the West Middlesex company call a notice ; in the first instance
it is a general notice “that we shall demand a higher rate,” but there is no time
N V specified when that advance is to take place; that notice is dated May 11th 1818,
(14. March)
which they stated was their notice of an advance; but with respect to the Grand
Junction company’s notice, I was out of town at the time they say it was delivered,
but I think from that punctuality I have seen in my servants, that if it had been
delivered, I must have seen it; and I never heard of that notice until such time as
it was produced in this room, and therefore I say, as far as concerns myself, I had
no legal notice which they pretend to say as a yearly tenant I was entitled to.
I asked the collector the reason for such charge; he replied he could give none,
and was not instructed to give any : I tendered the old rent, and said that as I had
no notice of such a demand being intended, and as he could give no reason for the
increased demand, I should refuse it until I was satisfied of the company’s right to
make it; and I then sent the money to the office by an attorney, and required an
explanation, who informed me they refused both, they refused to take the money
which Itendered to them, and to give an explanation. On March the 10th 1820, Ire-
ceived this notice, that I might repair to the Grand Junction office for their explanation
and to renew my contract, on pain of having a supply of water discontinued altogether.
I make this remark now, to show that if they were aware that a regular notice had
been served to me before, I apprehend there would have been no occasion to give me
the second notice, but here is a regular notice for an advance. On May the 29th, as
nothing was yet done for the relief of the public, I went to the Grand Junction office
and saw Mr. Coe; I asked what new agreement, according to his notice sent to me, it
was expected should be entered into between me and the Grand Junction company
for a continuation of the supply of water to my house and premises, as formerly
furnished by the New River company, and since by his company on the like terms;
he said, I had already been served with notice of the rents they should expect of
me in future; Will you not take any thing less? said I; Why, no; for if we
abate you any thing, the like will be expected by others. I asked him on what
grounds they demanded such addition of rents; to which he replied, they could
not afford to do it for less, and that I knew so as well as he did. Do you mean
to say, I asked, by not being able to afford it, that the amount of the rent as
you found it in that district, when you undertook to supply it, is not sufficient to
enable you to carry on the works, and to pay all the salaries of the officers, and
the whole expenses of the establishment? Oh no, replied lie, they are enough
for that ; but if the proprietors do not get something more, to enable them
to share a satisfactory dividend, they would not be content. Then, said I, you
merely want to raise the rents in order to increase the dividends of the pro-
prietors? Certainly, said he, for if they could not obtain something more they
would sell their shares, and if they could not sell them they might be induced
to sell their works to realize what they could, and that I had better buy them.
I told him he had answered me very fairly, but under that explanation I saw no
reason for the increased demand made on me.
You did not propose to buy in upon that occasion ?—No ; I knew it was a
losing concern; I had every reason to think it was, from the nature of the
speculation. I wish to observe that I had no wish to intrude myself on the Com-
mittee, had it not been for many circumstances stated by the secretary of the
West Middlesex company, which I thought would be taken as admitted, if not
explained. Without enumerating all the different circumstances Mr. Knight has
stated, I will merely refer to the parts I wish to explain, and I think I shall be
able to satisfy the Committee as to many points which did appear to me to want
explanation before. What I wish to explain is such matters as came within my
own knowledge of the several variations in the water companies demands on the
inhabitants of the districts which they supply, and particularly with regard to
Mary-le-bone. In order that the Committee may be aware of the whole proceeding,
I beg leave to state, in the first instance, (I have given you before the average
charge per house of the Chelsea and New River companies,) I wish now to state,
that the rate of the New River company, as it existed in 1810, was a rise of
about ten per cent. three or four or five years prior thereto; I mention this to
show that whatever advance was made it was an advance upon an advance, the
rates being first advanced in 1806, and this rise was the cause of complaint, and
not the insufficiency of water, except in new and remote parts of the town at that
time supplied, and that the average charge of the New River company even in 1812
was, as I said before, 27's, per annum. The first assurance I ever heard of serving
the
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS,
1 33
º
the public at reduced rates was in the letter of Mr. Sloper to the vestry of Mary-le-
bone, dated November the 24th 1809; and following up that system, I heard con-
tinually of persons going about with cards and hand-bills, styling themselves agents
of the companies, and soliciting custom at reduced rates, and engaging to lay on
water free of expense. It was said in the course of the examination before this
Committee, that the vestry supported the bill to Parliament; the observation that
I made was, that I could produce an extract from the minutes, which I now do ;
Mr. Greenwell the clerk is not well, and cannot attend, and therefore I brought
it ; it is signed by him ; Mr. Greenwell at that time was not clerk of the vestry, but
he is in possession of the minutes.
[An extract from the minutes of the vestry of Mary-le-bone, dated the
4th of November 1809, was read.]
Are there not many parts of Mary-le-bone much higher and more difficult to
serve than Seymour-street?—Certainly, to the north.
Are you connected with the Anti Water Monopoly Association?—I have been
from the beginning.
(Mr. Lynde.)—I wish to correct some part of Mr. Hope's statement with regard
to the Chelsea company; he says, that they never gave him any notice of leaving
the district; and he meant to infer, that the Chelsea company did not give notice
to any of their tenants; we certainly served no written or printed notice ; we
thought it better to give directions to the collectors to call and make an apology,
and see the master of the house if they could ; here the collector says he saw
Mr. Hope’s servant and gave him notice, and subsequently he saw Mr. Hope
himself, and gave him notice of it; and the collector of the other district will state
with him, that they called at every house, and they reported to the board that
they had so done.
(Mr. Hope.)—I was not in town at the time the collector called, nor until
Christmas, about three months after it was cut off. -
Mr. James Birch Sharpe, Called in ; and Examined.
WHERE is your residence?—At Hoxton.
What is your situation ?–1°rivate gentleman.
Are you in any way connected with any of the companies?—I am not, nor was
I at any time, either with the old companies, the new companies, or the institution
of any company; and I beg leave to add, that I do not appear here for any
individual, but for myself. I must observe, that I have not paid so much attention
to the extent of the grievances which the public have to complain of at the east
end of the town, equal with those at the west end, nor examined much into their
nature, but considered more the cause of those grievances, which are in the want
of a proper regulation, or rather in the irregular manner in which the laws for
the institution of those water companies for the supply of water to the metropolis
have been passed; if other regulations were adopted, and that which is now simply
a private resolution of a company, became a matter of public notoriety or a public
matter, many of the grievances would be entirely put an end to. To show the
extent of district to which my observations apply, I would wish to have read
the preamble of the act of parliament which instituted the East London water-
works company; and I beg leave to state, that the district is of considerable
importance, inasmuch as it contains a greater number of houses, and consequently
I think I may infer a greater number of inhabitants, than the cities of London
and Westminster conjointly, together with the liberties of Westminster and the
districts without the walls of the city. The preamble of the act will also show the
necessary engagements; and I will beg leave merely to say, that after the preamble
states the districts to which their works are to extend, it states that those districts are
insufficiently supplied with water, and that therefore it would be beneficial for them.
The first grievance of which I have to complain, and which will apply to my own
case in particular, is, that the proprietors of property are under the necessity of
paying the rent or water charge contracted by their tenant. I speak principally to
principles, and I will give one case in each company to show it is applicable to the
New River and East London company; but I consider this unjust in principle, that
A. B. should be obliged to pay a debt for C. D. to which A. B. is not a party, and
I think there is danger in this, because it gives opportunity for a malicious tenant
to annoy his landlord. There is another point to which I wish to call the attention
of º Committee, which is of importance, that the companies will allow the landlords
700. Ll - * to
Mr.
J. T. Hope.
S–U –’
(14 March.)
Mr.
J. B. Sharpe.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Ji?).
J. B. Sharpe.
S------------
(14 March.)
to contract with them for the supply of certain houses ; the companies first choose
what class of houses they will allow you to contract for, (and of course I thought
I was only answerable for the houses for which I had compounded,) but after they
have made their election, if any arrears accrue, no matter from what cause, whether
it be from the removal of a tenant or from the neglect of the collector, you are
compelled to pay, without any fixed rule as to time, to circumstances, to the amount
or otherwise; and this is particularly hard, since the proprietors are unable to ascertain
the debt, have no knowledge of the existence of that debt until it is actually de-
manded of them, and therefore they are unable in any way to provide against it: as
a proof of what I have stated, I will bring you a demand made upon me by the New
River company; this is a demand for arrears of ten quarters water charge, up to
Midsummer 1815, that is to say, from Christmas 1812 to Midsummer 1815; I wish
to show the principle ; I am not making a complaint that it is unfair or unjust, but
I complain of it, because the public are not apprized of it that it is a private rule of
the companies; but if it was a law, the landlord would be able to make provision for
it, for he is placed in this situation if arrears occur and the water is cut off; the
new tenant will not agree to take the house unless the water is laid on; the burthen
necessarily falls on the landlord, and he cannot redress himself; had he known it pre-
viously, he would say the rent is £. 30, the water charge is 30 S. and you are to pay
that to me; if that could be instituted, the grievance would be removed, and the
landlords would be able to recover this; now they have no power; the individual is
gone, the landlord is compelled to pay the demand, and he cannot enforce it from
the old tenant because it is only due to the company; now in this sum of ten
quarters, one of my complaints is made out, that is, that those arrears may arise from
the conduct of the collector. In this case the tenant was a very bad tenant, and rent
to the amount of £.40 was given up to him quietly that he might quit the house.
What was the term for which he owed that £. 40 2–I do not recollect; he paid
£. 30 or £. 35 per year; now if the man was a bad character, it was a great neglect
in the collector to allow such arrears, and therefore I suppose he should have cut
off the water at the expiration of a single year; and thus, without reference to time,
as I have stated, the landlord was compelled to pay the expense.
You complain that there should be a want of a public regulation which should
enable persons to know whether the premises were likely to be charged or not f—
Certainly, that we do not know it till the charge is made upon us, that it is a
private rule, and not a public law : but I beg leave to say, that as the case now
stands, we have no security, whether that rule shall last a year or not, and that is
one principle of the complaint which I bring before the Committee; the same rule
applies to the East London company, and if they will admit it, it will save me the
trouble of bringing proof of it : I am not anxious to bring any charge against the
company, but only to speak to the effects. - *
[Mr. Pickering admitted the case was so.] *
As I am a proprietor of several houses, unfortunately of an inferior class, I should
not myself object to any law that might be passed in order to fix the property with
the water charge; and to prove that I am somewhat sincere in my assertion, F
offered to farm or compound with the New River company for the whole of my
houses, which was refused; the reply was, that it was too great a concern, and
therefore I am not one of the landlords who would refuse an offer made to them, as
has been stated, because, I conceive, if the Committee were to recommend such a
law, a power would be given to landlords to recover, as they have in cases of
insurance, by distress, or as they have, where an agreement to that effect is made, to
recover the land-tax, which is a charge upon the freeholder; and perhaps I may be
allowed also to state, that if such were to be the case, that the price charged for the
water would be a little less than at present. But as a landlord also, I wish to make an
observation as to what I consider a charge against landlords in general. In the evidence
of Mr. Steevens, the engineer of the East London company, he stated that the land-
lords charged their tenants a higher price than they paid the company; this is true;
I do so; for if the company receive a benefit by making an allowance to the proprietor
of 25 per cent, because he compounds, it is on the same principle right that the
landlord should make a tenant pay the full amount; and therefore I do not con-
sider that that is selling water at a profit, providing that proportion is observed.
The other grievance which I have to complain of is important; I allude to the
combination between the New River and the East London companies; that is ad-
mitted; but it is a greater grievance at our end of the town than at this, because
it is already in evidence before you, that it would take a considerable time before
• ** * the
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS,
the water of one company could be thrown into the pipes of the other, in case of
fire, and in case of the defects of the works of one company; and upon another
principle too is it of greater consequence to us than it appears to be with respect
to the inhabitants of this end of the town, that as there is at present but one
dealer in water, or one company, we are under the necessity of paying the price,
whatever it may be, or submit to the deprivation ; but there is a clause, I under-
stand, in the articles of agreement before you, that if one company should refuse
to serve the inhabitants, the other company would be compelled, under their articles
of agreement, to do so; but I do not see how it could possibly apply, when it
would take so great a time to change their pipes; because, on the partition, seven
weeks were consumed on the alteration, and for seven weeks consequently my house
was scarcely during that time supplied a single day with water; and the other
grievances with respect to this combination are, that the prices are exorbitant.
To save the time of the Committee, I have brought before them receipts; the
first receipt is a rise of a little more than fifty per cent; and I will state it now,
without fear of contradiction, that with respect to the East London company, they
rose throughout the whole of their district, I believe fifty per cent. very nearly as
a general rule, and in many cases to some hundreds per cent. This is a case of a
Mr. Green, in Margaret-street, Hackney-fields, a rise from 16s. to 25 s.
In what year was the 16s 2–1815, with the same company; this was up to
Michaelmas 1815; a charge of 8s. for two quarters, in October 1819; up to
Christmas 1817 the charge was 12s. 6d. for two quarters; Nos. 78 and 79, Mar-
garet-street, are in the same situation. I do not mean to anticipate any defence
that may be set up, but I wish to state one fact, that both of those are charged
alike; but when the advance took place, it might be stated that the charge was justi-
fiable, as one of them was a laundress, but in the other case it was not so, the
houses were of the same size.
Do you know these houses vourself?–I will state at once, I have brought for-
5 8->
ward the receipts in order to save a good deal of useless gossip, which the Com-
mittee must otherwise attend to, and I have brought the persons in general to
whom the receipts were made out, because it is clear an old laundress or washer-
woman could give no satisfactory evidence to the Committee. I know the houses
very well, they consist of four rooms and the wash-house, commonly called five
rooms by the company.
(Mr. Pickering.)—Those houses came within our scale of rating.
(Mr. Sharpe.)—It is also within my knowledge that that part of the district was
all rated at the same rate.
What was it before ?
at all.
The New River company never went into that street
What supplied it at 16s. P--It is a new street, and it was rated at that by the
East London. *
When was it built?—Ten or twelve or fifteen years ago.
The East London company first charged 16s. and then raised it to 25's 2–Yes.
Were the New River company’s pipes near there?--I do not think they are,
because you have fields to cross from Kingsland crescent to Margaret-street.
(To Mr. Pickering.)—It does not appear that any competition existed in
this quarter, or was near this quarter, at that or any former time –Not that I
know of. -
Then the Committee do not understand for what reason you suddenly raised this
rate in so large a proportion as from 16s. to 25s 2—My answer to that is, that
upon a revision of the district we found that many of the streets and houses in the
districts had been rated considerably too low in proportion to others, and the first
step was to bring those houses which we considered had been so underrated on an
equality with the rest; then at Christmas 1817 a general rise took place of some-
thing under five-and-twenty per cent. upon the whole; but I beg leave to add to
that, that the additional rates put upon the houses in the way of equalizing them,
and also that addition upon the whole afterwards, I believe does not exceed five-
and-twenty per cent. on the gross.
Then the case of this particular house was a case that included the raising up of
a rate that was formerly too low, to a level, and also the addition of twenty-five per
cent?—Certainly. *
Can you explain to the Committee what was the occasion of that originallow rate?—
In many instances, to my knowledge, it was imposition practised on the company by
| 706. \ *: those
f .**
(14 March.)
136
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Rſ)".
J. B. Sharpe.
\–~~~
(14 March.)
those who applied for water, in describing the premises which they wished to be sup-
plied as of a less dimension than they really were. ~.
Is it usual for no surveyor to see what the premises are ; do you always take the
tenant’s own representation?—I am sorry to say in the early times of new water-
work companies that was not the case, they did not take that pains, and by subse-
quent revisions of the district, they found they were imposed on in that respect.
Could you by inquiry ascertain the reason of the low rating of this special case?—
I can make the inquiry of the collector certainly, but the house appears to be a house
of five rooms; I dare say we shall be able to find the reason why the rise was made,
as it was general.
(Mr. Sharpe.)—I must now bring another case of a rise of fifty per cent. to which
the reason given in the other case will not apply; this is a house in the occupation of
Mr. John Butler, No. 6, in John's-terrace, Hackney-road. By the receipts it
appears that Mr. Butler paid in the year 1818, immediately previous to the rise,
three guineas per annum for three houses in that street; the three guineas for three
houses was paid on the 23d of February 1818, up to the Christmas previous, which
was Christmas 1817, and then on the 20th day of February 1821, which was the only
receipt, I believe, which could be found for two houses, £. 3 were paid for two
houses; those houses contain eight rooms at the least, and are very good, substantial,
handsome houses, and I believe let for between £.50 and f.70 a year.
[Mr. Pickering admitted the rates were so raised.]
(To Mr. Sharpe.)—What would be the probable rental of the houses in Margaret-
street?—The rent of the houses in Margaret-street I take to be £. 24 a year.
And the others you call £. 50 or £.70 ?–Between £.50 and £. 70. In a house
of £. 24 a year, it is probable that the landlord pays all the parochial rates and taxes,
which is my case: I let such houses for £ 20 a year for the tenant to pay all taxes,
and in the other case £. 24 a year, and pay taxes myself.
(Mr. Pickering.)—I believe those houses in John's-terrace were very near the
New River service. --- - -
(To Mr. Steevens.)—Do you believe the rate of a guinea to have been below
the fair rate the company could afford 2–I consider so; it is not more than half
the value those houses ought to pay.
(Mr. Sharpe.)—I will now call the Committee’s attention to another case ; the
correct situation of this house I can hardly state, and therefore if the information
I have given to the solicitor is incorrect, it is the fault of the collector’s bad
writing; the name is Bell, in Castle-street, Spitalfields; it is a very poor neigh-
bourhood indeed; it appears for this house 18s. was paid for three quarters rate up
to Christmas 1817, and for half a year or two quarters rate to Midsummer 1818, it
was £. I ; that is from 24 S. to 40 s. a year.
Do you know this house?—Here are the receipts; I know nothing of the pre-
mises whatever, and I think the gentleman who can state the premises, will make
a good defence if he can.
(Mr. Pickering.)—This is a large public-house, known by the sign of the
Feathers; it is a large house of the kind; it has a good deal of garden ground;
three families as lodgers, weavers and so on; and it was raised at Christmas 1817
from 248. to 408. •.
Was if a large public-house, with garden and skittle ground, when it paid £. 1. 4s 2
—Yes; and at that time ought to have been rated at 32s, the equalization would
have made it amount to that.
When you say the equalization, do you mean with other public-houses?—
Yes, exactly, to bring this house to what other public-houses in the neighbourhood
paid. - -
If you had made no general rise at all of twenty-five per cent. what would
you have considered this house ought to have paid 2–Thirty-two shillings. -
According to the rate which other public-houses similarly situated in the neigh-
bourhood paid before the general rise 2–Certainly ; the generality of them
paid 36s. -
Have you any means of telling us other public-houses in that neighbourhood that
did pay 32 s?—The books will show it: in Shadwell, I believe, it will be found they
generally paid 36s, this was one of the houses supplied by the New River company
before 1815. * . - -
It appears that you made an equalization, as you call it, at Christmas 1817, }.
• 4 - ... that
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
137
that a diminution in some cases, and an increase in others, or was it a general in-
crease?—In some cases it was a decrease, but in general it was an increase.
Upon the whole of your rental was it an increase?—Upon the whole, certainly.
That equalization was previous to the addition you put afterwards?—Yes, certainly,
I understand so ; the equalization was only where the houses had been under-rated.
After you had made the revision which you speak of, you made an equalization
again?—No, certainly not; it was a per-centage on the whole.
When you say under-rated, you mean comparatively with the neighbourhood?—
Yes, comparatively with houses of that description ; we found in some cases they
were over-rated, and in those cases we made a reduction.
You prepared your rental by some proceeding, which you may call an equalization
if you please, previous to adding the twenty-five per cent?—Yes.
By the preparation of your rental, did you increase it or decrease it, or make it
the same as it was before ?—Upon the whole it was an increase; in some instances
it was lowered, but in a great many instances it was raised.
Did you in those changes that you made previous to the twenty-five per cent.
being put on generally, take great numbers of houses and refer them to a few which
were rated higher, raising them to that level; or was it that you took the smaller
number of houses and referred them to a general level that was higher?—Taking
the lower number and referring them to the general level of the greater.
Can you give a comparative view of the rise?—I think we can; in many parts of
the district, what the company gained in rental, both in equalization and subsequent
rise, did not amount to twenty-five per cent.
In point of fact, in this special instance in Margaret-street it was more than
twenty-five per cent?–Perhaps it might be, and some a great deal less.
Where it appears to be more it is a special case?—Yes.
But upon the gross it was twenty-five per cent?—Yes.
You say there were some houses reduced, were they many ?—I cannot tell that out
of 32,000 houses. -
Were there many do you think?—They bore no proportion certainly to those
that were raised. *
(Mr. Sharpe.)—I would wish also to show another case, of a different description
of houses, to establish the fact which I have asserted, that it was generally fifty per
cent. and I would bring various parts of the town for that purpose; a house in the
possession of Mr. Hackblock, in Holywell-street, Shoreditch, paid in the year 181
to the New River company one guinea per annum.
Were you chairman of a general committee who made a report which is in this
pamphlet [handing a pamphlet to the witness]?—I was, and I can only say this,
that the committee is now I believe extinct, and I am the only active member
of it. -
Veneris, 16” die Martij, 1821.
WILLIAM HENRY FREMANTLE, ESQUIRE,
I N T H E C H AIR.
Mr. J. B. Sharpe, again called in.
EFORE I proceed with my evidence, I should wish to explain, with per-
mission, some facts which I think are of importance. I am sorry that from
circumstances that I could not control, some little confusion took place in my evi-
dence at the commencement, and I hope the Committee will excuse it. I omitted
to state, that in the charge of the ten quarters arrears that I was compelled to pay
by the New River company, I appealed against the charge, and then I stated aſ
the circumstances of the case, such as I have stated to this Committee; the man
being a bad tenant, and the neglect of the collector (without meaning any personal
blame to the collector.) I could get no redress whatever; and I was informed by one
of the gentlemen who constituted the New River board, that they never gave them.
selves any trouble to collect arrears becoming due by any tenant, because they knew
if the tenant did not pay the proprietor must. I wish also to state, that on the 30th
May 1820, I was compelled to pay, before the water was laid on, 15s. for half a year’s
Water rate, which had been outstanding one year and three quarters. I wish also to
COrrect
\–
\-
Mr.
J. B. Sharpe.
TS_>~
(14 March.)
Mr.
J. B. Sharpe.
~~
706. M m
(16 March.)
_/
~
138 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
J. B. Sharpe.
----------~~
Mr.
*.
(16 March.)
Mr.
John Paul Rowe.
^_
*ve”
—’
correct a statement that I made on the last day, with respect to the probable value, or
at least my estimate of the value of certain houses in Margaret-street, Hackney-fields,
and also with respect to the retal of certain houses in John’s-terrace, Hackney-
road. I think I stated that those houses in Margaret-street generally let at £. 20
per annum if the landlord paid the taxes and the water rate. I made it my business
yesterday to inquire of several houses of that description which were to let, and at
No. 31 and No. 60, in that street, both being houses of four rooms and a wash-
house each, the parties required a rent of £. 16 only, and if the landlord paid all
the taxes with the water, it was to be £. 20 a year; the water is 258. per annum
for those houses. I also wish to state, that I inquired of some houses rather larger
than I expected to find in that street, being houses of six rooms and a wash-
house, and the rent demanded was £. 20 per annum, the tenant to pay all taxes,
and £. 25 per annum, the landlord to pay all taxes : they are, properly speaking,
fourth rate houses, but they possess six rooms and a wash-house; the water rent of
those houses was 28s. per annum. It was stated by the clerk of the company, that
they considered all houses of four rooms and a wash-house as five roomed houses,
and charged them at 5 s. a room. I considered at the time the defence was made
that there was no correct rule as to equalization of water charges, or of putting
twenty-five per cent. on that equalization ; the equalization and the twenty-five per
cent. if they did exist separately in fact, or in the minds of the companies, was put
on the tenants at one and the same time, and in the case of the six roomed houses
that rule was not followed up, since it was 28s. instead of 30s. I would wish also to
state, that in the defence of the charge of 40 s. for the public-house in Castle-street, it
was stated that it was a house of resort, many persons going to it; now if that were
the case, it might be a just charge : but surely in the instances that I shall now men-
tion to you, the Royal Oak in this Margaret-street, and the Antelope, these are in
the fields, without any neighbourhood, and the houses are thinly placed around
them, having very little custom, and the charges are the same, 40s. per annum; they
are but six rooms each house.
Can you state the time precisely when it was that you were before the board;
what year, and what time of the year?—I can pretty nearly ; and I should imagine
it was somewhere about November or December, in the year 1816.
With regard to your more modern case of 1820, what was your tenant’s name
in that case ?—Austen.
Had you recovered your own rent 2–I believe there were no arrears; I pur-
chased the general lease of that property for the remaining term ; and this house
was untenanted at the time I took possession. .
Then you have lost no rent by it 2–No.
And you know of no rent being lost?—No, I know of no rent being lost; he
was a very respectable man.
You did not bring that case before the board?—No. -
Had this man run away 2–No, he was a respectable man; he held possession of
the house a considerable time after he left it. -
Do you know where he was afterwards?—He removed into Ivy-street, within two
minutes walk of his former residence.
Did you tell the collector where he was living F–At that time, when I had to
pay, he was dead; he died before the water was laid on, and consequently pre-
viously to the time of my knowledge of the debt. This is the only case which has
occurred to me in which more than a twelvemonth’s arrear has been demanded or
received by the New River company.
Mr. John Paul Rowe, called in ; and Examined.
YOU are Secretary to the New River company 2–Yes.
Do you know what is the rule that the company act upon, with respect to
demanding arrears from the landlord, or persons occupying premises, when they
are not paid by the person who lived in them at the time the water was furnished?
—Never knew to go back more than one year. *
How long have you known that rule to be acted upon P-It is within these two
or three years I believe, not longer.
You do not bear it in your recollection out of what circumstances it arose that
such a rule of limitation came to be adopted 2–No. .
Within that time of a twelvemonth the company exercise their own discretion?—Yes.
You have no recollection of Mr. Sharpe's being present in the year 1816?—
I do not recollect it; I am inclined to think I was out of town at that time.
Since
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
139
Since you have been secretary, at any time have you understood that the com-
pany acts upon any such principle, as giving themselves no trouble to look after the
tenants, because they are sure the landlords may be called upon to pay the rent 2–
The instructions are to look to the tenants where they can possibly find them, in the
first instance.
Has that been constantly so since your recollection —I believe I may say con-
stantly so; that those are the constant instructions to the collectors.
Is any resort had to the landlord where the tenant can be found and is in solvent
circumstances 2—If that has been the case, it has been against the orders of the
board; I am not aware of any case that has occurred of that nature.
(To Mr. Sharpe.)—At what period, after the house in Queen’s-row was unoc-
cupied, was application made for the water rent 2–No application was made to me
whatever; the water was refused to be put on, on my applying for a supply, unless
those arrears were paid. -
How long before the water was put on was it claimed?—The water was laid on
at Lady-day 1820. -
How long before that had you applied?—I should suppose immediately previous to
Lady-day ; there was no necessity to have the water laid on until I let the house,
for it remained in my possession three quarters of a year before I got a tenant.
Had the water been off during all that time P-It had.
Do you know when the water was taken off?—I do not.
Mr. William Treacher, called in ; and Examined.
YOU are a Collector to the New River company P-Yes.
Do you know the house No. 147 in Queen’s-row, occupied by Mr. Austen?—
I do.
What time was the water taken off?—Soon after Midsummer 1818.
The house was empty after Mr. Austen left it —Yes, it was.
Did you apply for any arrears?—I inquired in the neighbourhood where Mr.
Austen was gone to, and could gain no information.
When you say soon after Midsummer 1818, are you sure it was cut off before
Michaelmas 1818 2–Yes.
You could not find where Mr. Austen was gone 2—No, not till Mr. Sharpe
aid it.
p What did Mr. Sharpe tell you?—He inquired what was due on the house, and
I told him 15 S. and he said he would be responsible for it, and then the water
was put on.
Did he inform you where Mr. Austen was then 2–He was dead at that time.
You did not know what became of Mr. Austen after he left the house?—No.
You had inquired for him, and could not ascertain P—No.
What do you understand your duty to be previous to making a claim on the house?
—To follow the tenant, if he can be found; if not, to acquaint the landlord with
what is due on the house, and then if he pays it the water is restored; but not
until that, unless the case comes before the New River board.
And in this instance you followed that course P-Yes.
What is your restriction with regard to the time back at which you are to claim
arrears?—A year, not beyond; nor do we suffer it to go on more than a year.
(Mr. Sharpe.)—With respect to John's-terrace, I stated the houses were let at
from £. 50 to £.70 a year; it is a fact that one of them did let at £.65 a year,
but in consequence of the general reduction, I suppose they are now let at £.45
a year only. I would wish to call the attention of the Committee to Margaret-
street again, before I continue Mr. Hackblock’s case; it appears that there is a six
roomed house in Margaret-street, in possession of a baker, that was raised to 28 s.
and subsequently, in the year 1820, to 36s. a year, upon the principle, as I under-
stand, that he is a baker.
What is the number 2—I have not the number.
What is the name 2–Mr. Richardson; it is a baker’s ; and I understand that
the addition is in consequence of the trade, which forms one of the complaints
I submit to this Committee.
(Mr. Pickering.)—In referring to the scale of rates, there is a note referring
to the trades of butchers and bakers, five-and-twenty per cent. extra.
Does a baker consume a considerable additional quantity of water?—So I under-
stand ; I am informed by one of our collectors who is in the room, who was once
in the trade, that it is from twelve to fourteen gallons per sack of flour.
706. (To
Mr.
John Paul Rowe.
S-sy-'
(1 6. Af arch.)
Mr.
William Treacher.
\––.
I 40
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
William Treacher.
(16 March.)
(To Mr. Mylne.)—Do the New River company make any difference in the rate
with respect to bakers?—They do, in consequence of the convenience afforded to
them generally in a night supply, and from drawing it immediately from the pipes
in the street, for they have always a cock in the lower part, and draw from the
pipe, and not from the cistern ; in most cases, where the collectors have not been
enabled to fix their rates, they have been referred to me, and I have generally regu-
lated the rate in proportion to the convenience afforded to the individual, and not
merely the quantity of water.
They are generally on the main, are they not?—From wanting cold water, and a
night supply, they are generally on the main. *
Does this remark apply to trades in general?—Some trades, certainly.
Do not bakers also consume a considerable quantity of water in their trade 2–
Not much ; they do some, but not a great deal ; convenience of a tenant is to
be met by an outlay of capital on the part of the company, in all cases; and it
continually occurs, that an individual applies for a supply one pair or two pair of
stairs high, where the company cannot supply it by ordinary means ; not merely
for high service, but in particular trades, distillers particularly; I have generally
estimated what the outlay of capital would be, and from that have calculated what
the rent ought to be, giving them the option of taking it or not ; if he has found
sinking a well a cheaper thing, the tenant has done it ; but if, on the other hand,
the company are called upon to expend a capital, the rental has been fixed accord-
ingly. I will give one instance : Henry Meux’s brewery applied for a supply
from the New River company, to know at what price it would be done ; I went
there ; they had a well, a very good one, and pumped the water by a steam engine;
I looked over their account, and they showed me what it cost them to pump the
water, the surface of the water being eighty feet below the ground ; this was a
competition price ; I offered to take them at the expense of the coals which it
cost them, by which they would save the wear and tear of the machinery, and they
have remained at that rate ever since, for four years; in that case, the company
had sufficient capital expended in pipes in the streets.
You do not state that as a profitable transaction?—It aids the general revenue,
but it is not in proportion. -
(Mr. Sharpe.) --I merely state this case, because it has been considered by the
parties paying as a grievance ; and by making this statement, I consider I afford a
fair opportunity for the justification of the companies. With respect to Mr. Hack-
block, a currier in Shoreditch, in fact a retail leather-seller, he paid, in the year
181 i, to the New River company, two guineas.
What is the size of the house 2–It is an eight or ten roomed house, worth at
least £. 70 a year, at the lowest estimation, in Shoreditch ; and in the year 1820
it paid three guineas, which is an advance of fifty cent. and not twenty-five.
(Mr. Pickering.)—Mr. Hackblock’s house is a house of ten rooms in the front
of Holywell-street; the house is supplied upon the main, the water always on ; Mr.
Hackblock is a currier, and keeps a great number of men on his premises; his
premises are very large, and he has been rated a guinea more than he formerly paid
to the New River, namely three guineas.
With regard to the water being on the main, is that at your option, or did he
apply for it?–No, that is at our option; there are several houses in Shoreditch
which it has not been convenient to put on the service.
Could you serve Mr. Hackblock from the service 2–Yes.
It is at your option to take it from the main or a special service?—Yes; but if
he is on the main, three guineas is a reasonable sum, in consideration of the large-
ness of the house, and the addition of the manufactory.
Would you think him entitled to any diminution if he was put on the service?—
No, certainly not ; Mr. Hackblock has never complained to our board, nor have
I heard anything of it till within these few days.
(Mr. Steevens.)—At the time Mr. Hackblock was laid on, there was not a service
in the street, in consequence he was put on the main; and inasmuch as there was
not a service, he was put on at the service price, otherwise he ought to have paid
the double price.
You do not make a man pay the double price where you have no service to serve
him 2–Most assuredly we do not.
Do you invariably charge a double rate when he is on the main —That is the
rule; they have a variety of advantages which answer their purposes; in that
CâSe,
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
141
case, a vessel of 100 gallons will serve a man who otherwise must have a vessel of
2,000. $ -
This man could not have been supplied but from the East London, could he 7–
He was originally supplied from the New River. -
After the division, he could only be supplied by the East London 2–He could
$
not.
You could only supply him from the main — Previously to the service being put
on he was served from the main.
He is still on the main P-Yes.
When the division took place, Mr. Hackblock had no means of being supplied
but from the East London 2–No. -
They could only supply him from the main –I believe the service was laid previous
to that exchange, but Mr. Hackblock has never been put on it. •
When the division took place had the East London the means of serving him but
from the main —I am not sure. -
Was any option given to Mr. Hackblock whether he would have it from the main
or the service?—I do not know whether there was to Mr. Hackblock, but there was
to others. *
If he had not had it from the main he could have had no water at all 2–Yes, w
had a service there. -
(Mr. Sharpe.)—In continuation I wish to state, in proof of what I have before
asserted, that the rise has been generally 50 per cent. and in those cases which
I shall enumerate to you collectively it is within a small fraction certainly of it.
I beg leave to observe that I have called simply upon these individuals because I
know them, I have not selected them from any other motive, from any information
I previously possessed; I have stated Mr. Smith, a wine cooper in Shoreditch,
Mr. Hill, a chemist in Shoreditch, Mr. Airey, grocer in Shoreditch, Mr. Rigby, an
ironmonger in Shoreditch, Mr. Hems, a cheesemonger in Shoreditch, were all raised
from 21 S. per annum to 30s. per annum; those houses, taking them altogether, may
be nearly of equal rentals, but some of them are considerably larger than the others;
for instance, Mr. Rigby’s, the ironmonger's, is a large house, and contains at least
fourteen rooms, besides extensive premises. I wish to state also, a rise which cer-
tainly struck the individual, and must strike every one as enormous, the case of
Mr. Allison, a tripe merchant in Shoreditch, for two houses in the street, originally
charged 42s. per annum for both the houses, and then raised to 147S. per annum,
which is seven guineas; I have surveyed this gentleman’s premises, and he has two
pumps in constant operation.
Of hard water —From wells; he was originally charged eight guineas, but upon
appeal they reduced him one guinea, to the present price, seven guineas; five guineas
he would consider a very fair price to pay ; he certainly uses a great quantity of
water in his trade, but the rise was so enormous, and so sudden, he appealed.
Was it from the New River he was charged at two guineas 2–No, by the East
London water company, in both cases. -
(Mr. Pickering. )—These houses in Holywell-street, Shoreditch, are eight roomed
houses, with shops in a front situation in High-street, Shoreditch, a very public
street, and it was when 21 S. was the competition price.
What had been the original price?—By the New River company it appears that
Mr. Hill was originally 30s. to the New River, which is what we have raised it to ;
No. 36, Mr. Rigby, 26s; No. 234, Hems, an ironmonger, stands in the name of
Raymond, a victualler, 30s; the next is 170, Shepherd, a colour-maker, f. 1. 4s;
161, Walters, £. I. 8s. In the case of Mr. Allison, that is a case that came under
the knowledge of our engineer, and he will explain it.
(Mr. Steevens. J--Mr. Allison is on the main ; when Mr. Allison was originally
rated for the two houses, I believe they were rated as private houses; Mr. Allison
understood there was to be an advance upon them, and I believe had applied to the
board; I was directed to make a survey of Mr. Allison’s houses, and I think
Mr. Allison admitted that they had been rated as private houses, or as private con-
Sumers, without any consideration to his trade; I went very minutely into it, and as
Mr. Sharpe states, there were two pumps which were not fit for certain purposes; he
stated if I would state a price he would abide by it; I stated the price, and he said
do you know that is twice or thrice what I am paying? I said I am perfectly satisfied,
and I think it so.
This was the seven guineas?—This was the seven guineas; this was after some
706. & N in
Sūlīl
Mr.
William Treacher.
(16 March.)
142
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
William Treacher.
G6 March.)
sum had been stated, which I do not know ; Mr. Allison said, let my premises be
surveyed, and I will pay what is deemed a fair rate. * A
Who ordered you to go upon the survey —The court of directors, upon
Mr. Allison’s application; he then expressed his perfect satisfaction : his father was
by, and said, good God! do you consent to this advance? and he said he was quite
satisfied. He is consuming as much as would supply ten ordinary houses; and
I believe Mr. Allison is as well satisfied with the supply as with the rate. -
(To Mr. Sharpe.)—Have you had any communication with Mr. Allison 2–
I saw him yesterday, and he said he considered it too much ; he thought five
guineas a fair price, but he must be satisfied. -
(Mr. Steevens.)—Mr. Allison said, do you know this is three times as much as
I have paid He is not only a pork butcher, but a hog slaughter-man, consuming
a great deal of water; and he is a tripe boiler, boiling for fifty other shops perhaps:
the quantity of water is very large indeed.
Is there any service there 2–There is a service directly opposite, but the service
would not answer for the back which he has, though holding a hundred gallons,
would not be sufficient for him; this is not an ordinary sized pipe ; I believe it is an
inch and a quarter pipe.
(Mr. Robert Simpson.)—I was the person who solicited Mr. Allison to take the
water of the East London waterworks company; and I conceived from looking at
the front of the houses that they were private houses; I took them at anything he
would give us; I took them at a guinea a house: after some time had elapsed, it
was nine guineas: the neighbourhood mentioned the quantity of water he was using,
and paying no more than they were, and he was raised to eight or nine guineas;
after the engineer had surveyed the premises, I was passing, and as I was the
person on whose account he came to the company, he called me in, and told me he
thought he was raised too much ; I went over the premises with him, and certainly
his quantity of water was immense, particularly in the tripe shop, in boiling and
washing. I said, what will satisfy you? if we reduce it to seven, will you be con-
tent P Perfectly so. I said, I will mention it to the board, and if I can prevail
upon them, if shall be done at seven. I mentioned it to the board, and they re-
duced it to seven guineas. I called on Mr. Allison in my way home, and told him
so, and no tenant in the district seemed more content; and so I have seen him
almost every day, and from that hour to this I never heard him make the least com-
plaint whatever of his water, or that he was charged too high.
(Mr. Steevens.)—He has stables and houses besides.
(Mr. Sharpe.)—The next case is Mr. Foulger, a chemist, at No. 133, Ratcliffe-
highway; the rise is from 28 S. to 50s; a chemist of the ordinary size of those in
Shoreditch, without any additional consumption.
A wholesale chemist?—He is a working chemist; he has a laboratory. I wish
to make an observation here, that Mr. Hill, in Shoreditch, lives in a similar sized
house, and is only charged 30s; he has also a laboratory; he is a working chemist
also ; Mr. Knight in Norton Falgate, who has a large business as a chemist, is only
charged-30s. I have a reason for stating Mr. Knight not being raised, he is
situated where a competition could take place, and therefore he is protected by that,
but with respect to the other, I do not conceive that a laboratory will make a rise
in one house and not in another, except for special reasons. -
(Mr. Pickering.)—If Mr. Hill has a laboratory in Shoreditch we know nothing
of it. Mr. Hill always paid 30s. w
What is the reason of Mr. Hill being raised from 21 s. to 30s?—
(Mr. Rowe.)—Mr. Hill paid 30s. to the New River in 1810. \,
(Mr. Pickering.)—That in Ratcliffe-highway ought not to be put in comparison
of this, which has a use for water which we knew nothing of. •
(Mr. Sharpe.)—I merely ask, if one chemist with a similar practice to the other
is charged 50s. why was the other charged 30s?
(Mr. Steevens.)—Foulger is a working chemist and a little distiller; for chemists in
a large way have a still or two, or three, (I cannot speak to the number, but
take it at two ;) it is well known to every one, and particularly to Mr. Sharpe, who
is a good chemist, that chemists use a great deal of water; indeed I heard a distiller
Say; if you turned all you pumped up to the worm tub it would not be too much; it
is the case with all chemists, where the water falls in and out of the worm tub, and
in the case of distillers, where the water flows in as it does to a worm tub and Out
again, without having been received in any regular back, it is difficult to say the
quantity they are consuming; and under those circumstances I have no hesitation
in
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
143
in saying, that all distillers and chemists, or any other person using a still are
under-rated. ... *
Was he a distiller when charged 28 S.–I dare say he was, though we had not
been told of it. -
Mr. Robert JWright, Called in ; and Examined.
YOU are collector of Ratcliffe-highway?—Yes; previous to the rise, the houses
in Ratcliffe-highway was from 28 S. to 30s.
Did that include trades 2–Without trades. -
(Mr. Sharpe.)—I am sorry I had not the opportunity of giving this case to Mr.
Pickering, but he will speak to it hereafter, I know that Mr. Foulger is not a
distiller. Great chemists distil a little, by their own evidence; I do not think this
is a fair charge ; the impression upon my mind, as one of the public, was, that those
charges which I have now enumerated were exorbitant, and we thought it much
more so, comparing it with a letter, which I beg leave to read to the Committee, it
is signed T. N. Pickering, chief clerk and secretary, dated East London water-
works office, December 1st 1817, immediately preceding the rise. -
[It was read, as follows:
- “ East London Water Works.
“The court of directors respectfully inform the several tenants of the company,
that in consequence of the large sums which have heretofore been laid out, and the
great expenditure now taking place in the construction of an additional engine,
mains, and other important works, a moderate advance will necessarily be made in
the water rates from and after Christmas next, to be payable at Midsummer 1818.
- “By order of the court of directors,
“ T. N. Pickering, chief clerk and secretary.
“ East London Waterworks office, Dec. 1, 1817.”
I beg leave, in connection with some evidence that was given, to state that these
charges also struck me as exorbitant, because it appears before this Committee that
there are thirty-two thousand tenants of this company, averaging somewhat more
than 22 s. a house, which will make £. 32,000 at the least per annum, giving at the rate
of five per cent. a capital of £.640,000 ; comparing that capital with the amount
they were authorized to lay out by their act, I considered I had great cause to
complain, because £. 32,000 per annum was too large an interest for the amount
mentioned in that act.
T}o you imagine that they divided all that £. 32,000 2–Certainly not; I con-
ceived there were current expenses; but if you deduct the £. 11,000, current
expenses, that is too great an interest for the money raised by their act. -
What is your idea of a proper and reasonable interest?—I would give an idea if
I had proper data to go upon.
You must have some motion of what is a fit interest for them to have?—I should
say, that for money sunk, in all cases seven per cent. is always allowed. .
What should you consider in your own business a fair interest?—I have no
business. As a consequence of this combination, I have to complain that I now
cannot have high service without an extra charge, because I have been changed
from the East London to the New River, the New River do make a charge for
high service, the East London do not make a charge for high service, and therefore
I complain that if I require high service I must pay an extra charge for it; the East
London will throw the water over the highest house in Shoreditch, I have seen it
myself, and they make no charge for high service at all. -
What is this house in which you have been transferred to the New River com-
pany 2–A house situated in Myrtle-street, Hoxton; it is a large house, one story
high : under the present regulations, I complain that there is no security that the
price this year shall not be doubled, or charged at any extent the next year.
Do you pay any thing for high service now 2–No, not at all ; I was under the
necessity of reducing a cistern, which before contained rain water from the top of
my house, to six or seven feet lower than its original height, in consequence of this
change. - :
The water from the East London reached that cistern, and the New River does
not *-Yes; and the New River supplied me at the height it now is, which is six
or seven feet above the pavement of the street; they told me at the time, (for I was
six or seven weeks without water,) that they soon would be able to supply me to the
º height that I required. My father was under the necessity of putting #
700. this
Mr.
William Treacher.
S-Q –
(16 March.)
Mr.
Robert Wright.
2–
144 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
Robert Wright.
(16 March.)
this large cistern to receive the rain water, and of sinking two wells, in consequence
of the New River company refusing to supply Myrtle-street, which is my father’s
property, which he let out on building leases, unless my father would go to the
expense of laying down the wooden services to each house. -
Of what period are you speaking now?—I suppose at least twenty years ago; but
at that time the mains ran at the end of the street ; my father thought it was too
great a demand, and therefore sunk the wells as the less expense, and put this
tank up. * x -" %
There were very few houses built at that time?—This was at a time when all the
houses were built, except six, I think; there are fifty houses in the street at least;
application was made when only a few houses were built, and it was not reasonable
to suppose the company would supply it, and they were under the necessity of
laying down a large leaden service from Hoxton Town to a house, No. 5, in this
Street. s
Who laid that down?—My father.
About twenty years ago?--Thereabouts; it is within my perfect recollection; that
was one of the causes alleged before a Committee of this House, as a reason upon
which the bill for the establishment of the East London company was passed; that
was the alleged complaint in 1807. ---
Alleged by your father?—By my father and others in a similar situation.
Your father brought it forward?—Yes, my father attended here several days.
Your father was pretty active in promoting that object at the time?—My father
was very active in promoting the institution of the East London company; this tank
was put up in consequence of the refusal of the company to supply us, except upon
the terms I have mentioned, and it was afterwards taken down, because the New
River could not supply at that height at the time the change took place from the
East London to the New River. g
When the whole street was finished, you say application was made to the New
River to serve that street 2—Yes.
That they had pipes at the end of the street 2—Yes.
And that they refused to drive service-pipes up the street –Yes,
(To Mr. Mylne.)—Was the New River company’s declining to serve those new
buildings to avoid the outlay of capital, or on account of deficiency of supply of
water at their head?—Entirely to avoid the outlay of capital, the increase was
so great, that even calling on the builders to lay down new pipes did not meet the
necessity of the case, and a rise took place in 1806. -
Do you mean to say, that when the company were applied to to lay down a main
into a street of thirty or forty houses, the company did not think it worth their
while for that increased tenantry to lay down and serve that street 2—They found
that to be the case generally. - *.
Do you mean to say, that it was found generally that the old rates would not
pay the expense of laying down the additional pipes?—Yes.
The increase of the town was so great at that period that you had not a capital
adequate to it?—No; it would have materially reduced their dividends. i
Whatever your inclination was, your capital was not equal to the demand P--
No. § r
Are the Committee to understand you thus, that the company declined to lay
on the water in new streets at the old rates unless the builders would be at the
expense of laying down new pipes —Yes. s
And they did not venture to take the tenants at an increased rate 2–No ; that
was pushed for two or three years; then I believe it was modified to a part of the
expense, the builder to pay half the expense; and the rates were increased, and
the charge ultimately abandoned. -
In point of fact, supposing that a street had been built, and that the builders
of that street had agreed to lay down pipes at their own, expense, the company
would never have had the same claim to an increased rate on those streets as if they
had laid down pipes at their own expense?—No ; the moment they had taken pos-
session of the street they considered they had the same claim to an increased rate
as on other streets.
Admitting that the builders had, with a view of obtaining a supply, laid down the
main pipes, that street would have a stronger claim against additional rate, than a
street laid down by the company –It is perhaps seven years before a new street
begins to pay well, and the capital, while in wood, is half expended, they seldom
lasting above fourteen years.
The
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS,
I 45
The expense of renovation and repair was always to be on the company ?—
Always after they took possession of the pipes.
Mr.
Robert Wright.
That was a very material item while wood was in use, was not it?—Yes; the S->~
company did the work, and charged them prime cost; they might do it themselves,
if they chose ; but they never could do it so cheap. With respect to the high sup-
ply, I wish to state the manner in which the company think themselves bound to
supply. I stated before that the company did not consider that there was any
engagement to serve above the ground floor, above the level of the pavement, or to
a cistern standing on the ground in the yard behind ; there are many thousand
instances where they serve higher, but in no instance whatever previous to 1810,
(if an individual, who had a cistern up stairs, applied to the committee and stated
they had a deficient supply), have the company expended a shilling to improve
that supply; the answer given to the person has been, where is your cistern ? In
the first story. How long have you been deficient? Two or three months. If
you choose to take the hazard of such a supply, it is very well ; but if you put your
cistern on the basement, we will give you any supply you require. In driving mains
to Mary-le-bone, you cannot proportion your main to the size of your district; you
take it larger in the first case, and as the houses increase, the supply gets weaker and
weaker, and persons have been obliged to lower their cisterns; in thousands of in-
stances, where the butts in the back yards did not get a supply, the people were
told they must sink their butts in the ground.
Though the Meuxes had a well upon their premises, (if the Committee understand
you right,) they thought it more convenient and cheap to take a supply from the
New River company than to have it supplied from their own well?—Yes; the same
thing has occurred at another brewhouse in Liquorpond-street. w -
And in any other place?—I do not recollect just now.
You say the company did not engage to serve above the basement story in 1810 ;
at that period did the general service of the company rise into cisterns above the
ground floor of the district?–In a great many instances it did; if the people
have the ball-cocks on regularly, it will make a difference of ten feet in the service.
And the company made no difference in the charge for serving a cistern of that
kind?—No.
You say it was entirely a matter of chance whether a man got it or not, he had no
right to claim it?—Certainly not. *
(Mr. Sharpe.)—I complain also, that under the present regulation the companies t
themselves decide all disputes that may arise between the tenants and themselves,
a regulation that I think in my humble opinion requires correction, and to which
I trust the attention of the Committee will hereafter be called; perhaps if I were to
proceed in the way I first arranged, I should be considered tedious by the Com-
mittee; I would merely recommend to the attention of the Committee the act which
constituted the East London waterworks company; at the commencement, on the 8th
of August 1807, I think it will there be found that all the complaints which had
before been made of the other companies apply also to this act, and I consider the
35th clause was intended to be more binding than it is, when it is stated that the
prices shall be according to mutual agreement; I therefore submit, from the evidence
there is nothing like mutual agreement, when a circular is sent round, and you are
compelled to pay that demand or lose the supply altogether. I think also it is a
matter of some importance to the freehold, and I am surprised it has been over-
looked by the legislature, that the companies should have the power to distrain, as
in the case of a landlord, for a dispute may possibly arise, when the landlord and
the company may enter together, who shall have the prior claim ; it is out of the
power of private individuals to litigate points with corporate bodies: the reason I
have mentioned the circumstance is this, that in case of a distress by the king for
assessed taxes and a freeholder at the same time, whoever comes in first takes his
whole demand if he can get it, and the other must take what is left if there is
any left. I wish to state these words of Mr. Justice Best, as conveying completely
my feelings, that great public benefits are held out as inducements to the legisla-
ture to Sanction these undertakings; and, when their sanction is obtained, is it to
be permitted to those persons to say they will do only what is beneficial to them-
selves, and disregard the interest of the public?
*
At the meeting at which you were chairman was there any offer made on the
Pärt of the company to meet a committee on each side to adjust and arrange the
differences?—As to the particular circumstances of that meeting I cannot pretend
706. O o to
(16 March.)
146
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Aſ.
Robert Wright.
\– ~
2^
(16 March.)
Mr.
James Davis.
*—v-—’
to detail them; but if any information is necessary, the gentlemen of the East Lon-
don company are competent to give it.
Are you informed of that fact?—I have no recollection of any such proposal at
the public meeting.
Was there subsequently a proposal made that there should be a deputation on each
side, with a view to adjust and compromise all disputes?—Yes; and I objected to
private compromise, because it was a public matter.
You refused all compromise —A compromise of some sort was offered, but no
terms were mentioned; it was after the meeting was over, in a committee who called
the public meeting, and I objected to it upon principle.
The proposal was made to you, you having been chairman 2–It is possible it
might. I have no objection to abide, either here or elsewhere, on what I stated on
that meeting ; I am ready to enter into any explanation that may be required of me.
Should not you have considered you took a great responsibility on yourself in
deciding for the public?—We could not dispose of the public rights, and we con-
sidered they were involved in the question.
After this, had not you a second public meeting, at which you were chairman
again?—There was a second meeting.
You admitted that a house that had a supply of water was bettered by all the cir-
cumstances, by having a leaden pipe attached to it, but in no other way was it bene-
fited 2–I stated it was bettered in the same way that a house was bettered by
having a baker’s shop within five minutes walk of it, instead of having to go five
miles for it; relatively it is better; I admit, that to a certain extent it is better, on
the same principle as I have stated as to a baker's shop within five minutes walk or
five miles.
Have you found a facility in the company to receive complaints in the way of
appeal —After the first appeal I made, I do not know.
Of course, as chairman of that meeting you wished to preserve order; but were
you able to preserve order to such an extent as that those who attended on the part
of the companies were able to have or to obtain a hearing at that period —I think
the defenders of the company had a very fair hearing, as far as it was possible to keep
silence where there was a great public feeling. At the time the meeting was called
the public were suffering from the rise of prices, and all the consequences which
I have stated from the combination, and therefore of course they were considerably
irritated; but if the minutes of that meeting are brought forward, I am sure that
nothing will appear in any observations I made at that meeting that could at all tend
to irritate the feelings, or prevent that harmony of the meeting which ought to
subsist.
But there was considerable tumult at that meeting 2—There was tumult, but
not disturbance.
Mr. James Davis, Called in ; and Examined.
ARE you one of the proprietors of the East London waterworks?—I am the
chairman of the directors of the East London waterworks.
State what you wish to lay before the Committee 2–I wish to state particularly
as to the meeting at the City of London Tavern (I was there, and Mr. Sharpe
was in the chair, on the 30th of October 1818, and I addressed the meeting after
Mr. Sharpe had opened the business, with a view to conciliate, as much as pos-
sible, the clamour which had been excited against the companies. I addressed them
at considerable length, and was very much interrupted in the course of my address,
but I concluded by saying that there was no circumstance of any kind which I was
aware of, which related to a supply of water, but what was perfectly fair, and just, and
right; but if there were any exceptions to that observation, we were willing and
ready at all times to receive the complaints of the parties, and to give every possible
explanation and redress that could be required; and so strongly impressed was
I with that consideration, that though the meeting appeared to be held for the pur-
pose of exciting as much attention as possible, yet I could not reconcile myself to leave
the room, without at least endeavouring that that which I had proposed should be
submitted to the meeting; and a gentleman of the name of Young proposed at
that meeting that there should be a committee appointed by this meeting, and
that all differences, of whatever nature or kind they were, should be submitted to the
directors of the East London waterworks; and I pledged myself as a member of the
court, that they should be taken into serious consideration, and, as much as .
R’ê(I'êSS6 (1.
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS,
147
redressed. This was proposed by Mr. Sharpe as a question by way of amendment
upon the resolution, which was brought forward by some individuals that were
there, and upon the amendment being put, it was negatived. Of course when
I found there was an end of every thing like that which I promised myself
would be the effect of good order, and every thing pleasant and agreeable, I left
the room ; it was proposed by way of amendment, and seconded and negatived by
fifty to one, I suppose; the proposition was made while Mr. Sharpe was in the
chair, and submitted to the full meeting, and therefore why he should say it was
submitted afterwards, I cannot account for.
Your proposal was to compromise and adjust every thing in dispute?—Certainly.
Was it to enter into a discussion of the whole matter, and explain the grounds
on which you acted 2–No ; only any individual cases of complaint.
The whole must be made up of individual cases; suppose individual cases amounted
to the whole, would you have gone into the whole if it had been consented to 2–
No doubt about it.
You would not have allowed your right to raise an increased rate to be entered
into ?–Yes, I would; the fact is this, there was nothing but individual cases pre-
sented to the meeting. *
(Mr. Sharpe.)—I stated that I had no recollection of any such proposition at
the public meeting; the evidence of the gentleman has shown, at least, if it did take
place, the part I acted was a fair part.
And it has also shown that you must have forgotten that?—I did; it was stated
specifically at a private meeting on the same evening, or at a subsequent meeting of
the committee appointed; it was made there a distinct proposition by one or two
members, and I opposed it with as much authority as I could, and I opposed it
on principle.
Lunae, 19° die Martij, 1821.
WILLIAM HENRY FREMANTLE, ESQUIRE,
IN THE CH A I R.
Mr. William Matthew Coe, called in ; and Examined.
'ſ i "HE general answer to the case of Sir Harry Englefield is, that it was a case
of equalization, and it was upon the same principle that it was lowered, and
after an internal inspection of the house it was reduced, and not the high service
taken off.
(To Mr. Coe.)—The rise was from three guineas to six, why was that ?—We
raised this house from three to five guineas on the principle of equalization which
we adopted; the one guinea was for the high service, distinctly stated for the high
service, and so it was explained to Sir Harry Englefield. Sir Harry Englefield
subsequently waited on the directors, and he was informed that it was upon that
principle of equalization that the rate was charged on his house, and we instanced
several houses to Sir Harry Englefield where the rates had been lowered upon the
same principle ; that was stated to Sir Harry.
Mr. HVilliam Hart, called in ; and Examined.
NOW what conversation had you with Sir Harry Englefield?—I first called on
Sir Harry’s butler for the rates. -
At what time was that 2–Before I saw Sir Harry; the butler said Sir Harry had
objected to the payment of the rates overcharged; I asked if he would let me see
the house, and I looked round the house, and saw the situation of the water-
closet of the house; the house looks larger externally than it does internally,
therefore I said I will represent it to the board. I looked to the situation of the
water-closet; we had conceived that it was higher, but I found that it was a little
below the ground floor. -- *
It was below the ground floor?—About a step lower, in the back yard ; I then
told the butler that I should make the representation to the board, and I did so,
and the situation the water-closet was in, and the size of the house; and under all
those circumstances the board lowered Sir Harry one guinea; then I called on Sir
Harry afterwards, and informed him what had been done ; that his house was large
796. - externally,
Mr.
James Davis.
S–S 2—”
(16 March.)
Mr. W. M. Coe.
\ -Z
(19 March)
*f;.
William Harf.
S––.
148
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
. Afr.
William Hart.
(19 March.)
Mr.
John Gibson.
externally, though it was not so large internally, and the water-closet being a little
below the ground floor, we had taken all those circumstances into consideration,
and under those circumstances we had lowered him one guinea. That was the
conversation between Sir Harry and me ; Sir Harry, in reply to that, said that
there was a suit in the court of King’s Bench, and whenever that was settled he
would pay the next day. *
Did Sir Harry state that the board must have known that fact before?—I do not
recollect ; it was under all the circumstances that the rates were lowered, and not
upon the principle of the high service. This house certainly does appear larger
externally than it does internally.
(Mr. Coe.)—Mr. Hart was given to understand decidedly that the high service
was not reduced, because it would have gone to take high service from every person
in the same situation.
Do you consider that Sir Harry Englefield at that reduction is lower than other
houses –-I represented it so to the chairman, and he said, it is not worth squabbling
about a few shillings. * -
You have stated a variety of cases where persons have refused to pay the in-
creased demand, and you have cut off the supply of water; now in this instance
you have not; why did you deal partially with him P-It has been at his particular
request that it should not until this inquiry was gone into.
(The Witness.)—I will state one circumstance with respect to Sir Harry; there
certainly ought not—the commissioners ought not to have made a particular dis-
tinction in this case, but I had the pleasure of knowing Sir Harry Englefield a
few years ago, and I believe that I originally solicited him to take his water from
our water company. He was perfectly aware that we could cut off his water, but
he said, “It will inconvenience me if you take it off,” and so said the butler;
and certainly under those circumstances it was waived, and under the circum-
stance of his being in an ill state of health ; and his own servant the butler, who
is here, said, “I hope you will not deprive us of the water, as it will be a very
great inconvenience.”
John Gibson, Butler to Sir Harry Englefield, called in ; and Examined.
YOU have heard what has been stated by Mr. Hart, and you have heard that
letter of Sir Harry Englefield’s read?–He stated almost every word of what he has
stated, that the gentlemen had taken it off entirely on the ground, finding that the
water-closet was on the ground floor, and they thought it was higher; that is the
short and long of the story. He repeated those words over to me two or three
times, that it was in eonsequence of its being on the ground floor. The water used
to come in regularly Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, and afterwards the days
were changed; I know it because I used to hear it when I was sitting in my room.
“Sir, Tilney-street, 14th March 1821.
“ Being one of those who first concurred in the propriety and necessity of form-
ing an association of householders, in the parishes supplied with water by the West
Middlesex and Grand Junction companies, for the purpose of raising a fund to
defray the expenses of legal proceedings, to ascertain whether those companies be
really invested with the extraordinary and oppressive powers claimed by them, of
refusing to afford a supply of water on other than such terms as they shall choose to
prescribe to the inhabitants, and also of an application to Parliament for a remedy of the
grievances now felt in relation to the supply of water to the metropolis; and having,
from a sense of public duty, been actively engaged, since the formation of the
association in October 1819, in promoting its objects, and in investigating the
grounds on which the companies respectively claim to be entitled to the payment of
increased water rates, commencing at different periods in that year, I have been very
desirous of attending on the Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed
to inquire into these matters, for the purpose of giving evidence thereon, but the
continued ill state of my health prevents me from leaving my chamber; and I have
therefore thought it advisable to state, in writing, a few of the points which I am
anxious to bring under the notice of the Committee, and which I would otherwise
have hoped to be permitted to state in person.
“As the origin and objects of the association I have mentioned, are most fully
and correctly set forth in the report of the proceedings at its first public meeting,
I inclose a printed copy of that paper soon after its circulation; public meetings of
ſº g * go
the aggrieved householders were held in the several parishes of St. James West-
minster, St. George Hanover-square, St. Mary-le-bone, Pancras and Paddington,
which
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
149
which were numerously attended, and at which similar resolutions were passed
and subscriptions entered into. In December 1819 I drew up a statement,
relative to the proceedings of the companies, which I caused to be printed and cir-
culated among the inhabitant householders, wherein I stated the results of the
inquiries I had been making, and advised the parishioners, generally, to join the
association. Having taken much pains to inform myself on the subject, by personal
investigation, I have good grounds to believe that all the facts therein stated are
strictly true, and as they comprise the principal matters of grievance, which are still
felt, I have also inclosed a copy of that paper. º
“Finding that the companies declined to afford the aggrieved householders an
opportunity of procuring a legal decision on the doubtful right they had set up,
previously to a general exercise of those assumed rights (a course of proceeding
which I do not recollect to have been adopted on any similar occasion by any other
public body or corporation whatever,) and being served with a notice from the
Grand Junction company that I should be subjected, in common with numerous
other individuals, to the inconveniences resulting from the deprivation of the ac-
customed supply of water at Michaelmas last, (a period of the year when the courts
of law would not be sitting, and consequently no immediate appeal could be made to
them,) unless I previously submitted to the new terms on which they proposed to
continue that supply, I wrote to their secretary a letter, of which the following is
a copy :—
“ . Sir, - . Tilney-street, 23d March 1821.
“‘I have received your letter of the 4th instant, wherein you state, ‘that the court
of directors of the Grand Junction waterworks company understanding that I refuse
to pay the rate charged by them for a supply of water to my premises, from a belief
that it is exorbitant, have directed you to assure me that it is fair and moderate,’
and further, ‘ that the expenses which the company have incurred in providing
water for the districts which they supply, have so far exceeded their original calcu-
lation as to render it impossible for them to continue the service of water to my
premises at the rate I have hitherto paid, viz. f. 3. 3s. per annum, and that the com-
pany give me that timely notice, that at Michaelmas next, being the expiration of the
current year for which I am now supplied, it is not their intention to renew the
present contract under which I have been supplied, and that at and from the said
Michaelmas next they will discontinue the supply of water to my premises altogether,
unless a new agreement shall be made between me and the company.’
“‘As I do not clearly understand the terms and object of this communication,
I desire that you will recall the attention of the court of directors to the circum-
stances connected with the supply of these premises with water; namely, that I had
been for many years supplied by the Chelsea waterworks company, as abundantly
and commodiously, and on as moderate terms as I desired; that on the establish-
ment of the Grand Junction waterworks, I was induced, at the earnest solicitation of
persons interested in those works, to relinquish the supply of the Chelsea company,
, and to permit the Grand Junction company to serve the premises with their water:
that finding the quality of the water to be very inferior to that with which I had
been supplied from the Thames, I entered into a parole agreement after the lapse of
a certain period, with the officers of the Chelsea company, for a renewal of the
service of water from their works, subject to an annual payment of three guineas;
that pursuant to that agreement, I was supplied by the Chelsea company with as
much water as I require for my domestic consumption, delivered by one service pipe,
partly into two cisterns on the basement, and partly into a cistern placed over a
water-closet constructed on the parlour floor, until about or soon after Christmas
1817; when I was informed that, in consequence of some arrangement (to which
I was in no respect a party) among the several water companies, the Grand Junction
water company had been left in the exclusive possession of the supply of this quarter
of the parish of St. George Hanover-square, and that my premises would be for the
future supplied by that company; that a demand having been made on me, at a
subsequent period, by the collector of the Grand Junction company, for payment of
rent due for the water which had been supplied to me by the company (as was
alleged by the said collector) from the time the Chelsea company had ceased to afford
the supply, computed after the rate of three guineas per annum, which I had agreed
to pay as abovementioned, I complied with the demand, and paid the rent so claimed;
that soon after Michaelmas last (1819) application was made to me in like manner,
by a collector of the Grand Junction company, for payment of water rent then
706. Pp due
Mr.
John Gibson.
(19 March.)
150
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
John Gibson.
(19 March.)
due for my premises, computed from Michaelmas 1818, at the rate of six instead of
three guineas per annum previously paid, it being at the same time explained to me,
that the said yearly rate of £. 6.6s. was assessed as follows; viz. £. 5. 5s. for the
water delivered into the cisterns on the basement, and termed the low service, and
£. 1. 1 S. for the supply of the water-closet, under the denomination of high service,
both services being then and still supplied by means of one pipe only communicat-
ing with the main in the street; and that, considering these charges to be very
unfair and exorbitant, I have declined to pay for the water supplied, any sum exceed-
ing the amount of the rent due computed after the rate of three guineas per annum,
hitherto paid by me.
“‘I have further to state to you, for the information of the Grand Junction water-
works company, that understanding there are now no other means of procuring a
sufficient supply of water to these premises than from their works, in consequence of
the arrangement entered into by the several water companies, I shall be subjected to
very considerable loss and inconvenience if the present supply be suddenly discon-
tinued, and that I am therefore anxious to be forthwith informed, with reference to
the contents of your letter, of the date, nature and particulars of ‘the contract
under which I am now supplied, and the current year of which will expire at
Michaelmas next ;’ and likewise, of the nature and terms of the new agreement
proposed to be made between me and the company, as the only means of avoiding a
discontinuance of the supply of water to my premises altogether at the ensuing
Michaelmas, in order that I may determine whether I shall accede to such
proposal.
“‘ I shall be much obliged by your laying this letter before the court of directors
at their next meeting, with a request that they will cause answers to the inquiries
I have made to be communicated to me with as little delay as possible.
* I am, &c.
“To Mr. W. M. Coe, (signed) * H. C. Englefield.”
Chief Clerk to the Grand Junction Waterworks Company.’ .*
“About a month after the date of the above letter, Mr. Coe called and told me
that the directors had considered it, and had directed him personally to inform me
that the lowest charge for the supply would be six guineas per annum, as before
demanded ; I asked for an answer in writing to my inquiry relative to the contract
stated to have been made between us; he said he had no further instructions, but
he would inform the directors that I particularly wished for a written answer.
“Having waited some weeks in vain for an answer, I went to the company’s office
on a board day, taking with me my solicitor; we saw only Mr. Coe, to whom I
tendered the amount of my former rate, which he refused to accept; I then de-
sired an answer to my question as to the alleged subsisting contract, and he informed
me that the directors had not empowered him to give any further answer, or any
answer in writing to my letter; and being further pressed, he said, he did not think
they would : upon repeating my inquiry as to the terms of the proposed ‘new con-
tract,” he said that the rate would be six guineas a year, as I had already been
informed. I
“My supply was not taken off at Michaelmas; but about Christmas last, Mr. Hart,
the company’s collector, called and demanded payment of the rate, and at the same
time acquainted me that the directors had taken off the guinea demanded as the
rate for high service, they having found that my water-closet was on the ground
floor; I told him I could prove they knew that circumstance fully a year ago, if
not longer, and that it seemed singular they should not till now have thought of
taking it off; but that I still objected to any increased charge, and was ready to
submit to the loss of my supply rather than acquiesce in their demand until their
right to enforce it was decided at law; that the decision would probably soon be
obtained, and that it rested with them to put me to the inconvenience of the threatened
deprivation of supply or not.
“The company have not hitherto withheld the supply to my house; on the con-
trary, my servants inform me that for the last three weeks the water has been sup-
plied almost daily, although it had never previously been supplied more than three
or four times a week. -
“I have entered into this detail of my own individual case of resistance, because
it tends to show the spirit of the company’s dealing with the public. In my case
the supply has been continued, but in numerous instances, and I believe in all,
with the exception of three or four more than my own, the water was cut off wº
- a few
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS,
151
a few days after the expiration of the notices, where the tenants had not come
in to the terms proposed, namely, the payment of the increased rates for eight or
nine quarters previously to the expiration of the notice, and an agreement to continue
to pay them in future; a species of extortion which I will not trust myself to describe
as it deserves, considering the means by which it has been effected, and the relative
situation of the parties practising it, and of the parties who have suffered from it.
“But the most important point to which I would have personally urged the atten-
tion of the Committee, if their form of proceeding and the state of my health would
have allowed me, are of a prospective nature, in the expectation that their labours
will terminate in a new legislative measure for the protection of the public against
a wanton and arbitrary exercise of such powers as are now claimed by these com-
panies, and which their late exercise of them has sufficiently proved cannot be safely
entrusted to their administration :
“ 1st.—The paramount necessity of doing away all doubts, by a declaratory law as
to the legal obligation on the water companies to afford an adequate supply of good
and wholesome water to all inhabitants resident within the circle of their respective
works, and who shall desire such supply, on payment of reasonable rates for the same.
“The existing monopoly of the supply by artificial means, and the impossibility, as
it respects by far the most numerous portion of the population of the metropolis, of
procuring a supply by other means, as long as the privilege of supplying is vested in
joint stock companies, and the consideration that the companies possessed of the
monopoly are the creatures of the law, cannot leave a doubt, I conceive, of the
justice of this proposition.
“2d.—The necessity of establishing a tribunal, to which the poorest housekeeper
may resort, without fear of being overwhelmed with technical proceedings and
ruinous bills of costs, to obtain speedy redress for an insufficient supply of water, or
an excessive charge of rate. - .
“The costly and tedious law proceedings to which the associated householders have
been obliged to have recourse, and hitherto without effect, to obtain a judicial decision
on the questions now at issue, and the technical difficulties which have been op-
posed to their prosecution, are ample grounds for the establishment of such an
institution.
“3d.—In the event of the companies being allowed to charge at their discretion,
for water consumed for other than domestic purposes, or for water supplied at a high
elevation, the enactment of regulations, distinctly defining what shall be treated as
an extra supply, and what shall be considered to be high service.
“At present, the companies impose an extra rate of charge on all tradesmen and
others using any quantity of water beyond the mere consumption for ordinary house-
hold purposes, and for all cisterns at 18 inches above the pavement of the street;
although, in the former case, the whole consumption should not exceed the ordinary
quantity supplied to a private family; and in the latter, notwithstanding the
numerous cisterns on the ground floor, and at much higher elevations than 18 inches,
in various parts of the town, and even in the higher districts, had been supplied for
years before the erection of the new works by the old companies in their ordinary
Service and without extra charge ; and therefore under this head I would suggest,
that where the party does not consume more water than is commonly supplied
within the usual period of service, and through a pipe of the ordinary bore for house-
hold purposes, or where a cistern is situated below the level of the first floor, which,
on an average, may be stated at 12 feet above the pavement of the street, no extra
charge can be justly required for such supply or service. It seems to me likewise to
be due to that portion of the householders who have been compelled, by the im-
perious necessity of the case, to submit to the exaction of payment of the increased
rates demanded by the West Middlesex and Grand Junction companies, that some
measure should be adopted to enable them to recover back their payments in excess
of the rates legally chargeable, and which the companies themselves have admitted
in the notices they have served they were not lawfully entitled to demand. I shall
only add that I anxiously hope my infirmities will not preclude the Committee from
receiving the subject matter of this communication as evidence applicable to the
purposes of their inquiry, and that I shall be most happy and willing to give any
further information they may desire.
- “I have the honour to be, Sir, with great regard,
... “To W.H.Fremantle, Esq. M. P. Your most faithful humble servant,
Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry into “ H. C. Englefield.”
the state of the Supply of Water, &c.” -
lify.
John Gibson.
(19 March.)
/
152 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr. [It was then resolved, that the Committee were of opinion that the facts of this
John Giº. , case do not differ materially with the others, and therefore they decline hearing any
`-- further explanation as to the facts of this case, and as they do not materially differ
"9") from those circumstances which have been before the Committee, it would be con-
trary to the principles of the Committee to go further into it.]
Mr. William Matthew Coe, again called in ; and Examined.
W. *c. NOW will you have the goodness to proceed?—It will be necessary for me to
\ y state that which I believe I did at some former period of my evidence, that when
the directors first issued their notices in 1818, from having looked into the rates
of 1810, they considered that there was a great inequality in them, and therefore
they stated in their notice, that the final increase and equalization of the rates would
take place. -
Which notice do you refer to ?—The notice of the 11th of August 1818, which
was put in.
You are sure of that date 2–I think it was the 11th of August ; I am almost sure
it is; the short printed notice; it was the notice that has been doubted as to the
delivery of it.
A kind of general publication of their intention ?--A general notice; it was to
this effect, that the inhabitants are requested to take notice that the final increase and
equalization of the water rates will take place at Michaelmas 1818, and will be col-
lected at Lady-day 1819. I only mention that first to show that the directors
having examined the rates of 1810, and it appearing that they were unequal, they
wished to apprise the public, that, probably, the equalization might take place; and
when we were before Parliament, it operated certainly on us, to get it inserted in
that bill, that there should be on the aggregate charge only an addition of twenty-
five per cent. as I pointed out the other day, and as it is stated in the bill. -
Have you a copy of the bill as presented to the Lords?—This, which I have, is
styled an act, and therefore I have no doubt it is the same as presented to the Lords.
Can you turn to the clause alluding to that ; what period in 1818 did you examine
the rate of 1810?–What period of 18182 -
Yes.—I think shortly after we took them out from the New River books, and
previous to issuing those notices; in April 1818.
It must have been between April and August?—Yes.
Did you make the same mistake as was made by the West Middlesex as to 1810?
—As to what P
As to the general calculation as to those rates?—No, we had no calculation on it
at all ; the first information the Grand Junction had of the amount of the rates in
1810, as applicable to the district that had fallen to their lot, was upon the examina-
tion of the New River and Chelsea books, which must have taken place somewhere
about April or May 1818. Having observed the inequality of the rates of 1810,
and having issued a notice of the equalization, our company wished it to be inserted
in the bill, in words to this effect.
Give us the substance of the clause P-That the increased rate shall not exceed
£.25 per cent. beyond the rate charged in 1810, and which houses and buildings
shall be rated in such manner that each house shall bear its due proportion of such
aggregate rate. Now, after this bill had gone through the houses, and pursu-
ant to that notice which we had issued in 1818, the board again took this matter
into consideration, as to the equalization; and they saw, or I imagined they saw, it
would be attended with infinite difficulty, and perhaps, in many instances, a great
deal of dissatisfaction might arise, and they issued the rate then at the twenty-five
per cent.
Without equalization?—Without equalization. -
On the individual houses?—On the individual houses. Several complaints came
to the office of this inequality, and the answer generally given to those persons was,
that we had put twenty-five per cent. on the rate that those persons were charged,
and twenty-five per cent. on the others; and the reply generally made to me was,
that they had nothing to do with the twenty-five per cent. if the company were
making any alteration, the complainants said, we think we ought all to pay alike.
Several persons called and stated these circumstances; one I can recollect in parti-
cular, as having been sent for by the Marquis of Winchester on this subject: the
Marquis of Winchester’s rate then was £. 8'8s. - ... "
The old rate 2–Yes. And the Marquis of Winchester, upon his notice being
sent to him, begged of me to wait on him, to have some explanation. The Marquis
SãW
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
153
saw that his house would be increased from eight to ten guineas, without the high
service. I waited on him, and begged to inform him of the rate of other houses in
the square. His lordship stated to me, that he recollected perfectly well the bill
being in the House, and that he had paid a great deal of attention to it himself; that
he had understood from this bill that each house was to be made to pay alike ; one
neighbour was to be made to pay the same as the other : I stated, that there were
some houses in the square similar to the Marquis of Winchester’s, and he would find
that he would have to pay, with the twenty-five per cent. on the rate, ten guineas;
and that the Marquis of Bath, whose house was considerably larger (as his lordship
observed to me) would have to pay £.6. 12s. for I think the Marquis of Bath's
house was charged £.5. 58.
What is the difference that would be made in both the houses 2—One would be
£.6. 12s. and the other would be ten guineas.
From what was Lord Bath's raised ?–From £.5. 5s.
Where were they 2–They were both in the same square.
Then Lord Bath's was raised from five guineas to six guineas?—The Marquis of
Bath would have been raised from £. 5. 5.S. to £.6. 12s. I was not prepared with
the Marquis of Winchester’s rate of 1810, when I waited on his lordship, as not
exactly knowing what he might want; it appeared that he had paid more during
the competition than he did in 1810; but I was arguing with his lordship on the
principle of what the increase would have been, really supposing the Marquis had
paid eight guineas in 1810; but it appears from our copy that he had paid only
six guineas in 1810. .
There was no great inequality it seems then?—Well, but then Mr. Lowther was
charged eight guineas in 1810. * *
What the inequality is can be best seen by looking at the books, can it not ?—
Yes. When I made this representation of the Marquis of Winchester’s rate, and of
several others who came to the office and reported to the court of directors that a
vast number of complaints were made of the inequality of the rate, they again
took it into consideration, and on looking into the rates again they saw that there
was a very great inequality, not only comparing the rate of one house with another,
in the same square, but comparing that house with other houses in other parts of
the town ; they then directed that the collectors should not call upon any house
where they had not left the increased rate until some examination of the houses in
the parishes was made, and something like an equal rate fixed, and the board of
directors directed the engineer and myself to survey the houses in the parish
generally. When the engineer and myself went out on the survey, we were deter-
mined not to be fettered with the rates of i810 at all; we would not look at them;
we would not take out the particulars of those rates of the houses we surveyed; we
did not go into the inside; as far as that survey went it was only external, and is
one which I have no doubt may be incorrect in some instances. -
When was the survey made –We began the collection, I think, in July 1819
collecting the rates that were due in the March previous ; and I think this must
have been within a month afterwards. When we returned with these rates to the
office, we compared them with what the twenty-five per cent. on the rates of 1810
would be, and a vast number we found exactly as the twenty-five per cent. would
have been ; our value was within a shilling or so ; some were considerably under,
and others were considerably over ; but we considered that we had done it in the
fairest way we could, to the best of our judgment; and upon that rate being fixed so
it was issued; the directors having it always in contemplation that those houses
upon which the rate had been issued at the twenty-five per cent. increase should
undergo the same investigation, because we found in the poorer neighbourhoods
that the rate of 1810 on the houses was as high as on houses in much better
situations. I have selected a few cases from our books in order to satisfy you,
gentlemen, of that inequality. * -
From the rates of 1810?–Yes, from the rates of 1810. I should also state,
that when we went on this survey we kept in mind that these were the principles
upon which we should proceed to rate, viz. according to the size, the situation,
and the occupation of the houses. - - - 2.
We do not know what you mean by occupation ?—The class of the occupiers
generally, whether tradesmen or not. I had found at first, when I looked into the
rates of 1810, that that principle seemed to be, and it always appeared to me to
have been generally adopted by the old companies, as tradesmen, although they
occupied as large houses as noblemen, there was a great difference in the rate.
706. Q q The
Mr.
lW. M. Coe.
(19 March.)
#54
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
W. M. Coe.
`--——
(19 March.)
The rates in Bond-street, where there are large houses, the average rates were,
in 1810, 24s. 26s, and 30s, a house. There are houses in King-street and Car-
naby-street where a much poorer class of people are living, which seem to be rated
as high, for there is hardly a house which was not rated 30s. in 1810. In Berk-
ley-square, in 1810, the Countess of Albemarle’s house was rated at 30s. If we
proceed to put twenty-five per cent. upon that, her ladyship would be paying no
more than the poor persons in Carnaby-street and King-street. There is Mr.
Egerton’s house in the same square, which was rated at 40s. in 1810, when in
the same square Mr. Palmer's and Mr. Glynn's houses, which are rather smaller
than his, are rated at £.5; that is in the same square. Then I may refer again
to Grafton-street; the houses in Grafton-street, particularly on the eastern side,
were rated in 181 o at £. 5. 5s. Lord Clive's £. 5. 58. Lord St. Helen’s £.6.
Mr. Holme Sumner £. 8. 8s. and we considered those houses over-rated at that
period, in our judgment, and we charge nearly the same rate now, and in some
instances less. - º
Then there is no increase ?—Lord Clive's was £. 5, and is now £. 5. 5 S ; Lord
t. Helen’s was £.6, and is now charged £.5. 5s ; and the others that were charged
£. 5, are now charged five guineas. Another rate which struck me very forcibly
was that of Mr. Scott’s, in Lower Grosvenor-street ; that house was rated in
1810 at sixteen guineas a year, a house which is now rated at nine; I mean that
gentleman’s rate, without the high service. The whole of the rate on Mr. Scott
is £. 12. 12s. - - - -
What is the frontage of that house 2–It was the Duke of Rutland's house; it
was supplied by the Chelsea company once.
It now belongs to Mr. Walker, I believe 2–Mr. Scott was the person occupying
when we rated it. - -
It was originally Lord Hertford’s house?—I think it was the Duke of Rutland's.
Do you mean Mr. Claude Scott?—Mr. Scott of Lower Grosvenor-street.
It is a large frontage; I believe there are four windows?–It is. There may be
many houses that have stables in these places, many of which we may not possibly
know of. I recollect a circumstance of Lord Rochford’s; I waited on his lordship
wo or three times, and his lordship stated, that for his stables at the back of his
house he had a pump.
You have stated to the Committee, that the mode which you laid down, that the
system which you followed in the survey of these premises, was by an outside
survey 2–Yes. -
Now is that all you went by ?—Generally. Now I just wish to state to you, on
{
k
S
£
this principle of equalization, Grafton-street and many other streets, in the whole
produce iess than twenty-five per cent; Grafton-street produces £.6. 8s. less, in
the aggregate, than twenty-five per cent. on the rates of 1810 would produce.
And has your calculation been made on the rates as they stood in the New
River books?—Yes. I have also to state, as to Lower Grovenor-street, the
total amount of the rates of Lower Grosvenor-street in 1810 stood at £. 280. 5s.
twenty-five per cent, on which would be £.350. 7s; whereas by the equalization
it produces only £. 345. 7 s. - - -
You mean to say that the twenty-five per cent. on the rates in Lower Grosvenor-
street amount to more than they were in 1810?–Certainly more than in 181 o ;
but by the equalization the street produces less than twenty-five per cent. on the
rates of 1819 would produce : as I stated on the other day, we have got more in
the whole of our district than the twenty-five per cent. on the rates, by about seven
pence per house. With regard to Carnaby-street and King-street, and other poor
streets, the directors, taking into consideration the occupation and situation of those
houses, are of opinion that the rates upon them should be reduced; those houses
which are rated now at 38s, are too high in proportion to the rates in Bond-street,
which are not more than two guineas a year upon the average. - - r
Had you any means of knowing how far the rates of 1810 had been affected by
You took the frontage of the house?—Yes.
the particular frontage you recollect his house might have?—No.
I want to know how extra supply was to be calculated in the New River company’s
books in the rate of 1810?–I have had instances in streets which have been charged
at the rate of twenty-five per cent, where persons have been curriers, they have
come to the office and complained of being charged more than their neighbours, and
the information I have got from the collectors has been, that they were curriers;
* I have
*
ON THE SUPPLY OF water TO THE METROPOLIS,
155
I have explained to them that I understood curriers used water in their business:
they said they certainly did use a great deal of water in their business formerly, but
it was very different now all that business, for which the use of water might be re-
quired, was removed to another part of the town; and although they were at present
carrying on the business, with regard to cutting leather, still they ought not to pay
the extra charge which the company put on them as curriers, as they had no occasion
for water for their business, and they did not use more water than other persons:
on that explanation the rate has been reduced to the ordinary rate.
Is there any distinctive mark in the books, which marks the persons who have an
extra supply?—Yes, I think so, but I am not sure. -
(To Mr. Mylne.)—The New River company have distinctive marks to all that
are charged, have they not?--I believe so.
(To Mr. Lynde.)—Those marks, I take it, are introduced into the books to
persons charged with extra supplies?—Yes. -
(To Mr. Mylne, )—-Had they distinct marks in the New River company 2–
Yes. • ‘ -
(To the Witness.)—In your books of 1810, were there distinct marks to those
who had extra supply?—A very few ; there were some.
(To Mr. Mylne.)—When you state that distinctive marks were placed for extra
supply, do you mean to speak of trades supply?—There was an explanation for the
rate being higher. -
º instance, if a fishmonger was supplied extra, was he entered as a fishmonger?
— Y 62S, - - -
Suppose it happened in a particular case of a peculiar consumption in a particular
house that a greater price was charged, was that marked 2–I can find it marked
also for a perpetual supply on the main. & vº
(Mr. Lynde. J–It is, for fishmongers, brewers, public-houses, and schools.
(To Mr. Lynde.)—Were those marked especially on the books?—I do not know
that ; I do not think they are marked on the books, but they might be when they
were first entered. *s - *
I would ask whether the commissioners had the means, by looking at those books,
2
Mr.
W. M. Coe.
X---— —”
(19 March)
of knowing ; whether, on their looking in the books, they could see the extra .
charges?—I do not think they could.
(Mr. Mylne.)—Nor in the New River books, for it is so only in the collectors
books. w
(To Mr. Mylne.)—Has the New River company the opportunity of knowing -
it except by the collectors books?—No.
(The Witness.)—Give me leave to explain: with regard to the New River com-
pany’s books, I do not know that I saw them, except when they were here; our
clerk copied the rates of 1810 from them at the New River office; neither did
I see the Chelsea books of the rates of 1810; Mr. Lynde can bear me out in
that ; I requested him to give me a copy; the copy of his books of 181o ; the rates
of 1810 I have now by me; I have not extracted the public-houses as having an
extra supply.
You have mentioned hotels 2–The rates on hotels are very considerable, being
mixed up with the rates for high service. * *
Did you take that view of it?—I took the rate of 181 o, and settled the rates at
25 per cent. On the aggregate rate of 1810. -
Where the inequality appeared to be a patent inequality, you would cut it off,
but a latent inequality, you know nothing of that 2–-I took the rates of 1810 from
the aggregate rate.
And you extracted, if I understand you right; we will suppose for a moment,
(which I presume to be the case,) you extracted the principal extra charges upon hotels
and cellar-keepers in your district, you extracted that charge from the general rate
of 1810, previous to your presuming the equalization or before fixing the 25 per
cent 2—Yes.
It is perfectly clear it must be so in point of fact, and as there are but few, it is
more advantageous to have a separate understanding with them?—Referring to the
rate of 1810, in Carnaby-street, I found it generally at 30s. each house; there
were a few at 36s. and it struck me as a particular rate for particular houses; I in-
quired what they were, and they were found to be public-houses. .
Do you think you could not find good reasons for the inequality?—I think that
W3S *on for the public-houses being charged higher. a If
700. - - -
156 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
A4r.
\—
—J.-
(19 March.)
W. A.1. Coe,
If you had searched further you would have found that the inequality was not so
unequal as you supposed?—Finding that they were public-houses, of course I put the
25 per cent. on those houses. *
Without rating them further ?– Yes, generally.
Will you allow me to put a question, which is in the case of a street containing
two or three hotels; Lower Brook-street; there are two or three hotels there, we
will suppose, or only presume it: we will suppose with those hotels, that you choose
to come to an agreement with them before you come to the equalization, and before
you come to the calculation of the twenty-five per cent. on the rates in 1810 : now
did you extract the rate previously paid by those hotels, and then deal with the rest
of the street on a principle of equalization at twenty-five per cent, and separately
with the hotels, or did you leave them in the general calculation ?—We took them
both ways, only considering those as extra supplies who are known to be large con-
sumers of water.
Do you know of an instance in which you dealt separately; I wish to know
whether you did extract from the New River books when you made your calculation
of any description of persons where there was such a discovery as this found, where
they were charged with extra supply in the New River books?–Oh, no ; the clerk
merely took a copy of the rates, and when they were entered in our books, we noticed
whether they were extra supplies or not.
At one time you say many persons were to be charged extra supply which
you have added, and then made that twenty-five per cent?—When persons were
charged high, in particular cases; for instance, the engineer and myself, when we
came to an hotel, we said, we would pass it by, because we considered that as a
special case.
The same with fishmongers?—I do not suppose in our district we have above four
or five fishmongers whom we charge extra. Now Mr. Grove of Bond-street has
an extra supply, for he has a little river running through his shop to keep the fish
alive. I am sure Mr. Grove has an extra supply, and he has acknowledged that
the river is very useful.
What they call a pea ferule 2—I do not know that they call it a pea ferule,
but it is a little river. I hope you will have the goodness to bear in mind that we
have been stopped in the middle of our operations. It has been the intention on
the part of the directors, and I hope the respectable gentlemen who are in the
direction will be a sufficient guarantee that everything will be strictly correct as to the
increase being twenty-five per cent. in the whole. Mr. Cockerell, the brother of a
member of this House, (and I only wish to allude to this particular circumstance)
went down to a public meeting in St. James's, and stated, that the company had no
intention to exceed twenty-five per cent. on the rates of 1810, but that they had found
it absolutely necessary to equalize the rates; and I am sure that gentleman would
rather resign his seat in the direction, and sacrifice his whole property in the concern,
than countenance any underhand attempt to obtain a further increase. Now I wish
to explain further, with regard to the difficulty we may have had to contend with in
this respect: with regard to the equalization there may not have been so much
necessity for it in the parish of Mary-le-bone; the houses are new built, and are
much more regularly built, and the New River company having had almost the
exclusive service of that parish, I think it is probable that the rates may have been
more on an equality than they were in those parishes which were supplied by the
Chelsea and other companies; I think that may account for the rate in 1810 bear-
ing a better proportion in the West Middlesex district than it does in ours.
You have stated, that the general mode of equalization was found in the first
instance, when you went to make it on individuals at twenty-five per cent. that it
created a great deal of ill-will, and such a sort of disturbance in the parish, that
you thought it necessary to refer to this equalization system ; now I put it to you,
that knowing that the equalization system would operate to a result of fifty per cent.
in some houses, and in others to a much lower sum, what did you conceive, or
what was it possible for your company to conceive, adopting such principles that
were more likely to increase than remove that disturbance and that impression that
existed 2–From the general observations made to us, and it has been generally
admitted to me by persons whom I have spoken to on the subject, that the principle
of equalization in the rates is the fairest principle for the company to proceed upon.
I will state a case with regard to a gentleman of the name of Agar, of New Nor-
folk-street; he has two houses there, and he made his application to the office to
know
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
15?
know why his rate was raised. . The first house of Mr. Agar that I am speaking
of was not raised twenty-five per cent; and I explained to Mr. Agar that in
proceeding upon a principle of equalization, his house was not raised twenty-five
per cent. and then he thought the principle perfectly fair. I went to the other
house, and found that it paid more than twenty-five per cent. and he added both
together, and he found it was more than the other way, and then he did not think
it was fair. : • *. -
Have you had several complaints of inequality resulting from your equalization ?
—Upon my word I cannot say that we have had many. When complaints have
been made, nine times out of ten they have been found to come from persons having
to pay for high service. - --
That has been really the general question of complaint P−It may be seen in
the cases brought forward here, that that has been the case. It was mentioned,
I think by Mr. Thorowgood, that Miss Dumergue, of Albemarle-street, had been
raised to five guineas; we considered the house worth three guineas, and when
we referred to the rate of 1810 charged upon her house, we found the twenty-
five per cent. added to it, produced the same amount ; the other two guineas
which made up the five guineas, with which Miss Dumergue was charged, was
for high service. Now Miss Dumergue, I cannot help thinking, must have been
in a general communication with her sister, who I believe lives in Piccadilly, and
she must have known that her sister was not raised above five per cent. for Miss
Dumergue in Piccadilly paid £. 5 in 1810, and only five guineas now. We have
taken pains to send printed notices to persons who have been charged, to say that
every explanation will be afforded upon application to the office.
The utmost you can give is a view of your books?—Certainly ; but it has always
been explained to persons complaining, that what they have considered to be a
great rise of the rate is separated into two rates, a high and a low service. The
outcry that has been raised, has been by a vast number of persons who have not
known this difference, and have not known that they could have the option. They
have considered it as a regular charge, and that they had no option to discontinue
the high service. . . . . . . .
I wish to ask how many new houses there are in Mary-le-bone 2–
(Joseph Blagrave, Esq.)—There are about 1,500. -
(The JWitness. J–I do not like to speak from recollection, and I am not quite
sure what the number is.
What number is there altogether ?–We supply about 7,200 altogether.
We should be glad to know what principle is pursued with regard to Mary-
le-bone?--Some are equalized, and some are raised twenty-five per cent.
What is your aggregate rental P--It rather exceeds £. 20,000.
Mr. Pickering, again called in ; and Examined.
YOU have no high service P-No, sir. -
Then there was something mentioned about a rate according to the size of
houses?—If you will turn to the latter part of the scale, you will find that there
is for houses containing above ten rooms something about 5 s. and so on, which
is added. -
Does that relate to consuming trades 2–Not all of them ; I think to brewers
and distillers it does not ; they are so numerous that they are kept quite distinct
from the rest.
What do you call watering-houses 2–Public-houses on the road side, where carts
stop to give the horses water. - .
You have not put anything down with respect to bakers, brewers and distillers?—
They are rated there, brewers and bakers both.
Allow me to ask since when you have been acting upon this plan – About two
years.
Will you be so good as to tell us upon what plan you acted before that?—We had
no regular plan before that. - -
In the first instance you regulate the house on the rate and then put it upon the
new footing 2-—Not all.
When you have so done you then put the new rate on each house; do you not do
that on every house?—Not an additional rate upon all. I think I stated before, that
in making the equalization, several houses had been adduced where no rise had been
made at all. -
706. R. r : In
Mr.
JW. M. Coe.
S-2–’
(19 March.)
> Mr.
Pickering.
S--> --—"
158
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
\
Pickering.
(19 March.)
Mr.
M. K. Knight.
---------------- • **-------- 2
>. ~~
In point of fact, Mr. Pickering, you never thought of twenty-five per cent?—
Certainly not.
This scale was framed, and then your operations amounted to reduce this scale
into effect, and that is what you did 2–As near as possible.
But you have acted upon that scale as near as possible 2–As near as possible.
In many instances rises have been made under that scale, which have been appealed
against, and in many instances reduced. -
In putting the general rise into effect, you acted upon this scale 2–Certainly.
And you never thought of twenty-five per cent?—No.
If anything can be added on the return which has been alluded to, you will do it?
—Very well. -- - - -
Have you furnished the returns to the other orders ?—I have got them all ready
but one. -
Mr. Matthias Koops Knight, called in ; and Examined.
I WOULD ask Mr. Knight whether the West Middlesex company, in making ,
their increased rates of twenty-five per cent. added twenty-five per cent. to each
individual charge as they stood in the New River books, without distinction of extra
supply, and subsequently added charges for extra supply, on account of the West
Middlesex; or whether they extracted the charges made for extra supply by the
New River company, of the district taken by them, and adding twenty-five per cent.
to the common supply, made it under the subsequent arrangement of the extra Sup-
ply with their tenants?—It is possible that I may not answer directly to the point,
but I think it will be more clear if we begin at the beginning. The first operation
in making the new rate was to copy into a book the reduced rate; then the rate of
1810, leaving blank columns for the increase and the total. -
The reduced rate of the New River?—The rate as it stood of all the companies.
The first operation was to make a rental of the whole district without reference to
particular parishes, or particular places. We took the streets alphabetically ; we
took the names as they stood, whether they had been supplied by the Grand Junction
company or the New River. In the first column we put the rate of 1817 (the
reduced rate,) in the next column the rate of 1810, leaving a blank column for the
advance to be made, whether eight or ten shillings, or any other sum, on the twenty-
five per cent. be it more or less, and a column for the new rate. That being made
and compared with the books of the New River company, as far as related to the
rental of 1810, which some of my clerks and myself went over, as it was wished by
the directors that we should do so, because it was in their intention that in all the
poor streets if they possibly could they would make an abatement. They did so,
and a great many of the poor streets and courts were increased some ten per cent.
some twelve and a half, some fifteen, and others twenty, on the rate of 1810,
according to the particular class or ability of the party to pay.
That was below twenty-five per cent?—Yes; and instead of twenty-five per cent.
they directed an advance of ten, fifteen, or twenty per cent. to be made on those
particular cases. The committee on that occasion marked down in red ink against
the particular street what the advance was to be. The next operation was then very
simple, and it only went to add in the blank column, whether it was 5s. or 10s.
according to the particular sum ordered to be added, to make out the total. The
better streets uniformly were raised twenty-five per cent.
Not above twenty-five P-South of the New-road, certainly not.
You did not add the deficiency in abatement in the poor streets to the others?—No.
Were you not compensated for the reduction in the smaller streets?—Not at
all. In some of the cases, and I can name two individuals, (and I mention them
because those individuals have been particularly active against the company,) I will
mention those two cases, because they will directly answer the question as to the
mode of charging trades; I mean the cases of Mr. Harvey and Mr. Lowe, in
Cleveland-street: it appeared that the general rating in 1810, in that street, was
30s. per house. It is not a very good street, and was not considered to be that
sort of street which we could put twenty-five per cent. on, and therefore instead of
making it 37.s. we made it 36s. Mr. Harvey and Mr. Lowe were two neighbours,
and Mr. Harvey stood at 36s. in 1810, and his neighbour, Mr. Lowe, at 36s. and
that led to an inquiry, as the other houses were 36 s. and it turned out that one
was a baker, and that the other kept a shrimp shop; they were raised twenty-five
per
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS,
1.59
per cent, making £.2. 5s, considering the difference of 6s. for the trade; both
those individuals appealed, and both of them stated to me that they did not use
any water whatever for their trades; they stated that, and I represented it to
the directors; and under the instruction I had received, and a slight discretion
of my own, I reduced their rates to the same as their neighbours, who were
private housekeepers; yet notwithstanding I had done this, those two parties were
the first to call a public meeting, and to apply to Mr. Weale for his aid; and they
were two of the greatest fomenters of this disturbance. I mention that just to show
why I recollect it.
i)id they state how they stood charged in the New River books to you?—They
said they supposed it to be so; they took it for granted it must be so, because their
house stood the same as their neighbours. In charging them twenty-five per cent.
my mind went to the circumstance of their being extra consumers, the one being a
baker and the other a salt fishman.
Did you not conceive it as having been previously charged, as having been here
charged for a further supply by the New River company?—I have stated that, sir.
I conceived they might have been charged for their trade to a certain degree, but
I might differ with them as to the particular amount; they were not in very extensive
trade, and on those particular cases we looked it over and took it as it stood.
Was that a general rule 2–Yes, except we found upon a survey any reason for
interposition. The survey I allude to was a work of great labour and time, and I was
going to say that I went into thousands of houses in order to ascertain what were
the relative situations of the houses, and particularly to understand what consump-
tion there was in each particular business. In various cases in the course of that
survey in 1819, we found consumers of water to a much greater extent than I had
any conception of, and that too in cases where they had not been charged at all for
their trade; all this has ceased to a certain extent, by our turning up every day
persons who have large supplies that we had no knowledge of whatever, and this
same sort of survey is going on, and I dare say it will be two or three years before
we ascertain the proper account of extra supplies. In the great case of Mr. Jenkins,
in which Mr. Weale has moved for a mandamus, that gentleman applied to me
for a mere domestic supply of water to a person who lived in a cottage at his mur-
sery. When we laid our water on, Mr. Jenkins pledged himself it was only for
the use of the woman: that being a supply of water, as described to me, merely for
the woman, I had said that two guineas would be sufficient; but after it had been
laid on for that purpose, Mr. Jenkins made a tank, containing a fountain, in his gar-
den: I then said to Mr. Jenkins, two guineas does not apply to a fountain or orna-
mental pond for your garden, and I called upon him with an engineer, and had a
conversation with him.
I will ask now, as matter of information, without alluding to Mr. Jenkins, the
number of trades, and what they are, that you treat as extra consumers of water ;
what is your real way of proceeding with respect to that 2—You have heard that the
Grand Junction do not consider among them fishmongers. Mr. Coe has mentioned
that there are not above three or four fishmongers, though I think it has been clearly
Mr.
M. K. Knight.
\— -—’
(19 March.)
stated that a great number of fishmongers do exist in that district; he has stated
that a large proportion were not charged ; that they did not charge a large propor-
tion with extra supply.
(Mr. Coe.)—In all probability twenty-five per cent. is put on them.
What was your rule with respect to trades in general; and did it include all trades,
and what trades 2–1 will tell you what our intention was, because, as I stated, the
thing is imperfect. Now the intention was to go over the district, and to make a
difference between persons using water for ordinary domestic purposes, and persons
consuming water in their trade or business. One question has been put, as to what
persons using water an extra charge is to be made. Now I say, if they use it for
the purpose of manufacture or trade, a charge follows as a matter of course, ac-
cording to the quantum used. If it happened that in the New River company’s
books a difference appeared; if it happened that one man was charged more than his
neighbour, the houses being small, and there was a small trade, such as a baker or
a public-house, we put the twenty-five per cent. on the high rate which appeared
to have been paid the New River in 18io, more than the neighbours. Supposing
a case in which a man possessing one of those trades paid 36s. and his neighbour
308; our rate now is upon the first £. 2. 5s. and his neighbour's 37 s. That is
the case as far as it is gone, except that we find large consumers, such as watering-
706. - * } houses,
160
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
houses, and others who require water to be thrown upon the top of their houses;
the survey is still going on. . •
I will ask one question with respect to this point, which must occur in your
district, and I know there are a great many in the Grand Junction, and I think
there must be a great many in your district; I allude to women who get their
livelihood by washing ; I do not speak of great laundresses; was it your view to
raise the charge of supply to them 2–Why, it is difficult to answer; in one word,
laundresses vary so much ; I should say, in common cases, where an individual
washes for herself, we do not make a difference. I apprehend there are many
laundresses who employ ten or fifteen women; then I say that we should charge
them according to the quantity. -
Do your extra charges go so minutely to that, as if it is a little laundress who does
a little in lodgings?—Certainly not ; the number of the laundresses in our district
is very great, but their employment is very small. One word more, with regard to
laundresses, to show that the board have taken all classes of people into considera-
tion, as to what advance should be made ; a laundress might employ ten or four-
teen women, and we should charge her two guineas only, and yet she would use as
much water as those paying ten guineas; whether the individuals have power to pay
is a great consideration with them.
When did you first have access to the New River books in order to clear up that
mistake which you had been under in February 1818?–On the 19th of February
1818 that mistake arose, and it still seems to require some explanation. I will
endeavour to explain it shortly ; it arose upon an estimate given to us that a greater
depression ... ."
By whom 2–By the New River company. That a greater depression in the
rates of 181 o, by the tompetition, had taken place, than actually appeared when the
rates were copied out. The gentlemen of the New River did not look into it more
than ourselves, and we did not expect that we should have been called upon as we
were. When two or three streets had been looked at, in several of those streets
there was a diminution found, which it was thought was general, but it turned out
not to be the fact, to the extent supposed; many houses in Mary-le-bone were not
reduced at all, but the general reduction was fifteen or twenty per cent. -
Then in point of fact you wrote that letter, in consequence of merely a less esti-
mate which had been transmitted to you on the part of the New River company?—
Certainly ; our belief being, that the rate of 1810 in the district we supplied, came
up to between f. 17,000 and £. 18,000.
After that, you made an examination of the books of the New River company;
that was in April; now had you any communication after that, because just pre-
viously to that, a rate was made by the Grand Junction ; had you any communica-
tion with the Grand Junction on that operation ?–They all did it together, by
the desire of the House of Commons; it was not done till then. Mr. Taylor had
submitted that a committee should be appointed, and the first order of that com-
mittee, when appointed, was to ascertain correctly what the rates of 1810 really
were ; while the bill of the vestry was pending upon that committee: the first
intimation we had of dissatisfaction was at the beginning of February 1818: on
the 3d of February, the committee of the water companies (a deputation of each)
attended the Mary-le-bone vestry, and I have got a minute of what actually took
place; there was an explanation there, and a considerable deal of violence was
shown, and the board were very much pressed on the statement. I the other day
remarked, that with regard to the advance intended to be made by the board, it was
so large, that the board were anxious to stop this in limine, as to give an idea of
what their intention was ; and, as I stated before, the chairman made use of the
words “no advance is contemplated at present:” many gentlemen caught hold of
the words “at present,” and reported them about; many of the gentlemen who
had been in the vestry room had said that the rates would be £. 20 or £.30 per house:
then the directors were anxious to set this upon a proper footing, and the gentleman
who had so stated it was told, by a gentleman of the West Middlesex company, that
he would pledge himself that his particular rate would not exceed five guineas; it
turns out that he is rated at £. 4. 7s. Perhaps in conclusion I might state, that
anterior to that letter of the 19th February, was written several other papers, put in,
in the interim between the 19th of February and April, all discussing the question
of rate, not one alluding to that letter, but putting questions, just as if it was never
Mr.
M. K. Knight.
(19 March.)
in existence.
That
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
161
That will appear?—That will appear: the reason of the mistake was this ; the
reduced rates of 1817 were known, and an assumption was made that they had been
reduced 25 per cent. below the rates of 1810; that was in consequence of occasional
information they had received, but on inquiry it was found that the reduction had
not been so great. When it was found, by an accurate investigation of the New River
books, that this mistake had been made, we gave in a report, which has been put
before you, namely, the 1st May 1818, in which 25 per cent. was charged.
The regular letter was written to retract that of the 19th February 1818, upon the
11th of March 2—Until that time the companies were in consultation with the
vestry. When the bill had been read a first time, which was on the 6th of May,
the companies, we said, “the whole town shall know on what principle we mean to
go, it is the public that are our tenants, and not the vestry of Mary-le-bone; we will
allow every body to judge of his own case, and we will therefore publish this
We just put it.
5
letter, so that everybody may know what the state of the case is.’
to the committee; the three gentlemen of our board, and the Mary-le-bone vestry-
men, have always been anxious that unpleasant discussions on either side should be
averted, so that it may not create ill-blood between the parties. The gentlemen
have come into our board, gentlemen who are well known to many gentlemen of the
Committee, and have endeavoured to temporize the ill-blood which existed. There
are many circumstances in the course of this investigation which have occurred, that,
as a point of feeling, we wish very much to be kept, if possible, out of the view ; any
strictures that may have passed, on the part of West Middlesex I have thought it
necessary to make, on the Mary-le-bone vestry, conceiving it not to apply to a large
number of that body. I have now said every thing I wish to say on the Mary-le-
bone vestry, unless I am called upon to lay the whole facts before the Committee.
Do you happen to recollect the official person connected with the New River
company, who gave that which you have been alluding to ; that statement 2—It was
given by a committee of New River directors to the West Middlesex directors.
There is one other thing I would wish to state, which is, that shortly after the 19th
of February, a further question was put as to the rate, and the answer given was,
that the vestry would clearly see that the West Middlesex company must have at
least £. 17,500 a year to pay 5 per cent. for their capital; now it so happens that
the 25 per cent. was within one hundred, more or less, which shows what my mind
was when that letter was written. .
I beg leave to ask, in point of fact, whether that is the answer of you?–Yes it is.
(The Witness.)—I see that a mistake and some difficulty has arisen from taking
my words more strictly than hypothetically; I meant it to be taken more hypothe-
tically than strictly. *-
Åſercurij, 21° die Martij, 1821. }
WILLIAM HENRY FREMANTLE, ESQUIRE,
I N T H E C H A I H.
Mr. Matthias Koops Knight, again called in ; and Examined.
HE Returns, I apprehend, will show that the particular rates laid upon the
town have not been laid with a view to give any particular interest upon
the capital of the company, the companies having acted upon the limitation pro-
posed by Mr. Taylor, namely, twenty-five per cent. on the rates of 1810, south
of the New road, and the water-rents have been established on that basis, as I
explained the other day. * . º
Can you show how the proprietors will be affected by those rates, in respect
of the interest that they will yield upon their capital?—Yes, certainly ; I have
to state to the Committee that the company has actually received from the sub-
scriptions £.352,976. 6s. 9d.
. You mean money actually paid into their coffers?—Yes; money actually paid
in, after deducting £. 4,562. 5s. 4d. for discount on prompt payment. I have
deducted that, in order that there should be no charge brought against the capital
that could not be substantiated; from that sum of £352,976. 6s. 9d. I deduct a
further sum of £. 12,412, (it is stated in the return £. 12,410, but I find it is
706. S s £. 12,412,
Mr.
M. K. Knight.
(19 March.)
Mr.
M. K. Knight.
A.
***-*-*
(21 March.)
162
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
M. K. Knight. A
(21 March.)
£. 12,412, £. 2 more having been paid since from the money actually received,)
that sum was paid back to the proprietors in 1810 and 1811 for dividends on
estimated profits; those profits never were realized; and in making up a general
statement of the company’s accounts to the 30th of September 1818, which was
furnished to the proprietors, that sum was deducted, leaving the actual money
received by the company and expended on the works, £. 340,564. 6 s. 9d. The
Committee will observe, that the shares issued by the company have nothing to
do with this particular sum that I am stating, because 2,000 of the shares were
issued at £. 1 oo each, that produced £. 200,000 of capital ; the concern then be-
came so depreciated, that they could raise no more money at that ratio. From
the commencement of the concern, the shares were constantly at a premium, more
or less, varying from five to I believe I have heard as much as £. 150 premium,
to the year 1812; at that period the depreciation began : and I think I have stated,
that up to that period about £. 200,000 had been raised; the remaining £. 40,000
of the capital was apportioned among the subscribers to the £. 200,000, and a legal
question arose, whether those proprietors were bound to contribute it at £. oo
a share, and an opinion was taken whether they were compellable to pay it ; it
was not a voluntary contribution, one quarter of that sum was in dispute after the
passing of the act in 1813, and it must certainly have been that the depreciation
took place in 1812, otherwise the company never would have gone to Parliament,
to enable them to raise shares at a depreciation of seventy per cent; it was then
the new shares were issued; a certain number were authorized to be raised by the
proprietors. Then the old proprietors, who were paying at that time subscriptions
at £. 1 oo a share, brought the matter forward at the general assembly, when shares
were authorized to be raised at £. 30 a-piece, complaining of the great hardship upon
them, of being compelled to pay £. 100 a share, when they could go into the market
and buy them at £. 35. The sum involved in this was the £. 40,000, the £,30,000
in the course of payment, and the other £ 10,000 which had been suspended;
the subject was discussed, and it was agreed by the general body of proprietors,
that those who had paid their subscriptions to the extent of £. 30,000 should have
bonus shares, so as to reduce the money they had paid to the price at which the
new shares were to be issued, namely £.30 a share ; and further, that they should
be considered as new shares paid in prompt, that is, subject to a further reduction
of £. 2, making the actual receipt £. 28; and therefore the different shares which
were issued for these £. 30,000 are all included in the shares of £. 30. I have a
very minute statement I made out some time ago from my books, which, if I lay it
before the Committee, will explain it. The new shares were raised, as I stated,
at £. 30 each, and with a deduction for prompt payment of £. 2 a share, and hence
arose this sum which I have just mentioned of £ 4,562. 5s. 4d; some choosing
to pay by instalments at certain periods, others paid prompt, deducting £. 2 a
share. That seems to me all that is necessary to say with regard to shares, except-
ing that the remaining number of the shares were made up in that way by new
subscriptions, at £. 30 shares ; and the new shares, and the shares arising from the
£. 30,000 already mentioned, amounted to 5,542. The proprietors in the course
of the succeeding years, I am speaking now of the year 1813 to the year 1815, I
am now going to speak of 1814 particularly ; the proprietors were very averse to
raising shares at this great depreciation, and they therefore availed themselves of
one of their clauses in the third act of parliament to raise money upon what they
called optional loan : it was resolved to raise a sum of money upon optional loan
for a particular purpose, and to the amount of about £. 28,000 were paid into the
treasurer’s hands; that particular purpose was never carried into effect; it was some
of Mr. Nash's ideas of making a reservoir in Mary-le-bone park; they could not
give us the rights stipulated for, and therefore it was not carried into effect. This
optional loan had this sort of privilege attached to it, that at a given day named,
the proprietors were entitled either to call back their principal subscription, with
five per cent, interest upon it from the day of subscription, or they might fund it
in the company’s stock at £.30 a share, receiving a bonus of half a share for every
£. 100 funded. The company in point of fact having paid a great part of this
money away to satisfy the pressing demands of the iron-founders at that time, were
not able to repay to the proprietors, to a considerable extent, the principal monies
subscribed, but some they did pay, to the amount, I think, of about £, 9,900,
the others funded it, together with the interest which had accrued upon it; the
particular sums are stated in the account I have referred to. They funded this loan,
receiving the half share bonus which I have just described ; and that still further
- reduced
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
163
reduced to them the cost of the share; they actually paid for it, losing all interest,
about five or six-and-twenty pounds a share; that share was still a £.3o share.
The fact is, that this £. 18,000 that I speak of was amalgamated with the general
capital of the company, and forms part of the £.340,556, which I have returned
as the money actually received into the treasurer's hands, and expended by the
company. ,
Then in that sum of £.340,554. 6 s. 9d, there is nothing nominal P−Nothing
whatever. *.
It is the actual money paid into the treasurer’s chest ?–Yes; and paid from that
chest by the directors to the tradesmen. I will pledge myself that every shilling
of it was paid, so that any price at which shares might have been sold can have
nothing to do with the company’s actual capital.
The last act, of the 53d of the King, differed from the other two acts in this
respect, that it enabled you to divide your shares, that is, to divide your £. Ioo
shares into fractional sums?—It enabled us to raise money in shares, at such prices
as the proprietors might think proper; -
In the operation of that act, in the meeting which took place afterwards, that
meeting decided that a part of the sum which you were entitled to raise by the
former act, which did not give you that authority, they agreed should be altered
from the terms of the act of 1810, and put upon the terms of 1813, namely, by
making them shares of £.3o instead of £. 1 Oo 2–It had that operation ; but it
was in this way that the party had the share that had been issued to him at £. 1 oo,
and paid for, still remaining to him, the company of proprietors giving to that in-
dividual three new shares, he paying in a fractional sum to make up the money
that four new shares would cost.
Was it not in consequence of an order of the directors of the company that the
£. 40,000 was apportioned among the proprietors?—It was the act of parliament.
Was it not by an order of the court of directors of the West Middlesex water
company that the remaining £ 40,000 was demanded of the previous proprietors at
£. I oo a share 2—The directors of themselves have no power to raise shares, it was
the general assembly in their half-yearly meeting; it was to that effect certainly :
a general assembly resolved that the sum authorized to be raised under the first act
shall be raised: the preamble of the third act says the sum authorized to be raised
by the second act has been raised, or is in the course of payment; and that debts
have been contracted which require a further sum to liquidate. *
JDid the general meeting of the proprietors order the sum of £.40,000 to be
raised by application to the various previous subscribers at the full amount before
they made the bonus which you speak of 2–Clearly ; it was considered that the
proprietors then in the concern were to take their proportion of that £. 40,000 ;
I think that was one-fifth for every £. 100.
Previous to the taking counsel’s opinion they made this requisition ?—Certainly.
Then when they refused to pay, counsel’s opinion was taken 2–Yes, on some of
the proprietors refusing to take their proportion.
And it was after that that the general meeting gave the bonus that you alluded
to just now 2–Certainly. -
So that the operation stands thus, that they required the previous proprietors to
subscribe the £. 40,000 at the full nominal value of the shares?—Yes, they did.
Counsel’s opinion having been taken, at a further meeting they determined to
apportion the bonuses alluded to in a former part of your evidence?—Yes, they did.
Among those who had actually paid the £. 30,000 °–Yes.
You have stated in a former part of your evidence, that the depreciation of the
shares occurred at the time when it was necessary to raise the £. 40,000 2–Yes.
And that the previous sum had been raised during the time that the shares were
at a considerable premium ?—Yes.
Then under those circumstances there was no necessity for that bonus to the two
thousand shares?— No ; but whatever might have been done then, has nothing to
do with this £.340,000.
Are there any other acts or any other authorities whatsoever, which enabled you
to raise money and to establish this company, but those three acts to which you have
alluded ?–None whatever.
No other power under any other act?—None whatever.
You have stated, and very truly, that the whole sum raised by you has been with-
in the capital sum established by the different acts of parliament, beyond which you
are not to proceed —Certainly so. *
Mr. .
M. K. Knight.
706. - In
(2 1 M arch.)
164
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
\-
Mr.
M. K. Knight.
_/
-N2-
(21 March.)
In short, that the whole sum raised has been £. 352,976?—Certainly.
But in your mode of dividing the interest on the capital sum, you took this on the
capital, all the shares being equal?—Being £. 100 shares.
Do you apprehend that by the last act of parliament the shares are allowed to be
subdivided below the sum of £. 100, but that you have power to equalize all the
shares in the manner you have done with respect to your capital?—We did not
equalize them.
You do in respect of your dividends?—It is a matter of internal regulation to
give each of the proprietors such proportion as they may agree upon among
themselves.
Are you not bound by your last act of parliament, which enables you to subdivide
the shares into smaller fractional parts, to apportion the interest according to the
size of the share 2–No, the dividends are to be all equal.
In point of fact, in your divisions of interest which took place in the last two
years to the amount of £. 28,000, you paid all that interest equally to all those
7,542 shares at the same interest ?–Yes, certainly, and £. 2 a share. -
Conceiving that the act entitled you so to do 2–Certainly ; in addition to the
£. 340,564. 6 s. 9d, the company conceived themselves entitled to receive five per
cent. interest from the time of the different payments, as will be seen in my
return, amounting to £. I 13,872. 6 s. making a total of principal and interest,
£. 454,438. 12s. 9d; that is the sum which we call our capital.
That is made up at five per cent 2—That is made up at five per cent. simple
interest ; and I divide that sum by 7,542 shares, which gives about £. 60 and
a fraction, as the average value per share. The interest account is made up to
March 1819, and I shall be able to show, that up to that time there was no surplus
revenue, the expenses having consumed all the income from water rental; I there-
fore claim to have the shares of the West Middlesex company considered as £. 60
shares, and I claim to be allowed a fair tradesman-like profit upon that, in a con-
cern like the waterworks, where the machinery is constantly wearing out and subject
to renewal. Whatever interest is apportioned, I claim that it be apportioned upon
the £. 60 shares, or upon the share valued at £.60, and no more. The increased
rates have been now in operation since Midsummer 1818, and we have received four
half-yearly payments, and the fifth is now in the course of collection up to Christmas
last : the proprietors up to Christmas last have declared four dividends, according to
the return which I have made for the two last years. The proprietors received a
dividend of £. I. 15s. in the first year, and £. 2 the second year, upon each share,
which is a £. 60 share; that has consumed the whole of the net revenue ; we
have not been able to make any reserve whatever for keeping up the works, or for
the renewal of the works, but have divided the whole.
In the course of this period, when those dividends had been declared and paid
from the 27th of July 1819, to the 7th of November 1820, had not there been out-
standing bills or works going on which had required considerable sums of money
to be expended on the part of the company?--There certainly has, to a small extent;
perhaps £ 4,000 or £. 5,000 may in the course of that time have been expended in
what I should consider new works. --
But that you paid in your current expenses 2–Yes, we have paid them out of the
I'êVéIllle. - -
Have you made a correct distinction between the current expenses and the
extraordinary expenses during that period 2–Yes, I have. - ^
Has the amount of the extraordinary expenses during this period been consider-
able, and to what extent P-I can only give it in round numbers, because I have not
the papers before me; I should think it is about £. 5,000.
IFor the two years 2—For the two years ; our current annual expenses are about
eight thousand two or three hundred pounds per annum; that is, the poundage,
coals, labourers wages, salaries, and every thing of that kind.
Have not you, within the last three or four years, paid off a debt 2–No ; all our
debts were paid off previous to Michaelmas 1817. * - !,
Before you began to make any advance?—Certainly ; we have no debt whatever.
What do you reckon to be your effective current gross income, deducting the
average of bad debts and empty houses, and so on, under the new rates?—Including
ordinary supply, extra supply, and every thing, £. 25,000 gross rental, from which
I deduct £. 1,000 for empty houses, &c. - -
You estimate that it will produce you that in future years –Yes. H
a We
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
165
Have the Committee the returns of what it has produced you for the last year?—
They have. .
What is the amount of that 2–The actual receipt on all classes of supply in
1819, amounted to £. 18,422. 198; for 1820, including £. 50 for land, to
£. 23,333. 11 S. I d.
How do you account for the large difference in these two years 2–Because in
the year 1820 a greater sum has been received, being the arrears of the preceding
€8.I’.
y Is this sum which you stated in 1820, the actual receipts of the year?—The
actual receipts of the year, paid into the treasurer’s hands. -
Out of which an expenditure was to be paid of £. 8,200 or £. 8,300 2–Yes.
And you consider that the average extraordinary expense exceeds £. 2,000 a
year?—No, that depends on circumstances; I expect to be called on this year to
lay down four or five miles of pipe.
That is an increase of capital?—Yes; the return of income which I have given
in, will not enable you to judge of what profit they have made in the two last
years, namely 1819 and 1820; the actual rental of 1819, exclusive of high service,
is £. 22,566. 15s. 7d. which I consider good; the rental of 1820 is £. 22,679. 13s. 8d;
the receipt will show you, that in the one year £. 18,000 were received, in the other
£. 23,000 were received; but the sums I have now given were the actual rental
of the company for those particular years, from which I deduct the £. 8,000 above
stated; the difference is the profit of the concern for those two years.
Why do you state £. 24,000 as the present rental 2–Because in the last year the
high services came into collection. In addition to the current expenses of the
company, amounting to £. 8,200 or £. 8,300, it will be indispensably necessary
for the company to reserve a certain portion of that revenue to keep up the works.
What do you estimate that at P−That is an inquiry more properly belonging to
the engineers.
Do you know whether there is any notion of what it is 2–No ; but the engineers
were preparing themselves to report it to the Committee, but they were told it
would not be required. t • . .
Your present current expenses include no reserve for your repairs?—Certainly
not.
And you are of opinion such a reserve will, in future, be indispensably necessary?
—Yes; and further I would state, that all new works for the supply of new buildings,
by a special order of the board, are to be provided from new capital.
Do you mean further subscription 2–Yes, if it should go to any considerable
extent; we conceive it will not go to any considerable amount. The company hold
in their own hands forty-two shares, and as they want new capital they will issue
these shares; these were shares forfeited by individuals under the act of parliament,
for default in the payment of instalments; when that fund is exhausted, it will
be matter of consideration how the money is to be raised; it must be by the issue
of additional shares under the last act, or on loan to be repaid when the rents
shall enable them to do so. I have already stated there is a survey going on with
respect to high services, that great deception is practised on us as to high service,
and that I do not know half the high services which exist, and it cannot be known
till the houses are examined.
You conclude there will be an improvement from that?—Yes.
To what amount you cannot say?—No ; when I was examined before, in the
House of Lords, I stated, and even in the report given in to the Mary-le-bone
vestry so early as May 1818, (upon which report all the new rating has been
founded) I stated that the high services were estimated to produce £2,000; I have
not yet got in my book more than £. 1,660, and I am daily discovering them, and
hearing of cases where parties, without any notice to the company, employ plumbers
to make high services, giving them instructions not to tell the company.
Those new rates of course include the twenty-five per cent. and are formed upon
that calculation ?—Yes; twenty-five per cent. over the rates of 1810, and assuming
they will all be paid ; but some have sunk wells of their own, and thereby dimi-
mished the rental £.200 a year, or something like that ; but that sum has been
replaced by new buildings which are coming into charge.
The profit which you have stated you expected to receive, what interest would
that give on the sum of £. 454,438?—I recollect distinctly that in the account fur-
mished to the House of Lords and House of Commons, a sum of money was there
706. T t put
Mr. *.
M. K. Knight.
S--—”
(21 March.)
166
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
.M. K. Knight.
21 March.)
ut down as the reserve the company expected would be necessary to keep up and
renew their works, and I think it was there stated to be £. 3,000; £ 3,000 or
£.4, ooo; that of course was added to the annual charge.
Have you made any calculation what interest the profits which you have stated
you expect from the rents as they at present stand would give you upon your capital
of £. 454,438. 12s. 9d P—Yes; about four per cent. -
What interest would it give you upon the principal money without the interest?—
Not quite five per cent. --
That is losing all the interest for a great number of years, and getting nothing?—
Yes. -*. : *
That capital that you have stated includes a sum of money that was expended
previous to your coming into the metropolis P-Upon that point considerable mis-
statement has been made, which I shall be able to show you : with regard to the
capital stated to be expended before we came into the metropolis, there is a very
great mis-statement; the first act enabled the company to raise £. 80,000: you will
find by the returns which I have given in, that up to the period of the second act,
not more than £. 50,000 of that money had been paid into the treasurer’s hands.
How much was outstanding in debt P—I do not know ; the two old engines were
erected; the two reservoirs at Hammersmith were made ; at Kensington the land
was bought and the reservoir was in progress; the pipes at Hammersmith, Kensing-
ton and that neighbourhood were laid to an extent perhaps of ten miles, and I
conceive that the whole of those works, speaking from supposition, could not cost
much less than the sum I have mentioned of £. 50,000; but upon the company’s
works coming to town the engines were found inadequate ; they were competent to
the original project, but were incompetent to the enlarged sphere of operation.
Were they destroyed in consequence of that 2–No.
What use was made of them 2–None whatever. -
Are they not part of the capital of the company disposable at the present moment?—
Yes; the engines have been sold, and the produce given credit for in the account.
In the expenditure of the £.340,000, of course these engines form a part, but
not being useful to the company after the new engines were built, they have been
sold, and credit has been given and set off against the engines at the other place.
Was the loss considerable upon them 2–The whole cost of the old engines and
reservoirs could not exceed £. 20,000. -
What was lost on taking them down —The buildings are still there, and the
land is there to be sold, and it has been put up to auction, but not sold.
Then you have not given credit for the land?—No, only for the engines; the
land is part of the capital now, but it is greatly depreciated in value; for instance,
what cost £. 20,000, would not now fetch more than one fifth part of the £. 20,000,
including the engines, the land and the reservoirs.
All this has become useless to the company P-Yes. -
The engines have been disposed of, and you have credited the account to that
amount? - Yes. - -
The land and houses are still on sale, and the proceeds when they are sold are
available to the company 2–Certainly. -
But you have not credited this account for the specific value of those premises 2–
No ; I should wish to represent to the Committee that the cost of those engines was
fairly incurred; they were engines erected by Mr. Nicholson, and they were
adequate to supply Hammersmith, Kensington and that neighbourhood, but they
became useless when we enlarged our sphere of operations under the new act.
It has been said, that you had originally a large main, which afterwards proving
unfit for your purpose, was taken up and another put down?—That is not true;
that main is now in use.
In point of fact, as to the reservoirs for your original undertaking, would you
have constructed them for the works that now apply to the metropolis 2–No, not
the two that I allude to ; we had another, purchased with the money raised by the
first act, which is now supplying the town, that at Kensington; I have taken into
the account all that portion of the work which was originally intended to supply
the district, but which has since become useless, inoperative in short.
To what amount do you give that, including that which is not sold 2—f. 20,000.
That includes the whole 2–Yes.
That was the original cost of it?—Yes.
The company will not realize that?—No; we have realized £, 1,000 for the
engines
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
167
engines sold, and we have estimated the land and the buildings to be worth perhaps
£. 4,000 ; that would make a loss of £. 15,000.
In what way do you consider that that £. 15,000 can enter into the calculation of
any capital of which the public is now profiting 2—I do consider that it ought fairly
to be taken into the account, because it was fairly and justly expended for a supply
of a portion of the company’s district; it was expended for a legitimate object; and
in every great work of this description, particularly in one that is begun upon a new
principle, as they proceed they are constantly finding that some improvements may
be made; money is expended in one operation, which, by a subsequent improve-
ment, is found to be useless; and I have never yet viewed money so expended as
money improperly expended; but that it is liable to a fair claim of the company
for a return upon that capital, it having been fairly and bond fide expended for a
proper purpose.
At what period was it that you had more extensive views of supply, which made
these original works useless and inadequate for the views or purposes of the com-
pany?–1809. The company, under the powers granted to them by their first act, in
which, after enumerating certain places and parishes, the words “parts adjacent,”
are added, conceived, and to this hour believe, that they were legally empowered
to carry their works throughout Paddington and Mary-le-bone, these being the
places adjacent to the parishes specifically mentioned; that acting on that belief
they had formed their reservoir at Kensington, and had brought their main to Lon-
don, and were proceeding to supply Paddington and part of Mary-le-bone as a matter
of right and not as a matter of favour. In 1809 that led to the question, (and
I think this material, because a great deal has been said, and papers put in to rebut
something which I should here like to speak upon,) that led to the objection made
by the Mary-le-bone vestry, which has been stated, with regard to taking up pave-
ments in 1809. * .
In point of fact, the views of the company could not have extended to a more
extensive district, and consequently to more extensive works, previous to the year
1809?–No ; only so far as regards Mary-le-bone and Paddington.
Had the company any definite views of extending their concern beyond the
necessity of those two original reservoirs, and the works attached to them, previous
to the end of the year 1809 2–Certainly they had ; and they formed their upper
reservoir at Kensington precisely with that view. -
That was in 1809?—That was in 1809. f
But previous to the end of the year 1809, had they any views of extending it?
—Yes, they had, to the parts I mention; the views of the company originally
were, to have two twenty-horse engines at Hammersmith, two reservoirs at Ham-
mersmith, and the upper reservoir at Kensington, for the purpose of supplying the
district which they considered they were legally entitled to supply under their first
act, and that includes Hammersmith, Kensington, Paddington and part of Mary-
le-bone; the works were constructed for that particular purpose; and certainly
beyond that they did not, previous to 1809, contemplate a supply; but those works
were considered adequate for that particular purpose; but when they obtained
their bill to take the several parishes in London which are enumerated in that bill,
these two engines would not be adequate for that extended supply; they then
erected their large engines upon the banks of the Thames, two seventy-horse power
engines, disused the two twenty-horse engines, together with the two small
reservoirs connected with them, and pumped at once for their whole district,
Hammersmith and Kensington included, into their Kensington reservoir, and from
thence into town. -
If the Committee undertand you rightly, these were two distinct speculations, up
to the year 1810; the original works were equal to the original intention of the
company; subsequently their views became more enlarged, and they increased their
concern ?—Yes, they did. - *.
In that view of the case, was any profit realized on the expenditure previous to
the year 1810?–None had been realized certainly; the works were not opened till
I believe, the end of the year 1810. It has been stated that the company had at
that time six years experience as a water company. I think the Kensington reservoir
was opened in the month of November 1810, at a meeting at which Mr. Byng pre-
sided; the first rental the company acquired was in 1811, where it appears we
received a small sum, about £. 280. - tº x
Then on what principle do you charge interest on the preceding years?—The
works were forming. .
706. - In
AIr.
M. K. Knight.
(21 March,)
168 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
In point of fact, you have stated that in the contemplation of serving Mary-le-
**** bone, these original works were constructed, and which you have stated were ade-
~Tº quate for the service to be performed ; at the present period, you only serve a part
(21 March.)
of Mary-le-bone, and yet these works have been considerably enlarged in order to
make them capable of such supply?—That was precisely what misled the company;
they were informed that that reservoir at Kensington would hold water for the
supply of 40,000 houses; that the whole of their district mentioned in the second
bill the parishes that would have extended the works to Gray’s-inn-lane and
Temple-bar; that the whole works necessary could be constructed for £. 150,000,
in addition to the £. 80,000 mentioned in the first act; that was stated by Mr.
Ralph Walker; I have Mr. Walker’s original estimate now before me, and that
estimate is given at length, as all engineers estimates are, so many yards of pipe at
so much a yard. The Committee will find, that before we had covered Mary-le-bone
alone, we had spent almost twice that sum, and we had only then covered about
one-fifth of the district contemplated; and we now find, and have found from the
experience from 1810 downwards, that our supply takes fourteen or fifteen hours a day
(according to the returns,) of the two seventy-horse power engines to supply Mary-
le-bone and Pancras, and the small district we have besides, comprising altogether
10,000 houses: the Committee will at once see the inference to be drawn from
this ; the company have been charged with being speculators, and called various
harsh names, and great astonishment has been expressed that they should be so
deluded: who could they inquire of but their engineers? The directors say, if we
can get 40,000 houses for £. 150,000, the average rate is so and so, and we can
supply at cheaper rates, and still derive an adequate profit.
Then you were, in point of fact, deceived by your engineer P--Yes. The Com-
mittee will allow me further to state, as to the delusion the West Middlesex were
under. Mr. Dodd was the projector, and he was employed for the first year; he
was refractory, and disputes arose where the works should be, which caused delay,
and ended in the dismissal of Mr. Dodd before a brick was laid. I believe in the
original plan suggested by Mr. Dodd, they were to have these two reservoirs at
Hammersmith, to give particularly fine water; that the tide should flow into them,
and then filter. With regard to the main which was laid down in 1809, and the
reservoir which was constructed in 1809, they are now daily in operation for the
supply of part of Mary-le-bone and Paddington, doing their proper services.
Are you enabled to state what the expenditure of the company on the last re-
servoir at Kensington amounted to 2–No, I never made any calculation of that ; I
have an account of buildings, engines and reservoirs, and that sum altogether
amounts to £. 54,511. -
Is that including the £. 20,000, of which you have before spoken?—Yes; and
also including the two seventy-horse engines which are now in use. -
Can you state what number of the original proprietors still continue members of
the company ?—About 176. -
Out of how many —Out of about 350. I include the second act as well as the
first ; I include all the proprietors of shares at £. 100 each : in the first act there
were only seventy subscribers; these were men of fortune, living in the district,
and builders and people of that description, and not city speculators, for there are
only thirteen that live in the city. - f
Would your books enable you to show how many of the original subscribers
remained members of the company at any given period; for instance, at the termi-
nation of three, four or five years after the commencement?—I think that they
would, but it really would take a great deal of time; there is no doubt that they would,
but it would certainly take a great deal of time to furnish the Committee with it.
How long ago was it since you made this enumeration of the proprietors 2—About
two years ago. - - -
Do you think the variation has been material since that ?—No, I think not.
Do you mean that the proprietors of shares of £. 100 each amounted to 350
originally 2–No ; but I never counted them; 350 is the number of the present,
body. . . - - . . . . . w >
Can you state what proportion of the original subscribers under the first or second
act, at £. 100 each, now remain on the books?—I will furnish the Committee on Friday
next, if I can, (and I feel a moral certainty that I can) with a list of the precise
individuals, striking out those names that have sold their shares since that book
was printed, which was several years ago, leaving the names of the others in print;
there are at least a hundred new names. -
". - Have
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 169
Have you kept any distinct account in your books of the expense incurred by Mr. \
the removal of pipes or mains at the period of the partition?—That account can M. K. Knight. Tº
be made out; we have not kept any distinct account, but it is very trifling; it `--—"
cannot exceed £. 2,000 ; not so much I should think as £. 1,000. (21 March.)
Veneris, 23° die Martij, 1821.
WILLIAM HENRY FREMANTLE, ESQUIRE,
IN T H E C H AIR.
Mr. Matthias Koops Knight, again called in ; and Examined.
BEG to state, that with regard to the £.40,000 stock, which we technically call Mr.
parliamentary capital, remaining upon the two first acts, a subscriber of £. Ioo M. K. Knight.
received in the first instance one share for his £, loo, but afterwards, in consequence –
of the depreciation, he received two shares more without any payment, and a further (23 March)
share on the payment of £. 12, so that he received four shares, at £. 28 each, for
£. 1 12 paid into the treasurer's hands. * ,
That is £. 12 in addition to the £. 100 that he originally paid 2–Yes.
What do you mean by saying in your last answer that this was allowed in conse-
quence of the depreciation?—When this £. 40,000 was called for, the shares had
fallen to a discount of £, 65 per cent.
That is, they were selling at £. 35 in the market?—Yes. -
Previous to the passing of the act of 1813, counsel’s opinion had been given that
the old proprietors were compelled to subscribe to the £. 40,000 remaining?—That
is my impression; I have never seen the opinion ; I will look for it, and see
whether it is in existence.
That opinion was given previous to the introduction of the new bill to Parliament 2
—I apprehend so.
When did the general meeting of the proprietors take place, which entered into
those resolutions 2–The 1st of September 1812.
Are there any records of the resolutions passed at that meeting?—These are
copies of them.
[They were delivered in.]
Was there any communication made, previously to the arrangement which took
place at this meeting, to the original subscribers to the 2,000 shares?–None.
They were not consulted previously?—It was the proprietors who did it.
Do you happen to know whether the bill of 1813 was framed in the contempla-
tion of affording this relief to them 2–I cannot possibly enter into the motives at
that time ; I was not then secretary.
Had it any reference to their power of raising money by the former bills?—The
preamble of the bill, I apprehend, will state what it was passed for.
Mr. William Matthew Coe, again called in ; and Examined.
WHAT number of houses do the Grand Junction serve in Mary-le-bone — Mr.
1,387. . W. M. Coe.
Can you state what is the capital of the Grand Junction company —There are -—
two acts of parliament, one of the 51 Geo. 3, and the second bill received the
Royal assent the 25th March 1816; and the original Canal act, which first obtained
the power of service of water, was the 38th of Geo. 3.
What did the first act empower you to raise?—The first act empowered us to
raise £. 300,000.
What was raised?—We raised of that £. 150,000.
At how much a share?—£. 50 for a £. 50 share. -
At par?—At par; three thousand shares at £. 5o a share; and in June 1816,
subsequent to our second act, which passed in March 1816, fifteen hundred additional
shares were raised at £. 25 a share. -
Was that £. 25 a share expressed at that rate in the act?—The circumstances
were these: when we were about to raise further money under the first act, the shares
were very much depreciated, and it was a consideration at a general meeting of the
Pºwhale they could raise, under their original act, £.50 shares at £.25; that
70 © U u * is,
170
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
I}{r.
iP. M. Coe.
*—— **
(23 March.)
is, whether if the share was sold at £. 25, the person taking the share would not be
liable to all the calls upon it to the extent of £.50, and whether it would be legal
for the company at any time hereafter to allow a person taking a share under the
first act, interest on £.50, he only having paid £.25; and when it was proposed at
this general meeting that shares should be taken in that way, there happened to be
two or three legal gentlemen at the meeting of our proprietors, who started this
objection; they gave an opinion that any persons taking a share of £. 25, the subse-
quent proprietors might come in and compel them to pay up all the calls to the
extent of £.50, the consequence was that no person would take a share, and the
meeting came to a resolution to apply to Parliament to enable them to raise £.50
shares, and sell them for what they could obtain; that occasioned the application to
Parliament for the second act, and after that act had passed, at a subsequent general
meeting that was held, 1,500 additional shares were created under that second act;
our first act gave us the power of raising £. 59 shares, and the second act enabled us
to raise shares at not less than £. 10 nor exceeding £.50 ; these additional shares
were all taken up by the original proprietors, at £. 25 a share, although they were
selling at the time in the market at £. 23.
All by the original proprietors?—Yes; a loan had been raised previous to the
passing of this act, and that loan was liquidated by those shares after the act passed.
You had no new subscribers at the £.25?–No, there were some few persons who
had sold their optional loan notes, and I believe that introduced one new subscriber.
What did you raise by those shares?—We raised by those shares £. 37,500.
Giving them a right to an equal interest with those who paid the £.50 –Yes,
which I believe this act directs, making a total of £, 187,500; that is all the money
that has been raised.
That is your principal capital?—Yes.
Is that sum the sum which you exhibit to the Committee as the capital now
claimed by the company, or have you any addition to make to it, and in what
respect?—We claim interest upon that sum from the periods at which the money
was raised. w
Have you any account of that interest with you?—Yes, I have ; it amounts to
£. 52,670. 16s. making the total capital £. 240,170. 16s; the interest is calculated
to the 31st March 1819.
Your interest is calculated upon the sums from the date of their subscription and
payment into the treasurer’s hands?—Yes. -
Can you proceed to show the Committee how your proprietors will be effected by
the increased rates as to interest upon that capital 2–I am not quite prepared upon
that point, certainly.
Was that whole sum received and employed in your works 2–Wholly.
Was there any sum laid out at interest in the manner Mr. Knight described in
the original progress of the concern ?—We hardly called for money till it was
wanted. -
Have you a statement of the yearly receipts?—Yes, that has been delivered in;
in the return that has been made I have given also the years in which the money
has been raised, and that money has been raised only as it has been wanted.
Have you a detailed expense account of the manner in which that money was
applied to your works 2—I have that detailed account up to the 31st March 1819,
calculated with interest.
Is it in a state to be exhibited to the Committee now 2–I can state what it was,
I can give the items.
There appears upon the face of your account of expenditure the sum of £. 10,810
incurred for stone pipes, those are not now in use are they?—No, they are not.
Do you introduce them, in point of fact, into your present capital, for which you
claim a remuneration 2–That is brought into the charge against the capital as ap-
pearing like an expenditure, it stands upon our books apparently as a loss sustained,
by the arrangement of the stone pipe company; the account between us and the
stone pipe company was somewhere about £. 33,000, or between that and £. 34,000;
the charge for stone pipes and all the incidental expenses attendant upon them,
laying and carting, amounted to £.33,790 ; and this was the account as it stood at
the period that the stone pipes failed, not having sufficient power to stand the pres-
sure of the works, and finding we could not any longer use them, the company called
upon the stone pipe company for a reimbursement of all the sums of money paid to
them, and also for the expenses that had been incidental to the stone pipes; various
communications took place, and conferences with the stone pipe company and the
court
on THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
171
court of directors upon this subject, and the stone pipe company put it to the body
of the proprietors whether, as there had been a material difference in the price of
iron pipes at the time the company first contracted for the stone pipes, and the
actual cost of iron pipes at the time when the stone pipes failed, they ought not to
be allowed that difference? and the board of directors considering all the circum-
stances of the case, that the company had been induced to use the stone pipes,
considering it a purer conduit than any thing before laid down, there being a strong
prejudice at that time against the use of iron that they were induced to adopt stone,
certainly under very strong evidence of Mr. Rennie, on another bill, that they
would stand the pressure required, and that the stone pipe company had incurred
very heavy expenses; under these circumstances they did consider that it was very
fair to allow the stone pipe company this difference in the account.
What did they allow them?—We received from the stone pipe company £. 22,985.
Was that difference more than equivalent to the difference which the fall of iron
had made in the actual cost of the iron pipes you subsequently put down, to what
they would have cost you if you had bought them in the first instance 2—About the
time that we were contracting for the stone pipes, iron was from £. 12. 10s. to £. 13
a ton; when we actually made our contracts for them, they were from about £. 9. 15s.
to £. 10 a ton, but then there were a variety of other articles which we got in ex-
change, a number of iron pipes which had been connected with the stone pipes
where branches could not be made, which were returned to us by the stone pipe
company, and which we use in our present works; and therefore the directors con-
sidered that they had got a fair sum.
You considered that there was that amount saved to the company in their
outlay P—Certainly.
Consequently saved in the amount of your whole expense account 2–Certainly;
but we could not strike it off the books, because it appeared to stand as a loss.
Are you able to state to the Committee what number of your original proprietors
remain proprietors at this day?—I think I can.
And have been so ever since the beginning of the concern ?—I think there are
named in the first act sixty proprietors; of those sixty, eight-and-twenty have sold
their shares and never returned to the company, never purchased in again;
twenty-one of those persons are with the company to the present day, and have all
of them considerably increased their property in the concern instead of diminishing
it, because they have taken the additional shares, and shares which were also selling
by the stone pipe company; eight persons of the stone pipe company, who were
obliged to sell their shares, and three of the proprietors died; I believe that makes
the sixty. - -
You stated that upon the increase of capital of the shares reduced to £.25, the
original proprietors took them all?—Yes, there were some loan optional notes issued
before those shares were created, and some few of the holders sold them to others,
and I believe one person was new to the company : when the stone pipe company
paid us this money, they had, I conclude, no other means of paying it but by shares,
and the company found them purchasers; that was the only difference; the stone
pipe company instead of selling their shares to any individuals they could find, and
paying us the money, the company found them purchasers; the stone-pipe company
surrendered 917 shares, and those shares were sold to such of the then existing pro-
prietors as chose to take them, and new proprietors were admitted also by those
shares.
At the market rate 2—At the market rate. -
Did those shares stand in the name of the stone pipe company as a body cor-
porate --No, of the individuals of that company; they were not a body corporate,
only partners. -
That was the only way in which you obtained payment of the £. 22,000 –Yes; it
is just the same as if the stone pipe company had gone into the market and found
purchasers, and came to us and paid the money.
Those 917 shares stood in the names of eight persons only 2–No, those 917 shares
stood in the names of twelve persons.
You raised £. 150,000, £. 50 shares; then you raised £. 37,500 by £. 25 shares;
did your own company produce that ?—Yes.
Afr.
#7. M. Coe.
\–sº-
(23 March,)
Was that equally partitioned between the whole proprietors 2–A loan had been -
raised in 1814 to the amount of £. 18,314, and when these new shares were created,
those loan-holders were to have the option of converting this loan into capital if they
Pº by the act; a vast number of them did so, by far the greater proportion of
700. those
§
172
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
W. B.I. Coe.
`--~~~
(23 March.)
Mr,
T. N. Pickering.
those loan-holders converted their loan into stock, and the remaining shares were to
be divided among the proprietors, in proportion to the number that they then held,
and the offer was made, of course, to every proprietor, whether he would take his
proportion, and those who took them had them, and if any refused then another
division was made among the other proprietors who chose to take more than their
proportion, so that the whole were taken by the company. - : -
The whole of this transaction was at the rate of £. 25?—Yes.
Those holders of the loan of £. 18,314 were distinct from the proprietors?—No,
they were proprietors; we raised the money among the proprietors. -
Then your whole number of shares is what?–4,500. It was stated at the general
meeting that £. 25 per share was too high a price to issue them at, because they could
get them at £. 23 in the market, but the proprietors had a good opinion of the
concern, and they did not choose to let them be hawked about at a reduced price.
What interpretation did the directors put upon the acts of parliament affecting
the Grand Junction company, as to raising a capital stock beyond the amount of
the real stock mentioned in the act?—I do not think it ever entered into their
contemplation, because we had not raised to the amount we had power to raise.
Your second act allowed you to divide your shares, which the first act did not?—
Yes, it gave us a power to divide shares into smaller fractions. -
In the apportionment of dividends you have considered all those shares as equal
shares?—Yes; or we could have got no purchasers.
And have you made any calculation as to the value of those shares, in order to
affix a rate of interest upon them?—Divide the capital and the interest by the
number of shares, will make it about £. 55 per share. t -
What is the expense you have been put to in resisting the attempts that have been
made for the institution of new companies, or in the apprehension of such attempts?—
I think somewhere about £. 1,000; but that does not come into our charge here.
You have been put to an expense 2–Yes, by the bill of 1819, I think about
£. 1,000.
You do not claim any remuneration for that from the public P-It is not in the
aCCOunt. - -
In what way have the expenses been paid on account of Mary-le-bone parish in
their attempt to obtain the last act of parliament?—I do not know that I can an-
swer that ; I imagine it was paid by the Mary-le-bone vestry. s
Perhaps on a future day you can ascertain the fact?—I do not know. -
(Mr. JWeale.)—I was one of the opposing parties, and it cost me about 7 s. out
of my own pocket.
Mr. Thomas Nelson Pickering, called in ; and Examined.
UNDER what authority does your company rest with regard to the raising money
and capital 2–The first act of parliament was 47 Geo. 3, c. 72, in 1807.
The only act under which you carry on your proceedings is that act?—And
another act of the 48 Geo. 3, c. 8. -
Those are the only two acts under which you raise money 2—Yes.
Those acts were in 1807 and 1808?– Yes.
What was the amount that those acts authorized you to raise?—£.380,000, (by the
first act, £60,000 and £40,000 ; by the second act, f. 130,000 and £. 150,000,)
raised in shares of £. 100 each, except on a small part of the shares upon which a
loss accrued of about £ 4,841; that was occasioned by some of the proprietors who
did not pay up on their shares; these shares became forfeited, and they were sold
at a depreciation; there was a loss upon them, so that the sum was diminished by
£ 4,841, which makes the return of £.375, 159 actually paid in. t
The whole of those were paid at 3,800 shares?—Yes. . . . . . . . . . . .
You have no power or authority in your act to divide those shares in any way
whatever, to raise them upon any other terms, but bond ſide £. Ioo for each
share?—Certainly not.
There has been no dividend made since February 1820; how is that, when by
the statement before the Committee it appears that, deducting the poundage to
your collectors, which is £. 1,670, at five per cent, upon the gross, deducting the
£. I 1,000 current expense, there remains £. 22,591, so that more than five per cent.
upon the 3,800 shares might be divided?—From the large expense we have been
at in increasing our mains and services we are now in debt, for money borrowed,
£24,000 besides; there has been a great loss in the collection of the rates; the
whole of the rate has not been collected. - -
Have
oN THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 173
Have there been any attempts to institute new waterworks in your district — Mr.
We have heard of something of the sort. -* * iº T. N. Pickering.
Do you know whether parishes have been put to an expense in consequence of
that?--No. (23 March.)
Lunae, 26° die Martij, 1821.
WILLIAM HENRY FREMANTLE, ESQUIRE,
I N T H E C H A I R.
Mr. William Matthew Coe, again called in ; and Examined.
V W WITH regard to the state of the direction of our company, there have been of
tº º & © © . Mr.
the original directors three in office ten years, one nine years, one eight W. M. Coe.
years, four seven years, and one six years, making the ten directors. There have \ .
been but nine other gentlemen in the direction; two were of the stone pipe com: (26 March)
pany, and were obliged to resign ; three were supposed to be particular friends of -
the stone pipe company, and resigned from the feeling that prevailed against them
on the part of the proprietors; one resigned from the pressure of his private affairs;
one resigned from ill health, and two died.
(Mr. Knight.)—In my last examination the Committee will recollect I stated Mr.
that not expecting to be examined that day, I was not sufficiently prepared to go M. K. Knight.
into so full an explanation of the early proceedings of the company as I wished; S – 2–’
that I had not brought my papers, and that what I might then state must be un-
derstood as subject to correction. I have since read my evidence over, and I find
I was mistaken in two or three dates and sums; I do not know whether they are
material: I have stated that Mr. Dodd was dismissed in 1808, that was two years after
the bill passed ; I find Mr. Dodd was dismissed in December 1806; that he had
originally proposed the establishment of the works at Hammersmith, and had formed
his estimate for those works; that after the bill passed, he altered his mind, and
wanted to have them established at Poole's-Creek, somewhere near Fulham, in a
very disadvantageous situation as it was considered by the proprietors, and they
therefore questioned Mr. Dodd, and as he was very refractory he was dismissed ;
Mr. Nicholson was then appointed, and he formed the works at Hammersmith,
nearly on the plan Mr. Dodd had laid down. This was the beginning of 1807
when Mr. Nicholson was called in. In the course of 1807 and 1808 the works
were in progress; in 1808 Mr. Nicholson suggested a new project, that was the
extension of the pipes to the north-west of Mary-le-bone and Paddington, and he
gave in his estimate for that particular part, and I have an extract from his report
at that particular time, and I wish particularly to call the attention of the Com-
mittee to these words, because it will explain what I meant the other day when I
stated the company intended to supply Paddington and Mary-le-bone as a matter
of right under the first act. I find a question put by the directors to Mr. Nicholson
was, “What may be the demand for water in Paddington and its vicinity P” he
then reported, “that the mains were laid from the New River company, and
from the Chelsea company, in that part of Mary-le-bone which lies in the angle
between Oxford-street and the Edgware-road, and that the Chelsea supply went as
far into Southampton-row as Chapel-street, the New River supply extending no
further along the New-road than Quebec-street; the houses which are not served
by either of those companies, namely, at the north-west corner, are upwards of
1,200, which may be taken at the average rent of 30s, making in the whole a
rental of f. 1,800 annually; the buildings in progress and to be erected to the
eastward of Gloucester-place may be stated at 750 large houses with stabling, and
250 smaller, averaging respectively 40s. and 30s. making an additional rental of
£ 1,875.” He then alluded to the Portman estate, which had then been laid out
for building, and various other places that he had seen, and which places were
wholly unsupplied with water at that time; the estimate for this work was £. 11,309;
that included the new reservoir at Kensington, and the ten-inch main to London;
that reservoir was made, and that main was brought to London in 1809, and upon
these pipes being laid, arose the question with the Mary-le-bone vestry as to pave-
ºnents; the estimate for supplying those 2,200 houses amounted to £, 11,309; that
the estimated rental from those houses was £3,675 a year; he put down the
| 706. X x expenses
174 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
... Mr. expenses at £. 1,200 a year, leaving a profit of £. 2,475 a year. I mention this to
* * **, show to what extent the works in 1808 and 1809 were intended to go; not to go
. . .T into competition with the old companies, but to supply the houses at the extremity
**) of their works, and to which their plans had not extended. I will just notice here,
that I find in the minutes of that period a scale of rating laid down, and as it was
entirely upon a new principle, the Committee will at once see they did not begin
their works with an idea of underselling the old companies; it is put down so
explicitly, the thing explains itself:— --
“May 1809:—The board resolved, that houses should be rated a shilling in the
pound if they were rated in the parish books at £.30 a year or under, and nine
pence in the pound if they were larger,” which, in point of fact, is a higher rate
than the rates of 1820. It has been stated that the new companies, the West
Middlesex especially, was established on a principle of fraud; that the proprietors
were a set of speculators, who although they knew the concern could not possibly
answer, yet went on raising money and laying pipes, for the sole purpose of raising
shares; this has been repeated so often in the course of the late proceedings at
public meetings, and in the various publications circulated, that I myself could not
altogether divest myself of the belief, that although part of it was certainly untrue,
yet that Mr. Weale would not have ventured to express himself so strongly on such
points, without some grounds for his assertion. That feeling made me examine
the proceedings of the company at the period alluded to, with more than ordinary
industry and care (for I was not myself in office till four years afterwards,) and the
result of my research has been, that a more unfounded assertion was never thrown
on any man or body of men. In addition to what I stated before, I have merely
to add, that at the period of 1809 and 1810, the act of parliament which brought
the company to London in competition with the old companies, was obtained on
most unquestionable evidence, that a great want of water existed in many parts
of the town ; an evil which the old companies, without a great outlay of capital
which be it remembered they had no means of raising) could not remedy, to say
nothing of the general insufficiency, or as Mr. Weale has been pleased to say, the
“ general economy,” which the use of that necessary article at that time required.
To suppose for a moment that these complaints were for the most part ground-
less, as asserted by Mr. Weale, is, in my opinion, a libel on the legislature, who at
that period passed acts of parliament for the establishment of no less than three
new water companies, in the preamble of every one of which I believe the evils I
have mentioned are stated as the sole ground for their establishment; not one word
about cheapness of supply being to be found in either of them ; that is my belief;
I am sure it is not in ours ; this I believe is sufficient to show the “fraudful
principle” on which, on the authority of Mr. Weale, you are to believe the new
companies were formed. Now with regard to the “knowledge” possessed by the
proprietors at that time, that the concern would not possibly succeed, I conceive
the charge is too ludicrous to need a serious comment. I stated on a former day
what was the engineer’s estimate for the works alleged to be necessary for the
establishment of the West Middlesex waterworks in the supply of the several London
parishes enumerated in the act of 1810, and also what expectation had been formed of
the number of houses which might be obtained; but as I am now upon this particular
part of our case, I will shortly state it, as being more in order: by the first act we
were enabled to raise £. 80,000, by the second act we were enabled to raise £. 160,000,
making the capital £240,000. Under the first act the reservoir at Kensington
had been formed, and pipes brought to the new buildings at the north-west corner
of Mary-le-bone, namely, Gloucester-place, &c. The estimate for the works con-
templated in the second act amounted to £. 157,000, and the number of houses to
be supplied were computed at 40,000, averaging from 25 S. to 30s. a house, which
gives a gross rental of £. 50,000 or £. 60,000 a year on a capital of £. 240,000.
That was the statement made to the proprietors by their engineers; on such a
statement, who could doubt that the old companies made immense profits? especially
as at that time the New River shares (generally believed to have been originally
£. 100 shares) were selling at £. 10,000 and £. 12,000 a-piece. It has been suffi-.
ciently in evidence before this Committee, in what gross delusion the public was in
this respect in 1810; and how were the unfortunate proprietors of the new com-
panies to escape this delusion more than their neighbours? I have mentioned these
circumstances to show that the proprietors were not the deluders on that occasion;
they were the deluded; and that therefore they could not possibly know that they
could not succeed; on the contrary, they had every expectation of deriving a very
- %. considerable


considerable profit from their works. The fact simply appears to be this; that in
1810 the engineers and proprietors of the new companies were theorists, who
laughed at the practical men, the old companies, and suspected them of unfair
practices: in 1820 the theorists of 1810, though they have now become the practical
men, have found to their cost the difference between reality and illusion; but though
they give the most unequivocal testimony of this, Mr. Weale and his party (the
theorists of 1820,) ridicule the theorists of 1810, since converted into practical
men, and persist in maintaining that the water can be supplied at a cheaper rate.
With regard to the shares, I have been particularly circumspect in the examination of
the memorials of transfer, (that is the title which we give them,) and have ascertained
that the 2,000 shares which were in existence in 1812, and which were all £. I oo
shares, were held by 224 individuals; of whom have since sold, at very considerable
loss, 84 individuals, leaving 140 of the original proprietors still in the concern, hold-
ing the same shares; of the 140, 79 have never sold any of their shares, 61 have
sold a part; then, of the 140 still in, 105 took their proportion of that £.40,000,
and paid upon it; three took their proportion, and paid a part, but afterwards for-
feited ; 32 did not take their proportion, from death, absence and poverty; there
were nine deaths and two bankruptcies; the others refused; and 97 of the 140 pro-
prietors before mentioned, were contributors to the new stock, at £.30 a share.
This account is made up to the 10th of December 1820; here are all the names,
which the Committee are very welcome to see.
What is the number of proprietors now 2–350, within five, more or less; but
since the new shares have been created, of course they have been subdivided;
there are 350 shareholders now, 140 of whom are original proprietors, at £. 1 oo
shares. -
Do you know what number of shares are in their hands now 2–-I do not know
the number of shares, but I should think by far the greater proportion. I take
the concern now, with regard to the rise and fall of shares, from the commencement.
In May 1806, when the first subscription was paid in, till November 1808, the
shares uniformly were transferred at par ; namely, £. 100 a-piece; there had been
no fluctuation, consequently there could be no speculation : the first premium that
I find is in November 1808, when they began to talk about bringing their pipes
to that north-west corner of Mary-le-bone, and that raised them to a premium of
£.8; and they rose from £.8 to £ 20 premium between November 1808 and
September 1809.
Was that whilst you were in progress with the second bill?–No, before the
second bill : then came the second bill: notices were given, and application was
made to Parliament in the spring of 1810; the shares then gradually rose to the
premium of £. 45, till March 1810; at this period the whole 800 shares had been
raised, which were authorized to be raised by the first act. When the application was
made to Parliament for the extended powers, it was intended to appropriate to the
old proprietors (the holders of the 800 shares,) all the new shares to be raised under
the second act; and as the shares were then selling at a premium in the market of
£.45, it evidently became a great object of the proprietors to possess themselves of
those shares, which would give them the privilege of taking a proportion of those new
shares; hence arose a sudden rise of the stock from April to June ; and they rose
in those three months, the demand being so great, from £.45 premium to £. 125
premium. As that particular period is of course the period which I conceive has
been alluded to by all parties as the period of the great advance of shares, I have
been particular in taking out the names of the parties who bought and sold during
those months; I have ascertained whether they were transferred once or twice, and
I can dissect them entirely ; I have taken all the transfers from April to June
1810, and the premiums rose to £.60, £.70, £.80, £. 90, £. 100, £. I 10, £. 120,
£. 125, and then it stopped; the bill then passed, and the new appropriation was
made. Now the transfers of that particular period require explanation, and I give
it in this way: there were then about 180 holders of the original 800 shares; of
those only 28 were the sellers on this occasion; 15 sold out entirely, and never
came into the concern again, and 13 sold out a part; the number of shares actually
transferred (for they were transferred in ones, in twos, in threes, and so on) only
amounted to 122, which were bought by thirty new individuals; it appears that
there were not more than 20 shares, during this great demand in the market, and
the consequent great rise in the stock from forty guineas to one hundred and
twenty-five, transferred twice; of course in a rising market every body is anxious to
get º At that time there were only three people who bought in at the beginning
706. of
I75
Mr.
M. K. Knight.
\–—S2–~
(26 March.)
176
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
fºr.
32. K. Knight.
S–S 2—”
(26 March.)
of the advance, and sold out at the high premium, and left the concern; the first
was a man of the name of Wormsley, of whom I never heard before ; he bought
five shares at £. 42, and sold them at £.87; and there are two other individuals,
whose names I do not know, who bought in the same way and sold out, and I have
never heard of them since ; thus, about twenty of the number transferred were
transferred twice, which would diminish the number of shares actually transferred
to about 100.
Had those three speculating individuals any thing to do with the conduct or
management of the concerns of the company 2–No, they were quite strangers; of
the thirty buyers at that high price, namely, from £. 40 to £. 125, thirteen are now in
our concern as proprietors, our chairman and his partner being two, and there were
several other gentlemen who were in at that time, and bought in to get a larger
share of the concern ; there were two sold at a low price when the advance first
began, and afterwards.bought in again at a higher price to their great loss; three
bought low and sold high, and the remainder of the thirty have since sold out at a
loss. Now I have the most complete proof that the reason that I have assigned for
this sudden advance of shares is the correct one; the act passed, I believe, in June
or July 1810, the act allowing of this additional sum of £. 160,000 to be raised;
the very instant the act was passed, the shares came down to their level of forty-five
per cent. premium. I find from June 1810 to July 1810 there were no transfers
at all : immediately the allotment took place, and the 1,200 new shares were
issued, the shares stood in the market at £.45 premium, old and new ; and in the
course of the following year they fell from that £. 45 premium to par, namely £. I oo
a-piece, in a regular gradual descent ; from June 1811 to December 1812, the
shares continued in a regular depression from par to £.65 discount, which was the
price when all the questions arose with regard to the £. 40,000 capital discussed the
other day, and the optional loan. I have the resolutions on that subject, which
being put in, will explain the thing better than I can in my testimony. Then in
1813 came the third act; and to induce the then existing holders to take the whole
of the new shares to be raised, some boom was necessarily held out ; the pro-
prietors would not give more than they could purchase them for, and £. 30 being
the price fixed on, £. 74,000 was raised in 1813 at £. 30 a share, which, as well as
the £. oo shares previously raised, in the course of that year down to the years
1815 and 1816 were as regularly depressed as from five to four, three, two and one,
till they came down to £ 22. los. and one individual, who was a director, from
some circumstances it is not necessary to mention, sold his sixty shares to one
individual in one transfer at £. 20 a share, which was the lowest; this sale was some
time about 1815; then after they had got to that minimum, they were stationary
for some time, I think very nearly a year, and I am speaking now more from
memory, it being entirely during my own time in office; about a year, I think,
they remained at that depressed state, viz. f. 22, till towards the close of the years
1816 or 1817, when they raised a further sum of £. 24,000, at £. 30 shares, (the
shares having in the mean time gradually ascended to that price,) to pay off a
debt; that makes the whole raised under that act.
State the sums that were raised under the act of 1813?—f. 74,000; £. 24,000 in
i816, and the £. 40,000 which completed the £. 240,000; of this sum £30,000
was paid in and funded in shares at £. 28 a share. I have the resolutions here,
which I will put in, and they will show the whole transactions; the company
were disappointed in one session of Parliament on a point of form. 3.
Though that resolution was in the year prior to passing your bill, that same
bill was pending at the time the resolution was taken, was it not, but was defeated
in that session by a formal objection ?—It was.
Then the actual transaction of funding them took place when 2–In 1813, the
resolution having passed the first of September 1812. By the optional loan the
sum funded was £. 18,496, and £, 2,418 is the amount of the fractional sums paid
on the funding of that loan and of the £. 30,073 parliamentary capital.
What was that funded at 2—At £. 28.
What is the total raised under all the acts 2—f.340,000 ; that being the sum,
after deducting from the money actually subscribed, the £. 12,000 dividend and
the £ 4,000 interest. In the subsequent period, (subsequent to 1816) when the
shares were raised at £. 30, the shares gradually increased up to £. 54, which was
their maximum when Mr. Taylor's bill was in Parliament; but they have since
been depressed down to £.49. I should state also, that the 140 proprietors have
. * been
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
*N,
been the largest contributors of the £. 30 stock; they have been uniformly the great
supporters of the concern.
In point of fact, the shares were at a premium before all the instalments were \
paid up?—No, the first shares were all at par ; so that if £.50 had been paid on
a share, it sold for £. 50 ; and they stood at par two years and a half, without any
fluctuation in price. - * .
Were they at par in the market before the instalments were paid up?—Yes;
because on the passing of the act, as soon as the allotment was made, and the
original proprietor had paid his ten per cent. on the new, he could go into the
market, if he thought it necessary, and sell his share. : -
At what period was the whole subscription paid up 2–In the course of a year
and a half, I suppose. 3.
In point of fact, were not the first 800 shares at a premium before the instal-
ments were paid up 2–Those 800 shares were raised at three different periods;
and to the first period I should say no, but the second period might include the
£. 8 premium. - --
Notwithstanding any premiums, were the instalments all paid up ultimately?—
Certainly, every shilling; as well for the 800 as the 1,200, except in the instance
of a broker, who speculated and was ruined. --
In point of fact, before the shares obtained their maximum, dividends had been
paid out of the capital?—No, the dividends were paid afterwards; I do not know
their motives that induced them to declare a dividend; but when they brought
their pipes to London, it appears to me they went on the principle of the West India
docks, and declared a dividend in the first instance, in order that they should not
have an interest account opened with the proprietors, to be afterwards liquidated
when profits were realized. .
Did your company support or oppose Mr. Taylor's bill?--The companies acceded
to it; it was forced upon us.
Ultimately, did they or did they not wish it to be passed?—Yes, though merely
for peace sake. -
In point of fact, they did wish it?—I should say not; no farther than it was
likely to calm the disputes. -
They did wish it, in point of fact?—Yes.
Do you know the expense the company have been put to in consequence of the
opposition made to them 2–I apprehend about £. 2,000.
Was any management or contrivance ever resorted to by the companies to raise
or fall the stock for the purpose of jobbing 2—I can most unequivocally assert, in
my time nothing of the sort, but precisely the reverse conduct.
Have your directors practised any jobbing in shares for themselves —Never.
Have those who have subscribed for original shares or purchased them, or pur-
chased stock, gained or lost very considerably 2–Lost very considerably; many
proprietors were buyers at £. 125, shares which will not produce them now £. 50 in
the market; there is a gentleman who has been in the board eleven years, holds
six-and-thirty shares, which he bought at £. 100 and upwards.
Calculating the loss on one side, and the dividends on the other, what is the
loss up to the present day, deducting only a dividend ?—f. 80,000 or £. 90,000.
Is it your opinion that the attacks of the new companies have arisen from specu-
lating gentlemen supposing your profits very great in order to obtain to themselves
some of those profits?—I cannot answer the question ; if such projectors be, I
know their expectations will not be realized.
Have you had any notices from the parish of Mary-le-bone, or any other parish, of
an intention to institute proceedings against you in any way or form —Two bills
were introduced into Parliament in two successive sessions to establish parochial
waterworks. - y
Could parochial waterworks be instituted to underwork the present waterworks,
or to be useful to the parishioners ?—I should think it would be most injurious to
the public, because the individuals would have no option; they must pay whether
they took water or not. - - -
Is it within your knowledge that Mr. Weale has opposed both the parochial and
other projected companies?--I have heard Mr. Weale state that he has opposed the
parochial scheme, and I believe he has given in evidence that he is inimical to any
new company being established.
You have said that in 1809 there was an intention of raising a rate at I S. on
the rental below £. 30, and 9 d. above?—To charge at that price ; they were new
houses that had not been served by any company. -
706. Yy Previous
17 7
Mr.
M. K. Knight.
_A
(26 March.)
178
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
M. K. Knight,
S--— 2——’
(26 March.)
Mr. Lynde.
S-C-
Previous to that calculation had an estimate been made of the expense of the
undertaking 2–Yes. - -
And it was found such a rate would be a fair remuneration to the proprietors?—
Yes, on the calculation which their engineers had informed them would be suffi-
cient; almost every estimate I have seen, however, has been just one third or one
fourth of the cost.
Previous to your being secretary, Mr. Sloper was secretary, was not he?—He was
chief clerk; I hold both offices now. -
Did he act as secretary 2–No.
What distinction do you make between chief clerk and secretary 2–There is a
distinction in the act.
Was Mr. Sloper chief clerk 2–Yes.
From the first origin of the company 2—Yes.
Was he a considerable proprietor?—I should say not a considerable proprietor;
he held shares certainly ; the index will show how many shares he has ever held.
Are you a shareholder 2–No. -
(Mr. Lynde.)—The company, in the year 1810 were in possession of £. 40,000
three per cent. consols, a saving from the interest which was yielded by the water
rents; all that has been expended lately upon new works, since the year 1810, the
whole of it at Chelsea; the large engine house there erected, and the engine in it
(and there is another erecting,) and the iron main which has been laid, have cost
altogether £. 30,000 cash.
Were those expenses incurred in amplifying the powers of your works and im-
proving them, or merely in restoring old works?—In improving them : those works
would cost £. 120,000 or £. 130,000 to make again, though if broke up they would not
sell for more than £, 50,000 or £. 60,000 : since the first expenditure of the capital
there have been at least £. 30,000 worth of iron pipes laid down, which are now in
use in the district we now supply.
And the expenses of the iron pipes began even from 1735?—No ; the first main
we laid in iron was in 1746, which cost us f. 2,740, and is now in use.
What is the diameter of that main P-I think twelve inches.
What has been the condition of that main from 1746 2–The engineer is the
proper person to ask on that subject ; I am not capable of giving any information
upon it. I have made out a capital of £. 120,000 and upwards, the interest of
which is £.6,000 a year at five per cent ; our gross water rents amount to
£. 13,700.
Deducting your current expenses, what is left?—Deducting the current expenses
of £. 10,000 a year, we shall have £. 3,700 left to pay a dividend on what I have
stated to you, £. 120,000, and then there is nothing laid by for any exigence that
may happen next year or the year after, and we are in expectation of having to lay
out £. 3,000 or £. 4,000 ; there is an engine now building which will cost £. 5,000.
What is the reserve you think will be necessary to meet those exigencies 2–I have
not made an estimate of that yet, but the engineer can give that ; we have but
£. 3,700 to divide on that capital of £. 120,000.
How many shares are there in your company ?—Four thousand.
How was it you have stated that this £. 40,000 accrued, which existed in 1810;
had the company forborne all dividend ?—Not all dividend; they were content with
two, and two-and-a-half, and three per cent. instead of five per cent; they were
receiving from 1797 to 1807, £. 2,000 a year.
Was that division independent of that reservation by which you saved this money?
—Yes; the accumulation of stock began in the year 1765, so that we were a long
time raising that £. 40,000.
What was the annual division per share from 1765 down to 1810 2–It has been
10 s. and 8s. a share. -
And then it was progressive to the year 1812, 9s. 10 s. 11 s. and 12 s?—Yes.
From 1765 to 1810 there was a sum of money accruing, and the dividend was
paid regularly during that time; what was the amount of dividend from 1765 to
1810, or nearly the amount P-We may call it 8s. a share; it was only 6s, a share
Some part of that period; but from 1763 to 1771 they divided £. 1,200, and that
* upon 4,000 shares, that is 68, a share; it rose progressively from £. 1,200 to
• 2, OOO. -
What did you divide, subsequently to 1810, amongst those 4,000 shares?—Ten
shillings. - w
From
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
179
From 1810 what was the sum annually divided among the subscribers?—Twelve
shillings a share; we have never divided more. -
Up to what period?—This moment; we are dividing now 12 s. a share.
What rise has taken place between 1810 and 1820 in your water rents 2—I do
not know of any rise. -
Have you not added twenty-five per cent 2–Yes, we have ; but we were reduced
to £. 10,000 by the competition, and then we put twenty-five per cent. on the rates
of 1810, which brought us up to about £. I 3,700.
By the competition your rental had fallen —By the division of the town we were
left with a rental of about £. 10,000.
In 1810, by the competition, you lost some part of your rental 2–Yes.
What was the variation in consequence of the competition ?—I suppose we lost
£. 4,000 a year. - -
From what to what?–From near £. 17,000 to £. 13,000 or £. 14,000, as nearly
as I can speak from recollection.
What rise afterwards took place in consequence of the partition ?—It brought
us back to about the same rent that we had before the partition took place.
To £. 17,000 2–No, to £. 13,000. The tenants that we lost, and the reduction
of our rents, reduced us from near £. 17,000 to £. 14,000 ; and when the division
took place, we were reduced again to £. 10,000 ; we threw up £. 3,000 a year.
The reduction which you state to £. 10,000 was in consequence of the surrender
of a considerable district on your part, and therefore the remaining district left to
you only amounted to £. 10,000 P-Only £. 10,000.
What did you add to the £. 10,000 P-Twenty-five per cent. on the rates of 1810.
Then what did you make altogether P-What I have stated before, £, 13,700.
xt -*--~~~~ *:
Mercurij, 28° die Martij, 1821.
WILLIAM HENRY FREMANTLE, ESQUIRE,
IN T H E C H A R R.
*
* Mr. William Chadwell Mylne, called in ; and Examined.
AVE you ever turned your attention to observing what may have been the
A Ji probable waste of water during the use of wooden pipes, so as to inform the
Committee upon the difference, for instance, between the quantity discharged from
the head, and the quantity delivered into the houses, I mean in the proportions?
—I have.
State upon what ground you say so, and what is the result of your observations?
—There is no accurate mode of ascertaining what the loss is, but I have generally
considered it as a fourth part. From the nature of the New River company’s
works, from being extremly old, the mains were in an indifferent state of repair in
their length, so that whenever the turncock by accident shut up all his first services
before he opened the next set, the pressure upon the pipes immediately was equal
to the difference of level between the ground where the main was situated and the
New River head; the main uniformly gave way, so that the first intimation we
had of the failure in the main was, a deficiency in the supply of the tenants. The
side of the pipe would give way into the sewer. After the mains were put in of
iron, from the effect produced at the New River head, I have generally considered
the proportion of the water saved to be about one fourth. .
By using iron mains and pipes instead of wooden ones?—Yes.
The variations of the level of the head are under your observation, as you live
there 2—Yes. 3.
You speak of the waste now from the wooden pipes arising not only from
leakage but from accidental fracture, arising from the accidental pressure of the
water alone P-Certainly. It is supposed that the works ought to be always per-
fectly tight; if perfectly sound there would be no leakage.
You have had an opportunity of observing pretty extensively the state of the
mains and wooden pipes when taken away 2–I have. º
From what you observed of their state, was you led to conclude that there
had been considerable wastage of water in the use of wood?—Very great.
State to the Committee what led you to that conclusion?—I have often found an
706. aperture
Mr. Lynde.
\-2–’
(26 March.)
Mr.
W. C. Mylne,
\ . . .
(28 March,)

180 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
W. C. Mylne.
(28 March.)
aperture in the side of the main as large as this book, [alluding to a book which
the witness held, or the size of my hand, which we were not aware of till we took
it up, and that might have been running on for two or three years ; the average
work of that main was found deficient, but we did not find the cause.
Did not the ground discover it 2—No ; where the wooden pipe lies immediately
over the sewer, the air from the sewer will affect it so much that it will not last
above a year or two, although all the other parts of the pipe may be perfectly
good; of course when a greater pressure comes upon the pipe, it pushes out of
that piece the rotten timber immediately over the sewer. We used to send our
men into the sewers continually in search of defects. I have known explosions of
foul air and fire damp in these sewers.
You have stated that you consider the difference in the waste of water by wooden
pipes, when compared with iron pipes, as being nearly one fourth ; do you mean
one fourth independently of the friction of iron 2–That is a loss of power; it is
perfectly water tight. The turncocks were always instructed to open the next set
of services before they shut up the services that were at work, the last services; if
they did not, the main uniformly blew out and gave way.
Have you any wooden pipes remaining 2–None.
The old rule, as to the division of expense between the company and the tenants,
was, that the tenant was at every expense relating to or occasioned by the leaden
pipes, and the company at every expense relating to or occasioned by the wooden
pipes —Yes. &
Has there been a considerable relaxation of that practice during the time of
the competition?–It was entirely given up; the company even did the plumber's
work at that time ; but although they do no plumber’s work at all, the company
pay for the pavement and the labour of opening the ground. g
That you consider as a deviation from the established practice of the company
from the old times?—Certainly; the repair of the mains, perhaps, costs the company
a year’s rent only for opening the ground. -
Under what article is that included ?–Under street expenses. -
[This Witness begged leave to add the following observations to his former evi-
dence.] The description of high and low service was not known in the way the
business of the New River company was formerly carried on ; they did not profess
to serve above the level of the pavement; but as the water generally rose somewhat
above that level, if any person chose to take advantage of it, he was at liberty so
to do. During the contest with the other companies, when the powers of machinery
applied to the New River service were increased, high service, like every other
advantage, was exacted from the company in most instances, without any retribu-
tion at all; no rule was or could be laid down. Since the arrangement with the
other companies on the western side of the town, the New River company has
always considered service for any height above the ground-floor as high service,
and if the service required on the ground floor considerably exceeded the former
height in the house where it was required, that also has been regarded as a high
service, but small alterations in height have not been noticed. No more definite
rule than this has yet been laid down by the company. With regard to extra and
ordinary services, the company has not yet adopted any rule of distinction, having
preferred in all cases where it was possible to await the final settlement of the
questions respecting supply of water, in order to avoid the discontent and confusion
which would result from frequent change of rules.
The following are the rates charged by the New River company for the supply
of water to the trades, &c. under-mentioned :-
Brewers, two guineas per 1,000 barrels brewed; distillers, one guinea per 1,000
ditto of water delivered ; sugar-refiners, £. 2. 10s. per pan; dyers, in proportion to
the water consumed; fishmongers, from £. 3 to £.8 per annum ; potatoe-washers,
from £. 2 to £. 5; curriers or leather-dressers, 10s. for each currier employed;
stable-yards, 3 s. 6d. per stall; cow-houses, 2s. 6d. per Cow ; slaughter-houses, from
40s, to 60s; eating-houses and public-houses, twenty per cent, on ordinary charges;
hotels and coffee-houses, in proportion to their magnitude; bakers, pastry-cooks
and butchers, about twenty per cent. additional ; baths, about £. 3 each; printers,
twenty-five per cent. additional; colour-factors, in proportion to quantity used;
steam-engines, £ 10 each horse power ; vinegar-yards, in proportion to quantity
used; tripe-boilers, from £.3 to £ 10 per annum; glass-houses, about £. 3; soda
Water makers, about £. 5 per annum; chemists, from fifty to a hundred per cent.
extra ; iron-founders, about 40s, per annum; bacon-makers, from £.3 to £.5;
: . - soap-boilers,
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
181
soap-boilers, from £.6 to £. 10; watering-houses, from seventy-five to a hundred per
cent. extra ; houses warmed by steam, in proportion to the quantity used ; work-
houses, is per head each pauper; lunatic asylums, f. 20 per annum; prisons, from
f. 10 to £. 50 ; theatres, in proportion to quantity used ; menageries, about 50 S ;
gas works, £. 10 each gasometer; coach-makers, from £. 2 to £,6; whalebone-
boilers, from £2. to £. 3; brick-makers, 1 d, per 1,000 bricks; bottle-washers, from
£. 2 to £. 2. 10s; watering streets and squares, for each season of six months, if
done by a cart, 58 ; if done by a scoop, 7 s. 6d. per 100 yards superficial carriage
way. -
Mr. Lynde, again called in ; and Examined.
YOU have got the minutes of the last day’s proceedings, have you any thing to
add to your former evidence 2–I do not know that I have any thing to add with
ſ}{r.
W. C. Mylne.
\ _*
~~~
(28 March.)
Mr. Lynde.
S-2–’
respect to capital, unless the Committee object to the statement already given in, of
interest ; that account amounts to £. 182,600, and if the Committee object to that
paper, and wish the capital stated in any other way, I shall be prepared to state
it at the next meeting in any other way the Committee think proper, but at pre-
sent I can only state it upon the interest of £. 60,000 laid out. *
Your expenditure in 1809, of £ 30,000, was incurred with a view to a more
extensive improvement in the supply of water 2—Certainly.
But if I understood you rightly, you said that you find in the present mode of
supply, that it is not more than adequate to the supply of a comparatively con-
tracted district 2—Yes. - --
Even with your work so improved?—Yes; I conceive that if we were to supply
the parish of Mary-le-bone and St. George's, we should want another engine; that
is merely my opinion. -
But when you contemplated these improvements, you did not mean to stop as
they have now stopped, but to extend them as much as you could —I considered
that it was for the improvement of the then supply, and not for an extension of
the works. .*
Do you mean that, by this additional expenditure of £. 30,000, your company
had it in contemplation to carry pipes into places where they never had them before,
or that they had it only in contemplation to better their supply in the districts they
then occupied ?–They had in view an extension to the town about Mary-le-bone,
and it was going on ; we had it in view.
What have become of those mains —The wooden mains are still left in the
StreetS.
I wish to ask you, whether in your opinion is the district which you now supply
much better supplied for the public advantage, from your being now contracted to
a certain district, than it would have been if you had extended your mains and pipes
as you once designed to do?—I mean to Say, that at present the district is better
supplied than it was in the year 1810. .
Veneris, 30 die Martij, 1821.
WILLIAM HENRY FREMANTLE, ESQUIRE,
I N T H E C H AIR.
Mr. Thomas Simpson, Called in ; and Examined.
H THINK it has been stated that the first iron main was laid down in 1734?–
In 1746. * --
Is that main still in use Pi—Yes.
An iron main, is it not 2–Yes. - -
That is a main which brings up the water from the Thames to the height neces-
sary to distribute it to your district?—It does. Q.
What is the dimension of that main 2–Twelve inches.
When was it laid down 2–In 1746 or 1747.
Have you laid down any further mains to bring up the water to the height neces-
sary to distribute it in your district since —Yes, an additional twelve-inch, twenty-
eight years back. - - - ,
You always worked through that one main?—We had two mains, but we took
706. Z z - O(16.
Afr.
Thomas Simpson.
N->~’
182
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
- Mr.
Thomas Simpson.
f
(30 March.)
one up and removed it into Pall Mall, when we removed from the upper district,
we did not find it necessary to have two mains; we had one five-inch main in Pall
Mail. *
What means had you of carrying the water up to the height necessary to distri-
bute it into your district; what mains do the Chelsea company now possess?—
Twelve-inch ones. -
How many P-Two; one twelve-inch one we took up and laid in Pall Mall;
there we only wanted one.
Then, if I understand you right, it is this ; that you had two mains to bring the
water up to the height necessary to distribute it to your district; you had two
originally, but that was previous to the subdivision of the district 2–Yes.
Then in consequence of the subdivision of the district you took away one twelve-
inch main from the purpose of bringing up the water to the height necessary
for you to distribute it to that district 2—We did; it was not necessary after
withdrawing.
\Are we to understand by that that the Chelsea company could decidedly, with
that additional main, serve a more extensive district, had it not been for the sub-
division 2–It was calculated to serve a greater part of Mary-le-bone than we did.
You had two twelve-inch mains to bring the water up from the Thames to the
height necessary to distribute it to that district?—We had, to Mary-le-bone.
With those two twelve-inch mains that you have said to have existed before the
subdivision, is it your opinion that the Chelsea company could have served a much
more extensive district than they now serve 2—We could ; but not to a much
greater extent. }
Than you now serve?—Yes.
With those two twelve-inch mains 2—Yes. -
Do you think that the main you took up from where it laid before, and laid
down in Pall Mall; what purpose did you intend it to serve, or for what purpose
do you now find it necessary in Pall Mall?— For the high service; we could not do
without it. -
For high service in particular houses, I suppose?—Yes; about Pall Mall and
Charing-cross.
What is the high service known to your company by ?–According to the height
the water is carried to ; it is sometimes carried two or three stories, and sometimes
goes to the roof of the houses. £
The employment of that main has become necessary in consequence of the modern
luxury and use of water 2–Certainly it is; we must have had the main.
Do you believe that those present existing mains are more than sufficient to supply
your present district at the present rate and mode of consumption ?–No.
Do you believe that with the present mains that you have you could distribute
water to a larger district than you do?—We certainly could extend it; we could serve
a larger district than we do now. t
With your present means of machinery?—Yes.
To what extent, can you state 2–We only work about eighteen hours and a half
a day on the average with two engines; that is nine hours a day on each engine;
now we could work those engines perhaps thirteen, fourteen or fifteen hours a day
each. -
Do you apprehend that with your present means, supposing that you were to
replace the main where it was before, that you would be able to supply the district
which you formerly had at the present increased consumption of water and the
increased high service?--Certainly not; we could not.
Can you give us any medium between the two, the old one and the present one?—
We had not height; we could not go so high as was necessary for high service in
the old one.
Is it that you could not produce the quantity, or that you could not go to the
height?—We could not go to the height. *
The quantity you could produce, but you could not go to the height –We had
the quantity, but we could not go to the height. -
To you apprehend now that there is, house for house, a greater consumption of
water than there was in former times?—I believe there is, certainly.
From your company –From our company, a great deal more.
Do you find by experience that you use more water, supplying the same number
of houses, than you did before?—Considerably more. - -
Can you state at all about how much 2–I should think full one third more than
we did five or six years ago, in the same district which we now supply. AI
- "G
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 183
Are your observations directed to low service only 2 The question which the Mr.
Committee have addressed to you is as to the low service only.—I take it that the Thomas S*P*
low service has; for we are serving streets now which we serve seven times a week, \——
when before we used to serve the same streets only three times a week.
Then you think that there is more water used for low service?—I think there is.
Do you recollect what number of hours you used to work the same engines
before?—Yes.
What number of hours did you use to work them?—We used to work one engine
then about fourteen or fifteen hours a day, but then we did not work on a Sunday.
You only worked one then, and not two, I suppose?—We had only one, but we
had-four large water wheels in addition. *
The engines which you now work you work between the two eighteen hours
a day ?—Yes. - - -
Are the water wheels at work now?—We work them very trifling now.
Why did you give them up 2–Two of them got very old, and we found that no
dependence could be placed upon the tides, and we could not work them above
two hours sometimes, and not more than six or seven hours at other times, a day.
Have you any water wheels at work now?—Yes, sometimes.
Can you tell us the proportion that water wheels bear; can you give us the pro-
portion of steam?—I think upon the same proportion of full one-third more.
To the present contracted district, do you mean that?—I do mean that. d
There are many streets now served five, six, or seven times a week, which you
used to serve only three times a week?—Yes. -
Can you tell in any way what quantity of water you did throw up when you had
the larger district in hand, and what quantity you now throw up?--I can state that
in 1810, with the engine and wheels, we sent up 8,410,740 hogsheads.
And what do you now P-We serve now 7,533,900 hogsheads.
That is too for the smaller district 2—Yes. r
Then the quantity of water served now in proportion is much more than it for-
merly was?—Yes, we had then almost double the district we have now.
Then you supply double the quantity you used to do, that is, in proportion?—
Pretty near. -
That is admitting that you had double the houses to supply before ?—It was not
then twice the district which we have now, I do not think.
I asked you whether you thought with the old mains as they stood before that
contest you could have supplied a considerably greater district than you then did 2–
TNo, not a considerably greater district. -
You could not have gone much more with your them mains —Not without more
engines and mains; when we had the whole of the district, we could not have
gone much further, because we worked about fourteen or fifteen hours a day; but
then we had the water wheels, which supplied the lower district.
At what time did you add the second engine?—In 1811.
Then that was previous to the partition of the district?—Yes, certainly,
Afterwards you added that second engine P- No. -
That was after the contest began 2–1t was begun previous and finished during
the contest. .
What was your motive for adding it?—We had commenced the foundation and
got it very near above ground before the contest began.
With what view was that engine set up 2–It was set up with the view of extend-
ing in Mary-le-bone, at least in Paddington; we did not extend it in Mary-le-bone,
except to the Alpha cottages, and we had a great difficulty in serving it there.
It was with the view of extending your district to that part was it?—Yes.
Which you did not at that time serve at all?—Yes, we did; but they were going
to build upon St. John’s-road, and therefore with the prospect of their extending
the buildings we thought it necessary to have a new engine on the new freehold.
Do you mean to say that it was for the improvement of the work?—It was for
the improvement and extension certainly.
Then you apprehended that after you had got that second engine you would have
been capable of supplying a greater district than you did before ?—Certainly,
Could you have supplied a greater district with equal advantage to the public than
the district you now supply?–I say properly (but perhaps improperly) what I mean
is we could not have gone to the height necessary for high service.
* Could you have supplied, with equal advantage to the public, the more extensive
diº than you now supply?—With respect to the low service we could, but i
706. i
- (30 March.)
184
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
Thomas Simpson.
(30 March.)
did not profess to serve with the high service; with a very few exceptions, we served
Maida-hill and the Alpha cottages, which are high situations.
Do you think, with reference to the increased quantity of water which you now
consume, that you could have supplied a more extended district with those mains
than you then did —Certainly we could ; because, as I observed before, we never
worked more than fourteen hours a-day with one engine; the lower district wa
served wholly from the water wheels. -- -
Are you able to say, to form any estimate in your mind what the increased quan-
tity of water was that you could have thrown up with those two steam engines if you
worked them to the utmost?—Perhaps a fourth or a fifth more.
Now you work two engines?—Yes, but we could not do it then.
That is to say, supposing then the supply was eight million hogheads, you could
have made it ten ?—Perhaps we might have made it nine or ten ; perhaps ten.
Should you as an engineer, supposing those two engines were all you had to rely
on, should you think it prudent to be working them both at the same time con-
tinually 2–No. -
Why not ?–Because in case any accident might occur, then we should be obliged
to lay them aside for three or four days or a week, and perhaps two weeks : if our
service required twenty or two-and-twenty hours a day, then I think we could not
have worked them both together; but we had a reservoir. - -
Is it with reference to that reservoir that you answer my question as to
the increased quantity of water which you think might be thrown up with two
engines, beyond what you did throw up 2–I mean to say, we worked about
fourteen or fifteen hours a day; we could have increased it to perhaps eighteen
hours a day. - w *
Of each engine do you mean?--Only one engine.
You worked fifteen hours a day with that one engine 2–I said we had done it
formerly.
Now suppose a second engine was made, will you tell me how many hours you
could get out of both those engines in prudence 2–Perhaps we might get eighteen
hours a day out of the two.
Do you think in prudence; I want to know what you think you could get out
properly a day?–Eighteen hours in two engines a day; now we work eighteen
hours and three quarters with two engines, take them together. -
Could you get six-and-thirty out of the two 2–No. -
How many hours, in prudence, could you work out of those two engines?—We
could work them eighteen hours each. I think it would be imprudent to work more
than sixteen hours a day. - -
Both engines?—Yes. " .
Then if I understand you right, to do more than you do at present 2–Yes.
You have two at work now?—Yes; we work them nine hours each a day on an
. average ©
Is the Committee to understand that those engines might be worked eighteen
hours a day without inconvenience?—Sixteen or eighteen.
Each of them 2–Yes. - . -
With safety?—With safety they might be worked sixteen hours a day.
What, as an engineer, would you advise your employer to put the engines to
work, what number of hours, so as not to run the risk of their failing 2–Not more
than fifteen or sixteen.
For the two 2–Each. - -
Then you see that would come to the same objection?—We can manage that.
You said you could not, with prudence, work them more than eighteen hours
both together?—Each. - - -
Suppose you worked sixteen hours a day each P-Yes. - -
That is thirty-two hours for both engines to work in one day; suppose one fails,
then you have not the possibility of doing above sixteen hours out of the two-and-
thirty P—Not without particular management. -
What management could you substitute for the time which it would necessarily
require to repair the engine?—To look to the preservation of the water more
particularly ; for instance we have a reservoir; we could supply three or four days
from our reservoir. • . - -
Then the use of that reservoir is as a guarantee against accidents?--Yes, in case
of fire, or any other accident? i 1
With your present means of reserve should you think it prudent, and if your
supply
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
185
supply required it, to take thirty hours work out of these two engines?—Perhaps
not.
What time would you, under your responsibility, advise your employer to work
the engines 2—Twenty-eight hours perhaps.
You mean fourteen hours each 2—Yes.
Am I to assume that that would give you a sufficient quantity of water for the
quantity, you now throw up, as fifteen is to twenty 2–No, certainly not ; I say
we should make up the difference between what I state and ten hours; we should
make good with the reservoir and management.
You now work eighteen hours a day out of both 2–Upon an average, nine hours
each engine. -
Am I to understand that you work twenty-eight hours, and that the quantity of
water you throw up would be as twenty-eight is to eighteen 2–No. .
Is there any thing to disturb that proposition?—Yes, with the assistance of the
reservoirs. *
Since the year 1811, how often have those engines been interrupted by any
damage, or by any accident occurring to them, or any defect 2—The new engine
has been damaged once from a thunder-bolt, and it stopped us three or four days;
and the second engine twice, and then we were ten days putting in a new boiler;
ten days each time.
In that interruption, were you obliged to diminish the supply to the public 2–
No, we did not; then we were obliged to work night and day.
With the other engine you worked night and day?—Yes.
T)id you apply to your reservoir 2–We always do occasionally.
Did you then more than usual?—No, we did not.
Are your reservoirs always filled 2–We generally kept them full; we make a
point of keeping them full.
As to that part of the town which lies higher than the reservoirs, your reservoirs
could be of no use whatever?—None whatever.
And which was the case in the greater part of the old district 2–Yes, a very
large part of it.
Almost the whole of Mary-le-bone lies higher than the reservoir –Only about
Maida-hill and the Alpha cottages.
With respect to the height you used to supply the water before you took up that
main and brought it to Pall-mall, were you not of opinion, at that time, that the
high service did not pay the company; were you not of opinion that the supplying
the water to any height did not pay, and did you not persuade them from it?—I
was of opinion that, beyond Oxford-street, we were not paid; that we were not paid
properly beyond Oxford-street.
Did you not, in broad terms, state to the gentlemen, that you thought high
service would not pay them P-I did.
On high ground I mean?—On the high ground.
Did you give that opinion ?—I did, certainly.
That you had said the high ground would not answer their purpose to supply?—
Not at those prices.
What part of the town did you particularly allude to when you stated to the
company that you had dissuaded them from supplying a certain district with water
at a certain height 2—I beg pardon, I did not persuade them.
You gave your opinion that it would not pay them?—Yes.
What part of the town did you mean by that 2—The north of Oxford-street.
Then that district, a great part of which was then supplied by the Grand Junction
and which is now supplied by the Chelsea company, you think would not have paid
if it had been continued 2—Some part of the Grand Junction might have paid.
Grosvenor-square would have paid, would it not?—Yes.
Recollect when you gave that opinion to your company, about the year?—I should
think it must be some time in the year 1806 or 1808.
Then I ask you this question; there seems to have been some contradiction;
I want to know whether you did not with a view to supply, with a view to extend
your supply in that very part of the town which you have been alluding to that the
company incurred expenses after that period?—They did incur expenses after that
period, for the service of the Alpha cottages.
That was the highest part 2–It was. ~.
Did you propose to supply that at the same rate, or what?—We added twenty-five
per cent. I think, on that, or a little more.
706. 3 A What
Mr.
Thomas Simpson.
&
(30 March.)
186 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
What time was that addition made?—At the time when we commenced supplying
, Thomas Simpson, them we made an addition of near thirty per cent.
\
S-S
(30 March.)
Mr. Lynde.
Mr.
W. C. Mylne.
`-->
On which rate 2—The rate generally paid.
Do you recollect what date that was 2—I think it must be about 1807 or 1808.
If I understand you right, your opinion was general, given generally to your
directors, that the service at those rates did not then pay them north of Oxford
road?—Yes. *
Now I wish to ask you this question ; you have said that the main which was
taken and which was relaid in Pall-mall served the purpose of your company; now
for high service do you mean?–It does now.
How does it serve the purpose of the company for high service when your com-
pany charge nothing for high service 2–We found it necessary that we should make
a high service, and I thought they then could not make it with a wood main.
Has the company gone to the expense of laying a new main for high service with-
out any remuneration ?–It was only the expense of relaying the old main ; I
recommended it to be laid there.
Have we had in evidence distinctly why the company, the Chelsea company, have
not charged high service 2–If you give me leave, I will explain.
Since i81o what is the reason you have not charged high service?—I beg to state
we dropped it previously, from the difficulties we had, and since that it has never
come on before the court.
You laid down the pipe in Pall-mall in the year 1818 for the purpose of giving
the high service?—Yes. . dº
What is the reason you did not in consequence of that charge for it 2–It has never
been brought before the court; we never thought of it. -
Mr. Lynde, again called in ; and Examined.
WHAT is the reason that high service has not been charged since 1810 2—When
the Chelsea company put twenty-five per cent, on the rate of 1810, they determined
to give all the service that was necessary for every house without charging anything
extra for high service or water-closets, from a principle of forbearance and an
endeavour to make an increased rate to pay the expenses and give them a dividend;
it was merely on a principle of forbearance.
Did you in the first instance put fifty per cent. and then reduce it to twenty-five
per cent. and then mean that to cover everything?—Every thing,
You did it with the view of raising it to the same proportion as the other com-
panies had?—Yes; the board of the Chelsea company are fully aware it cost them
an extra sum of money; and it is merely for forbearance that they do not charge it.
Mr. William Chadwell Mylne, called in ; and Examined.
WITH regard to the service of Mary-le-bone, the high parts of the town, you
have heard what Mr. Simpson has said as to his opinion of not paying the company
at the old rates ?—Yes.
Are you of opinion that it paid the New River company at the old rates, or that
it paid them as well as the rest of the town, or what is your opinion 2–It certainly
did not pay them so well as the other parts of the town; indeed the extremities of
their works never did pay them in proportion, east or west.
Do you think if the New River company had sat down to reform their then
income in a just proportion throughout the districts they then served, that the result
would have been a rising of the rates upon Mary-le-bone 2—Yes.
Upon what ground?—From the distance which Mary-le-bone is from the works
at the New River head, and from the level of the ground.
You think it is attended with more expense to supply under those circumstances?
—Far more ; far greater.
Have you anything you wish to give as an illustration of your opinion ?—I have ;
I believe the average, that of the extremities, will be very nearly the same as the
average of the centre of the works.
You mean, that the average of the distant parts of the works are very near the
same as the average of the near parts of the works?—I can give you the average of
two districts, if you wish it. The average rental of the Whitechapel walk was
17s.6d. per house; Shoreditch, which was the next walk to it, was 15s. 3d.
making an average of about 16s, a house. The average of the Cornhill walk-
§ You are talking now of old times?—Yes, old times, previous to 1 810; the vers,
: . . . ." :0
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
187
of Cornhill was £. I. 3s. 9d. yet the expense of supplying the water to Shoreditch,
the capital supplied in affording Shoreditch, must have been six times the other.
Have you a calculation as to the west part?—Yes, as to Mary-le-bone and
St. James; the average of Mary-le-bone was £. 2. 3 s. 6d. in the same year.
Previous to the year 1810, I suppose 2–Yes, in the year 1804. In the year 1804
the average of St. James was £. 2. 1 S. 3d.
Now, was the comparative expense in serving Mary-le-bone much more than in
serving St. James’s?—Mary-le-bone was considerably more, though they were both
at the same distance; but there is a considerable difference in the level.
One you supplied from the high pond, the other from the ordinary head, I suppose?
—Yes.
One was supplied with machinery, the other without machinery; is it not so?—
Yes; there is a difference of 2s. 6d. only in a house between St. James’s and
Mary-le-bone.
I would wish to know whether you are of opinion that the New River company
could have supplied that distant and high district of Mary-le-bone and the others
without an addition of fresh capital expended on machinery P-Certainly not; the
capital employed by the company, by the New River company, was never greater
than sufficient to afford the supply required at the time. We were continually
adding to it; and every new street that was built required a fresh capital.
That is, in mains and service pipes?—Yes, and machinery.
I think you gave it as your opinion in your former evidence, that the con-
sumption of water is very much increased since former times; that the present
consumption of water, house for house, is greater than it was in former times?—
Yes.
Now, with reference to your increased consumption, and looking at the present
state of consumption, do you apprehend that the New River company could have
supplied Mary-le-bone, and those other higher parts of the district, without an
additional expenditure of capital?—Certainly it could not.
In what way must that have been 2–In mains from the high pond to Mary-
le-bone, and the engines must have worked so many hours a day more to have
supplied that.
Had you any tenant in St. James’s, or within the district now supplied by the
New River company, say for example Piccadilly, which was not supplied out of those
10,000,000 hogsheads, which you stated in an early answer given to the Committee
to be supplied by machinery 2–Amy tenant in St. James’s P
Had you any tenant in St. James’s, or within the district now supplied by the
New River company, say for instance Piccadilly, which was not supplied out of the
10,000,000 of hogsheads, which you stated in your former evidence to be supplied
by machinery?—Yes; the whole of St. James's, which is now supplied by the Grand
Junction company, was supplied by the New River; I have coloured it in a map, which
shows that the engine supply comes down to Brewer-street, Grosvenor-square ;
every thing south of that was supplied from the natural head. - ;
Was the whole of that part of Pancras, which is now supplied by the West
Middlesex company, served out of the same 10,000,000 hogsheads, or from the
lower pond head?—The whole of Pancras, which is now supplied by the West
Middlesex company, was supplied from the high pond, by machinery; it is a very
narrow slip.
Mr. Matthias Koops Knight, called in ; and Examined.
IF an inhabitant should avail himself of the option afforded him, and discontinue
the high service from the company’s works, and put up a force pump, would you
continue that portion of high service charge, or would you make an increase of rate
for low service, on account of the water still required for the use of the closets, and
which would still be required for the upper stories of the house P–No, certainly
In Ot. - -
(To Mr. Coe.)—I would put the same question to you that I have to Mr. Knight,
do you give the same answer —I give the same answer as Mr. Knight has given,
no, certainly not. e
(To Mr. Knight.)—Would the same supply of water be continued to be given
to cisterns on the basement, without any extra charge in respect of increased con-
sumption, in consequence of the water being taken to those stories, from the supply
of the cisterns to the upper stories, by means of forced pumps?—As I understand
the question, it is this; whether all the cisterns on the basements would be filled,
706. if
Mr.
W. C. Mylne.
(30 March)
Mr.
M. K. Knight.
188 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
M. K. Knight.
(30 March.)
if the water was carried to the upper stories by forced pumps? I answer, that all
the cisterns on the basements would certainly be filled; they would be filled whether
there was one cistern, or whether there were five; or whether they held a greater
or less quantity, no matter, they certainly would be filled; those cisterns would
be filled every water day.
(To Mr. Coe.)—Is that your answer, Mr. Coe —I always considered the high
service as a charge or set-off for the machinery : I will just add, that as long as
the water is on, the individuals for private consumption may fill what cisterns they
jlease. *
} (To Mr. Knight.)- Suppose a water-closet at the top of the house, that you
would consider as an article for high service 2–We never have done it yet.
You have allowed water-closets without charging them then 2–Yes, when they
have pumped the water up.
When it is upon the ground-floor?—Not without it is below six inches.
There was an agreement entered into in the year 1815 or 1816 for the consolida-
tion of the New River and your company –Yes.
What proportion, can you inform the Committee of the proportion of consoli-
dated capital which was to be considered as the share the West Middlesex company
was to take out of that –I could speak to the rental within a certain line; it was
one-fifth. --- ---
That was the capital?—It may be considered as the capital and rental at one-fifth ;
there was to be a subsequent division of the profits beyond a certain dividend which
should be paid to the New River company. The West Middlesex was entitled to
one-third.
There was no estimate of the real value of the works upon that occasion ?—Yes.
And then the subscribed capital was the basis they stood upon 2–Yes.
You were to have one-fifth of a certain amount, and one-third of the surplus pro-
fits 2–Yes.
And the New River company was to lay out all the capital necessary to place
their works in iron 2–Yes, the West Middlesex works being all in iron.
You have stated the supply to the basement of the Alpha cottages to be, and that
it was, equal to the high service 2–Yes.
Can you tell me what is the level of the ground above mid-tide of the Thames?—
I cannot tell the precise level; but I can tell the height to which we are obliged to
raise the water for the supply of those houses, it is one hundred and fifty feet.
Can you tell me what is the difference of the level between Piccadilly and the
New-road 2–No, I cannot.
Could you give it in in writing 2—I have no means of knowing what it is.
(Mr. Anderson.)—I could give it in if the Committee considered it necessary.
What is the level of the Grand Junction reservoir above or below the basement of
the Alpha cottages or Maida-hill 2–
(Mr. Anderson.)—It is considerably below the basement of the Alpha cottages.
(The PWitness.)—I should certainly think it is below,
ON THE SUPPLY of water. To THE METROPOLIS. so
A PP E N D H X.
706. 3 }
190 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
- ~~~
LIST OF A P P E N D I X.
Appendix
(A.)—Papers delivered in by the Vestry Clerk of St. Mary-le-bone - sº * - p. 19.1
(B.)— - - Ditto - - by the London Bridge Waterworks Company jº º - p. 199
(C.) — - - Ditto - - by the New River Water Company tºº tº * tº - p. 202
(D.)— - - Ditto - - by the Chelsea Waterworks Company - sº tºss tºg - p. 215
(E.)— - - Ditto - - by the York Buildings Waterworks Company tºs sº - p. 225
(F)— - - Ditto - - by the East London Waterworks Company - - - - p. 226
(G.)— — . Ditto - - by the West Middlesex Waterworks Company - - - p. 232
(H.)— - - Ditto - - by the Grand Junction Waterworks Company ſº º - p. 238
(I.)—Estimate of the Fund necessary to provide against the Wear and Tear of Capital for
a Waterwork *s º - º - wº- º º dºg º sº - p. 243
(K.)—Abstract, showing the Rental and Divisions of the Old Water Companies, pre-
viously and up to the Year 1810, under the Rates then paid – º tºms - p. 245
(L.)—Comparative Statement of the quantity of Water delivered to the Metropolis on
the North side of the Thames, in the Years 1809 and 1820 - tºº º - p. 246
(M.)—Comparative Statement, showing the Gross Expenditure of the New Water Com-
panies, and the estimated Value of the Old Waterworks, together with the
yearly current Expenses of each Company - º * * gº * - p. 247
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 1 Qi
A P P E N D i X.
Appendix (A.)
The following PAPERS were delivered in by the Vestry Clerk of St. Mary-le-bone.
EXTRACTS from the Minutes of the Westrymen of the Parish, being the Reports Appendix
and Correspondence between the Vestrymen of St. Mary-le-bone and the Water (A.)
Companies. & Corr BYº ſº go
St. Mary-le-bone, March 28th, 1818. º,
e - - e } º 7- R V 3 in C
AT a Vestry held this day, the following Reports and Correspondence between the Westry wº
and the Water Companies were ordered to be printed and sent to each Vestryman. J. _A
* -*.
y
January 17, 1818;--The following report of a committee was read and approved :
Resolved, That it be recommended to the vestry, on Saturday next, to direct that a
circular letter be written to the different water companies to inquire whether they are not
withdrawing their supply of water from different parts of the parish of Mary-le-bone, or
whether it is the intention of the companies to supply the inhabitants as heretofore, and at
the same rates, or what the companies propose doing; in order that their answer may be
laid before the parishioners, who have expressed the greatest alarm and apprehension on
this important and serious subject. *
January 24, 1818;-The clerk reported that Mr. Holford, one of the proprietors of the
New River company, requested that the board would appoint a committee to meet some of
the proprietors of the respective water companies in this parish, when a statement would
be made by them regarding the supply of water to the inhabitants of the parish, in con-
formity with the resolution of the vestry on Saturday last. . .
Resolved, That a committee be appointed to meet a deputation from the respective
water companies, on Thursday next, at twelve o'clock, at the Court-house.
February 7, 1818;-The report of the committee to confer with the deputations from the
water companies was read; a copy whereof is as follows:
“The committee having met, they were waited on by Messrs. Holford and Smith, as a
deputation from the New River company; Messrs. Green and Fisher, on the part of the
West Middlesex company; and Captain Blagrave, on the part of the Grand Junction com-
pany. The committee were informed by the deputations, that the New River and the
Chelsea water companies had withdrawn their supply of water from the parish, and that the
inhabitants were at present supplied by the West Middlesex and Grand Junction companies
alone, the Grand Junction having only a very small part at the west end of the parish, and
that the remainder of the parish is to be supplied by the West Middlesex company. Upon
the subject of the future charge for water, it was distinctly stated to the committee that
the companies had it not in contemplation at present to raise the price; but it was also as
distinctly stated, that at some future period they imagined they might be compelled so to do,
as it could not be expected that they should supply at a loss. -
“The deputation from the West Middlesex company observed, that the parish would
be much better supplied with water than heretofore. -
“The deputation from the New River company assured the committee, that they had
it completely in their power to return to the parish and supply it with water in an effectual
manner, if at a future time prospects should be held out to the company of an advantage-
ous nature; and, with a view to afford assistance in cases of serious fire, that it was their
intention to fix a stop-cock at their reservoir so as to afford an immense supply of water
in the shortest possible time, the parish being subject to certain regulations to prevent a
waste of it. *
“ The deputations from the West Middlesex and Grand Junction companies stated,
that they are willing to supply the vestry with plans of their different mains and services
in the parish, specifying upon such plans the size of the mains and services, and also the
situation of their different plugs; which your committee recommend the vestry to apply
for.
“The deputations also stated to your committee, that if they would appoint one or
two intelligent and discreet men to meet any of the companies, they would appoint a like
number, and give them every information that might be required, both on the present and
on all future occasions. ... * 4. -
706. - a The
192 APPEND IX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
Appendix,
A.)
Correspondence,
&c. between Mary-
le-bone Vestry and
Water Companies.
\-— ”
“The deputation from the West Middlesex company stated, that they were bound under
their act of parliament to keep their mains always charged, which they would always do,
as they formed part of their reservoir.
“ The deputations stated, that they did not intend to disturb their works in the parish.
“Your committee beg to say, that the above is the substance of the communication
from the deputations of the water companies. • - " -
“ Your Committee take leave to remark, that the competition, which was the foundation
of the West Middlesex and the Grand Junction companies application to Parliament for
their acts, and which induced Parliament to grant them, is now completely done away, and
the parish is not only deprived of that advantage, but is left exposed to all the uncertainty,
and the numerous evils, such a situation subjects them to ; and since the New River and
Chelsea companies have withdrawn their supply, a great many of the inhabitants, who
are now without water, are reduced to the alternative of either having the water from the
only company left to the district in which they live, or to go without; and in the event of
their submitting to apply, they must then be at the expense of changing the pipe, of
opening and repairing the pavement, which would have been unnecessary, if the supplies
had remained as before. And they earnestly recommend to the vestry the necessity of
taking this subject under their most serious consideration, in order to prevent, if it be pos-
sible, the parish being delivered over to the mercy and discretion of perpetually fluctuating
boards, who may make such exorbitant demands, that will materially deteriorate the
property of this parish. e
“ They further recommend to the vestry to take into their most serious consideration .
the possibility of the vestry supplying the parish with water from an establishment of their
own, upon the same principle that this parish was originally paved, when the sum of
£. 200,000 was borrowed on bond to carry such measure into effect, and which has been all
redeemed and paid off. And if such a plan could be carried into effect, the parish would
be secure that no rise could be made to the parishioners in their charge for water; and
that in the course of time the money would be discharged, and the only sum to be raised
would be the expense of the service; and from the experience which at present exists, the
expense of such new establishment could be ascertained within a few thousand pounds, and
therefore recommend the vestry should apply to some able engineer to know what he would
charge for making an estimate of the expense of so supplying the parish with water,
previous to any application to Parliament.” -
Resolved, That the said report be taken into consideration on Saturday next, and the
board specially summoned for that purpose.
February 14, 1818;-The board then took into their consideration the report of the
committee appointed to confer with the deputations from the water companies.
Resolved, “That the report be approved, and that the recommendation therein contained
be carried into effect.”
February 21, 1818;-Read the following letter from the West Middlesex waterworks
company, as follows:– -
West Middlesex Waterworks Office, Berners-street, 19th Feb. 1818.
Sir, Notwithstanding the explanation given to the committee appointed by the vestry
of St. Mary-le-bone, to confer with the deputation from the water companies, the directors
of the West Middlesex company find that the most erroneous rumours are in circulation in
the parish with respect to their intention on the subject of rates; and they feel themselves
called upon, therefore, to state specifically, that no advance will be made until the parish-
ioners are indemnified for the expense they have incurred in the change from the old works,
nor will any advance whatever be made for the usual supply of water, beyond what the
inhabitants paid to the old companies in the year 1810, every objection to which arrange-
ment must appear groundless, when it is considered that the permanent advantages arising
from the improved principle of the West Middlesex works are incalculably great, com-
pared with the difference existing between such rates and the present charges; and with
respect to fire, it is manifest, from the improved principle before alluded to, and the con-
centration of the supply, that the efficiency of the works are more than equal to the powers
of all the companies heretofore existing in the parish.
The directors of the West Middlesex company eonceive, that on this statement no doubt
can reasonably be entertained of the moderation of their views and intentions, especially as
no return has hitherto been realized to the proprietors on any portion of the capital so
beneficially employed for the parish. -
The directors therefore trust, under these circumstances, that the vestry will at least
pause before any ulterior measures are adopted.
Should, however, any further information be desired by the vestry, the directors of the
West Middlesex company, in order to prevent the possibility of any misunderstanding,
again suggest the propriety of meeting a deputation from the vestry, which the directors
feel confident would prove the means of effectually removing all difficulties, and lay the
foundation of an amicable arrangement.
By order of the board of directors,
To the Chairman of the Vestry (signed) M. K. Knight, Sec.
of St. Mary-le-bone, &c. &c.
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 193
February 28, 1818;-The following letter from the West Middlesex waterworks company
was read:— - -
. - “ 26th February, 1818.
“The directors of the West Middlesex company understanding that some objections
have been made in the vestry of St. Mary-le-bone to the rates of 1810, the vestry is in-
formed, that with the view of reconciling all differences of opinion on the subject, the
Appendix,
Correspondence,
&c. between Mary-
le-bone Vestry and
Water Companies.
directors are desirous of meeting a committee, consisting of four or five gentlemen of the
vestry, in order that all matters relative to rates may be satisfactorily adjusted.
“ It having been alleged that the West Middlesex company have occasioned the parish
an expense of £. 50,000 for paving, the directors think it right, in reply to this assertion,
to observe, that although the legislature has granted power to the company to take up
the pavement, yet it very wisely provided they should not lay it down. That the pavement
is relaid under the direction of the surveyor of the parish, and by their paviors: that the
ground is measured by themselves, and charged at their own price: and that the bills have
always been sent to the West Middlesex company, and paid by them.”
By order of the board of directors,
J. H. Greenwell, Esq. (signed) M. K. Knight, Sec.
Same day;-Resolved unanimously, The several reports and proceedings of this board,
and its committees (with the report of Mr. Potter) respecting the application to Parliament
for better supplying the inhabitants of this parish with water, having been this day taken
into mature consideration,--that application be made to Parliament for carrying the same
into execution, and also for empowering this board to enter into contracts with any water
companies for the supplying this parish with water, and to empower any such companies
to contract with this vestry.
Resolved, That the clerk do write immediately to the New River, Chelsea, Grand Junc-
tion and West Middlesex water companies, requesting their attendance at the Court-house,
at twelve o’clock on Wednesday next the 4th of March, with any proposals in writing they
may have to make for supplying the parish of St. Mary-le-bone with water, and that the
ty
committee do report thereon to this board on Saturday next. x
4th March 1818;-A committee from the several water companies attended, and deli-
vered in the following statements on behalf of their respective companies:—
“. The New River company during the last eight years has sustained very heavy losses
in the service of those quarters of the town into which the works of the new water com-
panies have been generally introduced. -
“ They believe those companies have suffered as severely, perhaps more severely, than
themselves. -
“From experience they are satisfied that such a consequence is inseparable from a
state of competition between large capitals, consisting in fixed machinery sunk in the same
place, and incapable of being withdrawn or transferred, where there is not upon the whole
sufficient demand to make a return to all the capitals so engaged.
“ In ordinary cases the depression of prices finds its fair limits in the interest of the com-
peting parties, those who cannot afford to sell at a loss, transferring their capital to some
other trade, or at least to some other place.
“ But when capital cannot be so transferred, it is obvious that there is no check or
bounds to depression, except such as may be found in some sort of understanding between
the competing parties. -
“It is under these circumstances that the water companies have withdrawn within cer-
tain limits, with a view of extricating themselves from a situation which was tending very
rapidly to the utter ruin of all their establishments.
“. The New River company has not, nor do they believe that either of the other com-
panies have given or received any engagement, direct or indirect, as to the future, to confine
themselves within those limits. That point is left to the sense which either of them may
entertain of their own interests, informed as of course they are by past experience.
“. In taking this measure, the New River company have constantly expressed their sense,
that it was due to the interests of the parties concerned, as well as of the public, that the
situation in which it placed the several companies should not be abused. They have
received assurances from the other companies to the same effect, and it has all along been
plainly understood, that the observance of the point was a condition on which alone they
Would enter upon the measure, or abide by it.
“ They have no reason to doubt, that the West Middlesex and Grand Junction com-
panies are ready to treat with the vestry for the supply of the parish of Mary-le-bone, upon
terms so reasonable, as to leave no ground for imputing to them any disposition to depart
from this principle.
“They take the liberty of recommending to the vestry the appointment of a select com-
mittee, for the purpose of treating with those companies, because they apprehend that
it is only through such a medium that the body at large can be perfectly informed on
both sides of the question, so as to form a fair judgment between the public and the
Companies. -
“If contrary to their expectation it should be found, in the result of such a treaty, that
the companies in question make immoderate demands upon the parish, the New River com-
Pºny pledge themselves, that they will be ready to treat for the supply in strict conformity
*
with the principles above stated.
| 706. # --
3 C - &&. Any
194 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
A ppendix,
(A.)
Aſ &
Correspondence,
&c. between Mary-
je-bone Vestry and
Water Companies.
`--—sº-"
“Any information which their records, the inspection of their works, or the evidence of
their servants can supply for the guidance of such a committee, in treating in the first
instance with the West Middlesex or Grand Junction companies, or in the event supposed,
with themselves, shall be readily supplied. .- -
“But until it shall appear that the West Middlesex or Grand Junction companies refuse
to treat upon moderate terms, and attempt to abuse their situation, the New River com-
pany decline to enter into such a treaty, because they feel that it would be attended with
a certain injury to the other companies at a great risk to themselves, and that nothing but
such a refusal would justify them in giving occasion to such injury, or exposing themselves
to such hazard. -
“The West Middlesex company take the liberty of stating, that they have no wish or
desire whatever of requiring any thing from the parish of Mary-le-bone, or any other parts
of this district, beyond what shall be deemed by a joint committee of the vestry and the
directors of the company which may be appointed for that purpose, a fair and reasonable
return of interest upon that part of their capital, which has been fairly and judiciously
expended; by which is meant, that from the parish of Mary-le-bone they do not expect or
desire such return of interest to extend to any thing beyond a fair and just proportion of
the capital so expended. And in order to elucidate which, they earnestly press for such a
committee to be appointed as has been alluded to. -
“ It was also stated, on the part of the Grand Junction waterworks company, that they
are willing to enter into a treaty with the parish of St. Mary-le-bone for the supply of the
small part of the parish to which they contribute, upon fair and reasonable terms, with
reference to the capital expended by them.” -
The chairman then put the four following questions to the deputations from the West
Middlesex waterworks company:—
1st. “Can you state the amount of the proportion of the fair, reasonable and judicious
expenditure by the West Middlesex waterworks company, so far as respects this parish :
2d. “What annual sum would they require for the annual expenditure for the supply
of water in this parish - -
3d. “What will be the additional charges for high services, according to their respec-
tive heights, on each house, or in gross, for the whole parish; -
4th. “What gross annual sum of money do they expect from the parish for supplying
it with water f" -
When he declared his inability to give immediate answers thereto, but added, that he
had no doubt he should be able to do so before the meeting of the vestry on Saturday next.
Similar questions were also put by the chairman to the representatives of the Grand
Junction waterworks company, who agreed to give their answers thereto before Wednesday
In eXt. - . -
The committee beg to report to the vestry, that in consequence of the delay in getting
answers to the above questions, and which the committee think highly important in the
present stage of the proceedings, they did not proceed with the drafts of the petitions
to Parliament.
Same day;-The clerk laid before the board two letters, addressed to him by the
secretaries of the West Middlesex and Chelsea water companies, copies whereof are as
follow :-
West Middlesex Waterworks Office, Berners-street, 6th March 1818.
Sir, LA committee of the vestry of St. Mary-le-bone having requested that the direc-
tors of the West Middlesex waterworks would furnish, in writing, answers to the following
queries; viz. -
1st. “Can you state the amount of the proportion of the fair, reasonable and judicious
expenditure by the West Middlesex waterworks company, as far as respects this parish;
2d. “What annual sum would they require for the annual expenditure for the supply
of water to this parish - -
3d. “, What will be the additional charges for high services, according to their respec-
tive heights, in each house, or in gross, for the whole parish - -
4th. “What gross annual sum of money do they expect from the parish for supplying
it with water? - - - - -
I am directed to acquaint you, for the information of the committee, that although these
are questions of considerable difficulty, and any answers that can be given in the mode
required, much less likely to be satisfactory, either to the committee or the directors, than
such as would result from the adoption of the proposition now before the committee, for
the appointing a select and limited number of the vestry and the directors, for the purpose
of satisfactorily determining these and all other points on which doubts and differences of
opinion may exist; yet the directors, desirous of furnishing the best answers they are able
from so short a notice, have directed me to state: -
1st. That they consider the proportion of the fair and judicious expenditure on their .
Works, so far as respects the parish of St. Mary-le-bone, to be £.250,000.
2d. That as hearly as can at present be ascertained, the portion of their annual expendi-
ture as attaching to the said parish, cannot he taken at less than £. 5,000. -
33. That the directors have not been able as yet to take into their consideration, what
ought to be the additional charge for high service, although they are satisfied that this
will ever be not only an unprofitable, but a seriously injurious part of their business; for
reasons too tedious to be here explained, yet from the desire entertained by the directors
to
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 195
to accommodate the public, they will ever be ready to afford those supplies at very
moderate rates in proportion to height and consumption.
4th, That with reference to the fair proportion of capital before stated, and the amount
of the annual expenditure or standing charges for the supply of the parish, it will be obvious
to the committee, that nothing short of a gross annual sum of £, 17,500 for the present
supplies, including the now existing high services, can produce to the proprietors common
interest on that capital which has been judiciously expended, considering the establishment
of the necessary funds to defray a variety of contingent expenses, such as for new boilers,
an occasional new engine, the renewal of cocks, for repairing of mains, and many unforeseen
expenses, which must frequently occur in the works of this nature and magnitude, and
which, in the calculation now made, all remain to be defrayed out of an abatement of the
aforesaid common interest, leaving the proprietors with a return not exceeding four por
Cent.
The directors having thus given the best answers in their power at the present moment to
the different queries made by the committee, direct me in conclusion to state, that these
answers are to be considered as subject to correction, as given in perfect good faith, and
without prejudice to the company, in case of any, or all of them, being disapproved or
rejected by the committee or vestry.
I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient servant,
J. H. Greenwell, Esq. Vestry Clerk. (signed) M. K. Knight, Sec.
Office of Chelsea Waterworks, Abingdon-street, 5th March 1818.
Sir, I have this day laid before the court of directors your letter of the 28th ult. wherein
you state, “That you are directed by the vestrymen of St. Mary-le-bone to request that a
deputation of some members of this company will meet a committee of vestrymen of the
said parish, at the Court-house, on the Wednesday then following, at twelve o’clock, with
a view to making proposals for supplying the parish of St. Mary-le-bone with water.” And
I am ordered to acquaint you, that the court do not feel they can make any proposals for
the service of the parish of St. Mary-le-bone, the company having already lost a consider-
able sum of money therein.
I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
To J. H. Greenwell, Esq. (signed) J. G. Lynde, Sec.
11th March 1818;--The following letter from the Grand Junction waterworks company
was read:—
Grand Junction Waterworks Office, 1 oth March 1818.
Sir, I beg to acquaint you, that the queries transmitted by the vestry of St. Mary-le-
bone to this company in your communication of the 4th instant, have been laid before the
court of directors of this company, and I am directed to state in reply, that with reference
to the proportionate capital expended by the company, as it respects the supply of water to
the parish of St. Mary-le-bone, the company are willing to take the gross sum of £. 3,000
including the present existing high services, which they consider as a fair and reasonable
charge for the present supply.
I am directed further to state, that the Grand Junction water company are ready, in the
event of the parish not agreeing to this proposal, to submit the same to parliamentary
investigation, in conjunction with the parish, as the company, so far from feeling any
disinclination to the interference of the legislature, are most anxious for an opportunity of
rebutting, by satisfactory testimony, the unfounded charges which have been made against
the different companies, for the adoption of the measures resorted to from necessity, and
which they are confident will be ultimately beneficial to the public.
I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
J. H. Greenwell, Esq. (signed) W. M. Coe, Sec.
14th March 1818;-Resolved unanimously, That the signing of the petitions to Parlia-
ment be postponed, in order that the committee heretofore appointed by the vestry, do treat
with the water companies for their supplying this parish with water, at the rate of ten
per cent. lower than was annually and generally ºf and paid in this parish previous to
the year 1810.
18th March 1818;—lt was resolved, That a copy of the foregoing resolution be trans-
mitted to the New River, Chelsea, West Middlesex, and Grand Junction waterworks
companies; and to request their respective answers thereto without loss of time.
21st March, 1818;-The following letters were read:—
New River Office, 19th March 1818.
Sir, I am directed by the New River board to acknowledge the receipt of the resolu-
tions of the vestry of St. Mary-le-bone, of the 14th and 18th instant; and in answer to
inform you, that the board beg leave to refer the vestry to the paper delivered to its
committee, on behalf of the New River company, on the 4th instant, as fully expressing
their opinion upon the proposition of supplying the parish of St. Mary-le-bone with water,
am, Sir, your very obedient humble servant,
J. H. Greenwell, Esq. (signed) J. P. Rowe, Sec.
Appendix,
(A.)
Correspondence,
&c. between Mary-
le-bone Vestry and
Water Companies.
a
\–S.--—
Wide p. 193.
196 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM, SELECT COMMITTEE
Appendix,
(A.)
Correspondence,
&c. between Mary-
le-bone Vestry and
Water Companies.
N.
Wide p. 195.
At a special committee, held Thursday, 19th March 1818.
Grand Junction Waterworks, Union-street, Bond-street.
Resolved unanimously, That the secretary do communicate to the vestry of St. Mary-le-
bone, in reply to the resolutions forwarded to this company, that the company cannot in
justice to themselves accept the proposals made by the vestry, but that they are perfectly
persuaded, that the measures about to be adopted by the company, for equalizing the
rates in that part of the parish supplied by them, will be satisfactory to the inhabitants
thereof. -
J. H. Greenwell, Esq. (signed) W. M. Coe, Sec.
Office of Chelsea Waterworks, Abingdon-street, 21st March 1818.
Sir, The court of directors of the governor and company of Chelsea waterworks having
had under their consideration two resolutions of the vestry of St. Mary-le-bone, dated the
14th and 18th instant; the first, “Postponing the signing of petitions to Parliament, in
order that the committee appointed by the vestry might treat with the water companies
for their supplying the parish of St. Mary-le-bone with water, at a rate of ten per cent.
lower than was usually and generally rated and paid in the said parish, previous to the year
1810;” and the other, “That the aforesaid resolutions should be transmitted to the Chelsea
waterworks, amongst other companies therein mentioned, and requesting their respective
answers thereto, without loss of time.” g
I am ordered by the board to request you will refer the vestry of St. Mary-le-bone to the
answer conveyed in my letter of the 5th instant.
I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
J. H. Greenwell, Esq. (signed) J. G. Lynde, Sec.
March 28th, 1818;--The following letter from the West Middlesex waterworks
company, was read:—
West Middlesex Waterworks Office, Berners-street, 27th March 1818.
Sir, The resolutions of the St. Mary-le-bone vestry, of the 14th and 18th instant, on
the subject of a supply of water for the parish, having been laid before the board, I am
desired to acquaint you, for the information of the vestry, that the directors regret that
their endeavours to induce the vestry to depute a certain number of their members to meet
an equal number from the board, for the purpose of taking into consideration a just and
equitable scale of rates, should have entirely failed, as they feel satisfied, that if any
member had been so deputed by the vestry, they would, on entering into an unprejudiced
view of the subject, have been convinced, not only of the impossibility of the company’s
agreeing to the terms proposed by the vestry, but of the total impracticability of fixing
on any scale consistent either with justice to the public or the company, unless the govern-
ing principle was suffered to be the quantum and nature of the supply required.
I am desired further to state, that this board had intended, previous to making any
alteration in the existing rates, to have devoted their attention to insuring to their new
tenants, in every direction, a regular and abundant supply ; but as some misconception
appears to be entertained, as to the charges intended to be made in future, they have judged
it expedient to appoint a committee of their own body to investigate the existing rates,
and equalize them on a just and reasonable scale, according to the nature and extent
of the supplies required, in order that such a moderate advance only, as may be found
absolutely just and necessary, may be determined on and promulgated with as little delay
as possible.
The directors think it right to remind the vestry, that a most abundant supply of water,
in case of fire, is at all times ready, as their main is constantly charged, according to the
provisions of the company’s act of parliament.
By order of the board of directors,
J. H. Greenwell, Esq. Westry Clerk. (signed) M. K. Knight, Sec.
Same day;—Resolved,—That the foregoing reports and correspondence be taken into con-
sideration on Saturday the 11th of April next.
º St. Mary-le-bone, May 2, 1818.
At a committee appointed to meet the deputations from the water companies:–
Your committee met a deputation from the New River, Chelsea, West Middlesex, and
Grand Junction water companies, on the 28th day of April last, and again on the 1st
instant, when your committee submitted to the deputation the draft of the proposed bill,
and the following questions, and received the following answers from the respective com-
panies. * --
r The first question put by your committee, was : - w
Will you engage not to charge, more for supplying the whole parish with water than
ten per cent... under the rate charged in 1810 :
The answer of the West Middlesex company was as follows:
The West Middlesex company cannot afford to supply at the above rate. Tl
''|'The
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 197
The answer of the Grand Junction company was as follows: -
The Grand Junction cannot, nor do they think it can, upon any principle of justice,
be asked of them. I understand the question to relate to the parish of Mary-le-bone alone.
The answer of the New River company was as follows:
The New River company have already made known to the vestry in their minutes of
the 4th of March, why they declined to supply the parish on any terms, except under
circumstances which cannot now exist, as the matter is going before Parliament; but I
have no reserve in saying, that if the parish were within the district to which they confine
themselves, they could not supply it at the rates proposed.
The second question put by your committee, was:
Will you engage not to charge more for supplying the whole parish with water, than
at the rate in 1810 :
The answer of the Grand Junction company was as follows: -
The Grand Junction cannot undertake to do this; and for the reasons of their not doing
so, they beg to refer to the proposal made by them and the West Middlesex company to
the parish, this day.
The answer of the West Middlesex company was as follows:
The West Middlesex cannot engage to supply at the rates charged in 1810.
The answer of the New River company was as follows:
I refer to my former answer on behalf of the New River company.
If this parish were within the district, I doubt whether they could supply it at the rates
of 1810, on account of its distance from the New River head, and the height of its general
level. The rates of 1810 within that district will (as the company view their situation)
so barely remunerate them, that if they acquiesce in them, it will be very much with a
view of putting an end to an odious contest.
The third question put by your committee was :
Will you name any price, in relation to the price paid in 1810, beyond which you will
engage not to charge for supplying water in future to the whole parish :
The answer of the Grand Junction company was as follows:
Twenty-five per cent. addition upon the rates of 1810; but for further explanation, see
answer to the previous question, (No. 2.) on the part of the Grand Junction company, and
the paper delivered in by them this day.
The answer of the West Middlesex company was as follows:
The West Middlesex request that they may be considered as giving the same answer as
the above to this question.
The answer of the New River company was as follows:
I refer to my former answers on behalf of the New River company.
The fourth question put by your Committee, was:
Do you mean to oppose the passing of our proposed bill in all or in part, if it contains
neither maximum nor minimum as to the price to be charged for water in future ?
The answer of the New River company was as follows:
If a protecting price be agreed upon, the companies will concur in any bill for the pur-
É. of carrying it into effect, but they cannot think that in any event the parish ought to
have a power of erecting waterworks for themselves, while they can have a protecting
price.
The answer of the West Middlesex and Grand Junction companies was as follows:
We concur in this answer. When we say protecting price, we mean protection as to
quantity, quality and price.
The four questions being put to Mr. Brent, he referred as his answer to the letter of the
5th March 1818, from the court of directors of the Chelsea waterworks company, addressed
to the vestry of this parish, a copy of which is as follows:—
Office of Chelsea Waterworks, Abingdon-street, 5th March 1818.
Sir, I have this day laid before the court of directors your letter of the 28th ult.
wherein you state, “That you are directed by the vestrymen of St. Mary-le-bone to
request that a deputation of some members of this company will meet a committee of
vestrymen of the said parish, at the Court-house, on the Wednesday then following, at
twelve o’clock, with a view to making proposals for supplying the parish of St. Mary-le-
bone with water.” And I am ordered to acquaint you, that the court do not feel they can
make any proposals for the service of the parish of St. Mary-le-bone, the company having
already lost a considerable sum of money therein.
I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
To J. H. Greenwell, Esq. (signed) J. G. Lynde.
Appendix,
(A.)
Correspondence,
&c, between Mary-
le-bone Vestry and
Water Companies.
--~~"
3 D
198 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
Appendix,
(A.)
Correspondence,
&c.between Mary-
le-bone Vestry and
Water Companies.
The Report of the West Middlesex and Grand Junction Waterworks Companies to the
Committee appointed by the Vestry of the Parish of Mary-le-bone.
The West Middlesex and Grand Junction Waterworks companies, in compliance with
the request made by the committee, have ascertained the amount of water rates paid to
the New River and Chelsea companies in the year 1809, by that part of the parish of St.
Mary-le-bone then in existence; and the amount of the rates payable in 1817 for the same
portion of the parish, to the New River, Chelsea, West Middlesex and Grand Junction
companies, which appears to be as follows; viz.
1809 : £. s. d. 1817: £. s. d.
New River - - - - - - 11,182 2 – New River - - - - - - 5,648 3 6
Chelsea - - - - - - - 2,205 18 6 | Chelsea - - - - - - - 1,177 12 6
West Middlesex - - - - 3,286 18 6
£. 13,388 – 6 || Grand Junction - - - - - 817 10 —
£10939 4 6
From the preceding statement it appears that the difference between the water rents of
1809 and those of 1817, as applicable to the supply of the same part of the parish of St.
Mary-le-bone, is £: 2,457. 16s.
A reduction however must be made from the rates of 1817 of the sum of £. 2,000, as a fair
apportioned charge for high service afforded to about 1,000 houses, which high service did
not exist in 1809, and which, added to the above difference of £. 2,457. 16s, will, in effect,
leave the rates paid by the parish in 1817, £. 4,457. 16s. less than in 1809.
In support of the above claim for high service, the companies have to state that it is a
most moderate and indeed inadequate consideration for this particular supply to 1,000 houses,
with reference to the expense, risk and trouble attending such supply.
With respect to the future rates to be paid by the parish, the West Middlesex and Grand
Junction companies have bestowed the greatest attention to this part of the committee’s
request, and feel the most anxious desire to meet the views entertained by them on the
subject. ,”
The following statement therefore will show the claim made by the companies for the
future service to the parish, viz.
£. s. d.
Rates in 1809 for the houses then in the parish - º º-ºs - - 13,388 – 6
Additional charge of twenty-five per cent. upon the above - - - 3,347 — 1 }
Rates for houses built since, estimated at º - * - - – 2,500 — —
£. 19,235 — 7 #
*ºmmºnºmºmºsº,
The above sum of £. 19,235. os. 7; d. will therefore be about the amount required for
the supply to the parish, exclusive of the present and future high services, and for any
future extra consumption of water for trades or otherwise.
The companies cannot omit calling the attention of the committee to the innumerable
advantages which have attended the competition between the companies, and which are
fully illustrated by the following facts; viz. te
The inhabitants of St. Mary-le-bone have actually received for many years, and continue
to receive, more than five times the quantity of water which they did previous to the year
1809, and that, as before appears, at a rent below what was paid at that time; they have
consequently had for this period a gratuitous supply of more than four times the whole
quantity formerly received. -
Previous to the year 1809, the supply was so scanty and insufficient, that with the utmost
care and economy on the part of the parish, the greatest inconveniences were frequently
experienced, as was most satisfactorily proved before a Committee of the House of Com-
mons, on the passing of the West Middlesex act.
The parish had no security from fire beyond that afforded by a main of an area of thirty-
eight inches, whereas it is now not only nearly surrounded by mains of the West Middlesex
company, of areas from 201 up to 346 inches, constantly charged, but it is also intersected
in almost every direction, by means of areas from 63 up to 153 inches, by which the general
protection is such, that upon the necessary precaution of stopping the gratings in the streets
being taken, it is in the power of the companies, at a moment's notice, to inundate the
parish in every direction, at one and the same time.
In consequence of the abundant supply, superior attention, and accommodation, now
existing, the habits of the parishioners are naturally changed: so much so, that nothing
short of a continuance of this supply and attention will now be satisfactory to them.
From these facts, to which many others might be added, it is submitted the companies
have a fair and irresistible claim for the before-mentioned advance, and which they hope
will be readily allowed them, -
2d May 1818.
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METRO POLIS. 199
Appendix (B.)
LONDON BRIDGE WATER WORKS.
The following PAPERS were delivered in by the Secretary to the London Bridge
Waterworks Company.
(i.)—LETTER from Mr. R. Till, Superintendent to the London Bridge Waterworks,
to W. H. Fremantle, Esq.
SIR, London Bridge Waterworks, February 20th, 1821.
WHEN I attended you at the Committee on the subject of the Waterworks on Friday,
the usual hour of breaking up was so near approaching, that I considered it incumbent on
me to give my answers as concise as possible, especially as these works, of which I have
the management, have not any connection with the other water companies.
I fear, however, that my conciseness may have occasioned your honourable Committee to
have adopted a more unfavourable opinion of our concern than it deserves, and therefore
I will, with your permission, make you acquainted, with some circumstances which may
probably be of use to you.
Our water is worked up by six large wheels, and occasionally by the assistance of one
steam engine when the tides are low. We consider the wheels to have the preference of
steam engines, inasmuch as they work all night, which the engines do not. Within the
last twenty years we have increased our power at least a fifth part; and four years ago we
built an iron wheel, which is supposed to be equal to any one in the kingdom : it cost
£,6,500 : and we are now about building another, which will cost £. 5,000.
The increased demand for water is fully equal to the increased power, owing to the num-
ber of water-closets which have been erected within twenty years, and from which there is
a considerable waste.
In answer to your question, Why we did not erect engines, as the other companies had
done, to increase our quantity of water, I beg to mention that we are not in possession of
any ground on which they could be built; and I desire to refer you to the observation
I have made, that we prefer the water-wheels.
In respect to the laying down iron pipes in the stead of timber, I beg to repeat that we
have not sufficient capital; but there is another strong reason for deferring it; in case the
House of Commons should determine that London Bridge should be rebuilt, our water-
works would be annihilated, and of course the expenditure for theiron pipes would be totally
lost. I request your forgiveness for having omitted to mention that we join our iron pipes with
flanches; and therefore I answered to yourſquestion, that I calculated iron pipes to be double
the expense of wooden pipes; but if they are united in the manner which is now generally
adopted, I consider them to be only half more than the wooden pipes.
I did not think it proper to answer the question proposed by one of the honourable
members, Whether I did not think the water from these works was the worst of all that
was used; but I hope you will allow me to mention, that exclusively of one or two
of the companies, the others all pump up the water from the same river as we do. When-
ever there has been a great fall of water up the country, the ebb tides bring down a con-
siderable quantity of ground and soil from the different rivers, and the Thames water is
then frequently very foul; but if it is left in a cistern for four-and-twenty hours, it will be
finer than any other water that can be produced.
The houses of tradesmen in the city are generally very much pinched for room in their
kitchens, and consequently their cisterns are so very small that they do not hold more than
one day’s consumption, and therefore there is not any time for the water to clear itself. I
use two large cisterns, and by drawing out the water alternately, every other day, I have as
clear water as can be imagined.
I rely on your candour to excuse the liberty I have now taken.
I beg to offer you my sincere thanks for your very kind and polite demeanour to me on
Friday; and *
I am, with great respect, Sir,
Your very obedient, and much obliged humble servant,
W. H. Fremantle, Esq. . . . . . Richt Till, Superintendent.
Appendix,
(B.)
London Bridge
Waterworks.
2OO APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
Appendix (2.)—LEASES by virtue of which the Trustees of the London Bridge Waterworks are
(B.) authorized to supply the City of London and Liberties thereof with Water.
London Bridge -
** Waterworks. 1581 :
May 30,—First arch wheel :—Lease granted by the Lord Mayor and commonalty of the
city of London, of the first arch of London Bridge, to erect an engine within the same,
for 500 years.
1583:
November 24-Second arch wheel — Lease granted by the Lord Mayor and common- .
alty of the city of London of the second arch, for 500 years.
f
1701:
November 24.—Fourth arch wheel :—Lease granted by the Lord Mayor and common-
alty of the city of London, of the fourth arch, for 381 years.
1761: -
September 29. Third arch wheel:--Lease granted by the Lord Mayor and commonalty
of the city of London, of the third arch, for 321 years.
1767:
September 29,-Fifth arch wheel and Borough wheel:—Lease granted by the Lord Mayor
and commonalty of the city of London, of the fifth arch from the north end, and of the
second arch from the south end, for 315 years.
/ The quantity of water raised by these wheels is now 3,894,317 gallons daily.
The capital stock of the London Bridge waterworks is divided into 1,500 shares; the
nominal value of each share is supposed to be £.1oo; but owing to most of the books
belonging to the company being consumed by fire many years ago, the original value cannot
be exactly determined or ascertained.
There has not been any account kept of the prices which have been paid for the shares
of these works; but since the year 1789 they have been sold for £.70, and last year some
were sold at £. 50 for each share.
(3.)—ACCOUNT of the Gross Income of the Trustees of the London Bridge Waterworks, from
the Year 1800 to the Year 1820:—and, Rate of Dividend paid to the Proprietors on One
thousand Five hundred Shares in each Year, from the Year 1789 to 1820.
NET RENTS OLD WOOD,
YEAR S. for IRON, &c. TOTAL
Service of Sold. GROSS IN COME.
WATER,
£. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d.
1801 - 4-> 10,723 l 5 95 – 1 10,818 1 6
1802 - g- º 10,813 19 6 91 17 3 10,905 16 9
1803 - tº º 10,937 4 - iO2 4 3 11,039 8 3
1804 - - - || 11,053 12 2 89 9 I 1 1, 143 l 3
1805 - - - 11,349 8 6 98 9 6 11,447 18 —
1806 - wº -> 11,719 11 — 105 12 7 11,825 3 7
1807 - -- & 11,961 – 9 105 6 — 12,066 6 9.
1808 - gº º 12,117 – 3 104. 12 — 12,221 1 2 3
1809 - ſº º 12,332 — — 85 2 9 12,417 2 9
1810 - --> &- 12,588 12 9 107 4 — 12,695 16 9
1811 - - - 12,559 1 3 90 8 6 12,649 9, 9
1812 - º &º 12,382 17 9 77 2 8
Compensation for } 12,870 – 5
a 268Se. • º 410 — — * * *.
1813 - gº - 12,198 14 3 61 10 1 12,26o 4 4.
1814 - g- - || 12,080 8 — 72 i — 12,152 9 –
1815 - º 12,201 11 — 78 5 6 12,279 16 6
1816 - cº- 12,120 17 3 78 18 6 12, 199 15 9
1817 - gº 12,040 6 8 6o 16 8 12, 1 O1 3 4.
1818 - º 12,176 2 9 86 1 9 12,262 4 6
1819 - g- 12,266 3 6 57 6 6 12,323 10 —
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 2O1
Rate of Dividend paid to the Proprietors on 1,500 Shares, in each Year from the
Year 1789 to 1820. -
RATE RATE RATE
Y E. A. R. S. of YEARS of YEARS of
T)IVIDEND (continued.) DIVIDEND (continued.) DIVIDENT)
per Share. per Share. per Share.
1790 - sº * * * : 1300 - -N £. s. d. £. s. d.
1791 - , - a — 1801 - - 1812 - - 2 15 —
1792 - * 1802 - * 1813 - gº
1793 - ſº 1803 - tºg 1814 - gº 2 1 O —
* 1804 - ed 1815 - tº
1794 - - 1805 - - } 3 — — * -
1795 - tº , _ 1806 - - 1816 - = 2 15 ---,
1796 - iºn - 1807 - sº 1817 - tºº 2 15 —
1797 - * > 1808 - * -
1809 - - 1818 - -
1798 - º 1810 - tºº 1819 - - 2 I O -
j 1799 - } 3 T ~ ; 1811 - - A 1820 - - -
The Dividends were paid clear of the Property Tax up to 1816.
!
(4)–ANSWERS to Questions put to Mr. Richard Till, Superintendent of the London
Bridge Waterworks, March 19, 1821.
To the Select Committee of the Honourable the House of Commons respecting the
Waterworks of the Metropolis.
Gentlemen, &
IN obedience to your order of the 19th instant, I beg leave to offer the following answers
to the questions proposed by you.
We are not in possession of any specific rules on which we act, in respect of the dis-
tinction between high services and low, but we consider that a daily supply of a butt to each
house is a complete ordinary service, and any quantity more than that is considered as an
eXtra. Serv ICe. “
We consider the following trades as subject to an extra charge, in respect of their
consumption of water —bakers, brewers, butchers for slaughtering, bottle-merchants,
curriers, leather-dressers and tanners, distillers, dyers, fellmongers, fishmongers, inns, pub-
licans, stable-keepers, taverns and eating-houses, sugar-bakers, soap-boilers, and steam
engines; and we have acted upon this custom for half a century.
When any application is made to us by a consumer of water in his business, to supply
him, I give directions to the surveyor and the turncock to examine the premises very closely,
and to report to me the supposed consumption, together with the size of the service-pipe.
I then fix the price; but if, in the course of a year or two, I find that the consumption is
either more or less than we thought, I readily make an abatement, or increase the sum, as the
case requires. l *
If any circumstances should occur, in which you may wish for any further information,
I shall most cheerfully obey your orders. - *
I am, with great respect, gentlemen, your most obedient humble servant,
Rich" Till, Superintendent.
London Bridge Waterworks,
* March 21, 1821. } -
Appendix,
(B.)
London Bridge
Waterworks.

3 E
2O2 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
Appendix,
B.
Iondon Bridge
Waterworks, /
Appendix,
(C.)
New River
Waterworks.
-º-º:
‘(5.)—ACCOUNT of the number of Tenants supplied with Water from the London Bridge
Waterworks. n
. DWELLING HOUSES, Szc. Consumers #
charged for the supply of Water: from #5
2- ^– TN £. 5 à | TOTALS.
at 20 S. from 20s, from 50s. to 3
per ann. to 50s. to £, 5. £. 20 3
and under. per ann. per ann. per ann. ſº-
In the district of:
Mr. James Allden, - - collector 538 1,499 53 16 12 2,118
Mr. John Allden - - - ditto 497 2,125 49 58 22 || 2,751
Mr. William Allden - - i. 596 1,073 23 18 25 1,735
Mr. Geo. Hopkins Hunt, collector
for the Borough of Southwark 2,598 1,138 - 32 36 9 3,81 *—
- 4,229 5,835 | 157 128 68 | 10,417
April 6th 1821. V. Rich" Till, Superintendent.

- Appendix, (C.)
N E W RIVER WATER W O R. K.S.
The following PAPERS were delivered in by the Secretary to the New River Waterworks
Company.
A
(1.)—SUBSTANCE of a DEED between the New River and East London Waterworks
Cmpanies, dated 9th November 1815.
AFTER stating the difficulties and losses which led to making the agreement, the deed
recites, that the companies had respectively agreed to relinquish their right to supply
water, the one to the east, the other to the west, of a certain line described in a schedule
and plan annexed, and each to make over to the other the iron pipes, &c. lying in the
district relinquished; that these had been valued on each side, and that a balance had been
found in favour of the East London of £.7,151, which was agreed to be compensated by a
transfer of rental from the New River company, to the amount of £.715. 2s. per annum,
or thereabout, which was considered by the East London company as a fair equivalent for
the said difference in their favour, being after the rate of ten year's purchase. The deed
then contains mutual assignments of the iron pipes, &c. pursuant to the agreement, and
proceeds with the following covenants: -
AND the said governor and company of the New River do hereby, for themselves, their
successors and assigns, covenant, promise and agree, with and to the said company of
proprietors of the East London waterworks, their successors and assigns, in manner
following; (that is to say) that the said governor and company of the New River, their
successors and assigns, shall not nor will at any time or times hereafter, except in the cases
herein provided, convey or cause to be conveyed any water in, by, through, under or into
any of the streets, places or districts on the east side of the said line described in the first
schedule hereunder written, and also marked out in the map or plan hereunto annexed,
or supply, or cause to be supplied with water any of the houses, manufactories, buildings,
streets, places or districts on the east side of the said line; and shall not nor will at any
time or times hereafter do or cause to be done any act, deed, matter or thing whatsoever
whereby or by reason or means whereof the said company of proprietors of the East
London waterworks, their successors or assigns, shall or may at any time or times here-
after be hindered, prevented or obstructed from conveying water in, by, through, under
or into any of the streets, places or districts on the east side of the said line, or sup-
plying with water any of the houses, manufactories, buildings, streets, places or districts
on the east side of the said line, or from having, taking, using and enjoying the said pipes
and premises firstly hereinbefore assigned, or intended so to be; and that if the said
governor and company of the New River, their successors or assigns, shall at any time or
times hereafter, except in the cases herein provided, supply or cause to be supplied with
Water, any one or more of the houses, manufactories, buildings, streets, places or districts
on the east side of the said line, then and in every such case the said governor and com-
pany of the New River, or their successors, shall forfeit and pay to the said company of
proprietors of the East London waterworks, their successors or assigns, for every such offence,
by way of liquidated damages, and not by way of penalty, double the amount of the follow-
ing annual rent or rents for the house, manufactory, building, street, place or district, or
houses, manufactories, buildings, streets, places or districts, which shall be so supplied;
(that is to says) if immediately before the commission of any such offence, the house,
*manufactory, building, street, place or district, or houses, manufactories, buildings, .
places
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 2O3
#
--→
places or districts, shall have been supplied with water by the said company of proprietors,
their successors or assigns, then during such time as the said governor and company, their
successors or assigns, shall supply or cause to be supplied with water any such house,
manufactory, building, street, place or district, or houses, manufactories, buildings, streets,
places or districts as aforesaid, double the amount of the annual rent or rents which was or
were payable to the said company of proprietors, their successors or assigns, for the water
supplied by them to the same house, manufactory, building, street, place or district, or
houses, manufactories, buildings, streets, places or districts, and the double amount of
such rent or rents shall be paid on or at the same days or times, and in the same manner
as the said rent or rents was or were payable to the said company of proprietors, their
successors or assigns; but if, immediately before the commission of any such offence, the
house, manufactory, building, street, place or district, or houses, manufactories, buildings,
streets, places or districts shall not have been supplied with water by the said company of
proprietors, their successors or assigns, then during such time as the said governor and
company, their successors or assigns, shall supply or cause to be supplied with water any
such house, manufactory, building, street, place or district, or houses, manufactories, build-
ings, streets, places or districts as aforesaid, double the amount of the annual rent or rents
for which the said governor and company of the New River, their successors or assigns,
shall have contracted to supply with water such house, manufactory, building, street, place
or district, or houses, manufactories, buildings, streets, places or districts as aforesaid, and
the double amount of such rent or rents shall be paid on or at the same days or times, and
in the same manner as the said rent or rents shall be reserved or payable to the said
governor and company, their successors or assigns; and that the said governor and com-
pany and their successors, shall not nor will at any time or times hereafter, for twenty-one
successive days, neglect or fail, unless prevented by casualties, temporary stoppages, or
inevitable accidents, to supply or cause to be supplied with good and wholesome water, in
an effectual manner, and in such reasonable quantities as shall be required, all the houses,
buildings and manufactories, situated in any rows or row of buildings comprising a polygon,
circus, crescent, square, street or other subordinate or inferior place, and called or known by
the same name, on the west side of the said line, the tenants or occupiers of which rows
or row of buildings, either wholly or in part, were immediately before the twenty-ninth
day of September last supplied with water by the said company of proprietors, or such
of the said houses, buildings and manufactories, the tenants or occupiers whereof respec-
tively shall from time to time be desirous of being supplied with water by the said governor
and company or their successors, and who shall pay or be willing and offer to pay such
rent or rents as the said governor and company or their successors shall think fit and
proper to require for the same : And further, that if at any time or times complaint of any
breach of the covenant lastly hereinbefore contained, shall be made to the said company of
proprietors or their successors, by and under the hands of the majority of those tenants or
occupiers of any rows or row of buildings, comprising a polygon, circus, crescent, square,
street, or other subordinate or inferior place, and called or known by the same name, in
which the houses, buildings or manufactories shall be situated, where any such breach shall
be committed or made, who shall for the time being be supplied or be desirous of being
supplied with water by the said governor and company or their successors, and shall
pay or be willing and offer to pay such rent or rents as aforesaid, and if upon such
complaint any action or actions shall be commenced and prosecuted for such breach of
the said covenant, and it shall be proved to the satisfaction of the jury that a breach of the
said covenant has been committed or made, so that a verdict shall be obtained and final
judgment entered up thereon, then and in such case it shall and may be lawful to and for the
said company of proprietors and their successors to re-enter and extend their pipes and
other works through the districts or places on the west side of the said line to the rows or
row of buildings, comprising a polygon, circus, crescent, square, street or other subordinate
or inferior place, and called or known by the same name, in which the houses, buildings or
manufactories shall be situated, where such breach of the said covenant shall be so proved
to have been committed or made, and to supply with water, in such manner as the said
company of proprietors or their successors shall think proper, all the houses, buildings and
manufactories constituting the same rows or row of buildings, comprising a polygon, circus,
crescent, square, street or other subordinate or inferior place, and called or known by the
same name: And further, that the said governor and company and their successors, not
only shall not nor will for the said space of twenty-one days neglect or fail in affording
such supply of water as aforesaid, but also shall and will from time to time and at all
times hereafter, unless prevented by casualties, temporary stoppages or inevitable accidents:
supply or cause to be supplied with good and wholesome water in an effectual manner, and
in such reasonable quantities as shall be required, all the houses, buildings and manufac-
tories situated in any rows or row of buildings, comprising a polygon, circus, Crescent,
square, street or other subordinate or inferior place, and called or known by the same
name, on the west side of the said line, the tenants or occupiers of which said rows or
row of buildings, either wholly or in part, were immediately before the 39th day of
September last supplied with water by the said company of proprietors, or such of the said
houses, buildings and manufactories, the tenants or occupiers whereof respectively shall
from time to time be desirous of being supplied with water by the said governor and
company or their successors, and who shall pay or be willing and offer to pay such rent
or rents as the said governor and company or their successors shall think fit and proper
t() ºire for the same: And further, that if at any time or times hereafter any rows or
700. TOW
Appendix,
(C.)
New River
Waterworks.
\-- —”
2O4 APPENDIX To REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
Appendix,
(C.)
New River
Waterworks.
row of buildings, comprising a polygon, circus, crescent, square, street or other subordinate
or inferior place, and called or known by the same name, on the west side of the said line,
the tenants or occupiers of which said rows or row of buildings either wholly or in part
were immediately before the 29th day of September last supplied with water by the said
company of proprietors, shall be wholly and entirely unsupplied with water by the said
governor and company or their successors for the space of six calendar months after
requisition shall have been made to the said governor and company or their successors, by
the major part of the tenants or occupiers of any such rows or row of buildings, to supply
or continue to supply them with water, and such tenants or occupiers having offered or
expressed their willingness to pay reasonable rates or rents for such supply, then and in
every such case it shall be lawful for the said company of proprietors and their successors,
upon request in writing made by and under the hands of the majority of the tenants or
occupiers of such rows or row of buildings on the west side of the said line as shall be so
unsupplied for such space of six calendar months as aforesaid, to re-enter and extend their
pipes and other works through the districts or places on the west side of the said line to
such rows or row of buildings as last aforesaid, and to supply with water, in such manner
as the said company of proprietors or their successors shall think proper, all the houses,
buildings and manufactories constituting such rows or row of buildings as last aforesaid.
[Then follow corresponding covenants from the East London company to the New River.]
AND the said governor and company of the New River, and the said company of proprie-
tors of the East London waterworks, do hereby severally for themselves and their successors,
further covenant, promise and agree, with and to the other of them the said companies
and their successors, in manner following; (that is to say) that for the space of four calen-
dar months from the date of these presents, it shall and may be lawful to and for the said
company of proprietors, their successors or assigns, to use such of the wooden pipes be-
longing to the said governor and company, on the east side of the said line, as they shall
find requisite or necessary for the purpose of supplying with water from the works of the
said company of proprietors any of the houses, manufactories, buildings, streets, places
and districts on the east side of the said line, which cannot at present be conveniently sup-
plied by or by means of the pipes belonging to the said company of proprietors; and that,
for the said space of four calendar months from the date of these presents, the said governor
and company, and their successors, shall and will continue as heretofore to supply with
water, from the works of the said governor and company, those houses, manufactories,
buildings, streets, places and districts, on the east side of the said line, which the said
company of proprietors and their successors shall not from time to time, during the said
space of four calendar months, be enabled conveniently to supply with water from the works
of the said company of proprietors; and that the said governor and company shall for such
last-mentioned supply of water from their works, provided the same be continued up to the
25th day of December next, or for a longer period, be entitled to receive, up to the said
25th day of December next, but no longer, the rents which shall accrue due for or on
account of the same ; but where the last-mentioned supply shall not be continued up to
the said 25th day of Đecember next, all the rents payable from the said 29th day of Sep-
tember last, on account of such last-mentioned supply, shall belong to the said company
of proprietors and their successors; and where the said last-mentioned supply shall be
continued beyond the said 25th day of December next, all the rents payablé on account
of such supply after the said 25th day of December next, shall belong to the said company
of proprietors and their successors, and that the said governor and company and their suc-
cessors shall and will at all times, so long as the wooden pipes of the said governor and
company of the New River shall be used to supply water on the east side of the said line,
either from the works of the said governor and company, or from the works of the said
company of proprietors, keep or cause to be kept all such wooden pipes in good repair,
order and condition, and also shall and will, once in every fourteen days at the least, deliver
or cause to be delivered to the said company of proprietors or their successors, a true and
faithful account of the expenses incurred by the said governor and company or their suc-
cessors, in so keeping the said wooden pipes in good repair, order and condition as afore-
said; and that the said company of proprietors or their successors shall and will, within
fourteen days after the said governor and company or their successors shall have delivered
or caused to be delivered to the said company of proprietors or their successors any ac-
count of such expenses, well and truly pay or cause to be paid to the said governor and
company or their successors the whole amount of the said expenses, and the said expenses
shall be allowed the said governor and company and their successors, in addition to the
rents which, under the provisions hereinbefore for that purpose contained, they may be
entitled to receive for supplying water on the east side of the said line, and that immediately
after the expiration of the said four calendar months from the date of these presents, the
said company of proprietors or their successors shall and will, at their own expense, take
or cause to be taken up all the wooden pipes now belonging to the said governor and com-
pany on the east side of the said line, which shall or may be used either for the supply of
Water from the works of the said governor and company, or from the works of the said
company of proprietors, on the east side of the said line, save and except such of the said
PPºs, used for the supply of water from the works of the said governor and company as
shall be discontinued to be used for that purpose, on or before the 1st day of February next,
and that the said governor and company or their successors shall and will at their ex-
pense, after such wooden pipes as aforesaid shall have been so taken up, take and carry
away the same, with all the cocks, plugs and other apparatus affixed or belonging theº
3I)
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 2O5
and that it shall be lawful for the said governor and company and their successors, at any
time or times hereafter, at their own expense, to take up and carry away the wooden pipes
now belonging to the said governor and company on the east side of the said line, with the
cocks, plugs and other apparatus affixed or belonging thereto, which shall not, under the
provisions hereinbefore for that purpose contained, be required for supplying with water
any of the houses, manufactories, buildings, streets, places and districts on the east side of
the said line in manner aforesaid; and that for the said space of four calendar months from
the date of these presents the said company of proprietors and their successors shall and
will continue as heretofore to supply with water those houses, manufactories, buildings,
streets, places and districts on the west side of the said line, which the said governor and
company of the New River and their successors, shall not from time to time, during the
said space of four calendar months, be enabled conveniently to supply with water, and shall
for such supply, provided the same be continued up to the 25th day of December next, or
for a longer period, be entitled to receive up to the 25th day of December next, but no
longer, the rent which shall accrue due for or on account of the same ; but where the
supply shall not be continued up to the said 25th day of December next, all the rents pay-
able from the 29th day of September last, on account of such supply, shall belong to the
said governor and company and their successors; and where the supply shall be con-
tinued beyond the said 25th day of December next, all the rents payable on account of such
supply, after the said 25th day of December next, shall belong to the said governor and com-
pany and their successors: And further, that if the projected union between the said
governor and company of the New River and the company of proprietors of the West
Middlesex waterworks shall take place, and if for effecting the same the said governor
and company of the New River shall be dissolved, and a new company formed, or
the constitution of the said governor and company of the New River shall be
so altered or changed as to prejudice or affect these presents, or any of the assignments,
covenants and provisions herein contained, then and in such case, and within three
calendar months after such dissolution or alteration or change shall have taken place, all
such acts and deeds for giving effect to or confirming these presents, and the assignments,
covenants and provisions herein contained, shall, at the costs and charges of the new com-
pany, or the said governor and company of the New River, (as the case may be,) be done and
executed by the said new company, or the said governor and company of the New River,
(as the case may be,) and by the said company of proprietors of the East London water-
works, as the respective counsel learned in the law of the said two respective companies shall
advise and require: Provided always, and it is hereby agreed and declared between and
by the parties to these presents, that it shall be lawful for the said governor and company
and their successors, at all times hereafter, to supply with water the house, buildings and
premises at Stamford Hill, in the county of Middlesex, now in the occupation of Joseph
Stonard, Esq. on the east side of the said line, until the same can conveniently be supplied
by the said company of proprietors or their successors, upon terms to be agreed upon be-
tween the said company of proprietors and their successors and the said Joseph Stonard or
the proprietors or occupiers for the time being of the said premises, anything herein-
before contained to the contrary thereof in anywise notwithstanding. In Witness whereof
the said governor and company of the New River and the said company of proprietors of
the East London waterworks have severally caused their common seals to be hereunto affixed,
the day and year first above written.
The First Schedule to which the above written Indenture refers.
[This schedule contains merely a description in words of the boundary line dividing the
New River and East London districts: as the Committee have directed a map of the boun-
dary lines to be prepared, that description is not here added, but is ready to be furnished
if required.]
The Second Schedule to which the above written Indenture refers.
Agreements made by the governor and company of the New River with the following
persons, to supply water; viz. with Messrs. Stein and Smith of Whitechapel, in the county
of Middlesex, distillers, to supply them with water for the term of seven years, from Christ-
mas 1811, at the yearly rent of £. 120; the said rent of £. 120 to be received by the said
company of proprietors of the East London waterworks from the twenty-ninth day of
September one thousand eight hundred and fifteen : with Mr. Tickel, of Old Castle-
street, Whitechapel aforesaid, brewer, to supply him with water for seven years, from
Michaelmas one thousand eight hundred and twelve, at the yearly rent of £.30; the said
rent of £.30. to be received by the said company of proprietors of the East London water-
works the twenty-ninth day of September one thousand eight hundred and fifteen : with
Mr. Séverne, the proprietor of ninety-three houses in Splidts Fields, to supply the occupiers
of the said houses for the term of seven years from Midsummer one thousand eight hnndred
and thirteen, at the yearly rent of £.44. 9s.; the said rent of £44. 9s. to be received by the
said company of proprietors of the East London waterworks from the said twenty-ninth
day of September one thousand eight hundred and fifteen.
The foregoing is a copy of the original agreement.
19th February 1821. J. P. Rowe, Sec.
Appendix,
(C.)
New River
- Waterworks.
3 F
206 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
\
Appendix,
(C.)
New River
Waterworks.
------º
*...*
ë & º * S. &
1789 - - - 409 17 5 # 1800 - - - 463 12 1 # 1811 - - - 282 12 9 #
1790 - - - 400 9 9 1801 - - - 471 9 — ; ; 1812 - - - 220 13 2 #
1791 - - - 411 17 — # 1802 - - - 451 4 4 # 1813 - - - 1 13 18 7 #
1792 - - - 426 5 10 1803 - - - 445 6 2 # 1814 - - - 23 2 7 #
1793 - - - 4.41 12 10 1804 - - - 396 19 9; ; 1815 - - - 50 2 1 1 #
1794 - - - 431 5 8 1805 - - - 486 — — ; ; 1816 - - - 85 — —
1795 - - - 425 14 3 ; ; 1806 - - - 450 2 10 # 1817 - - - 120 2 6 #
1796 - - - 446 – 3 # 1807 - - - 440 13 2 1818 - - - 159 4 9 #
1797 - - - 470 12 8 1808 - - - 472 —- 1 1 # ; 1819 - - - 199 10 1 1 }
1798 - - - - 456 14. 1 # 1809 - - - 472 5 8 ; ; 1820 - - - 266 3 8
1799 - - - 457 12 63 1810 - - - 465 — 6 #
(2.)—AN ACCOUNT of the Sums paid in Dividends to the Proprietors of the New River,
y in each Year from 1789 to the latest period to which the same can be made up ; specifying
the Rates of the Dividends, and whether the Payments made were discharged of the
Property Tax. **
THE profits of the New River company are divided into two moieties of thirty-six shares
each, which (after payment of the property tax,) have produced the following Dividends per
share :-
£. s.
d
#, £.
d
d
A clog or charge, averaging at about £. 13, 17s. 9; d. per share, is deducted out of the
above dividends, from nearly all the holders of King's Shares, and a small proportion of the
holders of Adventurer's Shares.
(3)—AN ACCOUNT of the Gross Income and Dividends of the New River Company, in each
Year from the Year 1800 to the latest period to which the same can be made up; dis-
tinguishing therein the amount of the Sums received respectively for Water supplied for
Domestic Purposes, for Water supplied to Public Buildings and for the purposes of Trade
and Manufacture, and for Water used in watering Roads or Streets, from the Income
derived from other sources.

Water Rents RENTS
ſor Watering received for GłłOSS
YEARS. T}welling Houses, Roads or Streets. Tands IN COME, HDIVIDENIDS.
&c. and Houses.
£. S. d. £. S. d. £. s. d. £. S. d. £. s. d.
1800 - - 59,976 17 5 - - - 941 7 4 || 60,918 4 9 463 12 1 }
1801 - - 60,762 14 10 | - - - 960 1 1 || 61,722 15 11 471 9 — ;
1802 - - 61,841 19 — - - - 951 4 — 62,793 3 — 451 4 4 #
1803 - - || 62,230 4 4 || - * * 914 19 6 63,145 3 10 445 6 2 #
1804 - - 63,678 2 10 || - wº gº 918 2 5 64,596 5 3 396 19 9;
1805 - - || 70,462 5 – - - - | 1,153 6 6 71,615 11 6 486 — — #
1806 - - 75,661 19 2 - - - 1,482 14 5 77,144 13 7 || 450 2 10 ;
1807 - - || 77,330 7 7 || - - - | 1,440 9 7 || 78,770 17 2 440 13 2
1808 - - || 79,302 9 3 - - - - 1,412 14 9 80,715 4 — 472 – 11 #
1809 - - 80,782 12 — | - sº * 1,630 17 10 32,413 9 19 472 5 8 #
1810 - - 80,992 4 5 - - - 1,464 3 82,456 5 8 465 — 6 #
1811 - , , 78,161 I 2 | - * grº 1,340 12 6 79,501 13 8 282 12 g #
1812 - - | 72,917 15 9 - - - | 1,485 7 4 || 74,403 3 1 220 13 2 #
1813 - - | 66,920 15 — - * ſº 1,451 10 5 68,372 5 5 113 18 7 #
1814 - - 64,235 4 - || - - * 1,674. 1 1 65,909 5 1 || 23 2 7 #
1815 - - || 64,500 1 6 - ** ſº 1,874 13 4. 66,374 14 10 60 2 1 1 #
1816 - - 64,059 6 7 || - sº º 2,025 15 1 66,085 1 8 85 — —
1817 - - || 63,262 5 — - º º 2,047 17 10 65,310 2 10 | 120 2 6 #
1818 - - || 61,464 2 6 - - - 2,033 12 1 || 63,497 14 7 159 4 9 #
1819 - - 62,434 5 10 192 10 — 2,653 10 10 65,280 6 8 || 199 10 11 #
1820 - - || 63,504 5 5 530 9 3,240 7 10 | 67,275 2 4 266 3 8
The company's books do not, upon the face of them, furnish any means of distinguishing the
amount received for water supplied for domestic purposes, and for water used for the purposes
of trade or manufacture. It would be possible, in many instances, to state the rental for water
supplied to public buildings, but in others very difficult, from the mixed nature of the buildings
and of the supply. In any particular instance the rental may be readily stated, with such
observations as may serve to distinguish the parts of it which are respectively applicable to
domestic or public supply. . f
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 207
(3)—An Account showing the number of Dwelling Houses and other Buildings supplied with Arººs,
Water by the New River Company, in each of the Years 1804, 1809, 1814, and 1819, N ( º er
€W V
arranged in distinct Classes, according to the amount of Water Rates then charged thereon Waterworks.
respectively; and distinguishing the several Parishes in which the same were situated. -
- 1804 : 1809:
2– _^- ~\ll 2- —TN- →
WALKS OR TOISTRICTS. Tenants. Houses, WALKS OR DISTRICTS. Tenants. Houses.
Whitechapel - - - 2,366 5,890 || Whitechapel - sº - 2,667 6, 196
Cornhill - sº - - 2,302 2,954 || Cornhill - - i- - 2,258 2,910
Shoreditch Rºs - - 2,768 5,545 || Shoreditch - tº- - 3,039 5,699
Islington - * * - 3,090 4,727 || Islington - - . . sº - || 4,048 5,877
Moorfields *g - - 2,436 5,160 || Moorfields - s - 2,586 5, 197
St. Paui's º- - º 1,903 2,278 St. Paul's - sº - 13919 2,289
Clerkenwell - - - 2,461 4,312 || Clerkenwell - sº - 2,652 4,534
Holborn - * - - 2,O 11 3,241 || Holborn - • , = - 2,297 3,449
Fleet-street - - - 1,918 2,170 || Fleet-street - agº. - 2,558 2,909
Bloomsbury - - * 3,292 3,768 || Bloomsbury - - - 3,749 4,098
Covent-garden - - - 3,242 2,612 || Covent-garden ſº &º 2,485 2,795
Soho was a 4. - - 2,386 2,591 || Soho * - * - 2,437 2,574.
Mary-le-bone - - - 3,675 3,723 || Mary-le bone - Pºº- – 3,782 3,824.
St. James's se - - 2,464 2,576 || St. James's - º- - 2,646 2,748
Portland - * *- - 2,940 3,030 || Portland - * ... as - 3,677 3,853
On the Banks of the River - 149 IoA || On the Banks of the River - 160 106
i 38,403 # 54,681 42,960 59,058
1814: 1819:
2- _^_ ~\| 2- - ^— -N
WALKS OR I)[STRICTS. Tenants. Houses. WALKS OR DISTRICTs. Tenants. Houses."
Whitechapel - - - 2,391 4,246 || Shoreditch - sº - || 4,069 6,615
Shoreditch * * * - 2,655 5,282 || Islington - - - 6,825 9,313.
Islington - - - - 4,963 6,908 || Cornhill and St. Paul's - 4,472 6, 152
Cornhill and St. Paul's - ; 4,278 5,303 || Clerkenwell - - - 3,560 6,328
Finsbury and Clerkenwell - 4,402 8,100 || Holborn - - tºº - 3,866 5,883
Holborn - - - - 3,149 5,128 || Fleet-street - * - || 4,588 5,484.
Fleet-street - - - : 2,385 2,617 | Bloomsbury - º - 2,689 2,822
Covent-garden - - - ; 2,156 2,436 || St. Giles's - -- - || 3,036 3,352.
Bloomsbury - º - 3,794 3,794 || St. Martin's - sºn - 5,146 5,179
St. James's sº - - : 2,379 2,414 || On the Banks of the River - i55 I 2 s
rºund º &º -- ~ : 2,614 2,630 | 38,406 r sº
Soho - * - - 2,187 2,308 - *-*-*Assis
Mary-le-bone - wº - 2,886 2,957 º
On the Banks of the River - 1 52 124 Nº J. P. Rowe, Secy.
40,391 || 54,247 |



2O8 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
Appendix, (5)—STATEMENT of the supply of Water to the parish of Mary-le-bone, part of Soho, and
(C.) f - - part of St. George's Hanover-square. *
New River * & g . . º
Waterworks. IN the year 1767, there were four 7-inch mains leading to the above districts, all of which were
\–’ supplied from the low ponds at the New River head, but as that level was not sufficiently high to
give any tolerable supply, they were connected with the high pond, for a certain number of hours
each day (which pond is 32 feet above the level of the New River at Islington); the hours of their
connection being as under:-
1767:—Soho Main - - - - - - - - 21
Grosvenor Main - - - - - - 24
Oxford Main * - - - - - - 15
Portland Main - - - - - - - 6
- |
1768 – #|
|
66 hours each week through a 7-inch main
with a head of 34 feet.
1 ſ 7 ditto.
1773 – - - - - - - - - - - - 27
-- 150 ditto.
178o :— - - - - - - - - - -
sº
3
3
In this year another main was 54.
driven for Mary-le-bone only. 57
- 1787 *— * * gº {º º - fº sº tº sº gº *g 42
57 301 ditto.
79
When a fire happened in these districts, notice was sent up to the New River head, and the water
turned on, as the low pond would rarely rise out of the ground in the above districts.
(6.)—STATEMENT of the number of Strokes and the quantity of Water raised by the Engine
at the New River Head, in each Year from 1787 to 1809.
Number Qº of
of . . in Hogsheads
Strokes. of 54 gallons each.
In 178 - Islington supplied by engine gº &= tº- 2,061,502. 4,940,243
* ; - August 15th, waterwheel set to work complete 1,686,659 4,041,952
*- 1789 essag tº sº sº gº sº * * - * 700,213 1,678,019
- 1790 & sº * * ſº e- º - sº *s 823,359 1,973, 1 OO
– 1791 - - gº º *sº sº º º º 1,048,323 2,512,116
– 1792 - gº * sº mº sº - tº * 1,587,932 || 3,804,348
– 1793 - tºº ess tº gº gº * wº tº 1,510,646 3,620, 167
– 1794 - sº gº tºº i tº tºº wº tº º 2,301,570 5,515,566
– 1795 - - º * cº tºº ºs & tº 2,670,419 6,399,486
– 1796 - - - - - - - - - - 2,507,843 6,009,889
– 1797 - - - - - - , , : " " . " 2,690,989 6,448,776
– 1798 - Axle of water-wheel broke - tº is 2,936,156 7,036,308
– 1799 - - ditto * gº! tº - sº wº 3,409,682 8,171,087
– 1806 - Wheel at work again - sº gº gº 2,295, O42 5,499.926
– 1801 - - * tº sº gm º $ºs 2,517,407 || 6,032,812
– 1802 - sº tºº $ºss ga gº º gº tºº 2,852,616 6,835,906
– 1803 - Supplied the Hampstead tenants - tº 3,708,811 8,887,966
— ; No account of these years to be found. * **
New engine - 2,328,410 *r
– 1806 - tºº gº º gº "| Old ditto - 705,255 } 8,926,078
New engine - 1,968,017 ſº
– 1807 - - - - - Old ditto - 1,697,328 10,083,524
- © New engine - 1,978,722
* 1808 - Water wheel repaired - §. i. 4-º ; 55 !º
New engine - 1,976,766 .
– 1809 - - - us sº Ti Old ditto - 1,624, 292. jo,035,664
N. B. No allowance has been made in this calculation for the air admitted into the pumps,
which is generally considered to be equal to one seventh.
3. William Chadwell Mylne.
February 1821.
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 209
(7)—AN ACCOUNT showing the number and description of the Shares into which the Capital
Joint Stock of the New River Company is divided.
THE Joint Stock of the New River Company is divided into two moieties, each of them consisting
of thirty-six shares; one of these is denominated the Adventurers Moiety, and the other the King's
Moiety.
The property is freehold, and the shares are capable of subdivisions, and are in fact, at present,
subdivided in various proportions, as underneath.
TOTAL -
MOIETIES. Whole | 1 1 } | 1 I &
l IES Shares, |2 . /3 /4 |5 /6 /8 lio | */ * | shºes.
Adventurers - - 30 4. 6 2 2. 3 4. 1 - - || 36
King’s - tº - 27 13 - - 5 - - || - - 8 - - 8 36
TOTAL - || 57 17 6 7 2 3. 12 I 8 72
New River Office, •, .
19 February hº - - J. P. Rowe, Secy.
f (8.)—ANSWERS, in further explanation, to Questions put to W. C. Mylne, Esq. in his
Examination on the 16th February 1821.
Question 1–DETAIL of waterworks in days, weeks and months in 1810?–
Answer.—NO detailed account can possibly be given, none having been kept excepting
as to the working of the engine, which is already before the Committee.
2.—Difference of supply between 1810 and 1820?—
The town consumed the whole of the water in 1810, and even complained in the higher
districts of not having a sufficiency. In 1811 the quantity of water delivered by the New
River was ascertained to be 78,110,000 hogsheads per year, out of which it appears
10,035,664 hogsheads were raised for that portion of the western districts described in the
plan annexed. &
The supply given to the town in 1820 is about 67,000,000 hogsheads.
3.—The quantity of water raised by the expenditure of 400 chaldrons of coals?—
The quantity of water raised to the various heights (as the New River company’s tenants
are situated) by the expenditure of 400 chaldrons of coals, is about 9,516,736 hogsheads.
N. B. The whole of this quantity is for a high supply, in situations where no high service
existed in 1810.
4.—The number of houses farmed and the number of tenants —
The number of tenants are 38,535; the number of houses supplied is 52,082 : the number
of houses farmed is the difference between the one number and the other, namely, 13,547.
The quantity of coals purchased for the New River engine,
Chaldrons, Chaldrons,
In 181 o – tº-1 º - 535 In 1816 - sº tº - 1,02O
– 1811 - - - - 751 – 1817 - - - - 800
– 1812 - * sº – 51.4 — 1818 – i-º º - 853
– 1813 - tº * - 1,281 – 1819 - gº sº - 400
– 1814 - º º - 978 — 1820 - sº gº - 400
– 1815 - - - - 1,534
. The consumption of the coals will not give any idea of the quantity of water raised ;
for although a much larger quantity of water was required to be sent westward into the
disputed districts, I never recommended the enlargement of the mains or any expendi-
ture of capital for that object, being confident that an abandonment of some portion of the
town must ultimately take place; for as the expenditure in coals would terminate with the
supply, it was better to carry on the contest at a loss of ten or twelve per cent. than to
expend a capital which could not be transferred to any other situation under a loss of fifty
per cent.
706. - 3 G 5.—Com-
Appendix,
(C.)
New River
Waterworks.

21 O APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
Waterworks.
\
Appendix
(£)
New River
~~~
–)
5.—Comparison of original expense between an iron and wooden pipe of any
given diameter, and estimate of expense of probable repairs of each in the course of
thirty years?—
The price of a four-inch iron pipe, as contracted for by the New River company in 1814,
when laid down complete, was 11 s. 3d. per yard. --
The price of a wooden pipe of the same diameter, and at the same period, put down
complete, was 5s. 2d. per yard, which is less than half the amount of iron.
There is a saving, however, on the larger pipes, from the circumstance of pipes being made
in iron of any diameter, while it is impossible to obtain them in wood of a larger diameter
than seven inches.
It may therefore be considered, that the capital required to be expended in executing the
pipes of a waterwork in iron, will be double the amount required for establishing one with
Wooden pipes.
The durability of wood in a waterwork depends materially on the nature of the supply to
be afforded.
In 1810, the New River company had about 400 miles of wooden pipes in the streets of
London, and they put down, on an average, 20 miles a year in repairs, at which period they
did not profess to supply higher than the basement story, and none of their pipes were
affected by machinery, the mains being all supplied from reservoirs.
February 1821. William Chadwell Mylne.
(9.)—PAPER showing the Average Dividends of the New River Company for Five Years, from
1806 to 1810, and the Deficiency of Dividends from 1811 to 1826.
Dividends. s £. s. d.
1806 - sº sº gº gº º * ſº sº sº gº - 450 2 10 ;
1807 - * Eº tº ºs sº tº tºº sº tºº gº sº - 440 13 2
18O8 - tº º º gº se * = } ſº gºg & # tºº - 472 — I 1 #
1809 - - - - - - - - - - - - 472 5 8:#
1810 - * tº *sº º &mº gº gs dº * = , - - 465 — 6 #
£, 2,300 3 3 #
Average of five years - tºss tºº - £. 460 – 8
Income tax - sº sº º * dºs 46 — —
£.596 – 8 - - - say £.500.
INCOME TAX,
YEARS. DIVIDENDS. TOTAL. DEFICIENCY.
10 per Cent.
£. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d.
1811 - - - 282 12 9 # 28 5 3 # 31o 18 — # 189 I 11 #
1812 - tºº sº 220 13 2 # 22 I 3 # 242 1.4 5 # 257 5 5 #
1813 - $º sº 113 18 7 # 11 7 10 # 125 6 5 # 374 13 6 #
1814 - gº wº. 23 2 7 # 2 6 3 # 25 8 10 ; 474 11 1 #
1815 - gºs * 60 2 11 # 3 — 3 # 63 3 3 436 16 9
1816 - tº º 85 — — * * º gºn 85 — — 415 - —
1817 - tºms * ºt 12o 2 6% | - fº * * 12o 2 6 # 379 17 5 #
1818 - - - 159 4 9; - - - - | 159 4 93. 340 15 2 #
1819 - - - 199 10 1 1 # - - - - 199 10 1 1 # 300 9 — ;
1820 - &º * 266 3 8 tº º dº tºº 266 3 8 233 16 4.
£. 3,402 6 10%
The whole debt at present is £. 97,445. 12s. 1d. giving a proportion to each
share of £, 1,353. 8s. 2 #d. - - - say - tºº sº gº sº dº 1,350 — —
#. 4,752 6 10 +
ON THE suPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
2 11
(10)—AN ESTIMATE of the Capital engaged in the Works of the New River Company, taken
A. D. 1815; also, a further Estimate to Christmas A. D. 1820.
FOR the original purchase of the springs of Chadwell and Amwell, the remune-
Jration to the millers upon the river of Lea, the purchase of the land for the
formation of the river, the excavation of the ground, the levelling and |
puddling of banks, timber and brick wharfing at various places on the banks
of 80 miles in length, the embankment of various vallies, and the tunneling |
in two instances at £. 5. 5 s. per yard, run on 40 miles in length gº gº
To the erection of 157 brick, timber and iron bridges, at £. 100 each - *
Protecting fences where the river runs parallel with the roads, and cross fences
where the river is at right angles with the division of lands º sº tº
To making 58 proper culverts for taking away the rain water, at £. 140 each - |
To making three flashes - gºe * est lº gº tºº tºº tººl sº
To making five wastegates - gº º * &== {º tº ſº Eº *
To making two stopgates, with walksmen’s houses thereto - º sº - |
The value paid by act of parliament in 1734, for an additional portion of the
river Lea * iº - - ſº tºº §º ºt * * - -
To the purchase of Ware mill, as necessary for the government of the water
Formation of balance engine - sº º - - * *º- iº sº
Erection of marble gauge, and two other stone gauges and tumbling bays -
Ditto stopgate, and cut into New River - & *Lº tº tº - - J }
The purchase of 60 acres of land adjoining the river at various places - $º
The formation of reservoir, for the reception of the water when brought w
London gº tº sº tºº tº mº *-* tº wº gº tºs
The purchase of land for the original circular pond, excavation, wharfing, ſ
stopgate, &c. - ſº * ſº * * tº tº tº tºº
Ditto - - the outer head - - - dº - - - d” - - - d” - $º
Pitto - - the high pond - - - dº - - - d” - - - d” - - ||
Ditto - - the pond at Tottenham-court-road - - - - - - d” - tººl
Ditto - - the reservoir in St. John-street - - - - - - - d” – gº
Ditto - - the west pond in Hanging-field - - - - - - - d” - ſº
The formation of cisterns for the filtering of water previous .
to its passing into London ºf * Lº iº gº - } {. 8,000 — —
Waterhouse cistern, and dwelling thereon - sº * *
Middle - - d” - and house - +- $º iº * : º, 3,000 — —
Out - - - d.” - - - dº gºn &_º tº ſº gº tºº * 2,500 – - }
West - - dº - - - d.” gº sº dº tºº tºº * 2,000 — —
Duck - - dº - - - - tº sº sº tºº º tºº 500 — —
Green Man's d” - - - d” - with another small cistern adjoining 2,000 — —
Three high pond cisterns and two houses º * * * tºº tº 1,500 – —
Two cisterns in Pipe-yard, and house and sewer thereto tº 1,000 — —
Dalby's cistern and house - ſº sº tºº ſº gº wº- 1,000 — —
Bullock dº - - d." * tºº º - * * , , $º 2,000 — —
Two west pond cisterns and house gºs sº gºe tº - 750 – —
Two cisterms at Newington-lane, and one in Hopping-lane - 750 – —
To the various sewers from the above eighteen cisterns - - 1,800 – —
Machines necessary for the improved mode of supply as now required:
To the erection of three engine-houses, and engine workers
houses, &c. - gº tº sº * &º sº tºº - >{. 15,000
To various tunnels under ground, and wells for the pumps -
To the purchase of two large steam engines, and fitting up
the same complete - $º tº * gº * * gº
* ,
*
*
*
9,500
To a large water-wheel fixed in a house of brick, and brick cistern 4,500 - -
To the formation of a large brick sewer, from the tail of the 2.8oo
same to a considerable distance into Clerkenwell wº 2
To the purchase of various iron pipes, and the cost of laying down the same -
Two mains for connecting the high pond with the steam engine, 16 and 17 in.
Another, connecting the west pond with the out head, 24 in. - - -
Ditto - - - - , the steam engine with Tottenham-court reservoir, and
into town, 20, 18, 16, 15, and 14 in. - º º tºº tº wº º
Ditto - - - - the steam-engine with Tottenham-court-road, 18, 16, 14
and 12 in. - º tºº sº tº gº tº gº &º º «º **
Ditto - from the New River head to St. Giles's, 18in. all the way - tº
Ditto - - - - - d” - - - to Clerkenwell, 1o in. - {&m sº *
Ditto - from the reservoir in St. John's-street-road to Clerkenwell, 14
and 12 in. - gº º *E* sº tº * º &º º tº tº;
Ditto - - - - d” - - - - - - d" - to Goswell-street, 22 in. -
Ditto - - - - dº - - - - - - d" - to Shoreditch church, 19,
18, 17, 16, and 15 in. - * êº tºº gºs º tºº ſº tº - || ||
Ditto - from the Bullock cistern to Old-street-road, 12 in. and three others
from ditto, a short distance - - wº * • tº gº tº ~! {
Ditto - from the west pond to Gray's-inn-lane * * * * *
Ditto - from Tottenham-court-road reservoir to Oxford-street, 12 in. tº,
For other 10, 9, 8, 7, and 6in. mains in iron, and for service-pipes in iron of
5, 4, 3, and 2 in. gºd tºº gº sº &e gº sº * & -
For cocks of various sizes, as above mentioned - gº gº sº tº y
706.
smºsºmºsº |
369,600 —
15,700 —
8,120 —
7,500 —
3,500 —
9,000 —
3,250 *
9,000 sº
7,000 —
6,500 —
6,000 *.
12,000 —
16,000
12,500
16,000
5,000
2,000
=
31,800 —
125,715 8
(continued)
d.
*
*
Appendix,
(C.)
New River
Waterworks.
\--~~/

21 2 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
in. bore. yards.
£, S. d.
113,654 19 —

15,000 — —
5,000 — —
-
º º º e 3 - - 141,554 at 4: S.
Appendix, To the cost of 257 miles of wooden mains and services, now || -- 1993; at 5s.
(C.) in the ground, which has been estimated at £. 200,000 in § * * *:::: at ;
-: tº the followi •; gº º tºº - - 41,884 at 8 S.
New River iron and wood, at the following prices 7 - - 54,875 at 10 s.
Waterworks. To the cost of the various cocks for the before-mentioned mains and services -
Monies expended in the purchase of grants to lay pipes through private property
Ditto - - - for the repairs of sewers in laying the above pipes tº º
Ditto - - - for various sums expended in obtaining the necessary parlia-
mentary powers - * º -4 gº wº º - º -> -
£.
*
846,640 7 —
The above is a true copy,
J. P. Rowe, Sec'. Wºm Murdoch.
24 February 1821.
Further ESTIMATE of the Capital engaged in the Works of the New River
Year 1815 to Christmas 1820.
THE Capital employed in the New River works was estimated in 1815, at -
Since which there has been expended the following Sums:
Amount paid Fereday & Co. for iron since 1815 - º - ºr a - º
Pipe-laying account - - - - - since 1815 - tº - anº - *
Value paid for cocks - - - - - since 1815 - sº - º - *
Expenditure in machinery and buildings requisite for carrying on the works
since 1815 - tº- B- ºn - º º tºº * º tº
Value of pipes purchased of other companies when they abandoned the supply
of the district now served by the New River company - £. 102,042 6 3%
The portion of the above stated capital sold to various
companies where the New River company *} 58,940 — 3
the most distant districts - sº - º º
£.
In the amount here stated (£. 1,083°523. 12s. o #d.) there exists the value of
the wooden pipes in use in 1815, which have been rendered of no value by
the substitution of iron, to which the company was driven during the contest:
(signed) Wm. Chadwell Mylne.
Company, from the
£. S. d.
846,640 7 —
127,918 — —
52,994 — —
3,849 19 —
9,019 — —
43,102 6 — #
1,083,523 12 — #
128,654 19 —
954,868 13 — #
32,000 — —
922,868 13 — #
it amounts to - º º º - º - * £. 113,654 19 —
Also brass cocks sold - wº º --> º º * 1 ..o.º. * ==
#.
York Buildings - - - - -
w £.
March 28th, 1821. William C. Mylne.
(11*.)—ESTIMATE of Dividend that will be produced to the New River
Rates of 1810.
Company, by the

A. £. S. d.
Water Rents in 1820 sº - tºº º * sº - º º tºº 64,034 14 6
Deduct High services - gae º ºs- tºs - sº * sº - * 309 4, 6
º tº . e. £. 63,725 10 —
Add, To raise the rents at the west end of the district to 1810 :
On £. 23,720. 15s. 6d. - st - * * - £. 3,633 I 6
On £. 4,111, New houses º - tºn º º 630 — —
4,263 I 6
Deduct Empty houses, &c. 5 per cent. - - - 213 6
4,050 — —
6 1 O —
Rents for lands, &c. - as; º: à- * - pºs - tº- sº - § 7 10
w 1.015 17 10
High services - * º * º - * º age º gº 7 º % 6
1, 22 A 2
Deduct Expenses - º - ſº- º & gº £. 26,000 71,325 4.
Pipe and machinery capital, £. 372,098. 13s.
at 1 per cent. - - - - - - } 3,700
º - 29,700 — —
W. - £. 41,625 2 4
Making a dividend of - £.
About 4 per cent, on £, 14,000.
578 2 6.
-àrº-
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
213
(1.1".)—ESTIMATE of Dividend that will be produced to the New River Company, by an
Increase of 10 per cent, on the Rates of 1810.
- £. s. d.
Water Rents, 1820 - tºº tº 4-º * tºº tººl sº * *t º 64,034 14 6
Deduct High services - - tºº &º gº º gº tº sº º 309 4 6
£. 63,725 10 —
Add, To raise the rents at the west end of the district to 1810:
On £. 23,720. 15 s. 6d. tºº sº cº º gº - £. 3,633 I 6
On £. 4,111, New houses - gº º * gº * 630 — —
4,263 I 6
Deduct Empty houses, 5 per cent. - jº º * . 213 1 6
gº 4,050 – —
67, I O —
Rents for lands - gº tº * tº gºt º tºs º - sº § 7 10
71,015 17 10
Add 10 per cent. on £.67,775. 10 s. tººl sº sº gº wº wº 6,777 11 —
8 10
Deduct Expenses - ** Lºe gº tºº tº º £. 26,ooo 77,793
Pipe and machinery capital, £. 372,098. 13 s.l. OO
at 1 per cent. * gº sº - -ſ 337
*-**m-. 29,700 — —
e * 48,093 8 10
High services - tº & sº ſº sº º sº Jº gº º: 4, 6
£. 48,402 13 4
Making a dividend of - - £. 672
5 2
About 4% per cent, on £. 14,000.
(118.)—ESTIMATE of Dividend that will be produced to the New River Company, by an Increase
of 15 per cent. on the Rates of 1810.
£. s. d.
Water. Rents in 1820 tºº sº ſº * trº * gº sº gº º 64,034 14 6
Deduct High services - ſº * gº tº gº º º tº * 309 4 6
# * £. 63,725 10 —
Add, To raise the rents at the west end of the district to 1810 :
On £. 23,720. 15 s. 6d. - is tº gº tº- & £, 3,633 I 6
On £. 4,111, New houses sº sº. gº gº º - 630 — —
4,263 1 6
Deduct Empty houses, 5 per cent. - - sº - 213 l 6
4,050 - —
67,775 IO –
Rents for lands, &c. - tºſ - - *- ſº gº * tºº º 3,24O 7 iO
* w 71,015 17 10
Add 15 per cent, on £.67,775. 10 s. - - - - - - - lo, 166 6 6
81,182 4 4.
Deduct Expenses - - dº tº tº tº £º - £.26,000
Pipe and machinery capital, £. 372,098. 13s. } 3,700
at I per cent ſº * sº gº tº ſº -º- 29,700 – —
º 51,482 4 4
High services - - - - - - - - - - - 309 4, 6
£. 51,791 8 10
Making a dividend of - £. 7. 9 6 6
About 5 per cent. On £. 14,000.
3 H
(1.1".)—
Appendix,
(C.)
New River
Waterworks,
L^

214 APPENDIx To REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
(118)—ESTIMATE of Dividend that will be produced to the New River Company, by an
Appendix,
(C.) Increase of 25 per cent. on the Rates of 1810.
New River . £. s. d.
Waterworks. Water Rents in 1820 - * * * * * * * * * * 64,034 14 6
\- --~~~~ Deduct High services - - * tºº tºº dº º tº tºº gº 309 4 6
* £ 63,725 10 —
Add, To raise the rents at the west end of the district to 1810 :
On £. 23,720. 15s. 6d. gº - tºº gº gº £ 3,633 - 1 6
On £. 4,111, New houses - $º * tº tº sº. 630 — —
4,263 6
Deduct Empty houses, 5 per cent. gº * gº 213 1 6
*s-, --------sº 4,050 – —
67,775 10 —
Rents for lands - tº gº tº * - º e - gº * mº 3,240 7 I O
- * 71,315 17 10
Add 25 per cent. On £. 67,775. 10 s. - sº tº- *s *† * - 16,943 17 6
• 87,959 15 4
Deduct Expenses - mºſt sº tºº gº tºº º £. 26,000
Pipe and machinery capital, £. 372,098. 13 s. } OO
at 1 per cent. - tº sº - - - - , 3,7
29,700 — —
tº ſº 58,259 15 4
High services - gº dºg tº- sº sº - - º dºg º 309 4 6
f 58,568 19 10
Making a dividend of - - £. 813 9 I
About 5% per cent. on £. 14,000.
March 28th, 1821. J. P. Rowe, Secy.
(12.)—One Year's EXPENDITURE of the New River Company in 1820.
+.
Poundage - gº tº * sº gº a gº ºf tºº ſº Hº wº 3,300
Salaries * sº gº ſº gºs sº ſº sº sºr * sº gº 2,300
Street expenses - & º s tº gº º tº gº &º 2,500
Pipe-yard - tº tºn tº iº tº ſº tºº tº sº • tº 500
Water-house gº gºn tº * sº gº tº- ſº tº *º gº 2,400
River - sº º ſº º sº gºs tº sº º ſº sº sº 3,500
Engine tº * & gº ** tºº ſº º º tºº & tº 3OO
Coals - ſº sº tºn gºs - * gºs dº gº gº sº tºº 900
Stable tºº * º tºg * º lº tº jº tº Eº sº gº; 150
Paving - - º ſº tº, tº * ºn tº tº tººk tº ſº 1,600
Plumbers . sº tºº gº! º gº $º tº ſº as . tºº lºgº 3OO
Stationery, Printing, &c. - - * * same as sº sº gºt 250
Rents, &c. - tº. º ſº ſº º º sº tº-, iº ſº dº 3,500
Taxes - º tº tºº. tºº? tº tºº º sº $ a sº $34 42500
Committee - º gº? jº ſº rº, ſº tºº º ſº gº sº 500
Incidents, including Law ſº sº º º gº. - - º gºs 500
£. 27,000
Reserve mº º i º 3,700
- - £. 30,700
Deduct, on Paving and some other articles, which may be reduced - 1,000
£. 29,700
*
(13.)—PAPER containing Mr. Mylne's Answer in respect to the Durability of Cast Iron Pipes,
- (inserted at p. 47 of the Minutes.)
r— -
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 215
Appendix, (D.)
CHELSEA WATERWORKS. *
- Chelsea
The following PAPERS were delivered in by the Secretary to the Chelsea Waterworks Waterworks,
f - Company. \
(1)—ABSTRACT of an Account showing the Number of Dwelling Houses and other Buildings
supplied with Water by the Chelsea Waterworks Company in each of the Years 1804,
1809, 1814 and 1819, arranged in distinct Classes, according to the amount of the Water
Rates then charged thereon respectively; and distinguishing the several Parishes in which
the same were situated.
1804. RATES, SHILLINGS PER HOUSE PER ANNUM.
-> Under | 10| || 20ſ 30| | 40| || 50| || 60| || 70ſ 80/
PARISHES. & under & under & under & under & under & under & under & under
-: 19| 20/ 30| | 40ſ 50/ | 60/ | 70ſ 80/ | 90/
St. Luke Chelsea - tº * 66 238 217 | 167 34 24 9 5 2
St. Margaret and Saint John's 608 || 1,200 | 861 163 69 32 37 || 4 34
St. James's – tº- º tº- 2O 46 224. 43 17 6 29 l 6
St. George Hanover-square - 93 509 | 1,650 266 171 54 116 27 127
St. Mary Kensington - º 42 52 177 103 7 3 2 - - I - -
St. Martin-in-the-Fields sº ºn tº 2 38 IO 6 2 2 : - - }
St. Mary-le-bone - sº sº 3 35 | 34o 61 49 12 29 8 22
Number of Houses - || 832 2,082 3,507 || 813 353 133 217 45 192
100/ | 12O/ | 1.40ſ 150/ | 160/ 180/ | 210/ 250/ 31 O/
& under & under & under & under & under & under & under & under |& under
PARISHES-(repeated.) 110| || 130| | 150|| 160|| 170/ 190/ 220/ 260/ 32O/
St. Luke Chelsea - & º } 1 - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - ; - -
St. Margaret and St. John's - 5 6 - - - - I 1 : - - || - - - -
St. James's - º - - 6 4. - - - - : - - - - || - - I 1.
St. George Hanover-square - || 79 2O 7 I 3 I 6 3 } - -
St. Mary Kensington - * : * * * * * : - - - - - - es - | * * 1 sº as * * : * *
St. Martin-in-the-Fields gºe 1 * = 1 = - we was I - - - - - - - -
St. Mary-le-bone - º º I 2 I * * l - - ) - - I - - F - -
Number of Houses - || 93 : 33 8 } 6 2 6 4 || 1
32O *
w . ºl. Nº. one. TOTAL,
PARISHES-(repeated.) 330/ Dwellings. Buildings.
St. Luke Chelsea . tººt tº sº ºn 764 5 769
St. Margaret and St. John's - || - - 3,021 36 3,057
St. James’s - - - - || 1 398 8 406
St. George Hanover-square - } 3, 1 34. 37 3,171
St. Mary Kensington - * | * * 386 1. 387
St. Martin-in-the-Fields - I - - 63 4. 67
St. Mary-le-bone - wº- Bº - ºn 564 3 567
Number of Houses - 2 8,330 94. 84.4



(continued)
216 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
^.
(1.)—Number of Houses supplied with Water by the Chelsea Company—continued.
Appendix,
(D.) I 809. RATES, SHILLINGS PER HOUSE PER ANNUM,
Chelsea *------—
Waterworks. - 10| 2O/ 30/ 40/ 50/ 6o/ 70/ 8oſ
2–’ PARISHES. Under |& under & under & under & under & under & under & under & under


10| | 20ſ 30| | 40| || 50/ | 60/ | 70ſ 80ſ 90ſ
St. Luke Chelsea * * 41 404 || 338 251 77 44. 9 8 8
St. Margaret and St. John's - 557 | 1,168 823 234 52 35 26 15 16
St. James's * , as em 32 33 149 96 18 12 4. 1 || 8
St. George Hanover-square - 81 391 | 1,367 623 179 77 88 32 97.
St. Mary Kensington $º 8 95 || 101 | 189 8 4. 2 2 || - -
St. Martin-in-the-Fields sº i =e as º ºs as 4.1 19 2 3 4. I I
St. Mary-le-bone * sº I ºf tº 156 || 438 314 72 32 21 31 12
Paddington - gº mºs º ºs 6 4. 7 1 O 8 1 - - | - - | -
Number of Houses
725 | 2,251 3,264 1,736 416 208 154 1oo 142


,3 90ſ 100/ 110/ | 120/ | 130| || 140|| 160/ | 180/ | 200/
PARISHES-( repeated.) & under & under & under & under & under & under & under & under & under
100/ | 11o/ | 12O/ | 130| | 1.40/ | 150|| 170/ | 190ſ 210|
St. Luke Chelsea ſº * ... sº m i tº sº sº tº
1 sº sº sº tº gº ſº tºº ſº º *
St. Margaret and St. John's - 26 1 1 6 1 : - - 2 | - - I - -
St. James's - ſº gº tº ºn tº 4 : - - 8 - - 4. - - - - - -
St. George Hanover-square - 22 I 12 4. 62 2 2O I 1 3 I
St. Mary Kensington - lºg 1 || - - ) - - ) - - - - ? - - - - || - - , , -
St. Martin-in-the-Fields eme tº sº 2 : - - 1 * * * * * | * * | * is - -
St. Mary-le-bone - - - || 1 1 12 - - 9 - - - - - - - - - -
Paddington - ºg tº tº ºn tº 2 : - - 1 || - - 1 ſ - - I - - I - -
Number of Houses - || 60 133 5 88 3 25 13 3 1


21 of 230|| || 240ſ 250/ | 290ſ 320|| || 330ſ || 360/ | 370/
P ARISHES-(repeated. J & under & under & under & under & under & under & under & under & under
22O/ | 240ſ 250ſ 260/ | 300|| || 330/ | 340/ | 370/ 38oſ
w-
St. Luke Chelsea * gº! 1 : - - - - | * - I - - || - - } - - || - - ) - -
St. Margaret and St. John's - || - - - - || - - - - - - || - - - - || - - ) - -
St. James's - º tº - “ - || - - || - - | . 1 I i * * * * * } = ºr,
St. George Hanover-square - 6 1 2 • - 1 I 1 I 2
St. Mary Kensington -
§. Wººds - || | | | | | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
St. Mary-le-bone - gº ſº I was sº tº sº I gºs sº I I | - - || - - I - - - -
Paddington - ſº & = | * = | = • , = ** { * * | * * | * = | * - I - ... [ _ _
Number of Houses - 8 1 2 2 3 2 1. I 2
400ſ Number
PARISHES-(repeated.) & under | 420/ of Other TOTAL
410/ Dwellings. Buildings. º te
St. Luke Chelsea tº * | ºn tº gº tº 1,182 6 1,188
St. Margaret and St. John's - - - - - 2,963 50 3,013
St. James's - sº º tº I I 384 9 393
St. George Hanover-square - || - - - - 3,187 46 3,233
St. Mary Kensington - sº | * * * * * 41 O 1. 41 1
St. Martin-in-the-Fields tº tº sº * * 75 6 81
St. Mary-le-bone - - - || - - - 1,110 8 1,118
Paddington - gº tº - - - I - - 40 * gº 40
Number of Houses - 1 1 9,351 | 126 9,477

ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 217
(1.)—Number of Houses supplied with Water by the Chelsea Company—continued.
Appendix,
(D.)
1 814. RATES, SHILLINGS PER HOUSE PER ANNUM. Chelsea
- . Waterworks.
10| | 20ſ 30| | 40/ go) || 60) || 70ſ 80ſ -—'


PARISHES. Under & under & under & under & under & under & under & under & under
-- * 10| | 20| || 30| | 40/ | 50/ 60/ | 70ſ 80ſ 90/
St. Luke Chelsea - - * 98 || 732 || 491 288 84 52 14. 8 5
St. Margaret and St. John's - 566 | 1,366 911 243 57 38 29 | 1.3 16
St. James's - gº sº tº- 38 1 O | 137 73 21 1 O 6 8
St. George Hanover-square - 48 || 337 | 1,056 || 489 | 151 69 65 24 88
St. Mary Kensington - º 43 6O 81 188 8 3 3 3 } - -
St. Martin-in-the-Fields tº tº º &m iº 34 19 2 4. 3 1 2
St. Mary-le-bone tº sº 2 283 616 || 149 54. 37 16 | 18 4.
Paddington fººt º sº 1 O 88 24. 18 I 1 2 | - - i
Number of Houses - 805 || 2,876 3,350 | 1,467 || 378 214 || 138 75 | 120

90| || 1 ooſ 11oſ | 12O/ | 130ſ 140/ | 160/ | 180/ | 200/
PARISHES-(repeated.) & under |& under & under & under & under & under & under & under & under
* tº. 100ſ 110ſ 12O/ | 130| | 1.40ſ 150/ | 170ſ 190ſ 21 of
St. Luke Chelsea tºº tº sº me mº sº gº º 1 = tº sº * : * * | *m ºn as as
St. Margaret and St. John's - 22 3 1 4. 1 : - - 2 I - - I - -
St. James's - - º gº i º ºne 3 - - 8 - - 4 : - - - - - -
St. George Hanover-square - 18 1 1 O 4. 49 I 16 18 2 1.
St. Mary Kensington - wº 1 | * - - - | * ~ | * - I - - || - - ) - - - -
St. Martin-in-the-Fields tº sº gº 2 | - - 1 - - I - - - - ? - - ) - -
St. Mary-le-bone - " - || 1 3 7 - - || - - - - 1 - - 1 - - - -
Paddington º use ºn 2 I 4 - - - - || - - || - - - - - -
Number of Houses - 56 126 9 63 2 21 2O 2 I



210| || 23of 240| || 250| || 290| || 320|| || 330| || 360/ | 370/
PARISHES-(repeated. J & under & under & under & under & under & under & under & under & under
', 22O/ | 240ſ 250/ 260/ 300| || 330ſ 340) 37oſ 38of
St. Luke Chelsea - iº ºn I - - I - - I - - I - - I - - I - - I - - I - " -
St. Margaret and St. John's - || - - || - - || - - || - - - - - - || - - - - || - -
St. James's *s sº sm º ºn ses ºn 1 m sº I 1 || - - ) - - 1 || - -
St. George Hanover-square - 7 - - 1 2 : - - l 2 2 i
St. Mary Kensington - - || - - || - - || - - || - - || - - || - - - - - - - -
St. Martin-in-the-Fields gº 1 - - I - - I - - I - - I - - I - - I - , t = -
St. Mary-le-bone sº * tº gº 1 - - I - - I - - - - I - - I - - ) - -
Paddington º cº * * * * | * * * * * : * * | * *s i = ma I am as I a as # = s.s.
Number of Houses sº 9 1 l 3 I 1 2 3 *— I
- 400ſ Number Other
PARISHES-(repeated.) º 420ſ prie Buildings. TOTAL.
St. Luke Chelsea tºº ** | * * * * * * 1,774 6 1,78o
St. Margaret and St. John's - - - - - 3,272 52 3,324.
St. James's - - sº tºº l } 327 7 334
St. George Hanover-square - - - - - 2,562 38 2,600
St. Mary Kensington - * I wºt ºn nº was 390 1 391
St. Martin-in-the-Fields * | * * * * = 69 6 75
St. Mary-le-bone $º * | * * * *s are 1,201 5 1,206
Paddington tº tºº tº º ºs gº ºn 152 tºg - 152
Number of Houses º l I 9,747 1 15 9,862
|

3 I . (continued)
218
APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
Appendix,
(i).)
Chelsea
Waterworks.
\------
~2
(1)–Number of Houses supplied with Water by the Chelsea Company—continued.
181 9. ATES, SHILLINGS PER HOUSE PER ANNUMſ.
Under 10/ 2O 30 40/ 50 60
PARISHES. 1 O | & under & tº. & *. & under & *. & ‘.
2O/ 30/ 40/ 50/ 6o/ 70/
St. Luke Chelsea - - , is 83 659 845 445 275 . 78 77
St. Margaret and St. John's - 233 1,719 1,067 752 146 49 48
St. James's - - dº as tº * | *s * 8 29 9 3 3
St. George Hanover-square - 11 214. 335 366 116 27 38
St. Mary Kensington - ſº 34 19 56 173 127 7 5
St. Martin-in-the-Fields sº I ºf * I se tº 45 96 32 13 27
Number of Houses tºº 361 2,611 2,356 1,861 705 177 198
70/ 80/ 90/ loo/ 1 10ſ 120/ 130/
PARISHES-(repeated.) & under & under & under & under & under & under & under
- 80/ 90/ 1Ooſ I loſ 120/ 130/ 140||
St. Luke Chelsea sº tº 9 1 I 3 8 gº º I sº *
St. Margaret and St. John's - 31 25 6 15 24. 5 I.
St. James's - ſº gº º 2 3 3 3 1. * * tº. l
St. George Hanover-square - 1 5 I 14. iſ ºn tº $ tº tºº 17
St. Mary Kensington - º 4. I 2 1 gº tº tº * sº tº
St. Martin-in-the-Fields º 9 7 5 7 tº tºº 5 I
Number of Houses - 56 52 2O 48 25 I 1 2O
140/ 150/ 160/ 180/ 200/ 21.0/ 250/
PARISHES-(repeated.) & under & under & under & under & under & under & under
150/ 160/ 170/ 190/ 210/ 220/ 260/
St. Luke Chelsea - tº º gº tº tº tº sº I sº sº ºf tº ºne wº I tºº *
St. Margaret and St. John's - 2 7 I * gº 1 2 º iº
St. James's - gºa tº-º ss ºf : º, 3 gº º I I tº tº ºs gº
St. George Hanover-square - || - gº 3 - gº sº gº & tº f I
St. Mary Kensington - tº º ºs gº ſº * I sº tº I gº as H º * tº & sº ſº
St. Martin-in-the-Fields tº ſº tº as * 1 sº ©º l tºº * * * gº
Number of Houses - 2 13 2 I 3 4. I
26o / 300| 310/ Number Oth
PARISHES-(repeated.) & under & under & under 630/ of Buil i. , TOTAL
270/ 310/ 32O/ Dwellings, g8.
St. Luke Chelsea gº * r * gº i = gº º ºs * tº - || 2,495 6 2,501
St. Margaret and St. John's - - tºº i sº sº tº - || 4, 135 7O || 4,205
St. James's - - - as ºn * | * tº tº tº I. 71 3 74.
St. George Hanover-square - 1. tºº tº I * - || 1,152 7 1,159
St. Mary Kensington - as tº * | *sº sº tº are ºn * 429 1. 439
St. Martin-in-the-Fields sº ºn jº º gº gº i º * ºf tºs 249 14. 263
Number of Houses • I I 1 1. 8,531 I Ol 8,632






Office of Chelsea Waterworks, \
16th March 1821.
ſ
J. G. Lynde,
Secretary.
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 219
(2.)—COPIES of all Royal Charters, Statutes and other Authorities, by virtue of which the
Chelsea Waterworks Company is authorized to supply the Metropolis, or any part
thereof, with Water.
8 Geo.I. c. 26–An Act for better su pplying the city and liberties of Westminster, and
parts adjacent, with Water. -
9 Geo. I. 8 March.-The Charter of the Governor and Company of Chelsea Water-
works.
11 Geo. I. 29 July.—Warrant to the Governor and Company of Chelsea Waterworks, to
convert into and use for reservoirs two ponds in St. James's Park.
12 Geo. I. 9 September.—Warrant to the Governor and Company of Chelsea Water-
works, for making a reservoir in the Walnut Tree Walk, in Hyde Park.
2 Geo. II. 9 June.—Warrant to the Governor and Company of Chelsea Waterworks, for
enlarging the reservoir in St. James's Park. -
31 May 1733–Warrant allowing £. 150 per annum to the Governor and Company of
Chelsea Waterworks, for supplying the reservoir in the Paddock at Kensington, and Palace
there, with Water.
18 January 1733-4.—Warrant to the Governor and Company of Chelsea Waterworks,
for taking off the waste water from the Great Canal or Serpentine River in Hyde Park.
7 Geo. II. October 11.—Power for increasing the joint stock of the Governor and Com-
pany of Chelsea Waterworks. -
21 August 1735–Warrant allowing £.50 per annum to the Governor and Company of
Chelsea Waterworks, for supplying with water the new Treasury, and houses, offices and
stables belonging thereto.
9 Geo. II. 14 September 1735–His Majesty's Letters Patent, giving and granting to the
Company license and authority to discharge their bond debts, by taking in subscriptions
for new shares from the members of the Corporation only, at any rate or price under £. 20
per share.
1o Geo. II. 17 June.—Warrant to the Governor and Company of Chelsea Waterworks,
for enlarging their reservoir and other works in Hyde Park. -
49 Geo. III. c. 157–An Act for amending an Act for better supplying the city and
liberties of Westminster, and parts adjacent, with Water, and for enlarging the powers
thereof.
No other Charters, Statutes or regular Warrants appear in the Office, but some Treasury
Letters have been issued from time to time, of which a return (if required) will be made as
soon as possible.
(3.)—AN ACCOUNT showing the number and description of Shares into which the Capital
Joint Stock of the Chelsea Waterworks Company is divided; and the nominal Value of
such Shares.
2,000 Shares, of £. 20 each, raised by Charter, bearing date the 8th day of £. s. d.
March 1723 -> tº tº ſº º tº ' ºr tºº * º 40,000 — —
2,000 Shares, of £, 1o each, raised by His Majesty's Letters Patent, bearing
date the 11th day of October 1734 º * tº- - º tº 20,000 — — .
4,000 Shares - - - - - - - - - - £. 60,000 — —
Eaglanation :-The Chelsea Waterworks were erected in 1723. The proprietors expended in the
first instance a capital of £.60,000 in establishing their works, which for the first thirteen years paid
no dividend, and for the next four years, (from 1737 to 1740) £. 1,600 per annum. The dividend was
then suspended till 1753, the Company's concern during that time barely defraying their current
expenses. From 1753 to 1771 they divided £. 1,200 per annum; from 1771 to 1797 they divided
£. 1,600 per annum; from 1797 to 1807, £. 2,000 per annum, and from that time to the present £. 2,400
per annum.
£. s. d.
Thus:—The original subscription expended - -- º gº tº º | 60,000 — —
Interest at 5 per cent. from their establishment in the year 1723 to
1820, being 97 years - - - - - £, 291,000 — —
Deduct the dividends paid to the proprietors in that
period - - - - - - nº - i 18,400 — —
– 172,600 – —
£. 232,600 — —
Deduct the present estimated value of freehold, engines, mains, reser-
voirs, &c. - tº * - * º º º sº wº tº 50,000 — —
Difference to the proprietors between the dividends received, and
5 per cent, on the original subscription - - - - - £. 182,600 — --
Appendix,
(D.)
Chelsea
Waterworks.
\–J

22 O APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
Appeadix, (4)—AN ACCOUNT of the Sums paid in Dividends to the Proprietors of the Chelsea Waterworks
(D.) Company, in each Year from 1789 to the latest period to which the same can be made up ;
specifying the Rates of the Dividends, and whether the payments were made dis-
wº. charged of Property Tax. **
`------ ~~
N × 1789 - - Eight Shillings per Share, on 4,000 Shares - º - £. 1,600 — —
1790 - - - - d” - " - d” - - - d” - sm f* - - - 1,600 — —
1791 - - - - d” - - - d” - - - d” - - - - - - 1,600 — —
1792 - - - - d” - - - d” - - - d” - - gº º - - 1,600 — —
1793 - - - - d° - - - d” - - - d” - - gºs - - - 1,600 — —
1794 - - - - d” - - - d” - - - d” - * tº º º - 1,600 — —
1795 - - - - d° - - - d.” - - - d” - tº- gº - - tºs 1,600 * *s
1796 - - - - d” - - - d” - - - d” - º- tºº º - - 1,600 — —
1797 - - Nine Shillings - d” - - - d” - - º gº - - 1,800 — —
1798 - - Ten Shillings - - d” - - - d” - - *s - - - 2,000 — —
1799 - - - - d” - - - d” - - - d” . tº- sº tºº º - 25000 —
1800 - - - - d” - - - d” - - - d” - - - - - - 2,000 — —
• 1801 - - - - d” - - - d” - - - d” - * tº are - - 2,000 — —
1802 - - - - d” - - - d” - - - dº - - - * - - 2,000 — —
1803 - - - - d” - - - d” - - - dº - wº- º * - - 2,000 — —
1804 - - - - d” - - - d” - - - dº - tº ºs - - - 2,000 — —
1805 - - - - dº - - - d” - - - d” – * = - - - 2,000 — —
1806 - - - - d” - - - d” - - - dº - * ~ * tºº -*. – 2,000 — —
1807 - - - - d” - - - d” - - - d” - - º sº - - 2,000 — —
1808 - - Eleven Shillings - d” - - - d” - ** as - - - 2,200 — —
1809 - - Twelve Shillings - d” - - - dº - tº sº. º 4- - 2,400 — —
1810 - - - - dº - - - d” - - - d” - tº sa º * - 2,400 — —
1811 - - - - dº - - - d” - - - dº - * * º - - 2,400 — —
1812 - - - - dº - - - d” - - - dº - - - - - - 2,400 — ––
1813 - - - - dº - - - d” - - - d” - * tº * - - 2,400 - --
1814 - - - - d” - - - d.” - - - d” - - mºs - - - 2,400 — —
1815 - - - - d” - - - d” - - - d” – ºf sº - - - 2,400 — —
1816 - - - - dº - - - d" - - - d” – tº gº tº wº - 2,400 — —
1817 - - - - d" - - - dº - - - dº - tº gº - - - 2,400 — —
1818 - - - - d” - - - d” - - - d” - tº gº * * - 2,400 -- —
1819 - - - - d” - - - d.” - - - dº - * * - - - 2,400 — —
1820 - - - - d” - - - dº - - - d” – tº sº. º Q- - 2,400 — —
All the payments were made to the proprietors discharged of property tax, and
capital of £. 60,000, the original sum subscribed.
li
p
O
I).
3.
(5.)—AN ACCOUNT of the Gross Income of the Chelsea Waterworks Company, in each Year from
the Year 1800 to the latest period to which the same can be made up ; distinguishing therein
the amount of the Sums received respectively for Water supplied for Domestic Purposes, for
Water supplied to Public Buildings, and for the purposes of Trade and Manufactures, and
for Water used in watering Roads or Streets, from the Income derived from other sources.
# º rº º rº. º, E. º, p. º
rom Water !'rom Water gº * e €rl VGC1 [I'OIIl
3. supplied for supplied to *. wº. oth. §. GROSS INCOME.
º- Domestic Purposes. |Public Buildings. Manufactures. &c. Wide Note %
£. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. S. d.
1800 9,563 6 6 796 — — . 239 16 — nil. 1,637 19 4| 12,237 I lo
1801 || 9,771 9 — 795 – — 270 10 — nil. 1,969 18 11 12,806 17 11
1802 g,837 1 7 785 12 — 268 8 — nil. 2,330 13 10 | 13,221 15 5
1803 || 9,990 15 1 788 2 – 270 19 — nil. 2,042 4 8| 13,092 – 9
1804 || 10,028 8 6 907 16 – 284 7 2– nil. 2,479 14 6 13,700 1 –
1805 10,431 5 — 916 7 — 365 11 — nil. 1,895 13 10 | 13,608 16 lo
1806 11,820 lo 9 || 1,018 14 – 390 10 — 50 — — 1,942 5 3 15,221 10 —
1807 12,078 11 3 | 1,030 15 – 392 7 — | 72 1 — | 1,922 11 1 | 15,496 5 4
1808 12,513 — — | 1,053 9 – 410 3 — | 137 5 -— 1,975 2 — 16,088 19 —
1809 || 13,069 I 3 | 1,059 9 – 41.1 5 – | 162 10 — 2,129 5 5 | 16,831 Io 8
1810 13,626 5 6 || 1,090 1 1 — 456 – 6 || 336 13 — 2,117 6 2 | 17,626 15 2
1811 13,388 16 3 | 1,208 13 — 463 — — 362 5 — 1,760 1 1 1 0 || 17,183 6 1
1812 12,890 15 —- | 1,208 9 — 430 5 6 274 3 6 | 1,398 2 2 | 16,201 15 2
1813 12,831, 5 10 | 1,216 1 – 457 — — 70 18 — | 1,267 9 11 15,842 14 9
1814 11,574 7 2 | 1,212 3 — 375 17 — 92 12 — 1,208 15 5 14,463 14 7
1815 10,437 9 6 | 1,372 10 — 347 8 — 52 11 — 1,327 19 7 || 13,537 18 1
1816 || 11,191 – 6 1,230 14 – 298 10 — | 181 12 — 1,737 12 10 || 14,639 9 4
1817 10,840 11 2 | 1,239 13 — 306 18 — 545 16 — 1,439 – 7 14,371 18 9
N. 1818 9,920 14 10 | 1,026 17 – 285 12 — 468 8 — 1,383 3 1 || 13,084 14 11
1819 11,556 17 6 | 1,027 13 – 431 19 — 569 8 — 1,985 17 11 || 15,571 15 5
1820 11,682 19 9 | 1,015 18 – 452 19 — 596 18 — 1,401 13 2 | 15,150 7 11
* This source of income arises from lands, wharfs and warehouses hired by the Company on a
lease, which expires at Lady-day 1823, underlet to others; money at times laid up for repairs and
improvement of the works, which has been wholly expended therein; £.80 per annum for freehold
land, and £. 24. 11s. 10 d. interest upon Old South Sea Annuity Stock.
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. as:
(6.)—COPIES of all Deeds, Contracts, Undertakings and other instruments in Writing,
touching the supply of any part of the Metropolis with Water, made and entered
into by and between or on behalf of the Chelsea Waterworks Company, since
1st of January 1815.
ART1cLEs of agreement between the Commissioners of His Majesty's Woods, Forests
and Land Revenues and the Governor and Company of Chelsea Waterworks, for
erecting stand-pipes and watering the roads in the Green Park, St. James's and Hyde
Parks – sº sº * -º sº tº wº sº sº * - - £. 460 per annum.
No other deeds, contracts, undertakings, or other instruments, touching the supply of
water to any part of the metropolis appear in the office since the 1st of January 1815.
Office of Chelsea Wºº)
22d February 1821. J. G. Lynde, Secretary.
(7.)—DETAIL of Waterworks in Days, Weeks and Months, in 1810—Difference of Supply
between 1810 and 1820.
A GENERAL account can be rendered, as under, of the quantity of water supplied by the
Chelsea Waterworks, but not of the quantity delivered to every particular house in each
day or month ; .
For the service of the upper district, including Paddington, part of the parish of
St. Mary-le-bone, the upper part of the parish of St. George Hanover-square, and
part of the parishes of St. Martin-in-the-Fields and St. James's Westminster:
For the service of the lower district, including Knightsbridge, Brompton and Hans-
Town, Chelsea and Pimlico, the parishes of St. John, and St. Margaret West-
minster, and part of the parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields.
QUANTITY OF WATER SUPPLIED IN THE YEARS,
r ~~
2- —N
... gººse 1804: 1809: 1814: 1820:
- - Hogsheads. Hogsheads. Hogsheads. ' Hogsheads.
Upper district ſº dº 4,092,710 4,615,540 7, 193251 O sº
Lower district - - || 4,318,030 4,605,550 5,729,440 7,533,900
ToTAL - - - 8,410,740 9,221,090 12,922,950 7,533,900
Tho' Simpson, Inspector General.
February 28th 1821.
(8.)—QUANTITY of WATER capable of being supplied by the Chelsea Waterworks
Company; also, the Number of Services.
17,630,960 hogsheads per annum, with their present engines.
25,202,520 hogsheads per annum will be enabled to supply, when the new engine, about to
be erected, is completed.
IN the district at present supplied by the Chelsea Waterworks Company, there are 55
services, part of which are supplied three times, part four, five, six, and part seven times per
Week. Previous to the year 1810, some of the above services were only supplied twice, and
none more than three times per week. - — , -
March 6th 1821. Thos Simpson, Inspector General. ..
}
\
\–
: Appendix,
(D.)
Chelsea
Waterworks.
TS-2"
~/

3 K
22:2 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
* (9.)—ESTIMATE of the annual Expense of Repairs of the Establishment of Chelsea
© Waterworks, for the next Twenty Years; as far as it can be calculated.
Chelsea
Waterworks.
--- THE Engineer of the Chelsea Waterworks submits, with great deference to the Com-
- mittee, that it is impossible to give the estimate required by the Order of the 26th ultimo;
as within the period therein mentioned, the lease granted to the Governor and Company
in 1723 will expire, and very extensive premises and works will be given up to Lord Grosvenor,
and it has been, in consequence, already determined by the court, to erect a new steam
engine on their freehold property, and that the variation in the probable price of labour and
materials, the necessary charges in the works, and the chance of casualties, are incapable
of calculation.
By order of the Court of Directors,
* - Tho' Simpson, Inspector General.
March 6th 1821. -
(10.)—RETURN to an Order, for The Rental and Rate of Interest on the Capital of
the Chelsea Waterworks.
WHAT interest would the rental of 1817, at the rate of 1810, afford, after paying
the annual expense?—
r £. s. d.
Expense in the year 1817 - - * - * º * tºs - 1 1,011 12 1 O
Rental of 1817 without increase - iº wº- * sº º º - 10,084 17 11
Rather more than 1 # per cent, minus, without providing for a dividend. £. 926 14 11
No allowance has been made for extraordinary repairs, and ultimate renewal of certain
parts of the works, beyond the amount provided in the ordinary expenses of the establishment.
What interest would the increased rate yield upon the first capital of £.60,000,
after paying expenses and funding the sum necessary for extraordinary repairs?—
- - £. s. d.
Rental of 1820 increased 25 per cent. on 1810 º tº- - -- - 13,748 11 9
Expense, average of three years, as per Account N° 12 - - - - 12,255 — 11
Nearly 2 # per cent. on £, 60,000. £. 1,493 10 10
No allowance has been made for extraordinary repairs and ultimate renewal of certain
parts of the works, beyond the amount provided in the ordinary expenses of the establishment.
What interest would the increased rate yield upon the increased capital of
f. 138,648, after paying expenses and funding the sum necessary for extraordinary
repairs — *
Rather more than one per cent. Surplus as above - * tºº - £, 1,493. 10, 10.
No allowance has been made for extraordinary repairs, and ultimate renewal of certain
parts of the works, beyond the amount provided in the ordinary expenses of the establishment.
(11.)—AMOUNT of the Sum necessary to be funded annually for extraordinary Repairs
and ultimate Renewal of certain parts of the Chelsea Waterworks, beyond the
Amount provided in the Ordinary Expenses of the Establishment.
THIS Return having engaged the serious attention of the court of directors, they have
ordered that it be submitted to the Committee of the House of Commons, that it is utterly
impossible for them to estimate with any accuracy what may be necessary to lay up for the
above purpose, viewing the expiration of their lease with Lord Grosvenor, which must
necessarily produce great expenses in the removal of their works and otherwise, and the
various casualties to which the undertaking is subject. -
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIs.
223
(12)—AN ACCOUNT showing the Expense of the Chelsea Waterworks for Three Years, from 1818 to 1820,
both Years inclusive, with an Average thereof.

Directors Appearances - º
Land, Rent and Taxes - tº
Salaries and Poundage - -
Office Expenses and Contin-
gencies º gº &-º º
Coals for the Steam Engines -
Carpenters and Labourers for
Day-work – gº sº *
Pipes and Pipe Hoops (capital) -
Paviors and Plumbers Work, and
repairing and driving Pipes -
Watering the Parks - -º- ſº
Engines, Mains, Cuts and Re-
servoirs º ea gº *
Willows for weeding, draining,
cutting and planting - En
Iron Pipes for Street-work -
:6.
-
1818. 1819. 1820. TOTAL. AVERAGE.
£. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d.
262 g a 314 19 — 239 19 3 817 7 5 272 9
630 1 1 711 19 4. 687 6 4 2,029 6 9 676 8 11
989 12 2 1,078 lo 2 1, 151 5 3,219 9 9 1,073 3 3
969 5 3 786 2 6 1,060 18 1 2,816 5 10 938 15 3
1,435 16 9 820 14 8 949 12 8 3,206 4 1 1,068 14 8
732 6 — 469 16 11 395 16 10 | 1,597 19 9 532 13 3
692 18 7 1,041 17 6 661 12 3 2,396 8 4 798 16 1
2,497 19 7 2,953 17 7 2,431 — 5 || 7,882 17 7 2,627 12 6
275 — — 275 — — 275 — — 825 — — 275 — —
1,790 18 11 1,312 – 1 1,328 19 1 4,431 18 1 1,477 6 —
146 14. 4. 131 8 6 105 9 3 383 12 1 127 17 4
677 Io 4 6,196 1 7 285 1 11 7,158 13 10 2,386 4 7
11,100 12 2 16,092 7 10 9,572 3 6 86,765 3 6 12,255 – 11
tsaºrasses
(13.)—ABSTRACTED WALUATION of certain parts of the Chelsea Waterworks, erected since
the Year 1734, now in use, and actually necessary for the supply of the Tenants.

ENGINES AND BUILDINGS:
Steam Engine erected in 1803 and 1804, including the Fixing,
Boiler, &c. -
Building, including Foundation, Well an
d Brickwork
-
Steam Engine erected 1809 and 1812, including the Fixing,
Boiler, Wells and Suction, and the provision for the second
Engine - t-
Building, including Excavation, Foundation and Brickwork
IRoN MAINS AND SERVICES :
Amount of Iron Pipes in use in present district, laid since
173 -4 -
734 * * * * * *
Eighteen-Inch Main from New Engine to Pimlico laid in
1811 * -
WooDEN MAINS AND SERVICES :
Amount of Wooden Pipes, being the extension of Mains and Services beyond
what were in the whole works in the year 1734
CoCKS AND WALves :
Amount of Cocks beyond what were in the whole works in the
Freehold purchased in the year 1793, cost -
First Subscriptions, not included in the above -
Office of Chelsea Waterworks, l
March 30, 1821.
ſ
-
*
£. s. d. £. d.
4,537 12 5
1,000 - –
5,537 12 5
9, 131 i 2 11
15,033 10 6
24,165 3 5
29,975 - 11
5,690 15 8
*re- 35,665 16 7
º - gº 6,000 --- —
year 1734 * 4, 1 OO — —
es º -> 3, 179 9 4
º - +--> Q,000 — —
£. 138,648 1 9
J. G. Lynde, Secretary.
224 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
\-
Appendix,
(D.)
Chelsea
Waterworks.
~~~~
(14)—RETURN to an Order, for A COPY of the RULES acted upon by the Chelsea
Waterworks Company, in respect of the distinction between High Services and Low,
Extra Services and Ordinary ; and also a List of the Trades which are considered as
subject to an Extra Charge in respect of their Consumption of Water, or in any
other respects; and the Periods during which these Rules have been acted upon;
as far as it can be ascertained. --
The distinction between High Services and Low.
In private dwellings hitherto, no distinction has been made; the company, till lately, not
professing to give high service. - -
In brewhouses one penny per barrel is charged if delivered into a low situation, and two
pence per barrel if the water be delivered from twenty to thirty feet high.
In manufactories, distilleries, &c. if delivered into a cistern below ten feet, one halfpenny
per barrel; above ten feet and not exceeding twenty feet, one penny per barrel.
The distinction between Extra Services and Ordinary.
If the supply be given to any house from the main, or be kept on longer than necessary for
the general service of the street, or be given through lead pipes of more than the usual
bore of three quarters of an inch, or by more lead service-pipes than one, or to water-
closets, gardens, fish-ponds or fountains, or if the water be used for other than common
domestic purposes.
N. B.-Water-closets were charged, before the establishment of the new companies, 12 s.
per annum each, without regard to high or low service; but from that period to the
present time they have not been charged as an extra service.
A List of the Trades which are considered as subject to an Extra Charge in respect of their
Consumption of Water, or in any other respects.
Taverns, hotels, public-houses, watering-houses, wine-merchants, stable-keepers, brewers,
vinegar brewers, distillers, dyers, paper-stainers, tanners, soap-makers, bottle-dealers,
schools, fishmongers, cook-shops, tripe-boilers, cow-keepers, large potatoe merchants, laun-
dresses hiring women to work, bricklayers and plasterers yards, basket-makers yards, coach-
makers, slaughter-houses, bone-boilers, gas lights, operative chemists, baths.
These rules have been acted upon with such variations from time to time as occasional
circumstances may have required, during the whole period the present inspector general has
had the duty of rating houses, which is about thirty years.
Office of Chelsea Waterworks, ) - - • Arſ r, re nº z- + r. as
March 26th 1821. } J. G. Lynde, Secretary.
(15.)—PARTICULARS of the Method of rating the Tenants of the Chelsea Waterworks
Company in the year 1810:—(inserted in the Minutes, p. 48.)
(16)—COMPARISON of original Expense between an Iron and Wooden Pipe of Four
Inches diameter:—(inserted in the Minutes, p. 49.)
(17)—REMARKS on the Comparison of the original Expense between an Iron and
Wooden Pipe of Four Inches diameter, and Expense of probable Repairs of each,
during the course of Thirty Years:—(inserted in the Minutes, p. 49.)
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS,
225
Appendix (E.)
YORK BUILDINGS WATERworks.
*===º
The following PAPERS were delivered in by the Secretary to the York Buildings
Company.
(1)–AN ACCOUNT of the Gross Rental of the York Buildings Waterworks Company, and
the Sum received for Water supplied from the Year 1800 to 1818.
RENTAL.
Years.
1800 - iº tº º & 3, 1 OO
1801 - gº º * = . tº 3,200
1802 - - - - - 3,150
1803 - tºº wº gº gº 3,001
1804 - wº * -º * gº 3,000
1805 - tº tº • * tº 3,200
1806 - tº gº gº gºt 3,209
1807 - - - - - 3,258
1808 - *> º , ºt gº 3,264
1809 - - - - - 3,405
1810 - - - - - 3,437
3.81.1 - aº wº-ºf gº * 334-17
1812 - tºº º tº sº 3,458
1813 – gº tºss ſº tº 4,071
1814. - - - - 4,303
1815 - §º tºº gº ſº 4,289
1816 - zº º tº Jº 4, 149
1817 - * : wº tºg gºs 3,922
1818 - Jºs wº grº wº 3,813
8.
I
.
:
:
i
18OO
18O1
18O2
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
181 O
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
Years.
Appendix
(E.)
York Buildings
- U waterworks. _/
RECEIVED.
. s. d.
ſº wº º 2,604. 6 6
ſº tº tº 2,993 4 3
ſº ſº tº 2,801 8 6
tºº $º 2,887 19 —
º ſº iºs 2,898 7 6
- - - 2,748 14 —
jº ſº sº 2,881 1 3
gº º E. 2,898 18 —
ºp gº gº 3,137 17 —
ºf * tº 3,OO2 15 —
ſº *g cºs 2,894 16 —
wº tºº sº 2,903 3 —
tº tºg gº 3,000 6 —
wº ſº tº 3, 1 I O 3 7
- - - 3,523 5 6
* gº ſº 4, 190 3 G
sº tºº sº 3,933 17 3
tºº mº gº 3, 186 9 3
* gºi tºg 4, 11 1 2 9
wº
***
tº;
tºº
wº
º 2,089.
tºº 2,217.
* 2,74O.
2,636,
lº
330 Hogsheads per hour.
3,300
19,800
- - - per day.
per week.
per year.
tºº **** *
|
1,412 Hogsheads per hour.
14,122
- - - per day.
per week.
per year.
(2) —AN ACCOUNT
1804.
1809
1814
1818
of the Number of Tenants supplied by the York Buildings Waterworks
Company, in the following Years.
º tº-sº
*sº tºº
º .*
tºmº
(3.)—QUANTITY of Water thrown by the Steam Engine of the York Buildings Waterworks.
In the Year 1810 -
*
N. B.—One seventh of the whole quantity having been deducted for the air
admitted into the pumps, shortness of the stroke, &c. *.
In the year 1818 - -
5th March 1821,
84,734
4,406,168
* tºº *g
N. B.--One seventh deducted as above.
3 L
226 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
Appendix, (4.)—AN ACCOUNT of the Dividends paid to the Proprietors of the York Buildings Waterworks
(E.) Company, clear of Property Tax, from the Year 1789 to 1812.
York Buildings • * * * . -
Waterworks, 1789 - - at £. 10 per share. 1801 - - at £.8 per share.
Y--—’ 1790 - - - £.7. 10s. per d”. 1802 - - - -
1791 - - - - – 1803 - - - –
1792 - - at £.8 per share. 1804 - - at £.4 per share.
1793 - - - £.9 per d”. - 1805 - - None.
1794 - - - £.8 per d". - 1806 - - - –
1795 - - - - – 1807 - - - -
I 796 - - - - – 1809 - - - -
1797 - - - - 1810 - - at £. I per share, out of capital.
1798 - - - - – 1811 - - - None.
1799 - - - - - - 1812 - - at £. 1 per share, out of capital.
1800 - - - - – None since.
(5.)—THE York Buildings Waterworks Company's CHARGES for supplying Water.
16s. to 20s. per annum for houses of the smallest class in poor neighbourhoods, for the ordinary
supply on the basements, three times each week.
24s. to 36s. per annum for houses, for the ordinary supply in the yard and the first floor, three
times each week.
40s, to 60s. per annum for a regular daily supply to houses of gentlemen and tradesmen requiring
the water up stairs; say first and second floors. -
4gs, to 5gs. per annum for the first-rate houses, requiring water in various parts of the house, daily
supply. . .
N. B.-These rules have been acted upon for these twenty years.
Williers-street, l S g
* . 2 v 3 €Ci’étál'V.
20th March 1821, ſ Jas Dupin, Secretary
Appendix (F.)
EAST LONDON WATERWORKS.
The following PAPERS were delivered in by the Secretary to the East London
Waterworks Company.

Appendix, (1.)—AN ACCOUNT showing the Number and Description of Shares into which the Capital
(F) Joint Stock of the East London Waterworks Company is divided; the Nominal Value of
such Shares, and the Net Amount of the Subscriptions paid thereon, and received by
East London * Aſ ºf • , , ... • s . e & r
* the said Company; distinguishing the Amount received in each Year from the first
Waterworks. º •
A. a. establishment of the Company.
THE capital joint stock is divided into three thousand eight hundred shares of one hundred
pounds each.
The net amount of the subscriptions paid thereon, and received by the company is as
follows; viz.
£. s. d.
1806 º tºº ſº - - º tº * 2,935 — —
1807 tºº ºn º ps fº wº gºre tº 12,018 16 9
1808 - - - - - - - - || 1 1 1,689 3 3
T - - • gº º ºs 1809 *. ass tºº gºs tºº º º tº 32,109 3 11
In the year - - - - 1810 *º * sº tºº gº wº tºge tº r §. 12 Q
1811. tºº º gº ſº º gº? sº gº 54,008 6 8
1812 • - - - - - - - 7,649 3 4.
1815 gº * : *s gº zºg -Ame tºº º 6,431 15 6
£. 375,158 2 2
£. s. d.
By Amount expended beyond capital to Christmas 1820 - 47,1oo — —
– Debts due for loans and interest thereon - usº * 24,200 Q 10
– Ditto - for iron pipes - gº tº tºº º gº 7, 139 14 9
| 78,440 4 7
#. 453,598 6 9
- Interest on capital from commencement at five per cent. 197,683 — —
Paid in dividends (see Account No. 2.) t= º •gº 94,850 — —
gº-º-º: – 102,833 — —
£, 556,431 6 9
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
227
(2)—AN ACCOUNT of the Sums paid in Dividends to the Proprietors of the East London
Waterworks, from the first establishment thereof to the latest period to which the same can
be made up, specifying the Dates and Rates of such Dividends, and whether the same were
Appendix,
(F)
East London
;
paid discharged of the Property Tax. Waterworks.
- /
T) A T E S. R A TES. CAPITA}, IDIVIDENIDS.
#. d. £. s. d.
1809 - - 10th January - I per cent, on 190,000 — — 1,900 — —
10th July tº 2 - d.” * 190,000 — — 3,800 — —
1810 - - I oth January - 2 - d.” tº 237,500 — — 4,750 — —
1oth July * 2 - d" - 237,500 — — 4,750 — —
1811 - - 10th January - 2 # - dº º 320,000 — — 8,000 — — .
10th July tºº 2 # - dº tº 32O,OOO — — 8,900 — —
1812 - - 10th January - 1 - dº * 380,000 — — 3,800 — —
10th July - – 1 - d.” tº - - JD9 - - 3,800 — —
1813 - - 10th January - *- No dividend. * *
1oth July wº - - - D9. gºssº sº-sº
3.814 - - 10th January - - - - D9. tºº *
10th July * - - - D9. --- *
1815 - - 10th January - - || 1 per cent. On - - D" - - 3,800 — —
1 oth July -> * 1 - d.” º - - D* - - 3,800 — —
1816 - - 10th January - - || 1 - d” – - - D* - - 3,800 — —
10th July * - 1 - d." º - - D9 - - 3,800 — —
1817 - - 10th January - - || 1 # - d.” tº - - D9 - - 4,750 — —
10th July tº - || 1 # - d.” º - - Dº - - 4,750 — —
1818 - - I oth January - gº 1 § - d.” sº - - D° - - 5,700 — —
loth July s - || 1 # - dº -- - - D9 - - 5,700 — —
1819 - - Toth January - - || 1 # - dº * = . - - D* - - 6,650 — —
1 oth July iº - || 1 # - d.” - - - D* - - 6,650 — —
1820 - - 10th February - || 1 # - d.” ës - - D* - - | 6,650 — —
I oth August - sº No dividend. ** *
1821 - - 10th February - - - D9. i = -º *sº
Discharged of the property tax. 36. 94,850 — —
£ast London Waterworks Office, \
17th March 1821. ſ Tho' Nelson Pickering,
Chief Clerk and Secy.
(3)—AN ACCOUNT of the Gross Income of the East London Waterworks Company, in each
Year from the first establishment of the said Company to the latest period to which the
same can be made up.
ID A TE. RENTs. | AR REARs. | “..."
East London Waterworks Office,
21st March 1821.
}
£. s. d. | £. s. d. £. s. d.
From August 1808-to-Michaelmas 1809 * h = - - - - - 9,465 18 9
- - Michaelmas 1809 to Michaelmas 1810 - || The Rents and Arrears are not 9,755 3 4.
- - Michaelmas 1810 to Michaelmas 1811 - || distinguished in these years in 12,790 2 1 1
- - Michaelmas 1811 to Michaelmas 1812 - || the Company's ledger. | 15,910 I O 6
- - Michaelmas 1812 to Michaelmas 1813 - tºº sº • tº sº tºº * 16,289 2 1
- - Michaelmas 1813 to Michaelmas 1814 - || 15,185 19 4 2,226 3 I 17,412 2 5
- - Michaelmas 1814 to Michaelmas 1815 - || 15,714 14 9 3,685 17 1 | 19,400 1 1 1 O
- - Michaelmas 1815 to Michaelmas * - | 16,843 6 11 3,690 14, 11 20,534 1 1 O
Mºº to Christmas 17. 24,212 12 9 5,304. 8 1.O 29,517 l 7
- - Christmas 1817 to Christmas 1818 - 21,874 4 — 3,827 16 3 || 25,702 – 3
- - Christmas 1818 to Christmas 1819 - || 27,117 6 9 6,408 9 9 || 33,525 16 6
* - Christmas 1819 to Christmas 1820 - || 36,203 14 7 || 3,147 '3 7 || 33,350 18 2
£. 151,151 19, 1 28,290 13 6 243,653 to 2

Tho' Nelson Pickering,
Chief Clerk and Secº.
9.28 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
Appendix, (4):-AN ACCOUNT showing the Number of Dwelling Houses and other Buildings supplied
(F.) with Water by the East London Waterworks Company, in each of the Years 1809, 1812,
East London. 1814, 1816 and 1819, with the average Rate charged thereon.
Waterworks.

Average Rate
- YEARS. - HOUSES. per House, including
large Consumers.
GROSS
ANNUAL CHARGE.
S. d. £. S. d.
1809 - - - 1 O,739 18 8 # 1 O,O51 1 1 —
1812 - - - 18,975 18 9 # 17,840 2 1
1814 - - - 23,250 17 6 20,360 2 6
1816 - - - 27,731 17 4% 24,107 8 5
1819 - - - 29,926 22 11 # 34; 370 4 9
A SUPPLEMENT, showing the Charge made by the East London Waterworks Company for
Premises supplied in the Year 1820, distinguishing the Charge for Water supplied for Domestic
Purposes, for Public Buildings, and for Trade and Manufacture.
HOUSES. - GROSS CHARGE.
32,071. *-*===&ºm=s* £, 35,358. 14. 9.
1,044 - - - Trade and Manufacture º - £. 5,125 — –
45 - - - Public Buildings - tºº gº iº 397 12 —
Private houses, of which 11,887
30,982 - - - |{ are at or under the yearly rate 29,836 2 9
- { of 14 s, per house - ſº gº
32,071 - - - || – sº gº sº * - £. 35,358 14 9
(5)—AN ACCOUNT showing the yearly Amount of the Rates charged on Premises supplied with
Water by the East London Waterworks Company, in the Year 1820; and the yearly
Amount of the Water Rates charged for the Year ending at Christmas 1817.
£. S. d.
Charge at Christmas 1820 - º * gº tº º * gº sº - 35,358 I 4 9
D" - - - - d” - - 1817 - * º & tº tº ess ſº tºº * 25,859 8 8
Making an increase of - - - - - £. 9,499 6 1.
.* Which increase is accounted for in the following manner; viz. £. s. d
By new tenants from Christmas 1817 to Christmas 1820 tºº ſº tº º 2,705 — —
By persons discovered to be taking the water without paying for it, during the
same period - sº ſº & i = tºº gº * tº tºm * # * 651 g 6
And by the general advance which took place in the year 1818, including the -
equalization, being about 24; per cent. - * * *g sº ** gº 6,142 16 7
£. 9,499 6 1
East London Waterworks Office, Tho' Nelson Pickering,
17 March 1821. Chief Clerk and Secy.
(6.)—QUANTITY of Water raised, number of Tenants supplied, and the amount of Rental,
in the Shadwell and West Ham Districts, in the Year 1809.
10,372 hogsheads per diem; equal to 3,785,700 hogsheads per annum.
Quantity of water raised per diem - - 15,558 barrels, or 10,372 hogsheads.
Number of houses supplied - - - - - - - - 10,739.
Amount of rental - - º ... tº - º * tºº gº - £. 10,051. 11 s.
Average supply per house (manufactories included) 1 # barrel, or one hogshead of 54 gallons, per day.
Average rate per house (manufactories included) 18s. 8; d. per ann.
East London Waterworks, Old Ford, . Jos, Steevens, Engineer
12 March 1821. ſ J0s, Steevens, Lngineer.
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 229
(7.)—AN ACCOUNT showing the Amount of the Sums paid by the East London Waterworks,
* for relaying or repairing the Public Pavements in London, from the Year 1807 to the
latest period to which the same can be made up ; distinguishing the Amount paid in each
1814 to 1815
1815 to 1816 487
Year.
ANNUAL
E) ATE. AMOUNT.
£. s. d.
From Midsummer 1808 to 1809 - tº- º - º - tºº. art 205 I 4.
1809 to 1810 *- i º * - sº - º sº 285 14 7
181 o to 1811 º &_- tº- - -- - - - 818 1 1
1811 to 1812 - º tº - º º lºt 757 8
1812 to 1813 t- tºt - - º º tº- 1,278 9
1813 to 1814 - tº- -- - - * 445 8
ſº ºn as tº º 655 I.
:
*
-
1819 to 1820 - - gºs t-
to Christmas 1820 * º -
4.
1816 to 1817 * 1,074. -*s
1817 to 1818 º *s ºm - 705 5
1818 to 1819 - - - ſº - º- 856 2
tº - sº 8oo 7
1
O
760
2
- #. 9, 129 19
N. B.-In addition to the above the company have expended in gravel, rubbish O
and ballast, on twenty six miles of roads - " - - - - - - j “9 T
-
f 11,578 19 2
- A - - - -
East London Waterworks Office, - Tho' Nelson Pickering,
17 March 1821. Chief Clerk and SecY.
(8)—AN ACCOUNT of the rate of Interest which would be produced on the Capital of the
East London Waterworks Company, by their Water Rates of 1817.
£. - d.
Amount of capital subscribed, as per Account N° 1 - * tº º - 375,158 2 2
Expended, above capital, to Christmas 1817 - - - - º - 4,275 12 4
Amount of capital to Christmas 1817 (without interest) - £. 379,433 14 6
Interest on capital subscribed, calculated to Christmas 1817, £. s. d.
at £.5 per cent. per annum - - tºº - Mºs :) 141,411 — —
From which deduct: 1 £. s. d. -
Amount expended beyond capital to
Christmas 1817 º º p - º 4,275 12 4.
Ditto - received on dividends tol. 8
Christmas 1817 - ſº º 58,750 — —
63,025 12 4
—-— 78,385 7 8
Amount of capital to Christmas 1817 (with interest) - - £, 457,819 2 2
.x. :6. S. d.
Gross charge for water rates, one year to Christmas 1817 - - * - || 25,859 8
Deducted for empty houses, &c. &c. - - - - - - tº tº-3 1,350 1 10
£. 24,509 6 lo
Poundage to collectors am sº * * * = £, 1,225 9 4
Permanent expenses, one year to Christmas 1817 - tº- - 12,096 4 9
13, 32 i 14: 1
£. 11,187 12 9
Being £2, 18s. 11 # d. per cent, on £. 379,433. 14 s. 6d.
And - £. 2.8 s. 10; d. - - - on £. 457,819. 2 s. 2 d.
N. B.-In this Account no deduction is made for the annual extension of the works for the supply
of new tenants, for keeping the works in repair, or other contingencies,
706. 3 M
Appendix,
(F)
East London
Waterworks.

230 APPENDIX To REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
Appendix, (9)—AN ACCOUNT of the Rate of Interest which would be produced on the Capital of the
(F.) - 'Company by their increased Water Rates in 1818, -
sº - - £. 3. d.
East London Amount of capital subscribed, as per Account Nº. 1 - - º tº- º 375,158 2 2
Waterworks. * £. s. d.
\- - Expended above capital to Christmas 1818 - - - - 26,669 — —
Loans * sº - - º - tº - - - 10,125 — —
Iron Pipes *- ºs - º - *- - - - 7,328 — —
44,122 — —
Amount of capital to Christmas 1818 (without Interest) - - £.
Interest on Capital subscribed, calculated to Christmas 1818, 16 flas is d.
at £. 5 per cent, per annum - º A- g- - - - - O, 108 18 H
From which deduct : --- #. d
Amount expended beyond capital to 26.66 S. Cº.
Christmas 1818- - - - gºt 20,099 — —
419,28o 2 2
Ditto - received in dividends to 60,200 — --- -
Christmas 1818 - º º -j99* - T 95,869 — — -
• - 64,299 18 1
Amount of Capital to Christmas 1818 (with Interest - - - £. 483,580 — 3
- - . - º - £. s. d.
Gross charge for water rates, one year to Christmas 1818 - º º º 32,002 5 3
Deduct for empty houses, &c. &c. - -- - = . ºn º sº º 1,812 3 5
£. 30, 190 i 10
Poundage to collectors * - tº º ** --> - £. 1,509 10 I
Permanent expenses, one year to Christmas 1818 . - 1 1,326 17 5 12,836 7 6
6, * | 17,353 14 4

Being £. 4, 2 s. 9; d. per cent. On £. 419,280. 2 s. 2d.
And . 4.3. 11s. 8d. - - - on £. 483,580. Os. 3 d.
N. B.-In this Account no deduction is made for the annual extension of the works for the
supply of new tenants, for keeping the works in repair, or other contingencies.
(10)—AN ACCOUNT of the Rate of Interest which would be produced on the Capital of the
Company by their Water Rates in the Year 1820.
- - - wºme- £. S. d.
Amount of capital subscribed, as per Account Nº 1 - * e - d 375,158 2 2.
e Se º
Expended above capital to Christmss 1820 - - - - 47,100.-- -
Loans º- º - *- -g * sº - º - 24,200 9 10
Iron pipes - - - - - - - - - - 7,139 4 9 || 78,440 4 7
Amount of capital to Christmas 1820 (without interest) - - £. * 453,598 6 9
Interest on capital subscribed, calculated to Christmas 1826) 1 is 8. d.
at £.5 per cent. per annum - º ºt wº - -; 97,083 — — .
From which deduct: £. s. d
Amount expended beyond capital tol. 7 ioo --
Christmas 1820 * º - I} 47,
Ditto - received in dividends to *
Christmas 1820 - tº tºº !) 94,850 — 141,950 – —
- 55,733 – —
Amount of capital to Christmas 1820 (with interest) - - - - £. 509,331 6 9
- * - - £. s. d.
Gross charge for water rates, one year to Christmas 1820 - - " - gº tºº 35,358 14 9
Deducted for empty houses, &c. - ſº - sº -* *- tº * tºº 3,332 4 4.
* :É. 32,026 10 5
Poundage to collectors mºr as gº 4- sº - - £. 1,601 6 6 :
Permanent expenses, one year to Christmas 1820 - -º - 1 1,402 10, 2 13,003 16 8
£. 19,002 13
Being £ 4, 38. 11 d. per cent. on £. 453,598. 6 s. 9d.
And - £. 3. 148.8 # d. - - - on £. 509,331. 6s. 9 d.
N. B.-In this Account no deduction is made for the annual extension of the works for the supply
of new tenants, for keeping the works in repair, or other contingencies.
East London Waterworks Office, - Tho' Nelson Pickering,
30 March 1821, Chief Clerk and Secy.
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 231
(11.)—SCALE of Rates of the East London Waterworks Company for the Year 1818;-also,
a List of Trades subject to extra Charge for consumption of Water.
e - - & Appendix
Kitchens and Washhouses rated as Rooms. f * ) º
Houses of the smallest description, and others, supplied by common cock or tank : East London
If cabins or single rooms, 5 S. per annum each Waterworks
tWO roomlS wº - 8s. - tº - To be farmed, or contracted for, full or « & Jºk. Mºº &
three dº small - - ?. 2 S. tº gº - empty. ~—
three dº large - - 15 S. sº tº iº
Houses of two small rooms - 10s. per annum each
*mºve {) º * - wºº tº-3 º
two large º 13s. Generally farmed.
— three small dº - - 14. S. - fººl gº ſ
— three large dº - - 16s. - º ſº
Houses of four rooms in first rate situations: Houses of four rooms in second rate situations:
If small iº “º • - - 22 S. If small - * → sº * • 20 S.
farmed - *g wº º – 20 S. farmed - tºº gºt sº - . 18 s.
large rooms - gº gº - 24 S. - large rooms - ſº * - 22 S.
farmed - *g º sº - 22 S. farmed - * * tº • 20 S.
Houses of five rooms in first rate situations: Houses of five rooms in second rate situations:
If Small - - - - - 25s. If small - - - - - 23 s.
farmed - º ſº {º - 23 s. farmed - * † º sºme - 21 S.
large rooms - sº tºº – 27 s. large rooms - sº gº - 25 S.
farmed - tº *- tº a - 25 S. farmed - º tºº ** - 23 S.
Houses of six rooms in first rate situations : Houses of six rooms in second rate situations:
If small sº gºn tº tº - 28s. If small gº &º * gº - 26 s.
farmed - º sº * - 26s. farmed - sº ** sº - 24 S.
large r0Oms tºº sº tºº - 30 S. large l'OOhls gº gº ſºn - 28 s.
farmed - - - - - 28s. farmed - - - - - 26 S.
Houses of seven rooms in first rate situations: Houses of seven rooms in second rate situations:
If paid by the occupier - - - 33s. If paid by the occupier - - 30s.
farmed - wº * łº - 31 S. farmed - tºl - - - 28s,
Houses of eight rooms in first rate situations: Houses of eight rooms in second rate situations :
If paid by the occupier - - - 38s. If small - - - - - 32 s.
- . . -- 3. * * farmed - * - - - - 30 s
large * * , as - - - 34s
farmed - tº ºn as - 32 s.
Houses of ten rooms, two to three guineas per annum.
And for every room above ten, 5s. per room.
--- Watering-houses, extra, according to consump-
Public-houses: £. s. d. tion: £. 3, d.
First rate - tºº gº - 4 — — First rate - sº * - 6 — —
Second ditto tº a sº - 3 — — Second ditto º-ºº: sº - 4 – —
Third ditto - *ss nº - 2 1 0 — Third ditto - * tºº - 3 — — #
Fourth ditto gº tºº - 2 — — Fourth ditto ~ : - ' - 2 – –
Sugar houses: £. s. d.
If one pan - ſº * * * tº sº - 7 7 — per ann.
two pans - sº º ** - - * - 12 12 — ditto.
three and four pans - º i- * gºg - 5 5 — per pan per ann.
five six and seven pans - º t- º, - 4 14 6 ditto - - ditto.
eight and upwards - º sº º * - 4 4 — ditto - - ditto.
Houses with stables, gardens, &c. according to consumption.
Butchers and bakers, £.25 per cent, extra.
Manufacturers, and large consumers of water, on special agreement, according to consumption.
Subject in all cases to alterations, upon appeal to the court of directors, according to
situation, consumption, and other circumstances.
A LIST of the Trades which are considered as subject to an Extra Charge, in respect of their
Consumption of Water. -
Baker, basket-maker, brewer, butcher, chemist, cow-keeper, currier, colour-manufactory;
distiller, dyer, fellmonger, fishmonger, gardener, gas works, large laundress, livery stables, orchil
manufactory, potatoe-dealer and washer, public-house, ditto watering-house, scowerer, soap-boiler,
slaughter-house, sugar-house, steam-engines, tripe-boiler, and others requiring a supply of water
beyond the ordinary supply to private houses.
East London Waterworks Office, l Tho' Nelson Pickering,
March 21, 1821. ſ Chief Clerk and Secretary.
232 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
*.
Appendix (G.)
WEST MIDDLESEX WATERWORKS.
The following PAPERS were delivered in by the Secretary to the West Middlesex Company.
. (1)—RETURNS to Orders of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the past and
Appendix present supply of Water to the Metropolis; so far as the same have yet been made out. "
(G.) 1st. The company of proprietors of the West Middlesex waterworks have entered into no deed,
West Middlesex contract, undertaking or instrument in writing, with any other public water company, touching the
Waterworks. , supply of any part of the metropolis with water. --
Sº- -
2d. The capital joint stock of the West Middlesex waterworks company is divided into 7,542
shares, all of the nominal value of £. 100 each ; of these shares 2,000 were raised at the full sum
of £. 100 each, but the remainder were subscribed for at the depreciated value of £. 30 each.
THE following is an Account of the Net Amount of the Subscriptions received by the Company of
the several Proprietors; distinguishing the Amount received in each Year from its first establish-
ment, with the Interest due thereon to the 31st March 1819:—
INTEREST. TOTAL.
- £. s. d. £ s. d. £. s. d.
In 1807 - - - Subscriptions received 19,600 – – 11 years 10,780 — — 30,380 * *
1808 - - - || - D° - - d” - 18,798 – – 10 - - 9,399 — — 28,197 — —
1809 - - - - D* - - d” - 16,228 – – 9 - - 7,302 12 — 23,530 12 —
1810 - - - - D* - - d” - 52,293 – – 8 - - 20,917 4 — 73,210 4 —
1811 - - - - D° - - d” - 44,061 – – 7 - - 15,421 7 — 59,482 7 —
1812 - - - || - D° - - d” - 68,411 – – 6 - - 20,523 6 — 88,934 6 —
1813 - - - || - D" - - d” - 23,704 — – 5 - - 5,926 — — 29,630 — —
1814 - - - - D" - - d” - 45,517 – – 4 - - 9,103 8 — 54,62o 8 —
1815 - - - - D* - - d” - 25,989 – – 3 - - 3,898 7 — 29,887 7 —
1816 - - - - D" - - d” - 15,774 – – 2 - - 1,577 8 – 17,351 8 —
1817 - - - - D* - - d” - 10,191 6 9 || 1 - - 509 11 — 10,700 17 9
£.340,566 69 £. 105,358 3 - |#.445,924 9 9
Interest on the above capital of £. 340,566 one half *} - º-
from 30th September 1818 to 31st March 1819 - 8,514 3 - 8,514 3 —
£. 113,872 6 — |f. 454,438 12 9
3d. An Account of Dividends paid to the proprietors of the West Middlesex Waterworks to
5th January 1821.

mºm-
- - AMOUNT TOTAL AMOUNT
WHEN IDE CLARED,. WHEN PAID. per Share. OF DIVIDENID.
- - -- £. s.
27 July - - 1819 - || 10 October 1819 15| 5,656 10
:
2 November — - - || 5 January 1820 - ºn 20} 7,542 —
2 May - - 1820 - - || 5 July - – - - 2O/ 7,542 —
7 Noymeber — - - || 5 January 1821 - tººl 20/ 7,542 —
- £. 28,282 10 —
Note:-In 1810 and 1811 dividends to the amount of £. 12,410 were paid to the proprietors
- on estimated profits, but these profits not having been realized, the amount was in fact
taken out of the subscriptions; that sum has consequently been deducted in the above
Account from the money actually received from the proprietors.
oN THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 233
(2.)—AN ACCOUNT showing the Amount of the Sums paid by the West Middlesex Waterworks A. º:
Company, for relaying or repairing the Public Pavements in London, from the Year ... •. *
1809 to the latest period to which the same can be made up ; distinguishing the Amount (G.)
paid in each Year. West Middlesex
dºº- Waterworks.
§. s. d. * 8. & S--"
In 1809 - tº * • - 193 13 — In 1816 - tº- gº gº - 2 I I 14 11
1810 - 4 º' * * º - 413 14 10 ; 1817 - ** Ea * tº - 206 19 9
1811 - †º *- * - 834 3 5 1818 – tºº sº tºº - 79.2 1 3
1812 - º sº i.e. - 2,651 – 7 1819 - = as - - 540 6 7
1813 - tº gº wº - 1,238 12 2 1820 - “º tº e *º - 130 1 0 1 O
1814 - tºº sº gº - 1,003 12 5 *=s*** *-*.
1815 - • use sº * Nº - 571 1 10 £, 8,788 – 7
IT is impossible to distinguish the amount paid for relaying the pavement over the pipe trenches
from the expense incurred by the repair of leaks, and the change of houses from one company
to another; but I estimate the former to be at least four-fifths of the whole.
23d February 1821. M. K. Knight, Secy.
(3)—AN ACCOUNT of the Hours which the Engines of the West Middlesex Company have
worked, and of the quantity of Water raised, in the last Seven Years; distinguishing
the Quantity raised in each Year. -
Quantity of
Engine worked. Water raised
Howrs.
Hogsheads.
Tn 1814 it is º sº *º 4,917 º sº {-º ſº 6,392,100
1815 * dº º * 4,863 ſº ** tº e. 6,321,900
1816 *s tº * sº 4,790 tº tºº sº gº 6,227,000
1817 - - - - 6,137 - - - - 7,978, loo
1818 sº tºº & º 9,246 tº wº sº $º 12,019,800
1819 * * gº * 8,953 tº tºº sº tº I 1,638,900
1829 “ tº Yº * tº wº 9,361 Yºu tº- * ** 12, 169,300
February 23, 1821. W* Tierney Clark, Engineer.
–3–––--~~~~A-
(4.)—AN ACCOUNT of Hours Work and Coals consumed by the West Middlesex Waterworks,
from 20th January 1820 to the 15th January 1821.

Hours work | Bushels of Hours work | Bushels of Hours work | Bushels of
*=gººms of the Coal *sºmºmºmºsº, of the Coal *º-ºº: of the Coals
Engine, consumed. Engine. consumed. Engine. consumed.
182O: I 82 182O :
January 20 158 909 June - 1 172 87o October 9 167 852
— 27 162 900 — 8 181 894 — 16 166 817
February 3 208 # 1,11o — 15 183 908 — 23 151 745
— 1 O 2O3 # | 1,030 — 22 178 91 O — 30 141 # 747
— 17 188 961 — 29 199 980 November 6, 140 679
— 24 183 930 July - 6 190% 988 — 13 | 153 # 773
March - 2 190 g86 — 1 O 105 # 527 — 2 O 139 # 708
— 9 176 # 910 — 17 | 187 #| 931 — 27 | 152 # 81 I.
— 16 18O 020 — 24. 194. 999 December 4, 162 # 853
— 23 171 # 868 — 31 194 #| 1,032 — 1 1 171 885
— 30 188 935 ; August 7 188 1,021 — 18 160 858
April - 6 || 183 927 – 14 | 189 1,026 — 25 | 162 849
— 13 181 928 — 21 174. 1,014. 1821 :
— 2 O 175 882 — 28 177 990 : January 1 217 1,136
— 27 192 # 928 September 4, 1793. 972 — 8 || 175 # 939
May - 4 184 Q15 — 1 1 180 960 — 15 176 913
— 1 1 | 194 974. — 18 184 948 *ºmes
— 18 190 956 — 2 175 906 9,343 || 48,314
— 25 | 193 956 iOctober 2 181 948 ~- ºss-
THE above Account gives the following result as to the Quantity of Water raised by the engines of
the West Middlesex Waterworks company and supplied to their Tenants in the Year 1820;-viz.


Power of Engines Number of Hours Quantity raised Total Quantity raised
5****** worked. per Hour. in the Year.
Hogsheads. Hogsheads.
Two seventy-horse. 9,343. 1,300. 12, 1453,900
Wm. Tierney Clark,
Hammersmith,
Engineer,
February 21st 1821.
3 N
234
APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
Appendix,
(G.)
West Middlesex
Waterworks.
(5)—AN ACGOUNT showing the Income of the West Middlesex Waterworks Company, in each
Year from the first establishment of the said Company to the latest period to which the
same can be made up.
In
Gross Amount of | Bad Debts -
Rates, including | and Net Rental, R. E M A. R. K. S.
Special Cases. Empty Houses.
£. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d.
37.1 4 3 35 10 7 || 335 13 8| The expense of collection was 13, in the
- pound, which must be deducted from this
- rental. -
1,987 – 8 || 330 15 11 | 1,656 4 9
4,041 19 1 638 12 10 || 3,403 3
7,910 ko 8 || 2,106 10 – 5,804 – 8
9,555 8 2 2,134 10 7 || 7,420 17 7
10,389 4 al 1934 2 | 8,455 3 –
10,829 19 1 || 1,091 10 4 || 9,738 8 9
15,770 4 2 | 825 4 1 |14,945 — 1. Up to this period the amount of the ordinary
- -- annual expensesofcarrying on the concern con-
siderably exceeded the amount of the rental.
23,609 15 2 | 1,052 19 7 |22,556 15 7 || Increased rental, including £,603. 5s. 6d.
wº- for water supplied to new buildings since
Michaelmas 1817, which are not included in
the preceding year.
24,252 6 10 | 1,462 13 2 (22,789 13 8 || Rental diminished by reduction on the ap-
| peals, but increased by new buildings, first
| supplied this year, to the amount of £.303. I-15.

1811 -
1812 -
4813 • Gº
i814 -
1815 -
1816 -
1817 -
1818 -
4819 , -º
1820 -
THIS rental includes all the supplies afforded by the
company for domestic purposes and for public
buildings, together with all the charges for water supplied for the purposes of trade and manufacture,
so far as the same have been discovered and assessed; but the survey of the district, to ascertain the
nature and value of the whole of this class of supply, is a work of considerable difficulty, and is still
in progress. -
The income derived from watering streets is very inconsiderable, the average receipt of the last two
years being about £. 700, out of which the company have to pay the contractors for doing the work,
which leaves little or no profit to the concern.
To the income for the last year, however, is to be added a charge for 805 high services, amounting
to £. 1,663. 5s. 6d. but of this sum only £.832 have yet been received; and there is also a very con-
siderable amount of water rents in arrear, the receipt of which has been anticipated, but many may
be lost to the company.
(6.)—ACCOUNT of the Number of Houses supplied by the West Middlesex Company in the Year 1820, in the
several Divisions of their District; distinguishing the Number and Charge for High Services.
Number of Houses supplied by the West Middlesex Water- -
works Company, arranged in distinct Classes, according to HIGH SERVICES.
the amount of the Water Rates charged thereon respectively. s y-
I) IVISIO N. ſ – S- ~\; B, E M A.R. K. S.
20ſ & 20ſ to 30ſ to 4oſ to 50ſ to 70ſ to above Total. N° Amount,
under 30ſ 40/ 50ſ 70ſ 1oof Iooſ
Kensington, which in- M. - £. s. d. -
cludes Bayswater, 81 || 428 98 95 || 36|| 26 || 26 | 840; -- - º No separate charge.
Hammersmith, &c. r - -
Upper Mary-le-bone, - ~ - £. s. d.
including Padding- > 405 || 488 993 453 253 302 || 104 || 2,998; 473 | 896 10 — Of these only 123 have 249 19 —
to In gº- - - - - - paid, amounting to ſt K9
Middle Mary-le-bone - | 12 2 O I & 2 O 2 O 271 650 11 6 || Of these only 217 have *4
y O 40 1,094 615 90 269 2O7 2,835 . ." 7 5O paid, amounting to 514 7
Lower Mary-le-bone, l -
- g ... }| 21 o 604 || 1,622 8 142 100 21 6 61 || 1 16 — | Of these only 38 have *-*
including Pancras - ſ 4. 5 97 3,077 4. paid, amounting to 67 14
816 1,760 3,807 || 2,141 771 697 || 358 10,350 # 805 | 1,663 5 6 * £,832 — — -
I do not possess the means of distinguishing the several parishes in which the houses are situated,
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS, 235
(7.)—AN ACCOUNT showing the yearly Amount of the Rates charged on Premises supplied Appendix,
with Water by the West Middlesex Company, in the Year 1818; and the yearly Amount (G.)
of Water Rates charged on the same Premises in the Year ending at Midsummer 1820. West Middlesex
- Waterworks.
1818 : £. s. d. 1820: - £. s. d.
Rental, stated in Account, N° 5, Rental, stated in Account, N° 5, jºy *
p. 234 - - - - .” ‘’’ ‘’’; 14,945 – 1 p 334 - **** - ..) 22,789 13 8
Déduct new buildings, first sup-
plied since Michaelmas 1817 ..) 908 16 6
Rental, in 1820, of the pre-
mises supplied in 1818 -
} &al,880 17 2
‘dº ºxº a sº-ºº:
IT is necessary to observe, that no separate account has hitherto been kept of the charges made
for the supply of public buildings, or for trades or manufactories, though such an account was,
and is still, contemplated. The rental above-mentioned, however, is the amount charged in both
years for the supply of the whole district, excepting the high services, the number of which is stated
in the Account N°6, p. 234, to be eight hundred and five, and the amount £. 1,663.5 s. 6d.
9th March 1821. - M. K. Knight, Secretary.
(8.)—RETURN to an Order, for An Account of the Number of Six Months Notices served. te
*-->
PERIOD when NOTICES expired.
DIVISION OF DISTRICT
in which Notices were served. Michaelmas 1820. Christinas 1820.
Number of Notices served. Number of Notices served.
Upper Mary-le-bone *s tº wº tº º tº 177 - 48
Middle D" - - - - - - 1 3, 20
Lower Do º wº gº tº º gºt tº # = * *º sº -- 54.
178 2 22
ToTAL Six Months Notices served - - - 4oo
20 March 1821. - M. K. K.night, Secretary.
(9.)—RETURN to an Order, for An Account of the Rate of Interest which would be produced
on the Capital of the West Middlesex Company by their increased Rates, and also of the
Rate of Interest which would be produced on their Capital by their Rate of 1810.
Capital of the company, &c. - gº tº •ºn º * * iº * ºf sº tº £454,438.
Money capital *. wº • tºg * gº • * º tº wº tºº * agº - £.340,566.
|Prescrit Rates, At Rates of
(1820.) (1810.)
Income of the company - - - - - - £.24,000 - - - - - - £18,000
Deduct estimated annual ex-l Ordinary £. 8,500 Ordinary £.8,200
penses of the company - ſ Extra - £. 500 Extra - £. 500
* – 9,000 8,700
Profit - - £. 15,000 Profit - - £9,306
ſthe profit yielded by the present rates, produces an interest on & º,
£, 15,000, the capital, lºssº of 3: p. Ct. •
- - - , , - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - on the money capital, of £340,566; of 43 —
the profit which would be derived from the rates of 1810, will yield] gº X-Q & ~~
£, 9,300. an interest on the capiti, ofſ £454,438; of 2 P. ct.
- - , - - - - - on the money capital, of £340,566; of 2 # –
sº tº * * º tº tº . nº -ºº º
- - 39
THE Committee will be pleased to observe, that in the above calculation no deduction whatever
has been made for the establishment of the fund, which it must be obvious will be requisite for
the renewal of the machinery, pipes, &c. when the present are worn out or decayed.
26 March 1821. M. K. Knight, Secretary.

236
APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
(10)—RETURN to an Order, for An Account of all Shares or Transfers in the West Middlesex Company, from the
date of September 1809 to July 1811 ; distinguishing whether such Transfer was made by a Director
or Officer of the Company. --
Number of Number of Number of -
Transfers Individuals | Shares | Premium obtained, JR E M A. R.K. S.
Registered. who sold. Transferred.
T^ E. R.I.O D.
September 1809 toº * : *
March 1810 - }; months
April to June 1810 3 months
8oo Old Shares.
Of the forty-six individuals
who sold within this period,
seven were directors, (two of
whom sold out entirely,) and the
number of shares sold by them
was fifty-four.
| Of the twenty-eight individuals
-ºxº
117. 46. 236. £. 10 to £. 45. .
78, 28. 1 22. £. 45 to £. 125. Khere stated, four were directors,
who sold eighteen shares.
Appropriation of 1,200 new shares, being
1 # to each old share, making a total of 2,000
shares.
". . . * * *r. * | Of these thirty-six individuals,
Jº, º bºº months - 103. 36. 300. £ 45 to £. 20. < five were directors, who sold
- *> lforty-eight shares.
- ... -- Of these thirty-two individuals
.* - O --- - e 3.
º: }6 months - 62. 32. 161. £, 20 to par. ſ four were directors, who sold
y lineteen shares.
FROM the incorporation of the company in May 1806 to November 1808, the shares were uniformly sold at
par; from that period they progressively rose to a premium of from £8 to £. 45, which they bore till October
1810, when the depression began : from October 1810 to July 1811 (when this Account ends) they had gradually
fallen to par, and they subsequently fell to £. 75 and £. 80 per cent. discount.
14th April 1821. M. K. Knight, Secretary.
(11.)—AN ACCOUNT of the Annual Expenses of the West Middlesex Waterworks Company.
1820.
º £.
Coals º º gº E; º fººt -:4 tººt gº tº a º -> º & Say 2,700
Salaries, Attendance, &c. - gº º sº - --> º wº - - - : 2,2OO
Workmens Wages - º º wº º tº tº Fº º tº gº - gº 1,400
Rent and Taxes - dºs - g-sº tº- * pº tº- º º tºº - - 500
Poundage º - tº- sº * •ºt -º- * * : * as -- tº - - sº I,200
Office Disbursements º +º, -º sº tº- tº º - - tºº - tºº 2OO
Printing, Stationery, and Stamps - - - - tºo * - * - sº 150
Engine-house Expenses - - - - - - - - - - - - . 150
Ordinary Expenses - gº º * - - - - - £. 8,500
Add extraordinary Expenses; that is, repairs of leaks, plugs, tools, paving, plumbing,
and various other incidental charges which invariably occur, but which can only be
estimated - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 500
£. 9,000
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 237
(12.)—AN ACCOUNT of the Gross Income of the West Middlesex Waterworks Company, in
each Year from the first establishment of the said Company to the latest period to
which the same can be made up ; distinguishing the Amount of the Sums received
respectively for Water supplied for Domestic Purposes, for Public Buildings, and for
the purposes of Trade and Manufactures, for High Services, and for Water used in
watering Roads or Streets, from the Income derived from other sources.
GROSS IN COME
for Water supplied
for Domestic Pur-Gross Income for Gross Income
Fº *. High Services. for Water used in Income for Land
P E R. I O D. Trades and Manufac- -—— watering Roads or and Houses. TO T A T.
tories, so far as the (five quarters.) Streets.
same have been sur-
veyed and assessed.
£. s. d. £. s. d. £. S. d. £. s. d. £. s. d.
181 I 282 8 4 || - sº tº º ſº tº j tº gº tºº 282 8 4
1812 791 ; I | * &= tº tº 8 tº tº tº gº 791 19 1
e 1813 2,058 18 4 || - tº * 71 *. 45 — — 2,175 6 4.
O'
Yº... ( išić ſº in - - - 148 iſ - 3. 9 – 1863 –
1815 7,041 Io 6 || – gº gº; 127 8 — 26 5 — 7, 195 3 6
1816 || 9,894 13 5 || - * - 151 9 6 54 5 - || 1 o, 1 Oo 7 11
- 1817 | 11,454 9 1 || - - * 151 18 — 55 15 — 11,662 2 1
3 qrs. to Mids' 1818 9,001 13 11 || - sº - || 36O 14 6 58 10 — 9,420 18 5
Year ending ſ 1819 17,767 11 — - * - 57O 4 — 85 4 – 18,422 19 —
Midsummer l 1820 21,300 4 10 1,260 2 3 | 72O 4 — 5O — — 23,330 1 1 1
The West Middlesex waterworks company have not kept a separate account of their charges for
the supplies afforded to public buildings, or for the purposes of trade and manufacture, though
such an account was and is still contemplated. The repeated obstructions opposed to the company's
operations, and the various parliamentary and legal proceedings in which they have been engaged
during the last three years, have unavoidably delayed the survey of the district which was begun
in order to ascertain the nature and value of this class of the company's supply; but so far, as
those supplies have been assessed (and this extends to all known cases of magnitude) the rental is
included with that of the ordinary supplies. By a special order of the board of directors, however,
the supplies to all public buildings for charitable uses supported by voluntary contributions, have been
continued at the reduced rates paid in 1817, which are also included in the rental above mentioned.
To prevent mistake, it is proper to add that this account does not show the actual water rental
of the company in the several years specified, but the first column contains the gross receipts in
each particular year, on account of water rental; a considerable portion of which is the arrears of
the preceding years : —for example, the
Arrears at Christmas 1818 amounted to £. 950. 58. 11 d. of which was paid before Midsummer 1819 £. 654. 11 s. 5d.
- Midsummer 1819 - - - £, 3,441. 15s. 10 d. - - - - - - - Christmas 1819 £. 1,555, 18 s. 10 d.
and so on. - -- *
The sum stated to be received for watering roads and streets is subject to very considerable
reduction, for money paid the contractors for cartage and labour; this branch of the company's
supply being attended with little or no profit.
20 March 1821.
M. K. Knight, Secretary.
, (13.)—AN ACCOUNT showing the Expenditure of the Capital of the West Middlesex Waterworks,
º stated in the Account, p. 234; as given in Evidence before the House of Lords, July 1819.
- - - £. s. d.
By Estates purchased tºp wºe tº Fº gº º gº tº tº gºt 9,280 12 10
Engineering and surveying - wº tº . * º- tºº gº tºº tº 2,830 15 9
Parliamentary and law charges *sº º - - *sº * sº * -º 8, 142 16 —
Buildings, engines and reservoirs - • - ºr tºº gº tºº * 55,184 10 11
Mains, service-pipes, fire-pipes, cocks, &c. - tº tº * tº ſº - 228,479 2 6
Lead and plumbing º º * º tº- tº gº º sºng ſº 6,182 15 7
Balance of interest paid on money borrowed, and accounts over due - º 4, 124 9 9
Commission paid to agents - - * º-> sº sº ſº *-* wº 1942 O 9 9
Repairs and expenses for carrying on the works for eleven years; viz.
Coals for the engines sº º º &º $º £. 16,796 – 11
Engine-house expenses, and other expenses relating to
the works - tº *E* tº - - *º - 5,014. 14. 1
Engine-workers, turncocks, labourers, &c. - gº - 21,583 2 3 # |
Printing and stationery - º tº tºº tº – 2,861 16 5
Rent and taxes gºs tº tº sº tº tºº - 4,666 2 7 #
Salaries, &c. - • gº lºn hº Rººt tºº - 14,589 2 3
Disbursements for office, for stamps, &c. - tºº - 5,630 18 lo
£. 71,141 17 5
Water rents received - £.48,599 14 1 -
Deduct! Fines and fees $º º 528 15 —
Profits on shares sold tº 282 1 O 6
— 49,419 19 7 21,730 17 lo
Interest due to proprietors - tº º wº tºº - - tº * 113,872 6 —
Balance at the bankers, 31st March 1819 ºg * gºg tºº Fº tº 3,189 15 lo
£. 454,438 12 9
22 March 1821.
- MI. K. Knight, Secretary.
Appendix,
(G.)
West Middlesex
Waterworks.
\–—/

3 Ö
º
8 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
fy
J
Appendix,
(G.)
West Middlesex
Waterworks. -
Appendix,
(H.)
Grand Junction
Waterworks.
\–Jr.—” -
–4–
&
(14.)—RETURN to an Order, for The Rules, if any, which the Companies act upon in respect of
- the distinction between High Service and Low, Extra Service and Ordinary; and also a List
of the Trades which are considered as subject to an Extra Charge in respect of their Con-
sumption of Water, or in any other respect; and the Periods during which these Rules
have been acted upon, as far as it can be ascertained.
THE rule of charge, in respect to high service, in addition to the charge of twenty-five per
cent. on the rate for the low service in 1810, is as under; viz.
For every cistern or receptacle into which water is delivered, higher than six feet six inches
from the level of the street in which the house is situated, an extra charge, according to the
particular nature of the supply required, and of the class of houses to which it is afforded,
of from 15s. to 30s. per annum. -
For every cistern on the first floor of any house, from 20s, to 50s. according to circumstances,
as above.
For every cistern on or above the second floor of any house, from 40s. to 60s.
And this rule has been strictly adhered to since Lady-day 1819, when high services first came
into charge, excepting in very special cases; such as for trades, baths, &c. requiring a very
unusual quantity of water.
In respect to extra services (by which is meant supplies to public buildings, or for the purposes
of trade or manufacture), it seems to me to be impossible to lay down any specific scale; the
quantum of water, and the convenience afforded to the party in such cases, being always the
basis of charge for extra supplies. - * ..
The following is a list of the trades and premises which occur to me at this moment as hav-
ing been considered subject to an extra charge in respect to their consumption of water; viz. –
brewers, distillers, steam engines, dyers and scowerers, fishmongers, nurserymen, watering-
houses, cow-houses, stables, milkmen, baths, potatoe-warehouses, taverns and hotels, laundresses,
bakers, slaughtermen, publicans, wine-merchants, hat-manufacturers, curriers, &c. &c.
29th March 1821. M. K. Knight, Secy.
(2.)—AN
Appendix, (H.)
GRAND JUNCTION WATERWORKS.
The following PAPERS were delivered in by the Secretary to the Grand Junction
Waterworks Company.
(1)–COPIES of all Deeds, Contracts, Undertakings, and other Instruments, in writing, touching
the supply of any part of the Metropolis with Water, made and entered into by and
between or on behalf of the Grand Junction Waterworks Company, and any other
public Water Company, since the 1st January 1815.
THERE are no deeds, contracts, undertakings, or other instruments, in writing, touching the
supply of any part of the metropolis with water, made and entered into by and between or on
behalf of the Grand Junction Waterworks company, and any other public water company,
since the 1st January 1815.
ACCOUNT showing the Number and Description of Shares into which the Capital
Joint Stock of the Grand Junction Waterworks Company is divided, the nominal Value
of such Shares, and the net Amount of the Subscriptions paid thereon, and received
by the said Company; distinguishing the Amount received in each Year from the first
establishment of the Company. --
Number Nominal Value Issued by the Company TOTAL AMOUNT
of Shares. of each Share. at per Share. Received by the Company.
3, OOO £. 50 £. 50 £. 150,000
1,500 50 25 37,500
4,500 sº t- º º º tº º * £. 187,500
Amount received in each Year, together with Interest thereon, to 31st March 1819.

I ſt * [. *ER T &T PRINCIPAL
PRINCIPAL. YEARS. INTEREST. AND INTEREST.
f. £. s. d. £. S. d.
In 18 to - - 3,000 8 # 1,237 I O — 4,237 1 O —
1811 - - 42,178 7 # 15,289 10 6 57,467 Io 6
1812 - - 74,074. 6% 23, 148 2 6 97,222 2 6
1813 - - 30,370 5 + 7,972 2 6 38,342 2 6
1814 – ~ 8,323 4 # 1,768 12 9 10,091 12 9
1815 - - 9,327 3 # 13515 12 9 10,842 12 9
1816 - - 9,500 2 # 1,068 15 — 10,568 15 —
1817 - - Io,728 - 1 # 670 1 0 — 11,398 10 —
£, 187,500 sº - - | £, 52,670 16 — £. 240,170 16 —
tºº
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
239
_*
(3)—AN ACCOUNT of the Sums paid in Dividends to the Proprietors of the Grand Junction
Waterworks, from the first establishment thereof to the latest period to which the same
can be made up 3 specifying the Dates and Rates of such Dividends, and whether the
same were paid discharged of the Property Tax.
Amount of Dividend When declared. When-payable. TOTAL AMOUNT
per Share. of Dividend.
£. S. d. .” £. S. d.
1 5 — 1st July - - 1819 || 10th October - 1819 5,625 – --
— 12 6 1st June - - 1820 17th July - - 1820 2,812 10 —
1 5 — 7th December 1820 15th January - 1821 5,625 — —
£. 14,062 10 —
*º-
THE Committee will observe that the property tax was repealed before any dividend was
paid by he company.
(4.)—AN ACCOUNT showing the Amount of the Sums paid by the Grand Junction Water-
works Company for relaying or repairing the public Pavements in London, from the
year 1808 to the latest period to which the same can be made up ; distinguishing the
amount paid in each year.
Y E A R. S.
A M O U N T S.
£. s. d.
1812 - - tº º tº tº - cº- 939 1 O 3
1813 - - 4׺ sº ºte - - - - 1,261 8 —
1814 - & sº tºº * º - - & 855 2 IO
1815 - - - - - - - - - 355 19 2
I 816 - - º º º - - 4- tº- 537 12 4.
1817 - (º- dº tºn trº º º tºº - 537 Io 8
1818 - º ſº sº {- - tºº t- - 708 4 5
1819 - -- tº * ºs * º - - 998 17 2
1820 - º -àg sº sº gº * A- 4- 426 5 I
£. 6,62o 9 11
{5.)—AN ACCOUNT of the number of circular Letters or Notices sent to Tenants who refused
Payment of the increased Rates, signifying that the Supply would be discontinued unless
increased Rates were forthwith paid. -
THERE has been no regular account kept of the issue of the circular letters or notices above
referred to ; there were 300 printed, nearly all of which appear to have been delivered.
(6.)—AN ACCOUNT of the number of Six Months Notices served.
THERE have been 1,496 of the six months notices served.
:(7)—AN ACCOUNT showing the number of Dwelling Houses and other Buildings supplied with
Water by the Grand junction Waterworks Company, in each of the Years 1812, 1814,
1816 and 1819, arranged in distinct Classes according to the amount of the Water
Rates then charged thereon respectively; and distinguishing the several Parishes in which
the same were situated. - .4
HOUSES. RATES. | HOUSES. : RATES.
|
Michaelmas Collection 1814 :
4. Under - - - - 10 s. 1 1 10s. - and under - 120 s.
148 10 s. - and under - 20 s. 30 | 120 S. - - - - - 130 s.
890 20 S. - - - - - 30 s. 6 || 140 s. - - - - - 150 s.
175 30 S. - - - - - 40 s. 1 150 S. - - - - - 160 s.
86 40 S. - - - - - 50s. 8 160 s, - - - - - 170 S.
28 50 S. - - - - - 60s. 3 180 s. - - - - - 190 s.
67 60s. - - - - - 70s. 12 200 s. and upwards.
14. 70s. - - - - - 80s. -----
63 80s. - - - - - 90 s. 1,558
3 90 s. - - - - - 100 S. |
19 || 1 oos. - - - - - 1 los. iT
(continued)
Appendix,
(H.)
Grand Junction
Waterworks.

-—

24O.
APPENDIx TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
Grand Junction
Waterworks.
\–
(H.)
->-
Appendix
(7)—Account of Dwelling Houses, &c. supplied by the Grand Junction Company, continued.

Houses.
HOUSES. IłATES, RATES.
Michaelmas Collection 1816:
9 Under - - - - 10 s. 3 | 110 s. - and under - 120 s.
422 10 s. - and under - 20 s. 38 120 s. - - - - - 130 s.
1,423 2O S. - - - - - 30 S. 2 130 S. - - - - - 140 S.
31 1 30 S. - - - - - 40 S. 12 | 1.40 S. - - - - - 150 S.
163 40 S. - - - - - 50 S. I 150 S. - - - - - 160 s.
57 50 s. - - - - - 60s. 18 160 s. - - - - - 170s.
'1 19 60 s. - - - - - 70s. 3 | 180 s. - - - - - 190 s.
21 70 s. - - - - - 80s. 31 200 s, and upwards.
1 O4. 80s. " - - - - 90 s. --—
3 90 s. - - - - - 1 OO s. 2,784
44. 100 S. - - - - - 1 1 O S.
Michaelmas Collection 1819 :
3 Under - - - - 10 s. 165 120 s. - and under - 130 s.
224. 10 s. - and under - 20 s. 49 || 130 S. - - - - - 140 s.
682 20 S. - - - - - 30 S. 96 | 1.40s. - - - - - 150 s.
2,829 30 S. - - - - - 40 S. 28 || 150 s. - - - - - 160 s.
1,009 40 s. - - - - - 50 S. 103 | 160 s - - - - - 170 s.
492 50 s. - - - - - 60 s. 6 17os. - - - - - 180 s.
4OO 60 s. - - - - - 70 s. 57 180 s. - - - - - 190 s.
217 70s. - - - - - 80 s. 4 190 s. - - - - - 200 s.
258 80s. - - - - - 90 s. 201 200 s. and upwards.
108 gos. - - - - - 100 s. 1–
201 || 1 OO s. - - - - - 1 10 s. 7,180
48 || 1 10 s. - - - - - 1208. -

\ The Company did not
*
supply any houses previous to Michaelmas 1812.
(8.)—AN ACCOUNT showing the Application of the Capital actually raised by the

Ileaseholds purchased -
Engineering and surveying
Parliamentary and law charges -
Engine-house and engine
Reservoirs and feeders
Mains, service-pipes, stopcocks, &c.
Lead and plumbers work
Stone pipes - sº
* $º
Sundry charges, books, stationery, &c.
Add capital for new works at Chelsea -
Add capital for land at Paddington
Amount capital with the works at the Thames
Deduct cost of engine house and engine at Paddington
Capital expended in connection with the Grand Junction Canal
Grand Junction Waterworks Company.
£. s, d.
- gºs sº 1,575 15 9
gº sº 1,524 15 2
tº * 3,279 3 —
...tº tº 18,882 16 2
gº tºº 28,888 5 9
* gº 115,460 16 4
yº tº º 5,045 3 9
º * 10,812 8 7
* 2,030 15 6
£. 187,500 — —
#. s. d.
company - 187,500 — —
. . gº ſº 18,882 16 2
#. 168,617 3 10
- Jº Jºë 43,241 8 6
dº wº 8,000 — —
- £. 219,858 12 4
2nººnºsºº"
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS, 24 I
(9)—AN ACCOUNT of the Gross Income of the Grand Junction Waterworks Company, in Aºis,
each Year from the first establishment of the said Company to the latest period to (H).
which the same can be made up ; distinguishing therein the Amounts of the Sums received Grand Junction
º • - e * ſº Waterworks.
respectively for Water supplied for Domestic Purposes, for Water supplied to Public ‘e
Buildings, and for the purposes of Trade and Manufacture, and for Water used in
watering Roads and Streets, from the Income derived from other Sources.
Income derived from Income derived from
~! Water supplied for Income derived from . sº é * *
Y E. A. R. S. T]omestic Purposes, Street Watering. "ºniº º TOTALS.
Public Buildings, &c se
5°, --~~ Exchequer Bills.
£. S. d £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d.
1814 - - - 1,298 3 5 215 16 8 tºg wºn as tºº 1,514 – 1
1815 - - - 3,012 1 7 2O4. 6 869 19 6 4,086 7 1
1816 - - - 4,400 19 4. 224 10 — Hº tº E. - 4,625 9 4
1817 - - - 5,249 15 8 23O 5 — 28 14, 2 5,508 14 10
1818 - - - 8,684. 4 10 490 15 — i. 33 3 — 9,208 2 10
1819 - - - 12,891 19 — 27 2 — 77 4. 2 13,296 5 2
1820 - - - 19,772 17 1 369 9 6 11 5 — 20,153 1 1 7
£. 55,310 – 11 2,062 4, 2 1,02O 5 10 58,392 10 1 1
(10)—AN ACCOUNT showing the Yearly Amount of the Rates charged on Premises supplied
with Water by the Grand Junction Waterworks Company, in the Year 1820, and the
Yearly Amount of the Water Rates charged on the same Premises, for the Year ending
at Midsummer 1818; distinguishing the Amount of the Water Rates charged thereon,
under the respective denominations of High, Extra and Ordinary Services.
£. s. d.
Amount of Rates for the year ending at Michaelmas 1818. tºº. tºº, rº - 12,317 4. 7
Amount of Rates for the year ending at Michaelmas 1820 -
Ordinary service - gº sº - - - - - - sº * - 16,990 5 —
High service - - - - - - - - - - - 1,681 g 6
Extra service pºss sº * : * tº sº gº ~ - * - 1,319 12 4.
£. 19,991 6 10

THE company did not make distinct charges for ordinary, high and extra services previous to
Michaelmas 1818. *
(11.)—THE RULES which the Grand Junction Waterworks Company act upon in respect of the
distinction between High Services and Low, Extra Services and Ordinary; and also a
List of the Trades which are considered as subject to an Extra Charge, in respect of their
consumption of Water, or in any other respect; and the Periods during which these
Rules have been acted upon, as far as can be ascertained.
Cisterns the tops of which are above six feet six inches from the ground floor are charged from
15s. to 30 S. per annum.
Cisterns on the first floor, from 20s. to 50s. per annum.
Cisterns on or above the second floor, from 40 s. to 60s. except in special cases for large supplies
for water-closets, baths, and trades, and where the whole supply for domestic purposes is on the first
floor and above.
The following are the Trades which the Company consider liable to an extra charge.
Bakers, brewers, dyers and scowerers, chemists and perfumers with stills, curriers, fishmongers,
dairymen, butchers, soap-boilers, public and watering-houses, stable-keepers, steam-engines, coach-
makers, plasterers, paper-stainers, hotels, taverns and club-houses, baths, tripe-boilers, barracks,
cook-shops, workhouses, schools, laundresses, potatoe-washers, hat-manufacturers, nurserymen,
distillers.
The high and extra services have been only charged since the notice of 11th August 1818.
3 P
242 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
Appendix, (12.)—GROSS CHARGE of the Grand Junction Waterworks Company, for Water Rates, for the
(H.) respective periods undermentioned.
Grand Junction - - - - - - - - - - -
Waterworks. - -
\–2– } Water Rates. Street Watering.
£. S d. £. s. d.
Lady-day collection 1818 – - - ** erº - 6,395 13 10 237 13 —
Michaelmas - - ditto - - - - - - 6,417 9 9 96 18 —
£. 12,813 3 7 334. 11 —
Lady-day collection 1819 -- - tºº - - 10,344. 1 2 3 415 15 —
Michaelmas - - ditto * - - *s * a- 10,378 3 — 13 10 —
£. 20,722 15 3 429 5 —
Lady-day collection 1820 - -> *g e- - 1 O,323 1 11 395 4 6
Michaelmas - - ditto - dº * - tºp - 10,263 7 11 13 2 6
f. H 20,586 9 lo 408 7 —
Amount of Michaelmas collection 1820 - & £. 10,263 7 11 * *

(13)—AN ACCOUNT of the Rate of Interest which would be produced on the Capital of the
Grand Junction Waterworks Company by their increased Rates; and also of the Rate of
Interest which would be produced on their Capital by their Rate of 1810.
£. s. d.
Rates of 1810, including high services - - * º *> ſº- tºº - 16, 198 1 5
£. s. d
Deduct annual current expenses tº tº º tº- tº * 7,949 18 —
Ditto empty houses and bad debts - º - - º gº 600 — —
- —-- 8,549 18 —
Net rental applicable to a dividend - º tº - º £. 7,648 3 5
Which is equal to 34% per cent. upon a capital of £. 240,000,
and nearly 3% per cent. upon a capital of £. 219,858.
- £ s. d.
Rates of 1810, with an addition of 25 per cent. and high services - º - 20,526 15 10
£. s. d.
Deduct annual current expenses, increased by collectors commission 8,166 6 —
Ditto empty houses and bad debts -4 - - - º - 750 — —
- 8,916 6 —
Net rental applicable to a dividend - - - - £. 1,610 9 10

Which is equal to 4+; per cent, on a capital of £. 240,000,
and 5 # per cent, on a capital of £. 219,858.
N. B.--The above calculation is made without providing any reserve fund for repairs and
renewal of works, the necessary amount of which being, according to the engineer's
estimate, £. 3,167; the net rental, with the rates of 1810, applicable to a dividend,
will be £. 4,481, which is nearly 1 # per cent. upon a capital of £. 240,000, and
nearly 2 + 3 per cent, upon a capital of £. 219,858. - -
With the deduction for a reserve fund from the increased rates, the net rental appli-
cable to a dividend will be £. 8,443, which is equal to 3% per cent. upon a capital
of £. 240,000, and nearly 3% per cent. upon a capital of £. 219,858. -
W. M. Coe, Secretary.
ON THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS, 243
wº-wºr-
The following PAPER was delivered in by Mr. Barton Greenwood.
ExTRACT from Grand Junction Waterworks Act, 5.1 Geo. 3, c. 169, sect. 33. Appendix,
“. Provided also, and be it further enacted, that the said company of proprietors shall and they (H.) P
are hereby required from time to time hereafter to supply the several lessees or tenants of the Grand Junction
estate belonging to the see of the Bishop of London, at Paddington aforesaid, with water, at the Waterwoks.
rate of ten pounds per centum, at the least, below the average rate which shall be demanded and
taken by the said company, or by any other company or companies, for supplying with an equal
quantity of water the inhabitants of houses of the like magnitude and description, of any other
of the districts or streets within the cities of London and Westminster.”
Copy of a LETTER addressed by Mr. Barton Greenwood, solicitor, to the Chairman
of the Court of Directors of the Grand Junction Waterworks Company, and of the
Answer thereto.
Manchester-street, 23d January 1821.
Sir, I am instructed by Mr. Charles Ollier, tenant and occupier of the house, No. 6, on the
west side Maida-hill, in the parish of Paddington, and parcel of the estate belonging to the see
of the Bishop of London, in that parish, to request that you will, as soon as conveniently may be,
cause such steps to be taken as shall be necessary towards furnishing him with a regular supply
of water at his said house, pursuant to the provision (sect. 33) contained in the act 51 Geo. 3,
c. 169, authorizng the establishment of the Grand Junction waterworks; and to state that
Mr. Ollier is ready and willing to enter into any proper agreement which the Grand Junction
waterworks company may desire, for securing to the company due payment of the rates which
shall from time to time become payable in respect of the water so required to be supplied.
I have further to request that you will direct a communication to be made to me, at the
period at which the desired supply of water will commence, and the amount of the yearly or
other rate chargeable in respect thereof.
- I am, &c. &c.
(signed) Barton Greenwood.
Grand Junction Waterworks, Union-street, Bond-street, 14th February 1821.
Sir, Your letter of the 23d ult. has been laid before the court of directors, and I am desired
to acquaint you, that the company have not at present any pipes laid upon that part of the estate
belonging to the see of the Bishop of London, in which Mr. Ollier resides, and that Mr. Ollier
shall be informed when the company are prepared to furnish him with a supply of water,
I am, &c. &c.
B. Greenwood, Esq. Manchester-street, W. M. Coe, Secretary.
St. Mary-le-bone.
Appendix, (I.)
ESTIMATE of the Fund necessary to provide against the Wear and Tear of Capital for a Appendix,
Waterwork. (I.)
IF a capital be expended in an undertaking consisting of the following items, they will require
renewal in the number of years set opposite the respective sums, and the per-centage for the
renewal will be as stated in the third column.
1. 2. 3. 4.
Engine-houses £. 5,000 renewed in 60 years, at - - - £,o 8 5 per cent. - - - £ 21 — 2
Machinery - - 5,000 - - D9 - - 25 - - D* - - - 2 8 of — - - - I 2 O I 2
Iron pipes ºr of 58,500 - - Dº - - 45 - - D* - - - o 16 6 # — - - - 48 6 8
Cocks and plugs - 9,000 - - D* - - io - - Dº - - - 8 6 8 * - - - 749 12 2
Pipe laying - - 22,500 - - D9 - - 45 - - D* - - - O 16 6 # — - - - 185 18 2
Capital - - £. 100,000 Reserve fund for renewal - - £, 1,124 18 4
William Chadwell Mylne,
Engineer of the New River Company.
Joseph Steevens,
Engineer of the East London Company.
-r;
244 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
Appendix,
(K, L, M.)
N OT E.
THE following Statements (K, L, M,) were drawn up, by directions of the Committee,
from the Evidence before them; but the Committee feel it necessary to remark, that they
involve disputed points, which render it necessary to refer to the Evidence in examining
them, particularly in Abstract (M.) in the column headed “Mean Elevation.”
(K.)
ºsmºsºm-º.
245
ABSTRACT; Showing the RENTALs and Divid ENDs of the OLD WATER COMPANIES, previously and up to the Year 1810, under the Rates then paid.
WATER RENTALS.
DIVIDENDS PER SHARE,
Discharged of Property Tax.
BUILDINGS SUPPLIED.
SHADWELL AND WEST-HAM - \
No Return * - -
& No Return º tºº º
£. s. d. £. s. d
ſ In the Year - 1800 - - 59,976 17 5 | Average of 5 Years, ending 1780 - 329 — —
** - - 1801 - - 60,762 14 10 Do cº- Do ſº 1795 - 427 — —
- - - 1802 - - 61,841 19 — Do º Do gº 1800 - 459 — —
— - - 1803 - - 62,230 4 4 -
— - - 1804 - - 63,678 2 10 In the Year - tºº 1800 - 463 12 —
*-* * †- 1805 - - 70,462 5 — - * º tº- . - 471 9 — Number.
*=s= ºs - 1806 - - 75,661 19 a - ſº *-* &- 1802 - 451 4 —
| y * * - 1807 -, - 77,330 7 7 - sº º tºº 1803 – 445 6 — In 1804. - tº- sº 54,681.
NEW RIVER - - - - \ — - - 1808 - - 79,302 g 3 — - - - 1804 - 396 19 — In 1809 - - - - 59,058.
*= - - 1809 - - 80,782 12 — - gº º - º: – 486 — —
*ses - - 1810 - - 80,992 4 5 - * - lºg 1800 - 450 2 —
n -- tººl * Q- 1807 - 440 13 —
Besides the above, there was also a Rental from - º sº tº- 1808 - 472 I —
Lands and Houses;–which amounted, 8 47
In the Year 1800, to - £. 941 7 4 *-s ºn tº , º, . -- . 5 —
— 1805, to - 1,153 6 6; and — - - - 1810 - 405 — —
º — 1810, to - 1,464. 1 3
*- º - -
r £. The Capital divided into 84 Shares. Numb
In the Year - - 1800 - 3,100, Ull. In D&I".
gradually increasing to In 1790 - º sº 150°/ or £. 630. In 1804 gº - Tenants 2,089.
- In the Year - - 1808 - - 3,264. In 1792 - tº - 160°] or £. 672. In 1809 - - D9 - 2,217.
YORK BUILDINGS - - º ( In the Year - - 1810 - - 3,437.
\-
r (For Domestic purposes only:) The Capital divided into 4,000 Shares.
In the Year - - 1800 - £. 9,563. e *
18oo 9, Fºº 1797, yearly } - 8°/ or £. 1,600.
Average 5 Years { 1804 } - 9,838. Ividen - & - Number.
- D - - - { * ! - 11,082 In the Year 1797 " - 9') or ***09. In 1804 - Buildings supplied - 8,424.
- l 1809 39'52. From - 1797 to 1808 - 10 °/ or £. 2,000.
CHELSEA - - - - - { In the Year - - 1810 - - 13,626. In the Year 1808 - - 11°/ or £. 2,200. In 1809 - - D* - - 9,477.
Besides the above, there was a Rental for supply- • 8 on-
ing Water to public Buildings and Manufactories, From - 1809 to 1820 - 12 °f or £. 2,400.
and for watering Streets; which amounted to,
In - - - 1800 - - £. 1,035.
In - - - 1810 - - - 1,922 ;
and exclusive of improved Rents of Leaseholds,
and dividends of Money in the Funds.
z t
In the Year - 1801 - - £ 10,723. The Capital divided into 1,500 Shares. Number.
º • º -- es P
In the Y 8 º º to 1790 to 1793 - 60°/ or £. 4,500. In 1804 -
IDGE - - * Il tſle Y 631 - 1 & 1 O - - . I 2 © / • , -
LONDON BR DG 25 1794 to 1797 - 40'ſ or £ 3,000. In 181 o - - tº 10,317.
1798 to 1811 - 60°/ or £. 4,500.
\
* Number.
In - - 1804 - - 2
In – – 1810 - - 10,739.
N. B.--Between 1804 and 1809, these Com-
panies lost a considerable number of Houses,
(about 1,500) by the formation of the London
Docks.
3 Q
REMARKS.
}
Besides the Dividends, each Company
was enabled to appropriate certain Sums
out of the Water Rentals, to the im-
provement of their respective Works,
over and above the Sums required to
maintain the Works in repair.
Also, to the Dividends paid during the
existence of the Property Tax, there
should be added the amount of that
Tax, to show the real amount of the im-
provement in the Dividends, which were
paid to the Proprietors discharged of
the Tax:
Thus, if there had been no such Tax
paid by the New River Company in the
Year 1810, the Dividend would have
been tºº - - £. 516 13 4
Property Tax, 10 p' cº - 51 13 4.
ividend pai -ºs-ºs-
Nº. Fº £. 465 — —
*
(L.)
*
246
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF THE QUANTITY OF WATER DELIVERED YEARLY TO THE METROPOLIS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE THAMES, IN THE YEARS 1809 AND 1820;
- Together with the Number of Tenants and Buildings supplied, and the Gross Water Rental of each Company, at both periods.

QUANTITY OF WATER. SUPPLIED. TENANTS OR HOUSES SUPPLIED. GROSS WATER RENTAL.
WITHOUT BY MACHINERY,
Deducting */7th for loss of TOTAL.
MACHINERY. Power, Air, &c.
H Ho: *sº Hogshead Number. 3. £.
NEW RIVER - { º ſº tº gºe *g ogsheads. ogsheads. ogsheads. tº * * * *
jºr s. In 1800, Houses and Buildings - of:8 - - - 80,782
Average of 2 years 1808 & 1809 - ..) 69,118,427 8,991,573 78,110,000 *... Tenants.) 8 59,05 - 57
HAMPSTEAD - sº gº; - 1809 2 P ? sº tº º tºg ſº sº tº P as dº sº. P
YORK BUILDINGS - - * - 1810 gº tº º * 1,029,600 1,029,600 In 1809, (2,217 Tenants) - say 2,250 - - - 3,405
CHELSEA - fººt º & ºf - 1809 tº tº gº - | 9,221,090 9,221,090 In 1809, Houses, &c. - º 9,477 || - - - 14,702
T.ONDON BRIDGE - º - 181 O gº wº fº wº 26,322,705 * - 26,322,705 * In 1810, Houses, &c. - tº 10,317 - - - 12,588
SHADWELL & WEST HAM - 1809 * tºº tº tº 3,785,780 3,785,780 In 1809, Houses, &c. - : -º 10,739 - - - 10,051
Hogsheads 69,118,427 49,350,748 118,469,175 ToTAL Houses, &c. - - 91,841 £. 121,528
lus, ll quantity f lus, supply fro º *
**** "hºº") @ |=>s
NEW RIVER 82O). Hogsheads. Hogsheads. Hogsheads. Number. t £.
including Pl tº b i. tºº li d 1 º 58,842,811 8, 157,189 67,000,000 In 1820, Houses and Buildings - 52,082 - - - 68,297
Including Places not before supplied - - (38,535 Tenants.)
HAMPSTEAD, retired - ſº gº gº Nil. Nil. Nil. *ºg *
YORK BUILDINGS - wº tºº tºº © Q f & tºº,
included in New River - vºy tºº ..} |Nil. Nil. Nil. - ſº *
CHELSEA - - - - - 1820 i - - - - 7,533,900 7,533,900 In 1819, Houses, &c. - - || 8,632 - - - 13586
LONDON BRIDGE - - - 1820 * tº gº ºs 26,322,705 * 26,322,705 * (5) || In 1820, Houses, &c. - - || 10,417 - - - 12,266
EAST LONDON - sº * > - 18
including a large District never before º dº * - ºl 29,516,333 * 29,516,333 * In 1820, Houses, &c. - - 32,071 - - - 35,358
SHADWELL & WEST HAM - wº Nil. Nil. Nil. łº tºmºsº
included in East London tºº tº- Eº ſº -
GRAND JUNCTION - - - 1820 tº $º ºr 13,104,000 * 13,104,000 * In 1820, Houses, &c. - - 7,180 - - - 20,468
WEST MIDDLESEX - - - - |
including a large District and Country | e
•: - te , as A tº tº 11,904,100 * 11,904,100 * In 1820, Houses (of which 840
Parishes not before supplied. 2 \; \**i-2 2S3 vºy out of London, besides supply 10,350 - - - 35,915
Average of 1819 & 1820 tºº Gº tº e. to Paddington) & º gº * *
ToTAL - - Hogsheads 58,842,811 96,538,227 155,381,038 ToTAL Houses, &c. - - || 120,732 £. 175,890

NOTEs.
* It does not appear in the Evidence, that the seventh, for loss of power, &c. has been deducted from the items
distinguished by an asterisk.
(a) Previously to 1810, the whole supply was served through wood pipes, and a considerable proportion of
it is said to have been lost by leakage. This loss is estimated
- Hogsheads. Hogsheads.
by Mr. Simpson, at one seventh part, amounting to - 16,924,168) on the total quantity
& - ſ jº 118,469, 175
and by Mr. Milne, at one fourth part - sº - 29,617,294J of the first period
or, upon an average of the two Estimates, to - - - - - - - - 23,270,731
Leaving a net supply of - - 95, 198,444
(b) The whole supply from the London Bridge Works, and part of the supply from the Chelsea Works, in
the year 1820, being still served through wood pipes, were subject to the like loss.
--Kº
706.
Deduct - 1 1,994
Water Rental computed on Rates of 1810, except *} wº
the case of the East London Company - º º £. 163,896
- - - - being one-fifth of
£. 59,969 aggregate amount
of the gross Rentals of the
Chelsea, West Middlesex,
and Grand Junction Com-
panies, as the amount of the
increased rate of 25 per
cent, charged by those
Companies. -
COMPARATIVE : -
STATEMENT - (M
“. Showing th ". º
the Gross Amoun 2 g the GRoss EXPE -***
- t of the Water Ren º ENDITURE of the N wº-ºº-º-º:
- tals includi º Ew WATER Co -
on those Rentals : ing the increased R • MPANIES, and the Esti r - -
s; the Total Quantity of Water annually supplied º s charged by the East London wº Middl stimated Value of the OLD WATER Wo - - -- -
y Supply for each H , Grand Junction and Chel . gether with the Yearly Cur 247
ouse or Building. i e sea Companies; tı y Current Expenses of
g, including all Man ; the Average Yearly s of each Com
ufactories and e early Rates per H pany; the Number
xtraordinary CO]] - ouse or Building d er of Buildings *
sumption º and the 852 8]] Charge per Th - 8 Supplied;
t which the same i gsheads, computed
me is supplied º
. Abstracted f
I’OIſl
5 C.


- Limitation - t
of Shares Nomi
COM- Capita into whic ominal | Nominal -
... º Value || Joint S Net z-T
PANY. ...A. | Capitals tock Amount of ſ EXPENDITURE
and S 31°C of the Capitals Subscription E Average on Work
Charters divided. Shares. Cl’eat d Monies $g b S; GROSS Av Esti H
. . . $J & r €Cl. receive d. per Share. eyond Amount of rc *Y***ść Current º * OllSèS s
f l Subscriptions. EXPENDITURE. 3 per for the future Ull’e and | º: Ave
º * - - 2 º - €S, er rage
Number. * -º-º-º: l Share. (exclusive Buildings G f H p Total - —-
38O O & l £. £ of Reserve Fund ) e c ROSS REN TAL. j Ol' Quantity Charge Avera &
380,000 || 3,800 each £ t £. s. d *-*_- +- - ..) | Supplied uilding, of W per looo dail ge M
C . 100 380,000 3 * * £. - (including ater |Hogsheads, H aily supply per El ean Highest * quere
75, 158 98 12 — 78,440 f - large § supplied computed" ouse or Building, º Elevation defective?
© tº ,440 Expended. tº £. s. d. £ Sumers.) yearly. on Gross M including th º ich at which
38,80 Dividends pai 4.1 8 - º N t Rental anufactories, & the Water the w
3. ,600 Capit paid out of 4,79 tº- 109 3 2 13 Number. f all. , CCC. IS Supplied is s #.
-º-º-ms-ºs- al, ſ ,OO3 * ºf $ . is supplied.
ſº 32,071 -
2. 39,640 { Net Additional º 35,358 about s. Hogshead. s. d. -
s | ** U Expenditure. lº the increased 22||29,516,833 23/3 135 gall Ft
- -- à. -
*— D - *§. † includi gallons 120 Ft.
to º 60,647, as the consider Ign service. - ries : ºš manufacto- 150
<! . º for the goodwill of Shad €1"– iſsui, i. Stevens says,
£d . W. Ham Works i. Walt . F. only to pri-
s on their ol º § Ses, 1
part of º º dwood pipes, (being could not be cº gall,
ded i sum of £. 130,000 that ver umed;
W. º in the purchise of hº 67,798 prevail ry great waste -
| . and £. 7,151 value º 2 º º that a
l - * *
- º pes sold to New River Com- by them .p #.1S given
- tºº - - - tories, than º ufac-
- - 3}}
Gross Expenditure - - £ other Company. y
% £. Number. f f - 347,000 = 91 6 4.
OO.O º *
P 400,000 || 7,542 each £.100 754,200 £. s. d.
; : ,200 || 340,564 42 5 6 £
ºf H 21,730 Ex Nil. we -- £. s. d. #.
: 3 *7° ſº. 318,834 42 5 6 tº Number.
E assº, Wºº": 5 9,000 || 10,350 #.
3. GV
F. |== amount of . º 5 25,915 | ab s. Hogsheads. ‘s. d
received - - -- includi º about 50 & (1.
31st º the Of * the increased rate 5 ſ 12,169,300 42/7 Ft. F
19. niš sum, £. 1,663 i S.-- nearly i t.
for high • ,663 is charged “s 74. gallons
£ gn Service. § but Mr. Clark ons. 121 151 w
o Number. £ from 200 tºo": Elevati
& tº O sº | * T- * ga sº- OIl j º
Z. - 3 O,OOO 4,500 each £. O £. £. S. d º that little is al- of ..".
Q O 5 225,000 I 87,500 & f . ed to run to WaSte: Kensington and pipe.
: Þ The wate 41 13 4. 32 • 8 £. £ d m * from Reservoir.
r • Se Q, , all Cl feW IIla-
§ % rates rather difference in lº 219,858 8 £. Number. nufactories. IIła.
P º: º of engine and iºi. .In CoSt 48 i 7 6 7,950 7 8 £.
}-> I’a VC and * : aCl Cill lot - 1850
cº. º ~ 20,468 about; * ...
penses to net gai y be considered including the incr about I tº 6 ºz º.
~ March 1819 *: to the Company, by i. Of this #. gº rates.— 57/| 13,104,000 31 /3 Ft. In. Ft
e ngement with the R IT for hi ... •. 1,681 is ch 270 gall . In.
Gr .* C Regents a or high se Charged O gallons.
f and Junction Canal C g ind 8 TVICe. 8. Mr 88 9 I
© - lel’e y ..] OI!
70,000 || 2,000 each £. 20 \| 6 £. £. s. d W ...” “w of greatest
6 tº 2.OOO º O,OOO 60 & f S. Reservoi pressure
<! 5 each £. 1 oſ ,000 15 — — g #. oir. at which
ſil sºs 78,648 & r engine
CO 3.04. £. *
H accumulated Savings out of 138,648 Number. | works.
ſº spent on works at differ o rental, Note.—In a r 9,869 8,6 f.
;I Slnce 1734. ent periods made to a return N.B.--Th e ,032 I Hogshead
O the cº; delivered i. º includi 3,586 about e S. S.
Č, I”. •., l ; Clu Cl tº S Sè- ing the i - -º-º-º:
º: has stated, that veral items which are This #.º. rates— | *. d. 7,533,900 36/ about Ft. Ft
their freel but ºr 3. - - -] gh service. T 31/3 •l,- A 8O
tº reehold, l'éSèr- are ac tually aug. Stated is exclusiv . he sum including upward i 14
.-- voir, engines, pipes mentations of Čapital; about £. 1,400, fr e of a rental of 100 public bui s of Elevation i &
&c. is £. 3. the cha ...r. l ,400, from premis and Juildings - including
50,000. - rge fol 1TO]] €3Se of which il º SeS, the manufa :’s of re
º: however, is day 1823 will expire at Lady- and the º: Reservoir stand-pipe
alone struck out in thi º in waterin Se *
S g th
The whole average. and streets. e parks Mr. Sim
3 J3. Stock l Val in sº says, that
apital is * 3. uation of C g e mi - ict ºf ‘eSent li-
g divided 72 equal part shares. exclusive of the estimated * ital in 1820, º district, thesup-
º into and left t of the wood pipes, aband ply is not required
ſº /~ - o rot in the ground. 3. landoned beyond 60 OF 7o .
—’’ *
: f \ £. Numb -->
2. . 954,868, equal to about 26,000 52 s: £.
£. 13,262 ,082 --- grº fºr r-
13,262 per 72 part share. includi 68,297 about Hogsheads. s. d.
º £, 4,263, to raise certai S d 67,000,000 20| 3. Ft r
summ- enants to rates of 18 rtain * **, * 4: about 190 g II * Ft
Th clusive of £ gh services; but ex- Mr. Milne says, it i 4 : 145
Z. É le whole and hous . 3,240 rents of lands cludes all ma sºn- Elevation | *
C Cº J8. Stock €S. ries, aud an . of River : Oile
apital is 1.50 waste fr mmense Head, ighth of
2 3 divided ,500 equal part shares, which sold i cocks ſº disuse of the whole
© 2: into old in 1820 - - £. 50 a sha 1811 º: that in supplied
ſº I'C, 2 ply was ab ge Sup- at this
e out 216 pressur
º f
? &
10,417 12,266. *-ºº-ºº:
This Com about --
º pany make * , &
charge for high ...” distinct S. d. º ordinary service, C
e 3. y -
23/6; º º sº * | *...P. higher
from Mr. Till. eturn || Cornhill. Stories in


7
O
6.
3 S
R. E. P. O R T
T H E C O M M I S S I O N E R S
APPOINTED BY HIS MAJESTY
TO INQUIRE INTO THE
State of the Supply of Water in the Metropolis.
(Dated 21st April 1828.)
Ordered to be printed 13th May 1828.
CONTENTS.
- Page
REPORT 4- tº tº- º ſº -e - * -- t- º - - º 3
APPENDIX:
Evidence from Water Companies gºe gº º - - -- - - 15
Evidence on the State of the Water - - - tº ºn gº a- - - 36
Evidence of Firemen as to Quantity tº- gº - - - ſº gº - 60
Evidence on the general state of the Thames - -- tº- g- º - – 6 l
Particulars of taking Samples of Water º º - - tº- tº - 75
Analysis by Dr. Bostock -> - tº- - * * sº as “ - 77
Analyses by other Persons - - - - - - - - - - 83
Plans of Remedies -* tºy - * - - ºs sº º - - 97
- Copies of Petitions tº tº - - wººd --> * - º sº - 1 14
Correspondence with the Home Department - º tº º º - - ) 17
tº- * - 122
Conversation with Mr. Wright - -> º * tº -
Memoir by Mr. Wright – - - *- - - * º tº- & - 123
R. E. P. O. R. T
OF THE
CoMMISSIONERs appointed by HIS MAJESTY to inquire into
the STATE of the SUPPLy of WATER in the METRoPolis.
TO HIS MAJESTY GEORGE THE FOURTH,
By the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King, Defender
of the Faith, &c. &c. &c.
N obedience to the Commands contained in HIS MAJESTY's Commission,
directing us to inquire into the state of the Supply of Water in the
Metropolis, and to report our observations and opinions touching and concern-
ing the same, we proceeded, without delay, as soon as the arrangements neces-
sary for executing them could be completed, to investigate the important subject
referred to us. The circumstances which prevented our meeting for the pur-
poses of that inquiry until December last are stated in our Correspondence with
the Secretary of State for the Home Department, which is contained in the
Appendix to this Report. From the terms of our Commission, and from the
tenor of the Petitions of the inhabitants of the Western portion of the Metro-
polis, and of the Borough of Southwark, to both Houses of Parliament, referred
to our consideration, praying for an inquiry into the quality of the Water
furnished by the Water Companies, and into the means of procuring an effec-
tual and permanent supply of pure and wholesome Water, as well as from the
Communications with His Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for the Home
Department, it appeared that our attention was required to be directed to three
principal points; namely, first, to ascertain the sources and means by which the
Metropolis is supplied with water, and their efficiency as to the quantity sup-
plied; secondly, to determine the quality of the water; and, thirdly, to obtain
such information as might enable us, if necessary, to suggest new methods, or
sources of supply, or to point out the means of ameliorating those now in exist-
ence. But having since learned, by a recent communication from His Majesty’s
Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department, that our inquiry is to
be limited to the description, the quality, and the salubrity of the Water, and
that we are not called upon either to consider new and more eligible sources
of supply, or to suggest plans for the improvement of those already existing, we
have agreed upon the following Report, respecting the two former subjects.
(94.) - A 2 IN
4 •. REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS ON
IN investigating the Supply of Water in respect to quantity, we proceeded, in
the first instance, to collect the requisite information as to the Powers and
Resources of the different Water Companies upon the North side of the Thames;
first procuring Evidence from the Companies themselves as to the extent and
facilities of their Supplies, and afterwards checking such Evidence by collateral
testimony from other Witnesses, and occasionally by personal Examination into
the facts. -
The Supply of this, the most extensive portion of the Metropolis, is dependent
upon Five Companies, which, arranged in the order of the number of tenants
they serve, and nearly in that of the quantity of Water which they respectively
furnish, stand as follows:— - -
The New River,
The East London,
The West Middlesex,
The Chelsea, and
The Grand Junction Companies.
Of these Companies the NEW RIVER derives its principal supplies of Water
from a spring at Chadwell, between Hertford and Ware, and about 21 miles
north of London; and also from an arm of the River Lea, the source of which
is near the Chadwell Spring, in the proportion of about two thirds from the
former, and one third from the latter. These united waters are conducted by
an artificial channel, nearly 40 miles in length, to four reservoirs, called the
New River Head, at Clerkenwell; proper means being adopted to prevent the
ingress of fish and weeds, and such arrangements being made in respect to the
mains as to prevent interruption of service in case of repairs. Since, however,
the abandonment of the London Bridge, and of the York Buildings Water-
works, whose former districts are now supplied by the New River Company,
they have found it advisable to erect an engine at Broken Wharf, Thames-
street, by which they are enabled occasionally to supply parts of their district
with Thames Water, when, from long continued droughts, severe frosts, or other
accidental causes, the flow of the New River is impeded. It appears, however,
that the quantity of Thames Water thus supplied bears a very trifling pro-
portion to the other source, the engine at Broken Wharf having been worked
for 76 hours only, in January and February of last year, and for 100 hours during
the drought of July and August. The number of tenants supplied by the
New River Company is between 66,000 and 67,000, and the quantity of water
which is daily supplied exceeds 18,000,000 of gallons, being about 2,000,000
of cubic feet.
The EAST LONDON WATER-WoRKS are situated at Old Ford, on the River
Lea; but as the tide of the Thames flows up that river to the extent of a mile
beyond the Works, and as their supplies are taken during the ascending tide,
the description of water thus furnished will closely approximate to that of the
Thames. This Company has four reservoirs; the number of tenants supplied
amounts to about 42,000, and the daily consumption of water to nearly
6,000,000 of gallons, or about 950,000 cubic feet.
The WEST MIDDLESEx WATER-WoRKS are upon the banks of the Thames,
at the upper end of Hammersmith, and draw water exclusively from that river,
1() | opposite
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. 5
opposite to the Works. They have two reservoirs, one at Kensington, and one
at Little Primrose Hill, which are supplied by the engines at Hammersmith,
and they serve about 15,000 tenants. The average daily consumption of Water
is 2,250,000 gallons, or about 360,000 cubic feet.
The CHELSEA WATER-WoRKs are upon the banks of the River, about a
quarter of a mile east of Chelsea Hospital; and their supplies are derived
entirely from the Thames, opposite to their Works. They have two reservoirs,
one in Hyde Park, and one in the Green Park, close to Piccadilly. They
supply about 12,400 houses; the average daily supply to the whole being about
1,760,000 gallons, or nearly 282,000 cubic feet. -
The Works of the GRAND JUNCTION COMPANY are also at Chelsea, imme-
diately adjacent to, and east of the Hospital. They derive the whole of their
supply of water from the River Thames, with which they fill three reservoirs
situated at Paddington, and from these their district is served. The number
of their tenants does not appear to exceed 7,700; but their daily consumption
of water is about 2,800,000 gallons, or upwards of 450,000 cubic feet.
It appears from this statement that the portion of the town upon the North
side of the River Thames, including the cities of London and Westminster, is
supplied daily with a quantity of water amounting to nearly 26,000,000 of
gallons, and that the total number of houses and buildings receiving this supply
amounts to about 144,000. The Water is of course very unequally distributed,
the average consumption in each house being apparently greatest in the district
supplied by the Grand Junction Company, where it amounts to about 363
gallons daily per house. Taking the average of the whole supply, the daily
consumption of each house is about 180 gallons. Of this Water, more than
one half of which is derived from the Thames, a large portion is delivered at
very considerable elevations above the level of the river, constituting what is
called high service ; for which purpose 15 steam engines are employed, exerting
a power of about 1,105 horses.
It is obvious, from the above statement, that the quantity of water supplied
in London and Westminster is abundant; and in our examinations of indivi-
duals touching the quality of the water, we have in no instance met with com-
plaints of deficiency in quantity. We have reason to believe that the hospitals,
workhouses, and other similar establishments, where an abundance of water is
an essential requisite, are in all cases duly supplied; and upon the important
subject of supply in case of fire, our evidence leads us to believe that of late
it has always been ample, and that when not immediately procured, the fault
has lain with the turncocks; for among other advantages of the reservoirs
annexed to the Works upon the Middlesex side of the river, is that of having at
command a large head of Water, by which the mains are kept full, and in many
districts are under considerable pressure. The supply of a large quantity of
Water upon any sudden emergency is thus ensured; and among other great
advantages arising out of the substitution of iron for wooden mains, is that of
their sustaining the pressure of a column of water which it would have been
impossible, in the former state of the works, to have commanded.
As far, therefore, as regards the description and quantity of Water supplied
to the Cities of London and Westminster, it appears that more than half the
(94.) B consumption
6 - REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS ON
consumption is derived from the Thames, and that it is in such abundance as
not only to supply all necessary demands upon ordinary and extraordinary
occasions, but that a proportion is constantly suffered to run to waste, by which
the cleansing of the drains of houses and of the common sewers is effectually
accomplished, all accumulations of filth obviated, and the general healthiness of
the Metropolis promoted.
... We next proceeded to examine into the supply of Water to those parts of the
Metropolis situated upon the South side of the River, including the Borough of
Southwark. We found that they are dependent upon three establishments,
known as
The Lambeth,
The South London, and
The Southwark Water-works.
The first of these is upon the banks of the Thames, between Westminster
and Waterloo Bridges, drawing its supplies from the river immediately opposite
to the works. They have no reservoir, the water being forced immediately
from the river into the mains, and thence distributed to about 16,000 tenants,
who consume 1,244,000 gallons daily, or nearly 200,000 cubic feet.
The VAUxHALL, or SouTH LoNDON WATER-WoRKs, are situated in Ken-
nington Lane, and have also an engine on the River at the foot of Vauxhall
Bridge. They supply Thames Water exclusively, and have reservoirs for the
service of their upper engine. The number of their tenants is about 10,000,
and the daily consumption of water about 1,000,000 of gallons, or about
160,000 cubic feet. -
The SouTHwARK WATER-WoRKs are upon the bank of the River, between
Southwark and London Bridges, and derive the whole of their water from the
middle of the river opposite to their engines. It appears that about 7,000
tenants are supplied by this establishment, with about 720,000 gallons of water,
or 115,000 cubic feet, daily.
... Each of these Establishments has two engines, the aggregate power of the six
may be estimated at about 235 horses. The whole of the water which they
supply amounts to nearly 3,000,000 of gallons, or 485,000 cubic feet, daily,
which is distributed among 33,000 tenants. -
There appear to be no just complaints respecting the quantity of water
furnished by any of these companies, except in cases of fire, when there has
occasionally been a serious deficiency. We have inquired into the causes of
this, and are induced to refer it to the want of proper reservoirs for preserving
a head of water upon the mains when the engines are not working. On
these occasions much time is often lost in sending to the engine of the district,
and if the steam be not up, and the fire low, further and fatal delay sometimes
occurs.
In reference to the total amount of the quantity of Water required for the
daily supply of the inhabitants of the Metropolis, and for the use of the various
manufactories requiring it, it appears to be about 29,000,000 of gallons, or
4,650,000 cubic feet. -
, - - We
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. 7
We next directed our attention to such facts respecting the quality and salubrity
of the Water with which the inhabitants of London are supplied, as were in our
judgment best calculated to enable us to form a correct and unprejudiced opinion
upon this important question. Being a question, however, in which the interests
of a great number of individuals and public bodies are deeply involved, and which
has been the subject of acrimonious controversy, and also respecting which
a variety of representations had gone forth to the public, we perceived that it
would necessarily embrace a multitude of considerations of a delicate and com-
plicated nature. We felt it to be our duty, therefore, to begin by dismissing
from our minds whatever previous impressions might have been received from
the reports and statements which had been circulated, and to be guided in our
judgment solely by the evidence we should be enabled to obtain in the execution
of our Commission.
In our remarks upon this Evidence, we shall first confine ourselves to the
Water of the River Thames.
Assuming the supplies to be derived directly from the river, and to be subjected
to no intermediate process tending to purification, it is sufficiently obvious that
the state of the weather will materially affect the purity of the Water, which is
sometimes comparatively clean and clear, and at others loaded with various
matters in mechanical suspension, rendering it more or less coloured and turbid.
In the latter state, when thrown into cisterns, and other receptacles of houses,
it is manifestly unfit for immediate use; but after being allowed to rest, it forms
a certain quantity of deposit, and thus may become sufficiently clear for ordinary
purposes. This deposit, however, is the source of several evils; it renders the
cisterns foul, and runs off into those pipes which issue from or near the bottom
of the reservoirs. By the agitation which accompanies every fresh influx of
water, this deposit is constantly stirred up, and becomes a renewed source of
contamination to the whole mass; and although chiefly consisting of earthy sub-
stances in a state of minute division, it is apt also to contain such proportion of
organic matters as will occasion a degree of putrefaction when collected in any
quantity, and especially in warm weather. Of this deposit, more or less is
almost always collected, especially where the service is direct from the river;
and although some of the companies have reservoirs of such magnitude as to
enable them to serve water already partially purified by deposition, the system
is still very imperfect, and the water is frequently supplied in a turbid state.
In other cases, the companies reservoirs, however eminently useful in cases
of fire, become objectionable in regard to the purity of the Water, since the
mud accumulates in them, and also proportionately in the mains and branch
pipes. *. -
By far the greater number of complaints which have been made to us with
respect to the quality of the Water have originated in the cause just alluded to,
and hence some of the companies have attempted to get over the difficulty by
suffering the Water to remain at rest for a sufficient time to become clear before
the public are supplied, and in this they have in some instances so far succeeded
as materialſy to improve their service. When, however, from land floods or
other causes, the river is very thick, they cannot allow due time for such sub-
sidence; and even when most perfectly performed, the insects contained in the
water, so far from being got rid of, become, perhaps, even more numerous.
(94.) g This
8. REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS ON
This is another just cause of complaint in regard to the Water, especially in hot
SeaSOIlS,
To obtain an effectual supply of clear Water, free from insects and all sus-
pended matters, we have taken into consideration various plans for filtering the
river water through beds of sand and other materials; and considering this, on
many accounts, as a very important object, we are glad to find that it is perfectly
possible to filter the whole supply, and this within such limits in point of expense
as that no serious objection can be urged against the plan on that score, and
with such rapidity as not to interfere with the regularity of service.
It must, however, be recollected, that insects and suspended impurities only
are separated by filtration, and that whatever substances may be employed in
the construction of filtering beds, the purity of the Water, as dependent upon
matters held in a state of solution, cannot be improved by any practicable modi-
fication of the process. If, therefore, it can be shown that water taken from
the parts of the river whence the companies draw their supplies either is or is
likely to be contaminated by substances dissolved, or chemically combined, it
will follow that the most perfect system of filtering can effect only a partial
purification.
From the commencement of our inquiries we have bestowed considerable
attention upon this subject, and have endeavoured to obtain accurate information
respecting it. But on examining such analyses of the Water as had already been
made, and were communicated by the companies, as well as by several indivi-
duals of high authority on these matters, we found them to be so far at variance
with each other as to prevent our drawing from them satisfactory conclusions.
We therefore devised a more regular plan of procedure, which we conceived
would be better suited to the particular objects of our present inquiry. After all
the preparations for that purpose were completed, the occurrence of a heavy fall
of snow, the effects of which on the water of the river would have introduced
uncertainty in the results, induced us to defer for a time the execution of our
plan. We waited till the river had returned to what may be regarded as its
average state, and under these circumstances, directed portions of water to be
taken, under the personal inspection of our Secretary, from different parts of
the river at different times of the tide, and especially from those parts whence
the companies draw their water; and also from situations higher up the river,
where its quality can in no degree be influenced by the tide. With the view
of comparing the state of the Thames Water at London under different circum-
stances, we subsequently procured specimens from several parts of the river
after an abundant fall of rain; and also others from places where it had been
represented to us as particularly charged with impurities. A popular notion
having prevailed that the water in the London Dock possessed peculiarly
deleterious qualities, from an impregnation of copper derived from the bottoms
of the ships, we likewise obtained, with a view to inquire into the truth of
this opinion, portions of water from the Dock, taken at three different depths
from the surface.
In order to ensure the subjecting of all these various specimens to the most
careful and rigid examination, upon one uniform system, we put them, for that
purpose, into the hands of Dr. Bostock, a gentleman eminently qualified for the
task by his extensive knowledge of chemistry, and his practical experience in this
& I * department
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. 9
department of analysis. In the Appendix will be found the detailed account of
his examinations, in the accuracy of which we have every reason to repose the
fullest confidence. In his report to us he justly remarks that it would have
required a much longer space of time than was allowed him, to have performed
a complete scientific analysis of so many specimens of water; but the results
he obtained are quite sufficient for the object proposed, and to which we more
particularly directed his attention, namely, “to ascertain how far the Water of
“ the Thames, contiguous to or in the neighbourhood of London, is in a state
“ proper for being employed in diet and various other domestic purposes.”
The general conclusion he deduces from the whole series of examinations is
expressed in the following passage of his report:-
“ It appears that the Water of the Thames, when free from extraneous
substances, is in a state of considerable purity, containing only a moderate
“ quantity of saline contents, and those of a kind which cannot be supposed to
“ render it unfit for domestic purposes, or to be injurious to the health. But
“ as it approaches the Metropolis it becomes loaded with a quantity of filth,
which renders it disgusting to the senses, and improper to be employed in the
preparation of food. The greatest part of this additional matter appears to be
only mechanically suspended in it, and separates by mere rest. It requires,
however, a considerable length of time to allow of the complete separation;
while, on account of its peculiar texture and comminuted state, it is disposed
“ to be again diffused through the water by a slight degree of agitation, while the
“ gradual accumulation of this matter in the reservoirs must obviously increase
“ the unpleasant odour and flavour of the water, and promote its tendency to
“ the putrid state.
& 6
46
& 6
& 4
6 &
“Regarding the greatest part of the extraneous matter in the Thames as
mechanically mixed with it, we may conceive that a variety of incidental
circumstances will affect its quantity in the same situation and under the
same circumstances of the tide; but the observations are sufficiently uniform
to warrant us in concluding, that the Water is in the purest state at low tide,
“ and the most loaded with extraneous matter at half ebb. It would appear,
“ however, that a very considerable part, if not the whole, of this extraneous
“ matter may be removed by filtration through sand, and still more effectually
by a mixture of sand and charcoal.”
© &
& 6
6 &
& ©
&
G
The examination of the Water taken from the London Dock showed that it
did not contain the smallest appreciable quantity of copper.
We have also endeavoured to gain information from various other sources
respecting the state and purity of the Thames Water, and its general fitness for
domestic use; and from such inquiries it appears proved to us, that the quality
of the Water within certain limits, included in what may be called the London
District, has suffered a gradual deterioration within the last ten or twelve years.
We found this opinion upon the well-ascertained fact of the disappearance of
fish from those parts of the river, to such an extent as to have led to the
almost entire destruction of the fisherman’s trade between Putney Bridge and
Greenwich ; and upon the circumstance that the eels imported from Holland
can now with great difficulty be kept alive in those parts of the Thames
where they were formerly preserved in perfect health. We also learn that the
fishmongers in London find it impossible to preserve live fish for any length of
time in water taken from the same district.
(94.) C The
TO REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS ON
The causes of these effects are, perhaps, principally to be traced to the
increase of certain manufactories, amongst which those of coal gas are the most
prominent, polluting the river by their refuse; to the constant passage of steam-
boats, by which the mud is stirred up, and to the peculiar nature of that mud
within the above-mentioned precincts. The very circumstance also of the great
abundance with which water is supplied to the houses and manufactories of the
Metropolis appears to be essentially connected with the augmented impurity of
the river; for where refuse animal and vegetable matter of various descriptions
used to be collected, and from time to time removed for the purposes of manure,
it is now indiscriminately washed into the sewers, and conveyed into the Thames:
and the sewers themselves are rendered much cleaner than formerly by the
quantity of water which runs to waste, and which, as already remarked, has
rendered them less offensive, especially in those parts of the town where they used
to be most liable to stagnation and consequent putrescence. Thus it has been
stated to us that the Water of the river is more polluted immediately after heavy
rains, which force down the contents of the sewers, than after a continuance of
dry weather, when its course is sluggish or altogether arrested; and the results
of experiments we directed to be made on the subject fully establish this fact.
The great increase which has of late years taken place in the population of
London, and of its suburbs on every side, must also be attended by a pro-
portionate augmentation in the quantity of extraneous matter carried down into
the Thames.
There are other circumstances affecting the fitness of the Water, as now taken
from the river for the supply of the town, which, though less general in their
influence, should not be overlooked; such as the position of the suction pipes
of the engines belonging to some of the companies in regard to the mouths of
sewers, the quantity of dead animals thrown into the river in and about
London, its contamination by the offal of slaughter-houses, and a variety of other
causes, which we need not here specify, but which will be found on reference
to the Evidence; some of these we have inquired into in detail, and have
anxiously sought for means by which the nuisances in question might be
remedied or abated; but it is manifest that if the general quality of the River
Water be objectionable within the whole of that district whence the supplies for
the Metropolis are drawn, any remedies for local evils become comparatively
unimportant; and although these diminish as we ascend the river, we apprehend
that their influence, with that of the other contaminating causes, will be more
or less felt nearly to the extent to which the tide reaches.
The statements which have been made respecting the insalubrity of the
Thames Water, as supplied by the companies, have also been considered by
us; and although, from the few cases which have been brought before us of
disorders imputed to this cause, we do not feel ourselves warranted to draw
any general conclusions, we think the subject is by no means undeserving of
further attention. There must always be considerable difficulty in obtaining
decisive evidence of an influence, which, although actually operating to a
certain extent as a cause of constitutional derangement, may yet not be suffici-
ciently powerful to produce immediate and obvious injury. It cannot be denied
that the continued use of a noxious ingredient in diet may create a tendency
to disorders, which do not actually break out until fostered by the concurrence
of other causes; for we unquestionably find an influence of the same kind
exerted by other agents, which occasion merely a certain predisposition to
- 3 disease,
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 11
disease, and of which the immediate operation must therefore be extremely
insidious and difficult to trace. It is obvious that water receiving so large a
proportion of foreign matters as we know find their way into the Thames, and
so far impure as to destroy fish, cannot, even when clarified by filtration, be
pronounced entirely free from the suspicion of general insalubrity. In reference
also to this question, we apprehend that there are no grounds for assuming the
probability of any improvement in the state of the Water drawn from the
London District of the river. -
Although the principal supply of Water by the New River Company is not
open to the same objectionable impregnations as that of the Thames, we think
it, nevertheless, susceptible of much improvement. The occasional deficiency in
quantity, which suggested the necessity of the engine at Broken Wharf, might
be obviated by allowing a portion of that supply to be drawn from the River
Lea at Lea Bridge.
But here, as in respect to the Thames, the Water is occasionally very muddy,
receiving as it does the drainage of a considerable extent of country, in con-
sequence of a right claimed by the proprietors of adjacent lands, and which the
company have at present no means of obviating; neither have they any power
to prevent persons from bathing in their aqueduct. ~,
These evils they would very gladly remedy if enabled to do so; and their
removal, together with the adoption of an extensive system of filtration, would
materially contribute to the perfection of the New River supply. Great benefit
would result, not only to the extensive district of London supplied by this
company, but also to the Public at large, if the inducement to bathe in the open
canal of the New River were superseded by the establishment of Baths in the
neighbourhood of the Metropolis, to which the Public might, under certain
regulations, be allowed access. It has been stated to us in Evidence that the
New River Company have voluntarily offered to furnish sufficient supplies of
water for a purpose of such manifest and general utility.
Taking into consideration the various circumstances to which we have now
adverted, together with the details of evidence by which they are proved and
illustrated, and also the facts derived from our own observation and experience,
we are of opinion, that the present state of the supply of Water to the Metro-
polis is susceptible of, and requires improvement; that many of the complaints
respecting the quality of the Water are well founded, and that it ought to be
derived from other sources than those now resorted to, and guarded by such
restrictions as shall at all times ensure its cleanliness and purity.
Various schemes, proposed by different individuals, for the attainment of these
desirable objects, have occupied our attention in the course of our inquiries;
but the complete examination of any plan of this kind, with reference to its
practical efficiency and expediency, would necessarily have required the taking
of surveys of the ground, and the determination of levels of different points
comprehended in such plan. The limits which have been assigned to our
inquiry, and the manner in which our Report has been demanded, have pre-
cluded such further investigation of this important subject as we had originally
contemplated, and for which, indeed, we had been making preparation. But
while we must, consequently, refrain from any further remarks upon the reme-
dies applicable to the existing evils, and upon the best means of conveying a
(94.) sufficient
12 - * REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS, &c.
sufficient supply of Water of unexceptionable quality to the inhabitants of the
Metropolis, we are unwilling to close our labours, without expressing our strong
sense of the importance of this object to the Public, and our earnest hope that
its full investigation by competent persons will not be long deferred. As,
however, the materials we had collected with a view to this more extended
inquiry may still be useful to those by whom the inquiry is resumed, we have
thought it proper to insert them in the Appendix to this Report. Some part
of the evidence offered to us by one of the companies, relating to projected
alterations and improvements, and which was not in a sufficiently mature state
to be made public, has, at the request of that company, been withdrawn, on
their finding that we had not the power of prosecuting the inquiry to the extent
originally contemplated.
We have not entered into the question of the effects resulting from the
mutual compact agreed upon by the several Water Companies on the Middle-
sex side of the Thames, with regard to the limitations of the districts they
respectively supply; it having been expressly stated to us by His Majesty's
Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department, at the time our Com-
mission was issued, that the grievances imputed to this cause were not to form
any part of our present inquiry; inasmuch as they had been the special subject
of consideration by a Select Committee of the House of Commons, appointed
for that purpose in the year 1821, and by whom a report relating to those
matters has been made. The opinion given by that Committee was, that in
consequence of the peculiar nature of the undertakings of companies for the
supply of water, where large capitals must necessarily be vested in fixed
machinery, and where, from the commodity furnished being of no value, but for
consumption on the spot, the sellers are confined to the market by the nature
of the trade, the principle of competition in its application to such companies
requires to be guarded by particular checks and limits, in order to render it
effectual, without the risk of destruction to the competing parties, and thereby
ultimately of a serious injury to the Public. The only remark we shall venture
to make upon this subject is one naturally suggested by the evidence which has
come before us in the course of our inquiries; namely, that if, on the one hand,
the preservation of the present Water Companies, from which the Public have
undoubtedly derived immense benefits, would be endangered by unlimited
competition with new companies that might be established for similar objects,
it must, on the other hand, be evident, when due regard is had to the con-
sideration, that the constant and abundant supply of pure Water is an object of
vital and paramount importance to the inhabitants of this vast Metropolis; that
the dispensing of such a necessary of life ought not to be altogether left to
the unlimited discretion of companies possessing an exclusive monopoly of
that commodity; and that the interests of the Public require, that while they
continue to enjoy that monopoly, their proceedings should be subjected to some
effective superintendence and control.
P. M. ROGET, (L.S.)
* WILLIAM THOMAS BRANDE, (E. s.)
9, New Palace Yard, THOs TELFORD, (L. S.)
Westminster, ,
21st April 1828.
( 18 )
A P P E N D L X.
( 14 )
LIST OF WITNESSES, &c.
Anderson, William ºt fº. p. 25 Keate, Mr. * * - - p. 50
Armstrong, Mr. &=; gº * 66 Kerrison, Dr. *-* *ºn &= -º 44
Beare, Shirley David tº-º-º: º 46 Lambe, Dr 84.
5 wº sº * tº §ºs
: sº - - - - 37 Leach, Stephen - - - - 74
ooth, Stephen - - - 55 Luckie, Joseph - - - 42
Bostock, Dr. (Analysis) * º 77 UCKle, p
Browell, James gº sº wº 59 Martin, Mr. wº º - – 110
Brown, Nicholas gº ºf * – ‘l Il Mills, James tº [ _ asºn 6]
Butcher, William º * ºne 67 Mylne, William Chadwell - - 15
Carr, William sº $º * 54 Nash, William * * gº 57
Carter, Edward tºº tº-ºº: sº 38 Newland, James sº tº-º sº 69
Chambers, Edward - assº – I 12
Clarke, William Tierney - - 21 Palmer, Henry Robinson - - 75
Cotterel, Charles wº tº- tºº 53 Paris, Dr. tºº &ºs º º 46
Crocker, William - 1 - — 58 Pearson, Dr. * tº sºme º 93
D'Iong, J. J. - * tº - ºf 0 Peppercorn, J. W. - * º 30
Dill, Dr. - - - – – 38 Phillips, Mr. - - - - 92
Dowley, John - sº *sº gº 72 Puncher, William - tº ſº 56
Downes, James - sº º 49 Rose, George º * *sº 60
Edwards, John, Esq. º * 34 Rosseter, James sº tº 34.
Evans, Joseph - * wº - 73 Rutt, William tºns º º '76
Fenner, John Ludd - <º ex- 37 Simpkin, Joseph &=g sº sº 47
Francis, Henry - sº cº- 98 Simpson, James - — 23, 29
Freeman and Co. - - - 108 Shepherd, William - - 56
Goodhugh, Richard --- - 49 Smart, George tºº º ... I 10
Gardener, Mr. ºne gº gº 93 Smith, John tº-3 & ºn tº sº. 57
Goldham, John - " - tº ame 7 I Somerville, Dr. º gº sº 52
Hadnut, William º * º 54 Starkey, Anthony - - tººl 39
Hall, John * tº tº ºs 4] Stevens, Joseph dººr tº $ 19
Hatherill, Thomas - *s wº 70 Syer, Edward * -º iº tº- 6]
Hatherill, William es gºt '70 * * * *
Tavlor, Phil * * - 104
Hennell, Henry $º- gº sº 36 aylor, Philip
Hipkins, Thomas sº gº sº 97 Watts, tººl gº * 4, 1
Hitchcock, John ſº * º 48 Wheeler, Daniel wº gº *-*. 58
Hubert, Samuel Morton - * 60 Wilson, William * dº 83
Hutchins, Henry ‘º i tº º 43 Wright, Frederick - - - 43
Ibell, William - - - 51 W. º - - - 55
e - * @ right, J. gº º sº *º I23
James, William sº tº- tºº 56
Johnson, Dr. * * *-* gº 36 Yeates, Dr. dº tºº * * 50
Jones, John tº fº fººt 40
{
15 )
APPENDIX.
EVIDENCE FROM WATER COMPANIES.
Mr. WILLIAM CHADwell, MyLNE called in and examined.
YOU are Engineer to the New River Company —Yes.
How long have you been so?—I have been in the receipt of a salary, as engineer, for
17 years; I was brought up and acted under my father, who was engineer before me to the
above-mentioned company.
You have received maps on which to colour the district supplied with water by the New
River Company 2—Yes; I have them here (presenting them).
Will you state, in words, the boundaries of the district so supplied?—On the west side
of Northumberland House, the northern boundary of the King's Mews, the north side of
Cockspur-street, the eastern side of the Ilaymarket, Windmill-street, and Poland-street, in
a straight line to Oxford-street, the south side of Oxford-street to the Tottenham-court road,
the east side of Tottenham-court road and Hampstead-road till you reach Camden-town,
the south side of Frog-lane to St. Pancras workhouse, and eastward of Kentish-town road
to Highgate. The east boundary, east side of St. Catharine's docks, Blue-anchor court,
into Rosemary lane, thence westward, along Rosemary-lane to Mansell-street, thence along
the west side of Mansell-street to Whitechapel, the eastern side of Petticoat-lane to
Bishopsgate-street, thence turning northward along the western side of Bishopsgate-street
and Shoreditch to Drapers Alms-houses, and from thence in a straight line to the bridge in
the Dalston-road, the western side of Hackney-brook, till you reach the High-road bridge at
Stoke Newington, and in a straight line from thence to Edmonton Church.
Your source of supply is partly from the New River and partly from the Thames?—The
New River is supplied from a spring at Chadwell, and an arm of the river Lea; the spring
at Chadwell rises northward of London about 21 miles, between Hertford and Ware.
What is the proportion between what is supplied from the springs and the quantity you
draw from the river Lea 2–We are limited by Act of Parliament in the supply from the
river Lea to a channel or gauge, 14 feet long, 6 feet wide, and 2 feet deep.
You have no limitation as to velocity ?—No; the limitation clause was made only, in my
opinion, to protect the navigation on the Lea, and it directs there shall be no pen at the
gauge.
Are you supplied in equal quantities from the springs and from the river Lea’—I cannot
exactly tell, but I should think in the proportions of about two thirds from the spring and
one third from the Lea.
Have you observed any difference in the quality of the water from these two sources 2–
Very little, indeed none of any consequence. The source of the river Lea rises not far
distant from the spring of Chadwell. The water from the Lea is purer at the commence-
ment of floods, after a dry season, than the spring of Chadwell: the floods affect the
#. long before they affect the Lea. The spring rises under a chalk cliff, which is full of
SSUII’éS.
The water from these two sources you collect into reservoirs *—It is conducted by an
artificial channel, about 40 miles in length, to the reservoirs at the New River Head at
Clerkenwell, but the New River is in fact our principal reservoir.
What is the size of the reservoir 2–About five acres : the depth varies, but the average is
about 10 feet.
There are two reservoirs, are there not 2–There are four, one of about two acres, and
the other three about three acres; at first the reservoir was a circular basin, and as the
demand for water increased this was encompassed with another reservoir, and each main
has given to it two mouths with cocks, so that water can be drawn from either reservoir,
and in case of repairs being made to either reservoir the service is not interrupted.
Is the whole quantity supplied from these sources?—The water from these reservoirs pass
into chambers, across which are fine gratings about a quarter of an inch apart, so that no
fish or weeds may pass, and these chambers are cleaned out once in a quarter of a year.
(94.) What
Evidence from
Water Companies.
Mr. *
W. C. Mylne.
(New River.)
16 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence from
Water Companies.
Mr.
W. C. Mylne.
(New River.)
What is the total quantity of water supplied by the New River Company ?–In 1811
the total quantity was 78 millions of hogsheads, of 54 gallons each, of 282 cubic inches
to the gallon. In the year 1810, the new companies began operation, which took away
part of the district on the east and west that had been supplied by the New River Com-
pany. In 1820, the quantity was 67 millions of hogsheads, or about 10 millions less than
it was in 1810. Since that period (1820) we have taken the York Buildings Waterworks,
and have also taken the supply that was given from the London Bridge Waterworks, and
our supply is now about 75 millions of hogsheads per annum. We do not work the York
Buildings engines; their income was not sufficient to cover their expenses; we merely took
their pipes in the streets, and no other part of their stock.
Is there much difference between the supply in summer and in winter?—From the situa-
tion of the New River, in many places skirting the high ground, it catches much rain-water,
and from the adjoining upper land there is much comes in, and is let out by waste gates
along the river, and also at the New River Head; we have in many instances endeavoured
to pass this drainage and sewage water under the river, by sewers, into the natural drains
of the country, and in some places this plan of operation has been opposed, it being asserted
that the New River has by custom of 200 years been the receptacle of the drainage and
sewage water, and that we have no right now to divert, it from this channel. If power
could be obtained to carry these objects into execution much benefit might ensue; and indeed
if there was a power given to the New River Company to take a portion of the present
supply at the lower end of the valley from the river Lea near Lea Bridge, by raising it into
the New River at Stamford-hill near Stoke Newington, it would add materially to the
certainty and purity of the supply, and would not interfere with any other interests, there
being no mills but tide mills upon the river Lea below this point.
What is your consumption of water in summer and in winter 2—I should think it varies
little in cold weather, and in wet weather the tenants take rather less than in warm and dry
weather, but little, in comparison to our whole supply, is taken for watering the streets; there
is much waste in the private houses by the water running away, but this is very valuable to
the town for the health of the inhabitants.
Have you made any average for each house?—About 1,100 hogsheads a year for each
house.
What is the number of houses you supply 2—Sixty-six thousand six hundred. The dis-
tillers waste a great quantity of water; they only want the water for its temperature to cool
and condense with ; we have not many brewhouses supplied by the New River Company.
Will you please to trace the mains from the reservoirs in words?—No. 1. A 12-inch main
leading from the New River Head, and connected with the High Pond, down the City-road,
Finsbury-pavement, Coleman-street, Old Jewry, into Cheapside, then branching two ways,
one leading along Lombard-street, Fenchurch-street to Tower-hill, the other branch along
Cheapside, Queen-street, Cannon-street, Eastcheap to Billingsgate. No. 2. A 19-inch main
leading from the New River Head through Charles-street into and along the City-road and
Old-street Road to a point near Shoreditch Church, where it terminates, of 15 inches
diameter. No. 3. A 22-inch main leading from the New River Head through Northampton-
square into and along Goswell-street, Aldersgate-street into Cheapside, along Cornhill and
Leadenhall-street, where it is 15 inches diameter, and afterwards branching north and south
along Houndsditch and the Minories, of seven inches diameter. No. 4. A 12-inch main
from the New River Head along St. John-street, through Smithfield into the Old Bailey,
(with a cross branch along Newgate-street to the main in St. Martin's-le-Grand above men-
tioned), through Ludgate-hill, where it is united with a 12-inch cross main from the 33-inch
in Old Change, and leading to Charing Cross as herein-after described. No. 5. Two 18-inch
mains leading from the New River Head along Exmouth-street, Bayne's-row, Elm-street into
Theobald’s-road, one branch continuing along Hart-street, where it again divides into two,
one being a 12-inch branch passing along Compton-street and Lisle-street to Coventry-street,
where it terminates at the east end of Piccadilly, and the other branch is 18 inches diameter,
and continues down Museum-street to Broad-street, Bloomsbury, down Drury-lane, Long
Acre, into Covent Garden, and along Bedford-street into the Strand, where it unites with the
12-inch main from Old Change to Charing Cross; the other branch, turning down King's
street along Holborn, continues to the end of Oxford-street, where it joins the 12-inch main
from Tottenham-court road. No. 6. A 12-inch main leading from the New River Head
across Wilmington-square, along Exmouth-street, Cold Bath-street, Leather-lane, into
Holborn, through Fetter-lane into Fleet-street, where it joins the 12-inch main from Old
Change to Charing Cross. No. 7. A 16-inch main leading from the New River Head, and con-
nected with the engine, through Wilmington-square along the back of the House of Correc-
tion, through Guildford-street, Russell-square, from thence to the corner of Bedford-square,
where it divides into two, one branch continuing forward, of 12 inches diameter, until it joins
the 12-inch main in Tottenham-court road, the other turning down Charlotte-street, along
St. Andrew-street, and down St. Martin's-lane, until it joins the 12-inch main in the Strand
before mentioned. No. 8. A cross 12-inch main from the large 38-inch main in Old
Change, along St. Paul's Church-yard, Fleet-street, and along the Strand to Charing Cross.
No. 9. A 12-inch main leading from the New River Head through the West Pond, across
the Bagnigge Wells Road, along Swinton-street, passing across Gray s-Inn-lane Road, and
from thence along Cromer-street, Tavistock-place, Russell-square, Keppel-street, Store-street,
to
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. 17
to the 12-inch main in Tottenham-court road. No. 10. A 16-inch main leading from the
New River Head, and also connected with the engine, along Hamilton-row to Battle-bridge,
where it continues along the line of the New-road to the Tottenham-court road reservoir,
from whence a 12-inch main passes along the Tottenham-court-road to Oxford-street, up
Oxford-street to Poland Street, and with cross seven-inch branches down Crown-street,
Dean-street, and Berwick-street. No. 11. Another 16-inch main leading from the New
River Head along the New-road to Tottenham-court road, with a branch up Judd-
street into Burton Crescent, Hunter-street, and Great Coram-street, and also continuing up
the New-road to Euston-square. No. 12. A 12-inch main leading from the New River Head
through the West Pond across Battle-bridge road, up Swinton-street, along Gray’s-Inn-lane
road to Battle-bridge, along the New-road one way, and extending by cross branches
through Somer's Town the other way, it continues up the Pancras-road, past St. Pancras
Old Church. No. 13. A 12-inch main leading from the High Pond along Penton-street to
the Back-road, where it passes northward in two lines through Islington; one branch
leading along the Back and Highgate Road as far as the Highgate Tunnel road, and the
other branch passing along Islington High-street to the Holloway Turnpike. No. 14. Hox-
ton, Dalston, Stoke Newington, and Holloway are all supplied by eight-inch mains from the
river at the several adjoining parts, and there are many mains of six, seven, and eight
inches diameter connecting the larger mains throughout the town, so that a ready and
certain supply of water may be afforded in cases of fire. No. 15. There is also one large
33-inch main leading from the steam engine at Broken Wharf to the main in Cheapside
along the Old Change.
Have you no engine pumping from the River Thames?—When the New River Company
took the London Bridge Waterworks, it was one of the conditions that they should have an
engine to pump from the Thames, in case of any failure in the supply by frost or otherwise;
and in consequence we obtained power to have a steam engine of a 100 horse power at
Broken Wharf, Thames-street, between Blackfriars bridge and the Iron bridge, from which
there is one large pipe or main 33 inches diameter leading into Cheapside, and communi-
cating there with the other mains. We only use this engine when some unforeseen occasion
requires it. The quantity of work performed by this engine in January and February was
only for 76 hours, and raised 302,000 hogsheads. In July and August, a time of drought,
it worked for 100 hours, and raised 500,000 hogsheads, being 176 hours in one year. It
did not work between February and July. The fall of the New River is only three inches
in a mile ; it is a sluggish movement, and sometimes in the winter season, during heavy falls
of snow, it does not flow sufficiently fast.
At present you draw exclusively from the New River ?—Yes, exclusively.
So that the prevailing notion, that you are drawing from the River Thames, is erroneous *
—Yes, it is. -
Was there any circumstance particularly observable in the taking down the waterworks at
London Bridge –In taking down these works, it was found that many of the pumps were
erected on the walls of a large sewer, running into the river from Gracechurch-street, and
consequently were drawing their water very near its mouth.
You have a suction pipe from the engine at Broken Wharf?—Yes, it is in the river, and
30 or 40 feet beyond low water line.
Are there any sewers near it?—No ; the Fleet sewer at Blackfriars bridge is the nearest
of any consequence to the suction pipe. -
Where there any observations made by the tenants when the change was made in the
supply from the Thames to the New River water 2—There was much fault found with the
New River water by many of the London Bridge tenants.
When the change was made, the tenants then preferred the Thames water 2—Yes,
they did. • .
What is the difference between your, high and low service?—The high service is supplied
by engines at the New River Head, with stand pipes, in the usual way: we have two 60 horse
ower engines. The quantity raised by the steam engine between 1826 and 1827, was
14,500,000 hogsheads: the ordinary supply is about 60 millions, this, added to 14 or 15
millions, will give about the 75 millions for the whole year.
Then, as far as engines are concerned, your service is supplied by two of 60 horse power,
and one of 100?—Yes; but the two 60 horse engines are not at work together; 10 hours
work of one is sufficient for each day; and the supply of the 100 horse engine, as before
stated, is only occasional.
What is the level of your basin 2–Eighty-four feet and a half above low water mark.
What is the height of your high service above this?—About 60 feet; the highest tenant
we have is the cistern at the top of Covent Garden Theatre. The engines at the New River
Head are for two purposes; for raising the water for high services, and for forcing the water
through the pipes, to save too large an outlay of capital. -
The water is always in the pipes?—Yes; and the whole of London district on the eaSt
and west of the New River Head is below the level of the reservoirs, and every main is open
for the supply of water in cases of fires. - y
( 9 4.) E You
Evidence from
Water Companies.
Mr.
W. C. Mylne.
(New River.)
18 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence from
Water Companies.
—
Mr.
W. C. Mylne.
(New River.)
You have also a main at the reservoir at Tottenham-court road?—Yes; and this reservoir
is kept 20 feet above that at the New River Head, for the extinction of fires, and the supply
of Mary-le-bone, should the West Middlesex Company require assistance.
Have you any other reservoir’—No; but we have it in prospect to make one on the high
ground near Copenhagen House ; that district is now dependent for its supply of water on
the steam engines.
How many acres have you in your enclosure at Islington 2–There are about five acres,
exclusive of reservoirs, that are not built upon, round the four reservoirs.
Is the reservoir paved 2–No, it has a clay bottom puddled. I should state that we have
a reservoir at Pentonville, of one square acre; it is considered as part of the New River
Head; it was made for the supply of Islington, and is 34 feet above the reservoir at the
New River Head, and at this reservoir is the stand pipe fixed.
Is there much mud in the reservoir 2–Last year the outer reservoir was cleaned out, and
there was eight feet; it had not been cleaned out for 100 years; the other or inner reservoir
was cleaned out about 20 years ago; the square reservoir on the hill was made 60 or 70
years ago; it has very little or no mud in it. -
This is because you draw out as you pump in 2–No; the water remains in this reservoir
longer than in the others: there is also a water-wheel at the New River Head that is used
in cases of great flood, for pumping into the high pond, and the water used in the water-wheel
runs into the Fleet-ditch.
Have you had any complaints of the quality of the water 2–We have very few as to
quality, but as to quantity we may have five or six in a week, they may perhaps average one
per day, and these arise from stoppages in lead pipes, and from repairs and occasional
accidents which are unavoidable in the company’s pipes, though they are of comparatively
I’are OCCUlrrence.
Have you any means of lending water to other companies 2—We have a junction at the
end of Oxford-street, and another at the corner of the New Road, with the West Middlesex
Waterworks. *
Have you any communication with the Grand Junction ?—I am not aware that there is;
there is one between the Grand Junction and the West Middlesex Waterworks in Oxford-
Street.
Have you had any analysis made of the New River water 2—I have had for my own satis-
faction, by Mr. Accum: there were many prejudices against the use of iron pipes when they
were first used, and I took a sample from the reservoir at Tottenham-court road, where the
water had passed through two miles of iron pipes, and another sample from the New River
Head, where it had not passed through the iron pipes, and he decided that the sample taken
from the New River Head was the hardest. Iron pipes soon coat themselves; if the air is
excluded there is no oxidation; an analysis of the water was also made by Dr. Prout, which
I will endeavour to obtain. Here a petition from the inhabitants of Battle-bridge was read,
complaining that the roads were watered from a common sewer, and the effluvia arising
from the filth scattered over the streets was a nuisance, &c. Mr. Mylne said, that the
Commissioners of Roads water all in that neighbourhood from the Fleet-ditch.
They do not take pure water, not because they cannot get it, but because they do not
choose to pay?—Yes.
What do you charge for water for watering the roads?—The charge for the season for
watering the streets once a day is 5s. for every 100 superficial yards by a cart, but if done
by a scoop it is 7s.6d., and 50l. per mile for watering roads.
What is the extreme length of distance from the reservoirs you supply 2–The extreme
length of one main is two miles and a quarter from the New River Head, but some of the
services extend beyond that; we had about 400 miles of wooden pipes; we used to lay down
about 20 miles every year, and about once in 20 years they were renewed.
Have you any new works in contemplation?—No, we have no surplus funds at present;
having laid out several very large sums in improvement of late.
Are there not many persons bathing in the New River in the summer season, and do
you take any means to prevent this?—This is one point by which we are much annoyed,
namely, by bathing, and we have no other remedy but an action for trespass against the
party so bathing; we have no power to punish for the act of bathing. The New River
Company agreed to give (a few years ago) a supply of water for free baths, but we could
not get the baths instituted, and consequently on this point nothing has been done.
How do you protect the New River from nuisances, such as weeds, dead dogs, &c. —We
have walksmen all along the river, one man stationed every four miles, and a man under him,
to guard the river, and to keep the banks in order, and the weeds trimmed; and we have power,
under some of the late acts of parliament, to take up those who injure the river; we have
also cross weed-gates about every five miles, to stop the weeds and nuisances, and these
are taken out by the walksmen.
5
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, } 9
Mr. Joseph STEVENs called in and examined.
YOU are Engineer to the East London Waterworks?—Yes.
How long have you been Engineer to these works?—Fourteen or fifteen years.
From what source do you obtain your water?—From the River Lea entirely.
At what spot?—We have four large reservoirs at Oldford, where we pump our supply
(pointing to the spot on a map); the smaller of which reservoirs are on the west side, and the
larger on the east side of the river.
What is the size of these reservoirs?—About 11 acres together.
What is the depth —Two about 10 feet deep, and two about 15 feet 6 inches deep.
What are the levels of these reservoirs?—The bottoms of the two largest are level with
the bed of the river, and the other two are five feet six inches lower, and have their surface
level between the spring and the meap tides, the bottoms 15 feet below the surface of the water,
medium tide. There is also an elevated reservoir at Mile End, near the canal bridge, equal
to the supply of 6,000 houses, kept constantly charged.
How far does the tide flow up above the reservoir, and what is the height of the tide 2–
It flows about one mile beyond our works, by the way of the river; and the perpendicular
height is about seven feet in spring tides, and about five feet in neap tides.
What engines have you?—Four at work; and we are erecting another.
What power have they 2–Two are of 36-inch cylinder each, and of about 40 horse power
each ; one of 54-inch cylinder, and about 70 horse power; the fourth is of 60-inch cylinder,
and of about 90 horse power: we work this as low as 86 and as high as 108 horse power;
the average is about 90 horse. The engine we are now erecting is also a 60-inch cylinder,
and of the same power as the other large engine. We have also an engine at Shadwell; but
it is not used, the water of the Lea being much superior.
How are the sides and bottoms of your reservoirs formed 2–The small ones are enclosed
with brick, and have a gravel bottom; the larger ones are sunk in the ground, and have
gravelled bottoms and sides.
What is the thickness of the gravel at the bottom 2—About a foot; they will be lined with
brick as soon as we can afford it.
Have you the power to empty your reservoirs?—Yes; we can let them out at the lowest
meap tides to within 18 inches of the bottom ; this 18 inches the engine will drain out
completely.
Have you cleaned out any of them —Yes, the smaller ones.
How long had they been in use before they were cleaned out?—One 12 years, and another
10 years; and we took out of one 800 cubic yards; from the other, about 700 cubic yards.
What was the depth of mud —About 30 inches deep.
What are the sizes of your principal mains 2—We have one of 36 inches diameter, one of
24 inches, one of 18 inches, and one of 12 inches; all these are from the works at Oldford:
and we have also a 12 and a 9-inch main from a water-wheel at Stratford, and which is equal
to 20 horse power; and these works are near the junction of the Waterworks river, and the
City-mill river. *
What works have you at Stratford 2–A 15 foot 3 inches breastshot wheel.
Have you a reservoir there?—No ; we have power to shut up the river called the Water-
works river, which is about a mile long, and 30 to 40 feet wide; and this forms our
reservoir there. -- - -
Give, in words, the direction of the principal mains in your district 2–1. A 36-inch main,
from the works at Oldford, through Oldford-road to the north-west corner of Bethnal-green,
and thence northward by Cambridge-heath to Clapton-square; and consists of 36, 30, 24,
21, 18, 16, and 12-inch pipes. 2. A 24-inch main, from the works at Oldford through Bow
and Mile-end road, through Whitechapel and Goodman's-fields; and consists of 24, 21, 20,
15, 12, and 9-inch pipes. 3. An 18-inch main, from the works at Oldford through the Drift
Twig Folly and Bethnal-green road to Shoreditch High-street; and consists of 18 and
15-inch pipes. 4. A 12-inch main, from the works at Oldford, through Bow, Bow-road,
Mile-end road, Whitechapel-road, New-road and Cannon-street, St. George's, to Ratcliffe-
highway. 5. A 12-inch main, from the works at Stratford to Bow-bridge, through Bromley
and Poplar, to Blackwall; and consists of 12, 9, 8, 7, and 6-inch pipes. 6. A 9-inch main,
from the works at Stratford through Stratford, through Stratford-green to near the four mile-
stone on the road to Romford; and consists of nine, eight, seven and six-inch pipes. And
for a description of the company's mains generally, see the Plan left herewith, and the Papers
thereto annexed. N. B.-There is also a 12-inch main from the elevated reservoir at Mile-
end, along Rhodes-well road to Limehouse.
(94.) You
Evidence from
Water Companies.
Mr.
Joseph Stevens.
(East London.)
20 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence from
Water Companies.
Mr.
Joseph Stevens.
(East London.)
You have also an engine near the Thames?—Yes, at Shadwell, but it is not used. By
Act of Parliament we must take our supply of water from the River Lea, when the water
flows up, and the mills below have ceased working.
What is the length of time, during the tide, that you can draw water 2—At neap tides
one hour and three quarters to two hours, at spring tides about four hours; and this is the
whole time we have for drawing water. We have six openings through which the water
flows into the reservoirs.
What is the size of these openings —There are two of four feet six inches deep, three of
four feet, and one of three feet six inches; the average depth, three feet to three feet three
inches; and the sum of all the widths 42 feet. We have an aqueduct under the river of 36
inches in diameter, communicating with each of the reservoirs and engines. -
Describe, in words, the boundary of the district supplied with water by the East London
Waterworks?—The line which bounds the East London District on the west side passes
from the River Thames northward, between the London and (intended) St. Catherine's
Docks, to the top of Butcher-row, Upper East Smithfield; thence northward on the west side
of White's-yard to Rosemary-lane; thence westward on the south side of Chambers-street
to the west side of Mansel-street, Goodman's-fields; thence northward by the west side of
Somerset-street to Whitechapel; thence along the east side of Petticoat-lane along Sandy's
row, crossing Artillery-street to Duke-street; thence to the south-west corner of Union-
street, Bishopsgate-street, crossing Bishopsgate-street to the north-east corner of Sun-street;
thence northward along the west side of Bishopsgate-street, Norton-falgate and Shoreditch,
otherwise Holywell street, to Kingsland-road, passing up the middle thereof to the north-
west corner of Union-street; thence along Union-street into Hackney-road; thence along
Hackney-road to Cambridge-heath turnpike, supplying the streets on the north thereof to
the Regent's Canal; from Cambridge-heath turnpike northward to the London Orphan
Asylum at Lower Clapton, supplying Homerton; from Cambridge-heath turnpike south-
ward along Bethnal-green, supplying Twig Folly and Grove-road to the east; thence south-
ward to Mile-end road; thence along Mile-end road to Bow church, including all the
streets branching from the same; from Bow church eastward to Stratford and Maryland.
point; and from Bow-bridge southward, through Bromley, Poplar, and Blackwall, to the
River Thames, which forms the southern boundary.
Is not the River Lea now turbid?—Yes; but we let the water remain in the reservoirs two
or three days. The reservoirs will hold a week's supply, and we can draw water from any one
of them while the others are standing to settle; we can draw from them separately, or we
can connect the whole together. The water is not perfectly bright, but it is sufficiently pure
for all domestic purposes.
Do you think it necessary to filter?—No, I do not.
Do you know of your water being filtered by your tenants?—No, I do not. It was stated
in the House of Commons, by an individual, that he filtered our water; we made strict
inquiry upon the point, and found that it was not so. What he called a filter was an old
stone mortar, lying partly buried in mud in his cellar, where it was placed as a piece of
lumber; and it was not attempted to be used as a filter, and could not have answered, if
it had. -
Your customers have not complained of the water 2–No farther than I have stated, except
from interested motives.
Then you think there have been no just complaints?—No.
Then your reservoirs have improved the water 7–Yes; the purity of our water has been
remarked to us.
Is the water now pretty clear 2–Yes, in the reservoirs, but not in the river.
The water is now turbid when it is taken into the reservoirs?—Yes.
Is there a great difference in its quality in coming in and in its going out?—Yes, certainly,
very great; the principal subsidence of the turbid and heavy matter does take place, but the
clayey matter, being nearly of the same specific gravity as the water, is not so easily separated;
it would require 14 or 15 days for this. The company have together about 30 acres of land,
11 of which are already occupied as reservoirs; the remainder applicable to the further
extension of the means of storing and settling the water.
Have you had an analysis of your water?—Yes.
Perhaps you can furnish us with it?—Yes; and the names of the analysers.
Is there much difference between the Thames water, and the water where you take it?—
The Thames water contains rather more salt and animal matter than the Lea, but otherwise
there is not much difference.
What is the distance of your works from the Thames?—By the river, upwards of three
miles. ‘.
What
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS,
I
3
What is the difference in time and in height between high water in the river Thames and
at your works 2–It is three quarters to near one hour later with us than it is in the Thames,
but this depends upon the sluices at the mills being opened more or less wide, and it is six
to seven inches higher in the Thames than at the works at Old Ford.
The water deposits as it passes along?—Yes, and it remains stationary some time. It
flows up the river Thames six hours, but with us not nearly so long; in floods the tide does
not run up at all, sometimes not more than half an hour.
What is the number of houses you supply?—Forty-two thousand and upwards, including
large consumers.
What is the quantity of water you supply?—Our daily supply is, on an average, 165,560
barrels, of 36 imperial gallons each, of 277,274 cubic inches to a gallon, or about 5,900,000
gallons per day.
Do you supply every day 2–The large consumers, which are very numerous, are in con-
stant supply. The ordinary tenants are supplied alternately, half one day and half the
next, and about one fourth on the seventh day.
What is the annual supply 2–Fifty-seven millions six hundred thousand barrels.
What is the difference in the supply between summer and winter?—The above quantity
is the average supply ; in winter it is less by about 10 per cent., and in summer it is more by
about 10 per cent.
What is the proportion between high and low service 2–We have no high service that
we charge for as such ; we serve some tenants as high as 30 feet; the usual service is six
to eight feet above the pavement; we do not engage to supply high services; but if the
tenants choose to lay on high pipes they do it, and take their chance of obtaining water.
You have no stand pipe or arrangements for this kind of service?—No; we work under
a pressure of 120 feet, but we cannot supply more than the half of that height by reason of
the friction.
What is the extreme distance from your works that you supply?—By the course of the
pipes three miles; and at this distance it is difficult to supply 20 feet above the ground.
Are the mains wood or iron —All iron. Our expenditure in iron pipes last year was
20,000l. exclusive of laying down.
Have you no wooden pipes in your district?—None. When we took the Shadwell district
there were wooden pipes in it, but they were inadequate to the force of the engines; we have
now about 200 miles of iron pipes, some of which cost 71.7s. per yard. Mr. Stevens
promised to send a Map, with the mains and district coloured, in.
Mr. WILLIAM TIERNEY CLARKE called in and examined.
YOU are Engineer to the West Middlesex Waterworks 2—I am.
How long have you been engineer?—Seventeen years.
Define in words the boundary of the district that is supplied with water by the West
Middlesex Waterworks?—At this time the company's district extends in a westerly direction
as far as the five mile-stone Turnham-green, taking in Chiswick, as far as Devonshire
House, the hamlet of Hammersmith, part of Fulham, Kensington, Earl’s-court, and part of
Brompton, as far as the Horns, Kensington Gore and Gravel-pits, Notting-hill, part of the
Uxbridge-road, to the Creek at Bayswater, Westbourn-green, nearly all the north side of
Oxford-street, and west side of Tottenham-court-road, to Mornington-crescent, Hampstead-
road, and all westward, taking in the Regent's Park and St. John's-wood, to Paddington,
to the Canal bridge, and to the one and a half mile-stone on the Kilburn-road; but the
district will be found more clearly defined on the Map. The powers of the company to
supply with water extend beyond the above-mentioned line as follows: the parishes of
Brentford, Battersea, Putney, Richmond, St. James's Westminster, St. Ann's Soho, St. Mary-
le-strand, St. Clement-Danes, St. Paul Covent-garden, St. George's Bloomsbury, and St. Giles
in the Fields, and so much of St. Pancras as lies south of Fig-lane.
From whence do you obtain your supply of water 2—From the river Thames, at the upper
end of Hammersmith, about nine and a half miles from London Bridge, the river at that
place having a fine gravelly bottom.
How many engines have you?—Two of 70 horses power each, at Hammersmith, and we
are now erecting one of 105 horses power in addition.
Have you any reservoirs at Hammersmith ?–No; we pump from a well supplied by a con-
duit, from a considerable distance below the low-water mark.
The whole of the water you pump into the reservoir 2–Not the whole, only that required
for the low services.
(94.) -- F - What
Evidence from
Water Companies.
Mr.
Joseph Stevens.
(East London.)
Mr.
W. Tierney Clarke.
(West Middlesex.)
22 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence from
Water Companies.
Mr.
W. Tierney Clarke.
(West Middlesex.)
What is the size and formation of your reservoir –The mean length is about 309 feet,
and the mean width about 123 feet, the depth 20 feet, and the internal slopes batter about
one to one, the bottom is an inverted arch, and the whole is lined with brick.
What is the elevation of the reservoir 2–The summit is about 122 feet above the river
Thames at low water.
Have you another reservoir 2–Yes, on Little Primrose-hill.
What is the elevation and the contents of that reservoir 2–It is 188 feet above low-water
mark to the summit, and will contain about 22,000 tuns (or 88,000 hogsheads) of water
when full. -
Do you supply direct from the Thames?—No ; the water is first pumped from the well
into the Kensington reservoir, which supplies the low service.
What is the size of the main leading to the Kensington reservoir 2–Twenty-one inches;
we have also one of 10 inches in diameter parallel with it.
How far does your large main run ?–It runs from the engines at Hammersmith to the
reservoir at Kensington, and from thence to St. Giles's-pound, at the east end of Oxford-
street, being gradually reduced from Tyburn-gate to 19 inches.
Describe in words those parts of your district where the mains are placed?—At Tyburn-
gate a main of 15 inches diameter branches off the 21-inch, and passes up the Edgware-
road to St. John's-wood road, from whence it progressively increases in diameter from 15
inches to 23 inches, through Portland-terrace road, to the reservoir on Little Primrose-hill.
At Portman-street a nine-inch main passes through Gloucester-place to the New-road,
where it then turns westward along the New-road to Lisson-grove north; it turns up Lisson-
grove north, and joins into the 15-inch main in St. John's-wood road, already described.
At Orchard-street a 12-inch main branches off, passing along Baker-street to Regent's Park
gate, where it increases to 14 inches, which continues to St. John's-wood chapel; it there
joins the 23-inch main already described. Another main of 12 inches in diameter branches
off at Holles-street, and passes along Harley-street to Devonshire-street, where it is reduced
to six inches, and continues along Devonshire-place to the New-road, where it joins a nine-
inch main hereafter mentioned. At John's-street a seven-inch main branches off, and
passes along Portland-street to Carburton-street, and a six-inch main passes up Rathbone-
place to Goodge-street. At St. Giles's-pound the principal main turns up Tottenham-court-
road, (reduced to 18 inches diameter,) and continues to the New-road, along which it passes
westward (being gradually reduced to nine inches) to Baker-street, where it communicates
with the 12-inch main already mentioned. From this main the following collateral mains
branch off, viz. ; one of seven inches in Goodge-street, one of six inches in Howland-street,
one of six inches along the Hampstead-road, one of six inches along Brook-street, New-road,
one of nine inches along Albany-street, and one of nine inches at York-gate, the two latter
being for the supply of the north-east part of the Regent's Park. There are several collateral
mains intersecting the parishes of St. Mary-le-bone, St. Pancras, and Paddington, in various
directions. Kensington and Hammersmith are supplied from the reservoir at Kensington,
by a distinct main of 10 inches diameter. -
Have you ever cleaned out the reservoir at Kensington?—Yes; about five years ago we let
the water out at the creek at Bayswater, and the sediment being then stirred up, it went off
with the water; the whole operation was performed in about two days, but the reservoir had
not been cleaned out for 12 years; the average depth of sediment was about two feet.
Have you observed a notorious difference in the appearance of the water in coming in and
going out of the reservoir 2—No ; no very material difference.
Is there much mud now in the reservoir 2—Judging from past experience, I should think
there is very little sediment.
Shall you clean it out again soon 2–No, I do not think there is any necessity for it; be-
cause the pipes are so contrived with sluices that the water is never drawn from within ten
feet of the bottom.
Have you any engine at Kensington?—No.
Describe the manner in which your supply is given to and from the reservoir at Kensing-
ton 2–During the summer season the engines are set to work about three o'clock in the
morning, and continue pumping into the reservoir at Kensington until about half-past 12
o'clock, when the sluice at the bottom of the stand-pipe is shut down, as well as the sluice
on the 21-inch main at the foot of the reservoir; this causes the water to rise in the stand-
pipe, by which means the higher service is performed. In winter the engines work from
four o'clock in the morning till eight or nine o'clock at night.
What number of houses do you supply?—Between 14,000 and 15,000.
What quantity of water do you supply?—From the nearest calculation we supply about
150 gallons to each house per diem.
At present the Thames water is foul?—Yes; it is now perturbed from the floods and
freshes.
9 t What
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 2
3
What ground have you belonging to you at your works?—About two acres of copyhold
ground, which is enclosed, and about the same quantity of leasehold.
Within that enclosure you have reservoirs?—Yes, two old ones; but they are very small,
and have not been in use for 14 years.
Is the ground on which your engine stands freehold 2–Yes; freehold or copyhold, I do
not know which. -
What is the distance from the engines to the reservoir 3–From the engines to the Ken-
sington reservoir is about three miles and a quarter, and to the reservoir on Little Primrose-
hill about seven miles.
What is the greatest distance you supply from your works?—From Turnham-green to
Mornington-crescent, Hampstead-road, being a distance of about 10 miles.
Is the reservoir at Kensington high enough for high service –For a few on the lower
levels. *
What proportion is there in the quantity of water supplied by the two services?—I cannot
exactly tell; it is very difficult, if not impossible, to estimate this with accuracy.
You serve every day 2—We do.
On Sundays —Part of the district only is served on Sunday, but one engine is kept work-
ing into the reservoir.—Mr. Clarke stated, in addition, that the company had expended
about the sum of 60,000l. in laying mains to enable them the better to supply the houses
in the neighbourhood of the Regent's Park, in making the reservoir at Little Primrose-hill,
in putting up a new engine of 105 horse power, and in other works, to provide for any
supply that may be required in that neighbourhood.
Have you had any complaints of the quality of the water 2—No ; the water supplied by
this company is generally approved.
What is the diameter of the suction pipes?–Thirty-six inches; they are protected by a
iron grating in front.
you have no dolphin 2–No, it is not required with us; we have depth of water sufficient,
and the new conduit is laid two feet six inches below the old one.
Have you had any analysis made of the water 2–No.
When will the new reservoir at Primrose-hill be in operation ?—Early in the Spring.
Mr. JAMEs SIMPson called in and examined.
YOU are engineer to the Chelsea Waterworks?—Yes.
How long have you been so employed?—Since May 1823; I was also acting three years
previously, during the illness of my father, who held that situation, and I was brought up
under him.
Describe in words the boundary of the district that is supplied by the Chelsea Water-
works?—It contains all that district south and west of the line passing from Northumber-
land House, up St. Martin's-lane, through Duke's-court, the old King's Mews, Pall Mall
East both sides, south side of Pall Mall, Cleveland-row. We then take the boundary of the
Green Park, on St. James's-street side, the south side of Piccadilly, boundary of Hyde Park,
round by Bayswater and Kensington Palace to the Half-way house to Kensington, from
thence (the Half-way house) in a direct line to the Bell and Horns at Brompton, (we do
not take the frontage in Old Brompton road,) along the Fulham-road, through Little Chelsea
down to the river.
[Mr. Simpson presented a Map, coloured.]
You draw the whole of your supply from the Thames?—Yes.
And pump into reservoirs?—Some portion of it.
The other portion is sent to the mains which supply the houses 2–Yes, it is.
What is the proportion between what is supplied from the reservoirs and that which is
sent direct?—About two thirds direct, and one third from the reservoirs.
How many reservoirs have you?—Two.
State the levels, the construction, and capacities of these reservoirs?—The Green Park
basin is 220 yards long, and 35 yards wide, the surface is 1A. 2R. 14P.; it is 44 feet above
high water at Trinity datum, and has a depth of four feet that can be drawn off. The Hyde
Park basin has a surface of three quarters of an acre, and a depth of seven feet, and has
an elevation of 70 feet above high-water mark, Trinity standard. -
Are these reservoirs so constructed that they can be cleaned out and emptied ?–Yes,
by drawing off through the mains, and a small drain to each ; and we frequently empty
them.
(94.) What
Evidence from
Water Companies.
Mr. &
W. Tierney Clarke.
(West Middlesex.)
Mr.
James Simpson.
(Chelsea.)
24 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence from
Water Companies.
Mr.
James Simpson.
(Chelsea.)
What part of the river do you pump out of 7–The Westminster end of Chelsea reach.
Your pipe goes into the river at Chelsea Waterworks?—Yes, it does.
Have you a dolphin 2–Yes.
How often are your reservoirs emptied ?–Generally once a month, sometimes twice.
Do you empty both as often ?—Yes.
You do not clean the bottoms ?—No. --
Have you any means of cleaning the bottoms?—No.
Of neither?—No. -
What depth of mud accumulates?—In the Hyde Park basin perhaps two feet of mud;
in the Green Park three feet has accumulated. -
How long is it since they were cleaned out P—The mud has not been removed since I have
been engineer to the Company, that is since 1820.
Has it been in contemplation to have a reservoir near the river ?—It has.
How many engines do you employ?—Two—one of 60 and one of 70 horse power.
What quantity of water do you supply 7–Sixty-two thousand barrels, of 36 gallons each,
of 282 cubic inches each, per diem, was the greatest quantity in 1827; the least quantity
42,000 barrels; the mean is 48,000 for the whole year, the average of each house is 139
gallons per day, six days per week.
How many houses do you supply?—Twelve thousand three hundred and sixteen in 1827,
and 93 public buildings and consumers. -
Your low service is performed from reservoirs?—In some parts.
And high service by the engines?—In some parts; Knightsbridge and Hyde Park are
supplied from the river. -
Is the quantity of water you now supply more than it was in 1823?—It was more than
9,000,000 hlhds. in 1823, and is now increased to more than 10,000,000 hlhds. per annum.
What is the highest point in your district?—One hundred and twenty-eight feet is the
greatest column of water at our engines.
Is any part of the district you supply 128 feet above high-water mark 2–No ; we have
cisterns as high as 114 feet; the houses are very high in the Knightsbridge-road.
Do you imagine that by filtering the water obtained from the Thames it could be rendered
unexceptionable 2–I am sure of it; we can deliver it perfectly clear from the filter bed, and
it will only remain for the tenants to have proper and clean receptacles. I find the land
water or land floods very difficult to clear, much more so than the river water in its ordinary
State. -
Is the colour of land water when filtered distinguishable?—If it is looked at in quantities
the loamy appearance or colour may be seen on a close inspection after it is filtered, but in
small quantities the colour cannot be perceived.
Could the whole given quantity you supply be filtered, and have you room for filtering 2
—Yes, I have no doubt I shall be able to filter the whole of it, and the Company have
more than four acres of land applicable to the purpose, which, in my opinion, will be suffi-
cient for their present and future wants.--Mr. Simpson stated that he had been paying
particular attention to the subject of filtering during the last two years, as he was fully
convinced that the water that was supplied by the Chelsea Waterworks could not be ren-
dered clear by subsidence in reservoirs. That in January last he received permission from
the court of directors to make some experiments on a larger scale than he had been enabled
to do privately. In August last the directors manifested some impatience, and directed him
to turn his whole attention to the subject; and having heard that a filter bed was at work
at Glasgow, he received their orders to proceed there. That he travelled over Britain, and
examined many plans in operation for filtering water; he had travelled 2,000 miles; and in
Lancashire, Lincolnshire, and Scotland, he had seen many manufactories and some water-
works supplied by filtered water. The filter beds he had seen had been in operation for
various periods; some for four months, and others for longer periods up to 16 years. Pre-
vious to leaving London he had left a plan of a model of a filter bed, to be constructed at
Chelsea Waterworks, and on the 9th November last, soon after his return home, he set it
to work. It is 44 feet square at top; it is made conical, and the surface of the sand is
about 32 feet square, and contains a surface of sand of 1,000 feet. It has been at work
45 days, and has acted most successfully. Upon examination of this, and his report upon
the subject, the directors ordered him to construct a filter bed of the size requisite to filter
all the water the Company supply, before it is delivered to the houses, and the work is now
In progress.
What space of ground would you require to filter all the water you supply 2–About
three quarters of an acre for a filter bed, and one acre and a half for two reservoirs; but in
forming my plans I have allowed one acre for a filter bed.
At
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 25
At what expense ?—The estimated expense is 11,680l. and an annual expense of 1,150l.;
this is exclusive of the value of the land or interest of capital.
Are there any additional expenses, and what are they, for carrying the plan of filtering
into operation ?–There will probably be some additional expenses; the expense for engines
is included in the estimate. The excavation is taken at 1s. per yard; if the ground be
moved more than a quarter of a mile, the expense on this head will be more; and the expense
will be increased if the bed be made deeper than I originally calculated.
What increase of rate would be necessary to enable you to do this?—I have not con-
sidered this point; the court of directors were so satisfied with the efficacy of the method
that they eagerly adopted the suggestion, and ordered me to construct the filter bed as
soon as possible, without entering upon the subject of increasing the rates or of providing funds.
You ventured to recommend filtration in consequence of the numerous and extensive
instances of the kind you had seen in Britain ?—Yes. f -
The greater part of the district you supply lies low 2–Yes, it does.
Are there any drains that empty themselves into the river near your dolphin 2–The
Ranelagh sewer is 300 or 400 yards distant; none nearer. There is a land sewer opposite
to us on the other side of the river.
Is your district opulent or poor 2–Principally poor; some houses do not pay more than
from 4s. to 6s. per house water-rent per annum. In Westminster district there are 5,498
houses, all west of Richmond-terrace, Downing-street, and St. James's Park, to Vauxhall-
road, mostly very small. &
There are many new houses?—Yes, but they are many of them empty.
Do you serve every day?—In some places.
And high service every other day?—Yes, but in some places every day.
Mr. WILLIAM ANDERSON called in and examined.
YOU are Engineer to the Grand Junction Waterworks?—Yes.
How long?—Since the commencement in 1810.
All the water you supply is from the Thames?—Yes, it is.
How long has it been exclusively supplied from the Thames ?—Since 1820, in September.
What is the quantity supplied in your district at present?—I have to remark that we use
more in summer than in winter, in consequence of the street-watering in the summer
months; but taking the average of summer and winter, is 12,000 tons daily, reckoning six
days per week.
The ton; is it by measure or weight?—It is 224 imperial gallons to a ton.
That is the average for the whole year; 365 times 12,500 tons?—No; it is 313 times
12,500 tons, taking six working days per week.
Is the additional quantity used in summer solely occasioned by watering the streets 2–
Not solely; the inhabitants use more water in summer than in winter.
What are the number of houses you supply?— Seven thousand seven hundred.
Is that number greater than it was in 1821 –Yes; we now supply 520 more.
What is the boundary of the district you supply; state it verbally?—Park-lane on the
west, Piccadilly on the south as far as Arlington-street, including the line of houses from
thence on the side next the Green Park to Cleveland-row, returning from thence, taking
the north side of Pall Mall as far as the Haymarket, in a line to Great Windmill-street,
including both sides of that street, Little Windmill-street in the same manner, Cambridge-
street and Poland-street to Oxford-street, returning along Oxford-street west, taking the
south side of that street as far as Mary-le-bone lane, continuing along Mary-le-bone lane
to Edward-street, and returning westward along Edward-street, Portman-square, and Upper
Seymour-street, as far as Cumberland-place, but serving no houses in that line but the cross
streets from Oxford-street leading to the same line from Cumberland-street northward,
including both sides, and returning westward along George-street to Seymour-place, and
continuing northward, including both sides of Seymour-place to Crawford-street, and
returning westward along Crawford-street and John-street into the Edgeware-road, but
neither in those two lines of streets are the houses served by the Grand Junction Company,
but only the cross streets leading up the same. The line returns from John-street, taking the
whole of the parish of Paddington to the west of the Edgeware-road, and returning along
the Uxbridge-road to Park-lane, is the whole boundary. , wºme -
- [Mr. Anderson promised to colour the whole of the district on a map, and to return
the map so coloured to the Commissioners..]
(94.) - G How
Evidence from
Water Companies.
Mr.
James Simpson.
(Chelsea.)
Mr.
William Anderson.
(Grand Junction.)
26 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERs on
Evidence from
Water Companies.
Mr.
William Anderson.
*
(Grand Junction.)
How many steam-engines have you ?—Three, at work.
Of what power 2–Two of 100 horse power at Chelsea, and one of 70 horse power at
Paddington.
. The engines at Chelsea draw water direct from the Thames?—By means of a conduit-
pipe, which is laid to a dolphin ; the top of the conduit-pipe next the well is laid 15 inches
lower than low water; the engine-well is lower than the conduit-pipe.
What is the depth of the river at that place –The lowest low-water is generally six feet
deep.
The pipe is only a few inches below this?—Nine inches below the lowest low-water, with
a descent of six inches to the well.
You draw water without any reference to the state of the tide in the river ?—Yes.
In what service are the Chelsea engines employed?—In pumping from Chelsea to the
reservoirs at Paddington, and the water is raised 80 feet above the engine reservoir by the
Paddington Engine.
There is then no water sent direct to the houses; it passes through the reservoirs?—None
sent direct to the houses since last May.
How many reservoirs have you?—Three.
What are their sizes and dimensions 2—I cannot give them off-hand, but I will furnish
them. -
They are not all on the same level?—No.
Will any of them supply the low service 2—A great portion of the district.
How many days’ consumption will the reservoirs contain 2–Upon an average, seven or
eight days.
What is the proportion between the supply in summer and in winter 2—I cannot say
without reference, but I will give it. -
How are the reservoirs constructed?—One is made by puddling with clay between two
walls, these walls forming the reservoir; the second has no outside wall, and the third is
lined on the inside with flag-stones.
Is the bottom of all of them of clay ?—Yes, of clay.
You have no means of filtering 2—No.
What means of cleansing the reservoirs?—There are channels in the middle with a drain
into the common sewer, and a sluice to the drain lying on an inclination. *
Can you let out all the water and clean the reservoirs?—Yes, at an expense.
How often have they been cleansed?—The north reservoir had been in use about 14 years
before it was emptied.
How long since it was emptied ?–About two years ago. One of the reservoirs has only
been made about 12 months; the other, the engine reservoir, has been emptied several
times; about once in two years.
When was the last time it was emptied?—It has not been emptied for five or six years.
No use has been made of it till last May.
The principal part of the low service is supplied direct from reservoirs?—A great portion
of it.
2
And the high service by the steam-engine of 70 horse power, which elevates it to
—Eighty feet above the reservoir. -
What is the level of the reservoir above the river ?—The south reservoir, from the high-
water mark above the Trinity standard, is 85 feet 10 inches; we lower the water from this
to the engine reservoir.
What is the difference between the higher and the lower reservoir 2–About 15 feet.
Then it is from the 15 feet under the 85 feet 10 inches that you pump it up again 2–Yes,
it is.
The north reservoir 2–It is six feet higher.
At present you only supply water which has deposited in the reservoirs, and not direct
from the river ?—Yes. w r
Prior to the last year you did 2–Yes.
Does this apply to both high and low service?—Yes, from the reservoirs as far as they
would reach. : w
7 What
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 27
What use do you make of reservoirs at Chelsea?—We have nome.
What part of the supply was formerly direct from the Thames?—I cannot give an accu-
rate account. When water was supplied from the reservoirs, a certain time was allowed the
low service, from five or six o'clock to nine A. M.: the high service from the Chelsea engines
followed the low service. Some of the low cisterns were re-filled during the time of high
service, so that it was impossible to tell what quantity of water was delivered into the low
cisterns direct from the Thames.
Low service takes place every day?—Yes.
And high service?—Every day in some places.
How often in a street?—Three times a week.
When supplied direct at what times?—The latter part of the day.
What led to the adoption of the present mode of supplying from reservoirs?—It was not
a forced matter; the difficulty has been in getting land. This plan has been in contempla-
tion since 1821; previous to any complaint being made, we entered into contract for making
a new reservoir at Paddington, and carrying the main to Paddington, leaving us at liberty
to use the river, which in frosty weather is clear. I cannot give the time of the contracts
accurately. The reservoirs are distinguished in name by North Reservoir, South Reservoir,
and Engine Reservoir. .
The water comes into the reservoir in a foul state?—Yes, it does, when the river is foul.
Do you observe a difference in its coming in and going out?—Yes, a very great
difference.
Is the level of the bottom of the reservoirs raised by mud”—About 12 inches in
14 years.
Are you troubled with mud in the pipes in the streets 2—Yes, we have been, but not since
the supply has been from reservoirs.
Can you cleanse the pipes —Yes, by pulling up plugs, and the water rushing out.
Is this frequently performed 2–Yes; but not so frequently as formerly, as there is not so
much occasion for it.
Is the quantity of water you supply adequate to the demand 2–Yes.
You have stated four hogsheads and three quarters per day; is it increasing 2–Last year
300 and odd gallons per house on an average per day.
Would it not be better to settle the water at the river than to pump it up, mud and all,
to Paddington 2–Yes, it would; but we found a difficulty in getting land on which to form
reservoirs, which has occasioned the delay from 1821 to 1825; then we commenced the
North Reservoir at Paddington.
You only draw off daily one eighth from the reservoirs?—Yes. -
Could you not allow it to stand eight days?—No ; there would not be sufficient head
for fires.
How many mains have you, and what are the sizes of them 2–There are four of 12 inches,
four of mine inches, and there are three of seven inches.
Where are they situated 2–One 12-inch in Davies-street, one 12-inch in Bond-street, and
Evidence from
Water Companies.
Mr.
William Anderson.
(Grand Junction.)
one 12-inch in Argyle-street, one 12-inch along Piccadilly, one nine-inch in Cumberland-
street, one nine-inch in Audley-street, one nine-inch in Regent-street, and one nine-inch in
Poland-street. -
From whence does the Ranelagh sewer receive its contents ?—From the drainings of
Sloane-street and from the Serpentine river.
You promised to supply the difference or increase of the number of houses supplied with
water between 1821 and the present time 2—I have it here (presenting a paper).
What is the date of the contract for carrying the main from the river to Paddington 2–
It was signed by the contractor on the 16th of April 1825.
What are the dimensions of the reservoirs?—I have it here (handing a paper).
You told us that you had ceased to supply from the Grand Junction Canal since 1820;
was the change made from the canal to the river in consequence of insufficiency of supply
or badness of the water 2—From the badness of the water, and a limited supply of 9,616
tons daily.
You had complaints of the quality of the water 2–Serious complaints.
You think that those complaints were well founded ?—Yes, I do.
What was the cause of the badness of the water 2—In consequence of the barges passing,
they stirred up the puddling and the clay, thus giving a bad colour to the water, and such
as would not settle in any reasonable time.
Was the limitation above mentioned of the quantity one of the reasons for discontinuing *
—Yes. - -
Could they have allowed you to pump the same quantity from the canal as you now do
from the Thames, without injury to their navigation ?—I think not.
(94.) . * You
28 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence from
Water Companies.
Mr.
William Anderson.
(Grand Junction.)
---
You consider then that the complaints were such as to oblige you to adopt other measures
of supplying water?—Yes, I do.
Is the quality of the water of the river Colne such, that if an abundant supply could be
obtained from that source it would be desirable as a substitute for the Thames water 2–
During a part of the year the water appears clearer than the Thames water, but in winter
months it is much more foul, and will not clarify itself by deposition; the water is also
reputed to be very hard. -
So that upon the whole, if the Colne water could be obtained, you think it would be open
to the same objections as the Thames water 2—Taking all the year round I do not think it
would be so good.
Are you aware of any other source from which your works could be supplied with sufficient
quantities ?—I am not aware of any.
Would the river Brent?—Certainly not; this is merely a flood-river, and so very foul that
it is unfit for any purpose. -
Suppose that water could be conducted from above Teddington Lock, would much purer
water be obtained 2–I think in summer the water would be better and worse in winter.
Why worse in winter?—Because the river is smaller, and has no assistance from
tide water. *
On the whole, taking the average of winter and summer, would there be any advantage 2
—I think not. - - -
Do you recollect any evidence of the town preferring Thames water to that of the Grand
Junction Company previously to the change being made in 1820?—We found various com-
plaints from our tenants, but most decidedly from those who had been in the habit of
receiving Thames water before.
So that this opinion was founded on their personal experience?—Decidedly so.
How were they supplied before ?—From the Chelsea and other companies.
Had the opinions so expresed an influence in your making this change 2–Yes,
certainly.
Papers referred to in Mr. WILLIAM ANDERson's Examination.
No. 1.-Grand Junction Waterworks, 18th December 1827.
Quantity of Water delivered daily by the Grand Junction Waterworks Company.


Tons of 224 Gallons. | Hhds, of 54 Gallons. Imperial Gallons.
In the Summer Months º 15,000 62,222 3,360,000
In the Winter Months – - 10,000 41,481 2,240,000
Average Quantity - - 12,500 51,851 2,800,000
Number of Houses supplied by the Company - - - - - - 7,700
Average quantity of Water supplied to each house per day, six days per week, 6 hbds. 39 galls.
or 363 Imperial Gallons.
No. 2–Grand Junction Waterworks, 18th December 1827.
Quantity of Water contained in the Reservoir at Paddington, belonging to the Grand
Junction Waterworks Company.
Height of Reservoirs
above the
High-water Mark
of the
Trinity Standard.
Imperial Gallons.
Feet. Inches. Tons. Hhds, of 54 Gallons.
Engine Reservoir - 70 10 15,685 65,063 3,513,440
North Reservoir wº 9] 10 36,994 153,456 8,286,656
South Reservoir º 85 10 33,731 139,921 7,555,744
* 86,410 358,440 19,355,840
_---"
Stand Pipe at Paddington, 61 ft. 2 in, above South Reservoir.
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. 29
Copy of LETTER addressed to the CoMMIssion ERs.
(dated) 15 April 1828.
THE Directors of the Grand Junction Waterworks present their compliments to the Com-
missioners of Inquiry, and observing, by the proceedings in the House of Commons, that
their Report (accompanied by the evidence taken) is about to be laid before Parliament, beg
to suggest whether, as it would now appear that the duties of the Commission are to be
limited to reporting upon the quality and quantity of the present supply of water to the
metropolis, it would not be advisable to limit the evidence, so far as relates to the Grand
Junction Waterworks, to the facts connected with the present supply of the company,
without making public the hints and suggestions for the further improvement of the general
supply of water to the metropolis, which the directors, under the impression that the Com-
mission was engaged in a more extensive field of inquiry, and having the most earnest
wish to forward the objects of their investigation, have from time to time supplied.
The suggestions alluded to might perhaps have been of service as hints to the Commis-
sioners, although crude and hastily thrown together; but the directors, if the company is
to be unassisted by any recommendation from the Commission, would wish naturally that
any plans they may themselves have in contemplation for the improvement of their supply
should not be made public until more maturely considered.
The directors have thought it right to make the foregoing observations, to obviate mis-
apprehension, but cannot have the smallest objection on any other grounds to the Com-
missioners making public, if they deem it advisable, any information furnished by the Grand
Junction Waterworks Company. The directors avail themselves of this opportunity of
expressing their regret that the Commission should not have been permitted to prosecute
the inquiries with which it was originally supposed they were intrusted, as the consequence
has been to suspend the prosecution of the plans of improvement in which the company
were engaged, without the delay having been compensated by the company’s receiving the
assistance they had anticipated from the labours of the Commission.
At the time when the attack was made upon the Grand Junction Waterworks, a portion
of the improvements, which the company had at great expense and during two years been
prosecuting, was on the eve of being completed, viz. the formation of reservoirs so exten-
sive as to allow the whole of the water furnished to their district being deposited for some
days before it is sent into the houses; and the consequence of which they fearlessly assert
has been, that during the last winter (an unusually rainy season, and when, therefore, the
river has been more than commonly turbid) the water supplied by the company has been of
better quality than has ever yet been supplied to London.
In the petitions which were presented by the company to the two Houses of Parliament
last session, praying that inquiry might be instituted into the charges which had been
brought against them, they state that, “both their duty to the public, and their own
“ interests, rationally viewed, concur in imposing upon them the necessity of improving their
“ supply to the utmost, and that their efforts to accomplish this object will never cease
“ whilst one means of improvement shall remain unexhausted.” This pledge the company
will amply redeem, and whilst they re-assert that the attack upon the Grand Junction
Waterworks Company was most unfair, and the charges brought against them groundless
or futile, they are ready to admit, as they have always admitted, that the general supply
of water to London is susceptible of improvement; they will resume the prosecution of
those plans, which, as it must be unnecessary to state to the Commissioners, the attack
made upon them had not the smallest share in originating, but only retarded in their
progress, nor will they desist until they shall have proved beyond the possibility of dispute,
that the water delivered by the company is of the very best quality that it is possible to
procure.
*…*.
Mr. JAMES SIMPSON called in and examined.
YOU have been sent as the engineer to the Lambeth Waterworks?—Yes; being OCCà-
sionally employed by the proprietors, and well acquainted with their works.
Have you the map that was sent you to colour?—Yes (presenting it).
Describe in words the boundary of the district supplied with water by the Lambeth Water-
works?—The company's pipes at present extend over that district bounded on the north and
west by the river, and on the south and east by a line passing from the end of Fore-street, Lam-,
beth, along the back of Vauxhall-walk and gardens, across to Barret-street and Elizabeth-
place, returning to the back of Park-row, both sides of Kennington-lane, across the back of
Upper Kennington-place, to the end of Harleyford-place, from thence past Kennington Com-
mon, South-place, back of Doddington-grove, New-street, and Back-lane, Penton-place, and
Carter-street, the Camberwell-road, as far as Southampton-street, and roundbyback of Queen’s-
row and Trafalgar-street, across Apollo-buildings and Flint-street, returning at the back
of Thurlow-place, across Providence-street and Walworth Common, to the Green Man in
the Kent-road, from thence round Cobourg-road, along the Kent-road, as far as Prospect-
place, from thence along the back of the north-east side of the Kent-road to Swan-street,
(94.) H a CI’OSS
Evidence from
Water Companies.
Mr.
James Simpson.
(Lambeth.)
-*
30 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence from
Water Companies.
Mr.
James Simpson.
(Lambeth.)
Statement by
J. W. Peppercorn.
(South London.)
across to the Bermondsey New-road, and Baalzephon-street, along the end of the Great
Dover-road, to Virginia-terrace, from thence across to the back of the county gaol, along
the Newington-road to the King's Bench prison, and past the back of it, and along Great
Suffolk-street and Gravel-lane, to the river at Bankside.
Where are the Lambeth Waterworks situated? — Belvidere-road, Lambeth, between
Westminster and Waterloo-bridge. *A
You obtain the water for the supply of these works by a suction-pipe in the river Thames?
—Yes.
How many engines have you ?— One of 36 and one of 80 horse power.
Have you any reservoirs?—No ; but there is a cistern at the works that contains above
400 barrels, and it is always kept full for fires; a man is in constant attendance after the
engine is shut down, to turn the cock from the cistern on an alarm of fire, to supply the
mains, while the engine worker is starting his engine.
You then supply the houses direct from the river?—Yes.
What are your principal mains, and the course of them?—The principal main is 18 inches
diameter, and goes from the works through Vine-street into the Waterloo-road and on to the
Obelisk. We have mains branching out from the main of 12 inches diameter, but principally
they are of 10 inches diameter. -
What is the greatest distance that is supplied from these works?—About three miles and
a quarter to the extreme point.
The water is impelled by the engines?—Yes, by means of large pumps.
What is the quantity of water supplied by this company 2–In 1827 the greatest quantity
was 42,000 barrels per day, the least quantity 32,000, and the mean quantity 34,000 bar-
rels per day, of 36 gallons each, 282 cubic inches to the gallon.
What is the number of houses supplied?—Last year (1827) 15,854 houses, and 133
buildings and consumers.
Have you much high service 2–We do not give it generally; we have some.
You have then no additional charge for high service —None; the rates are very low, the
average is only 18s, per house.
Describe in words the situation of the principal mains?—The 18 inch main, from the
works to the Obelisk; 12 inch, from the end of it to the Elephant and Castle. The branches
are 10 inch, through New-cut to Lambeth and Vauxhall-road; 10 inch, through New-cut
to Blackfriars-road; nine inch, Blackfriars-road; nine inch, Borough-road; nine inch,
Garden-row ; 10 inch, Newington-road; 10 inch, Camberwell-road; and 10 inch, Kent-road.
What length of time per day do the engines work?—The large engine seven and a half to
ten hours per day; with the small engine double that time; but they are never worked
together. -
Are your pipes all iron 2–The mains are all iron; about one third of the services are iron
and two thirds wood; we are gradually exchanging the wooden pipes for iron pipes.
How far is your dolphin in the river ?—Two hundred and ninety feet from the bank, or
high water line.
What are your levels?—The highest ground is 37 feet 6 inches above high-water mark,
Trinity standard; the highest cistern is 42 feet above high-water mark.
Are the engines worked every day?—Yes, one of them every day. The district is divided
into two parts, and each part is supplied three times a week.
STATEMENT by J. W. PEPPERCORN, Secretary to the South London Waterworks.
To the Honourable the Board of Commissioners for inquiring into the state of
Supply of Water to the Metropolis.
A NoTICE having been sent to the office of the South London Waterworks Company,
that the engineer of the company would be summoned in a few days time to attend upon
your Honourable Board, to give such information respecting this company as the Commis-
sioners may require, it becomes my duty to apprize you, that this company do not deem
it requisite, either for their own interest, or for the interest of the public, to employ any
other than a practical or mere working engineer, whose attention being devoted solely to the
working of the company’s engines, and to other manual labour, it is possible that he may
not be able to furnish your Honourable Board with the information you may require; and
as I have occupied the post of secretary here but a short time, and therefore cannot be well
acquainted with many particulars concerning the present and former state of the company,
a written statement containing such particulars taken from the books, and from other
documents of the company, will probably be more satisfactory to the Board than the personal
attendance of any of the Company's servants. . . . **
* *. 12 - The
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 13
The company of proprietors of the South London Waterworks was incorporated in the
45th year of the reign of his Majesty George the Third, with power to make reservoirs, and
to erect waterworks at Kennington Green in the parish of Saint Mary, Lambeth, in order to
supply with water the inhabitants of the parish of St. Giles' Camberwell, and parts of the
several parishes of St. Mary, Lambeth, St. John's, and St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey,
St. Mary, Rotherhithe, St. Nicholas, and St. Paul's, Deptford, and St. Mary, Newington.
Under the provisions of this Act, the company raised the sum of 80,000l., which sum being
thought insufficient for carrying into effect the objects of the Act, a second application to
Parliament was made in the 53d of Geo. 3d., and the company were then empowered to
raise, in addition to the fore-mentioned sum of 80,000l., a further sum of 80,000l. The
company having incurred heavy expenses in enlarging their main pipes, in replacing with
iron pipes a very large part of the district supplied by the company, which had been up to
that time supplied through wooden pipes, and in putting up an engine of greater power in
the room of two smaller engines, resolved, in the year 1824, to increase their capital from
80,000l. to 95,000l.; the last-mentioned sum is now the capital of the company, and is
divided into 950 shares, of 100l. each. In the place of two small engines erected at the first
establishment of the works, an engine of 45 horse power was put up in the year 1822; and
about the same time, in the place of a line of main pipes of small diameter, an iron main of
12 inches diameter was laid down, extending from the engine through the Newington and
the New Kent Roads to the corner of Bermondsey-square, in the parish of Bermondsey;
and an iron main of nine inches diameter was laid down in the place of a wood
main, extending from the works through the Clapham-road to Acre-lane, near Clapham;
and from these principal mains, and from one for the supply of the district adjacent to
the works, numerous smaller mains and service pipes, now for the most part of iron, are
branched in almost every direction. The number of tenants receiving water of this
company is about 10,000, amongst whom are many tanners, fellmongers, and manufacturers,
in the parish of Bermondsey, and to whom an abundant supply of water is given three times
a week, and to more than two thirds of this number a partial supply is given upon two of
the intermediate days, in addition to their regular supply. The average annual rent paid
by each tenant is about 15s., including in the calculation the before-mentioned tanners and
manufacturers, in the parish of Bermondsey. At the works in Kennington-lane there are
two bricked circular reservoirs, in diameter about 180 feet, and about 12 feet in depth, into
which the tide flows to the height of about nine feet at spring tide, and by means of the
engine these reservoirs are upon every opportunity filled to the top, thereby affording a head
of water sufficient to keep the principal main charged for a considerable length of time,
without the assistance of the engine. From these reservoirs, and from several wide channels
recently excavated in an adjoining meadow, after the water has been allowed to settle as long
as circumstances will permit, the tenants are supplied; and in order to ensure an abundant
supply of good water at all seasons, the company have within the last two years established
works upon the river side at the Cumberland Gardens, adjoining Vauxhall Bridge, where,
in addition to their original and still existing establishment in Kennington-lane, they have
erected an engine of 20 horse power, with a pump of 16 inches diameter, and have laid down
an iron tunnel of 42 inches in diameter, the mouth of which is laid six feet below the
lowest water-mark, and extending into the River Thames as far as the third arch of
Vauxhall Bridge, where the water has long been remarked, by watermen and others
navigating the river Thames, for its extraordinary clearness, compared with the water
at most other parts of the river between London and Battersea Bridge; and in
confirmation of this assertion, a Declaration has been made by fourteen watermen who
have plied for many years past upon the river; in which Declaration they attribute this
unusual clearness of the water to the current of the river setting over in a direct line
to that side of Vauxhall Bridge, near which the mouth-piece of the tunnel is situated.
The districts supplied with water from these works are designated by a coloured line
marked upon this map, accompanying this statement; but that map does not include the
whole of the places supplied by the company; besides the districts marked thereon the
company supply the greater part of Kennington and Vauxhall, as far as the line of demar-
cation, beyond which the company are restrained by heavy penalties from proceeding; the
greater part of South Lambeth and the Wandsworth-road, the Claphan and Brixton-roads,
as far as the churches at Brixton and Clapham, Stockwell, and the Camberwell New Road,
Denmark-hill, and the Walworth-road; and the greater part of the streets now covering
Walworth, and Locks-fields, in the parish of Camberwell. The greatest elevation to which the
water is forced is at Clapham, and is about 65 feet. The engine at the works in Kennington-
lane is estimated, as was before stated, at 45 horse power, attached to which is a pump of
18 inches diameter, with a 4 foot 6 inch stroke; the cylinder is 33 inches diameter, with a
6 foot stroke. Upon an average throughout the year the engine in Kennington-lane works
about 40 hours weekly, and the average quantity of coals consumed during that time is about
five chaldrons and a half. With regard to the rates, the company are regulated in some cases
by the size of the premises to be supplied; and in the case of tanners and manufacturers
by the quantity of water required. The highest rate received by the company is that from
the Bermondsey workhouse, which is 30l. per annum; the lowest rate is 8s. per annum;
and the average rate per house is (as was before stated) about 15s. ; but the company have
no particular scale of rates to be laid before your Honourable Board. A clause was intro-
duced into the Act of Incorporation, restraining the South London Waterworks Company
from º down any pipes, and from supplying with water the inhabitants residing in º
4. of
s
Evidence from
Water Companies.
Statement by
J. W. Peppercorn.
(South London.)
32 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence from
Water Companies.
Statement by
J. W. Peppercorn.
(South London.)
of the streets or places mentioned below, under a penalty of 10l. per annum for every house
or building there supplied. The boundary commences from the Thames at White Hart
Dock, Broad-street, and including Broad-street and Lambeth Butts, proceeds to Lambeth-
walk, thence northward along Lambeth-walk to Walnut-tree walk, thence eastward towards
the Elephant and Castle Tavern, Newington, and from thence along the turnpike road to
Great Suffolk-street, and through Gravel-lane to the Thames at Falcon-walk; thus exclud-
ing the company from the most populous district on this side the river, namely, the
Westminster and Blackfriars Roads, the whole of Saint George's Fields, and the greatest
part of the Borough of Southwark; and by this clause the company are restrained from
approaching within a mile and a half of the Lambeth Waterworks, whilst that company
are empowered to lay down pipes, and have laid down pipes, within 200 yards of the reser-
voirs at these works. It is necessary to enter into particular details with regard to this
clause, not only because it operates greatly to the disadvantage of this company, but in
order that the Board may be made acquainted with the reason why the company have not
attended to the many applications for water from these works, made to them by house-
holders residing without the line of demarcation, without which particulars it might be
supposed that a secret understanding existed between the two companies, that the supply
of those populous districts should be left exclusively to the Lambeth Company, than which
supposition nothing could be further from the truth. The strong feeling also which appears
to exist in the public mind at present with regard to water companies renders it necessary
to explain this point fully. It should therefore be clearly understood, that this company
is restricted by the Legislature from supplying the populous districts in question, and not
that the company refrains from so doing (as there is reason to apprehend is generally sup-
posed to be the case,) by any secret stipulation between the companies on the Surrey side
of the Thames. At the present moment the directors have before them an application from
a numerous body of householders residing without the line of demarcation, and couched in
the following words, namely: '.
“ To the Board of Directors of the South London Waterworks, Kennington-lane.
“WE, the undersigned landlords and tenants of houses in the Waterloo-road, New Cut,
and their vicinity, having been for a long time past dissatisfied with the water supplied to
our houses by the Lambeth Waterworks, and many of us well knowing that the water of the
South London Waterworks is far more clear and pure, do request of you to lay down pipes
as soon as you conveniently can in this neighbourhood, in order that we may in future
receive a supply of Thames water from your works.”
This application is signed by individuals interested in 354 houses, situated in and about
the Waterloo-road, in the parish of Lambeth; but of course the only answer which can be
given to this request is, that whilst the present clause in the Act of Incorporation of this
Company is in force, the directors cannot give the applicants any relief. And as connected
with this subject it will be right to mention, that the directors have been informed that three
petitions were presented to the House of Commons during the last sessions, by inhabitants
of the parish of Lambeth, of the Borough of Southwark, and of other places, praying
the House to abolish this monopoly, and to throw open to competition the supply of
water in those districts. That this restrictive clause has been greatly to the disadvantage
of the South London Water Company will be evident when it is stated, that although this
company has now been established 22 years, the proprietors have received 6l. only (and
that within the last three years,) in the way of dividend; and that, whilst the 100l. shares
of this company have within the last three months been sold for 891, it has been asserted
that the 100l. shares of the Lambeth Water Company have recently been sold for 2,500l.
This appears to be all the information respecting the affairs of the company which can be
given to your Honourable Board; but should it be found that any parts of this statement
are not sufficiently explicit, it will be for me immediately to attend upon the Commissioners
in explanation of those parts. Accompanying this Statement are ; Ist. A declaration con-
cerning the quality of the water at Vauxhall Bridge, signed by 14 watermen, 2d. Copies
of petitions to the House of Commons from the inhabitants of St. George the Martyr,
in the Borough of Southwark, and parts adjacent, in the County of Surrey; from inha-
bitants of the parishes of Lambeth and Christ Church, in the county of Surrey; and from
inhabitants of the parish of St. Mary Lambeth, and parts adjacent, in the county of
Surrey; presented during the last session of Parliament, upon the subject of the supply of
water in those parishes and places. (See pp. 114, 115.) 3d. An application for water from this
company from 155 householders, interested in 354 houses in the Waterloo-road and vicinity,
who at present receive their supply from the Lambeth Waterworks. With the letter enclos-
ing this application I have to add, that the engineer of the company, who was to have been
the bearer of this statement, has met with an accident, which has put it out of his power to
attend the summons of the Commissioners; the certificate of the surgeons is enclosed.
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 33.
QUESTIONS sent by Commissioners to Mr. PEPPERcoRN.
The number of houses supplied with water by the South London Waterworks?
The quantity of water supplied per annum, per diem, per house per diem P
The answer to the first question will, I believe, be found in the statement laid before the
Commissioners, namely, about 10,000.
In reply to the second question, I have to state that it is calculated that, upon an average
throughout the year, the number of gallons (of 282 cubic inches to the gallon) supplied to
each house per diem is about 100 gallons. This supply to 10,000 tenants will amount to
1,000,000 of gallons each day, and 365,000,000 yearly; but it is evidently almost impos-
sible to state, with accuracy, what quantity is given to each tenant or house individually,
inasmuch as some houses and manufactories are supplied through larger leaden service-
pipes than others. There are, for instance, manufactories in Bermondsey, and other parts,
which have receptacles to contain from 100 to 900 barrels.
Do you supply only from the Thames, or from any other source, and what other
Source; and if from any other source, in what proportion ?
The Thames is the only source from whence water is supplied by the company.
Is there any part of the supply given direct from the Thames; at what times is
this done; and in what proportion to the whole supply?
Occasionally. At neap tides, when the water in the river is too low to flow into the reser-
voirs, the district about Vauxhall, South Lambeth, and Kennington, is supplied direct from
the river by means of the engine at the Cumberland Gardens, near Vauxhall Bridge; and at
those times, for the supply of the distant districts, the water is pumped into the reservoirs
from the river, and re-delivered by the engine in Kennington-lane. As the height of the tides
is very uncertain, it is not possible to say what proportion the quantity pumped direct from
the river bears to the supply taken from the reservoirs; but as the singularly pure state of
the water, at that part of the river at Vauxhall Bridge where the tunnel-pipes of this company
are laid down, has been proved beyond doubt, by the observation for years past of the water-
men and others well acquainted with the river, (as is set forth in the Declaration, numbered
No. 1., laid before the Commissioners,) the directors have it in contemplation to supply
directly from the Thames more frequently than they now do, as soon as certain enlargements
of the mains, now being made, are completed.
How long does the water remain in the reservoirs before it is distributed to the
tenants?
The length of time that the water remains in the reservoirs is regulated by the quality of
the water in the river, and by the height of the tides. When the proportion of land water
in the Thames is great, as after heavy rains, the water will not settle, unless allowed to remain
in the reservoirs longer than usual; generally from 12 to 24 hours, according to the state of
the river, are found necessary to allow the water to settle, by which time the heavier and im-
pure particles are for the most part deposited at the bottom of the reservoirs, and the water
is then allowed to flow alternately from each reservoir into the well ; and the culverts from
the reservoirs to the well being about 18 inches from the bottom of the reservoirs, the water
flows into the well free from all impurities.
Is the water distributed to the tenants by its natural run from the reservoirs, or
is it pumped out by the engines, and in what proportions?
The water cannot be distributed to the tenants by the natural run from the reservoirs,
although the principal main to Bermondsey can be charged by either of the reservoirs when
full, so as to afford a supply of water three feet above the level of the ground in those parts.
The tenants are supplied wholly by the steam-engine, the pump of which is a lifting and a
forcing pump.
Have the reservoirs been cleaned out, and when were they cleaned out; and
what depth of mud was found in them in a given time 2
The reservoirs are cleaned out once in two years; one of them was cleaned out last sum-
mer; I did not take particular notice of the depth of mud. As the bottoms of the reservoirs
slope downwards towards the centre, the greatest depth of mud is formed in the deepest
parts; were the mud equally distributed over the bottom of the reservoir, at the end of two
years it would cover it, I should think, to the depth of about two and a half inches.
Is there much mud in them now 2
The depth of mud near the sides in the reservoir cleansed out last summer is now about
half an inch.
Copy of a LETTER from Mr. PEPPER corn, addressed to the Commissioners appointed
to inquire into the state of the Supply of Water to the Metropolis.
Gentlemen,
THE Directors of this company deem it right that you should be informed that in the year
1805, when the South London Waterworks Company was incorporated, there were already
established two other companies for the supply of water to the inhabitants of Southwark,
(94.) I - viz.
Evidence from
Water Companies.
Mr.
J. W. Peppercorn.
(South London.)
34: APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence from
Water Companies.
Mr.
J. W. Peppercorn.
(South London.)
J. Edwards, Esq.
and
Mr. J. Rosseter.
(Southwark.)
viz. the London Bridge Waterworks and the Southwark Waterworks. In order that these
companies, together with the Lambeth Waterworks, might enjoy, as regards this company,
a complete monopoly, a clause was introduced by their law-agents into the Act of Incorpo-
ration of this company (as was mentioned in the statement laid before the Commissioners
in January last), restricting the company from supplying water to the greater part of the
Borough of Southwark, which was left to be supplied by the London Bridge and the
Southwark Works exclusively. In or about the year 1822, the London Bridge Works were
abolished, and since that period the district formerly supplied by the two companies has
been supplied by the Southwark Company alone, who, it appears, have derived their power
by an Act of 3 Geo. IV. c. 109. to supply in any of the streets and other public places in
London and Southwark, or in any other parts. \.
Though the South London Company have long submitted in silence to this restrictive
clause, debarring them from participation in the advantages derived from supplying so
populous a district, and constraining the inhabitants to accept of whatever sort of Supply
either as to quantity or quality of water that company may bestow upon them ; but as the
Southwark Company are endeavouring to debar this company from enjoying even the limited
rights of supply they possess in common with the Southwark Waterworks, interference upon
the part of the directors now becomes necessary.
The injurious tendency of monopolies in general have long been apparent, and as regards
water companies, has been acknowledged both in and out of the House of Commons; but
few persons can be found who can spare the time, or who have the opportunity of calling
attention to the subject, and interference upon the part of the proscribed company would be
attributed solely to their desire to promote their own interest.
But His Majesty having been pleased to issue a Commission to inquire into the state of
the Supply of Water to the Metropolis, and to direct that the inquiry of the Commissioners
should be extended to the state of the supply in the Borough of Southwark, the directors
beg to call your attention to this subject; and if at the investigation of the case you should
agree with them in opinion, that by this monopoly or exclusive privilege the safety and
interest of the public is compromised, and injustice done to the South London Water Com-
pany, the directors shall rely upon your exertions to remove the grounds of complaint.
I remain, Gentlemen, your obedient servant,
J. W. Peppercorn.
P.S.—I have the pleasure to send a plan and section of the works at Cumberland Gardens
for your inspection.
J. EDwARDs, Esq. proprietor of the Southwark Waterworks, attended, and
Mr. JAMEs RossETER.
(To Mr. Rosseter.) You are engineer to the Southwark Waterworks 2—No ; I act as the
Secretary.
From what source do you derive the supply of water for these works —From the
Thames, between the Southwark and London Bridge, in the middle of the river.
What is the name of the spot opposite to where you obtain the water *—Nearly opposite
Three Crane Wharf on the one side, and Horse Shoe Alley on the other side.
Have you a map with the district coloured on it?—Yes (presenting it.)
Mr. EDWARDs then gave the following statement respecting the present Southwark
Waterworks:
For a long time prior to the year 1822, the district now supplied with water by my works
was supplied partly by the waterwheels in the Thames belonging to the London Bridge
Water Company, and by the works called the Borough Waterworks. The service was
effected through wooden pipes. In the year 1822, those waterwheels were removed, and it
became necessary to effect the supply by means of steam power. The two districts were
but small, and the pipes of each work were much intermixed, so that in very many streets
there were two, three, and often four rows of wooden pipes. It was therefore obvious that if
the two works were to be continued a very large sum of money must of necessity be
expended in the erection of steam engines for each work, in the substitution of iron for
wooden pipes, in the working of two engines at a time instead of one, and in maintaining
the two establishments — all which would have occasioned so heavy an outlay as to leave
not the least hope of any thing like an adequate return from these small districts to the
proprietors of the respective works. In order to effect the supply in the best manner and on
the best terms, the two works were consolidated under the name of the Southwark Water-
works, and thereupon I caused a new powerful steam engine to be erected by Messrs.
Bolton and Watt, in aid of the one I had: I also caused iron mains to be laid throughout
the district, have proceeded in substituting iron for wooden pipes, and I have the satisfaction
to say that the works are now in a most effective and complete state. Before 1822, the
water was drawn from the Thames near the shore for the supply of both works, but finding
that much palpable matter was drawn into the works and sent abroad, I applied to the
9 COn Servatol'S
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. 3
35
conservators of the Thames for leave to put down a dolphin pile; but this being refused, ...Evidence from
I determined, with their permission, to draw the water from a purer part of the river, namely, Water Companies.
the middle of it, which I caused to be examined and found to have a gravelly bottom.
I therefore caused an iron main to be carried out to that part of the river, and covered the
J. Edwards, Esq.
mouth of the main with an iron semi-sphere 10 feet diameter, pierced with small holes, Mr º
through which the water runs gently into the well, from which the engines draw it. In • J. J. & OSS6 Leº’s
º o (Southwark.)
the well over the end of the main pipe leading from the river is a wire cage, which intercepts
such matters as pass through the holes in the semi-sphere; this cage is emptied five or six
times a day, or as often as occasion requires. There is also a second cage, through which
the water passes before it goes to the tenants, and they have an abundant supply.
(To Mr. Rosseter.)—Have you had any complaints of the quality of the water 2—No.
hardly any, and those not till very lately. -
What is the depth of water above the semi-sphere?—At low-water mark it is about
eight feet.
What engines have you ?—Two; one of 42 and one of 20 horse power.
How high do you raise the water —To the top of Guy's and St. Thomas's Hospitals;
56 feet is about the height of the cistern on the tower, we pump it into this cistern, and
then it flows to the tenants. There are cullenders at the bottom of the cistern.
What is the size of your main 7–Sixteen inches, with branch mains of nine inches and
Seven inches.
What is the extreme distance that is supplied from your works 2–About two miles.
You supply many manufactories?—Yes, a good many.
And brewhouses 2–Not many.
Describe in words the boundary of the district supplied with water by these works?—
Holland-street and Gravel-lane, Southwark, Great Suffolk-street, through Blackman-street,
to the King's Bench, across Dover-road to St. George's church, from thence down Long-
lane to Bermondsey church, from thence to the angle of Tooley-street to St. Saviour’s
dock, Dock-head, and back to the works; that will include the whole of the parishes of
St. Saviour’s, St. Thomas, St. Olave's, a great part of the parish of St. George's, and also
of St. John's Horsleydown, and a part of Bermondsey. We supply the hospitals, and
from them we hear of no complaints of the water.
Have you had any analysis of the water made?—No ; we have no complaints.
Where is the nearest principal sewer to your works?—At Mill-lane, below London Bridge;
the great sewer at the Elephant and Castle runs into the Mill-lane sewers. There are
several small local sewers, but these do not run far into the river.
Do you work at all times of the tide 2–Yes, except when the water is very low.
What is the size of your cistern ?—It contains between 300 and 400 barrels; it is a sub-
stitute for a stand-pipe, and when we work the small engine all the water goes through this
cistern. **
QUESTIONS sent by the Commissioners to Mr. EDwARDs.
The number of steam-engines that are employed at the Southwark Waterworks Questions sent by
and their separate powers? the Commissioners
Two engines; one of 18 horse and another of 36 horse power. to Mr. Edwards.
The number of the pumps 2
One service pump to each engine.
The diameter of the pumps ?
One 15% inch diameter to the 18 horse engine, and one 21% inch to the 36 horse
engine. -
The length of the strokes’
The 18 horse engine 4 feet stroke, the 36 horse engine 7% stroke.
The number of strokes of each pump per minute?
The 18 horse engine 16 strokes per minute, the 36 horse engine ditto.
The number of hours per day that each pump works?
The number of days per week that each pump works’ * *
The 18 horse engine is worked but seldom, and then only while some temporary repair is
doing to the larger engine. If any serious accident happened to the latter, the small engine
would effect the supply in about 18 hours. The large engine works 12 hours per day for six
days in each week, besides extra workings in the night in case of fires.
(94.)
36 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMISSIONERs ON
Evidence on the
State of the Water.
Dr.
James Johnson.
EVIDENCE ON THE STATE OF THE WATER.
EXAMINATION of Dr. JAMEs JoHNson.
WHERE is your residence —Suffolk-place, Haymarket.
You are supplied with water by the Grand Junction Water Comany?—No, by the New
River Company; while I lived in Spring Gardens I was supplied by the Chelsea Company.
Do you know if there is any fault either with the quantity or the quality of the water you
receive?—I have not had a single fault to find with the New River Water; I am well
satisfied both with respect to quantity and quality; it is a great deal better than water
supplied by the Chelsea Company. In Spring Gardens I was supplied for five years and a
half by the Chelsea Company.
Is the water from the New River generally clear 2—Just after it comes in it is a little
muddy, by its stirring up the sediment in the cistern, but it very soon subsides, and is very
good. I have had no occasion to clean out the cistern during the two years and a half that
I have occupied my present residence.
The smell is not offensive 2–No.
Are there any animalculae 2–No. When I was supplied from the Chelsea Company there
was great fault to find; the quantity was not regular, and the quality very inferior.
So that there is a marked difference between the water supplied by the two Companies 2–
Yes, a marked difference. -
Was the water supplied by the Chelsea Company impure by its being mixed with mud, or
from any thing dissolved in it?—The water was disgusting to the sight, and the effluvia
affected the senses. As a medical man I had prejudices against the water, from a conviction
there must have been many offensive and injurious matters dissolved in it beyond what were
cognizable by the senses. In my own experience, I can state that I was affected with pain
after taking my breakfast and tea, which I attributed to the water. I obtained water from
the Charing-cross pump, and had a kettle for this water, which I used for myself. I had no
pain after the use of this water; but I found the pain distinctly increased after using,
through negligence of the servants, or by design, the other water, that is the Thames water;
and this was uniformly the case after repeated trials.
Have you in your practice met with any injurious effects from the use of Thames water 2–
Yes; I was informed by Mr. Ibell, Waterloo-place, who has a great many young women
employed in the millinery business. . Several of the young people have been repeatedly
affected with bowel complaints; if they went out of town a few days, and drank other
water, the complaint subsided, but often returned again on their again drinking this water.
I am the medical attendant on this establishment, and Mr. Ibell wished that I should make
the fact known, which I have now stated, and that he is firmly persuaded the complaint is
Mr.
Henry Hennel.
attributable principally to the use of impure water.
Is Mr. Ibell supplied from the Chelsea Company 2–I am not certain which.
Is there any scum on the surface of the water?—Yes, of an oily nature, and the deposit
is immense; and when my cisterns were cleaned out, the smell rendered the house very un-
comfortable for some hours afterwards. This was Thames water from the Chelsea Com-
pany’s works.
ExAMINATION of Mr. HENRY HENNEL.
WHAT is the nature of your engagement?—Chemical Operator to the Society of
Apothecaries.
The establishment at Apothecaries Hall is supplied with water by the New River Com-
pany?—Yes. •
Have you any complaint to make as to the quantity supplied ?–No.
There is always abundance 2—We have a good supply.
Is your supply derived from the main or from a service-pipe 2–Prom a service-pipe,
I believe; if it was from the main, the water would always be on.
Have not you a stand-pipe in the hall supplied from the main 2–Yes, to be used only in
case of fire.
The water is generally good 2–Yes.
And
suPPLY OF-water IN THE METROPOLIS: , 3?
... And clear 2–Not always. -,
But for the most part it is clear 2–Yes, except in wet weather, in heavy rains after dry
weather, and after a thaw. , * . - -
Are you obliged to resort to water of any other description ?—Yes, for washing magnesia
and white precipitates. . -
Do you filter 2—No, we resort to boiling and subsidence; all the water we use for mag-
mesia is boiled the night before, and is allowed to subside, and it is then clear.
Can you form any estimate of the number of days that the water is muddy, and the
number of days that it is clear throughout the year?—I cannot.
It is oftener clear than muddy?—Yes, very much so.
Can you not state any proportion, say four to one 2–Yes, full that and more; the only
inconvenience is in wet weather, after heavy rains, and after a thaw. .
What is the object you have in boiling the water?—In 12 hours after boiling the water is
perfectly clear for our purposes; during boiling, the dirt, principally fine clay, in the water
aggregates together like threads, and falls down. . •.
Are there any animal or vegetable substances in the water 2–I have not observed any.
Have you any pump-water –Although we generally use this water, yet for very delicate
purposes we use pump-water.
Is it soft?—Not quite; the well-water is not so hard as the New River water.
What is the depth of this well?—About 200 feet.
Is it clear?—Yes. ‘.
Is the supply from it abundant?—No, not very; and it is a curious fact, that we feel the
effect of the working of the well at Barclay's brewery.
Has the New River water been analysed ?–Not that I am aware of
Evidence on the
State of the Water,
. Mr.
Henry Hennel.
What is the rental paid to the company 2–About 271 per annum; that is 18l. for the \
laboratory, and 91, for the different houses; and we have a stand-pipe in the hall, to be used
in case of fire, for which no charge is made, the New River Company trusting to the honour
of the Society of Apothecaries not to use it for any other purpose.
^
ExAMINATION of Mr. JoHN LUDD FENNER.
YOU are a medical man?—A member of the Royal College of Surgeons.
You signed a petition complaining of the watering of the roads at Battle-bridge?—
I did. -
Have you any thing to state beyond what is set forth in that petition?—The Commis-
sioners of Roads have pumped up, or they have allowed to be pumped up, water from a
ditch to water the roads, which is of a quality worse than the filth to be generally found in
common sewers. I have seen carts, in the dog-days, spreading this filth over the roads,
with a horrid smell; and what is of more importance, I consider that typhus fever arises
more frequently from such a cause than by contagion from the person.
Do you know if the New River Company have been applied to for water for watering
these roads, or if they have a sufficient quantity of water to spare for this purpose?—
I have applied to the New River Company to water Penton-street, where I reside, and
which is within 100 yards of their reservoir, but they would not listen to this even for money;
thus it appears that there is a want of water, by their not complying with it.
When did you make this application to the New River Company —I have resided in
Penton-street only about three years, but applications have been made several times; we
had some watering last summer by private subscription, but not in a regular manner.
What objections did the New River Company make to your application?—They had no
water to spare on any account. There is one thing that I beg permission of the Commis-
sioners to mention, and that is, the plug-holes that are left open by different Companies,
being the cause of many accidents to animals, and the feelings of the inhabitants and pas-
sengers are pained in witnessing ponies and donkeys in agonies, with broken legs; I have
spoken to the New River Company about this, and they acknowledge that they have a
donkey's leg to pay for now and then ; their collector said this is the least expensive, and is
less so than keeping the plug-holes covered. - - - -
EXAMINATION of Mr. JoHN BooBER.
IN what capacity are you employed?—A clerk of the works to the improvements at-
Christ's Hospital; I reside at No. 46, York-street, City-road.
(94.) - K
W.
From
Mr.
J. Ludd Fenner.
Mr.
John Boorer.
38 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence on the
State of the Water.
Mr.
John Boorer.
From what Company is Christ's Hospital supplied with water?—The New River
Company. - - .
What is the state of the water when it is sent in?—Very good; it was very good this
morning; in rainy weather it is rather thick, but then it is clearer before we use it, as we
have cisterns in which it deposits. The hospital pays 55l. 14s. per annum, including six
almshouses, St. Peters-hill, Doctors Commons. For the consumption of this water there
are 13 wards, of 50 children in each on an average, with the nurses and their apartments;
the treasurer's house, equal to a first-rate house consumption, stabling, &c.; 10 houses for
the officers, equal to third-rate houses consumption; five small houses for inferior officers,
equal to fourth-rate houses consumption; the infirmary; the lavatory; the kitchen; the
works or new buildings, and six small almshouses for widows. In the infirmary they have
very fine water, and also in the lavatory; in the lavatory there is a cistern which holds
3,000 gallons; and from a reservoir, under-ground we pump up the water to the upper
cisterns, excepting to one ward, and the upper part of the infirmary. -
How high do the company supply you?—Twelve or fourteen feet above the ground.
Do they not give high service?—They do give high service, but we pump up the water
ourselves; we have the high service to one ward only, and to the upper part of the
infirmary.
How often are the cisterns and reservoirs cleaned out?—There is no set time for cleaning
out the cisterns. -
What depth of mud is found at the bottom, when they are cleaned out?—A cistern two
feet six inches deep, in the kitchen, (the lowest cistern), the mud in seven months, from
John Dill, M.D.
*.
Mr.
Edward Carter.
the 12th September to the 12th April, was three eighths of an inch deep. [Mr. Boorer
stated, that he had been to all the wards and houses, and put the question to each, “are
you well supplied ?” and the answer from each ward and house was, “well,” and “very
well supplied.”] At the infirmary it was very clear and good; the only complaint had been
in the kitchen, and that only for a short time; it was then muddy; and this arose not
so much from the water as from an alteration in the iron pipe within the hospital. At the
apothecary’s house there was no fault at all.
Upon the whole you have plenty of water, and no objections to make to its quality?—
Yes; and at this present time it is as clear as distilled water, and no objection to its
quality.
ExAMINATION of John DILL, M.D.
YOU are supplied with water from the New River Company ?—We are.
What number of cisterns have you?—Two. - -
What is the size of them 2–The larger one is seven feet deep, seven feet wide, and
12 feet long; the smaller one is not larger than a common hogshead. {
How often are they cleaned out?—Once a year.
What depth of sediment is found in them when they are cleaned out?—The deposit is
generally two inches thick.
What is the state of the water in respect to purity?—There is no objection to it, it is very
good water.
It is used for baths 2—Yes, and for sponging and drinking.
Is the water generally clear?—Yes. -
After rains, is it not muddy ?—Yes; and it then presents rather a white appearance.
Have you any pump-water 2—We have a pump in the house.
Do you make much use of it?—Yes, a good deal; partly for the supply of the upper part
of the house, all the water for which must be carried up entirely for our own table.
Cannot the company send it up 2–Yes; and we are thinking of making application to
have it done. g
Upon the whole, you have not any complaint to make of this water 7—On the whole it
is very fair; but for drinking it varies in its flavour. - -
ExAMINATION of Mr. EDWARD CARTER.
YOU keep a public-house?—Yes; the Southampton Arms, Camden Town.
You signed a petition, about watering the streets with offensive matter?—Yes.
Have you any thing else to state?—Yes; the nuisance was such, that I was obliged to
set a boy at the door to watch when the carts were coming, in order that we might shut all
the doors and windows to keep the smell out. t - ...'
l t They
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 39
They have, of course, not been watered lately?—They left off the week before Michaelmas
last; and I am told that they have begun again this season.
They pump the water from the Fleet-ditch?—Yes, from a ditch.
Do you know of any application having been made to the New River Company for
water for watering these roads?—I do not know; but I have been informed that a person
offered to sink a well, for a small sum, which would be sufficient for the purpose.
How long has the plan been acted upon of pumping from a ditch?—Last year and
the year before. - *e -
ExAMINATION of Mr. ANTHONY STARKEY.
WHERE do you reside?—Church-street, Hackney.
What is your trade?—A fishmonger. -
From what company are you supplied with water 2—From the East London Water-
works. - - -
How long have you been supplied by this company —In my own house 10 or 12 years,
and I have houses of my own that have been supplied with it about 16 years. • *
Have you any complaint to make of the quality of the water 2–None whatever; it is very
good, and my tenants do not complain. .
The quantity you have is not deficient?—No, I am on the main; I have a constant
supply; the fish will not live without running water; I have a pump, but the fish will not
live in pump-water, and this water is constantly running through the cistern, where I keep
my fish. -
Evidence on the
State of the Water,
Mr. ".
Edward Carter.
Mr.
Anthony Starkey.
Is the water muddy?—Sometimes it is, but not very often ; it will be a little so some-,
times after rains from the land-springs.
But the tide flows up the River Lea above the works?—I think they are supplied more
from the Lea than the Thames. . . . . -
. This water is not prejudicial to fish 2–Not at all, they will live a month or six weeks
after they recover; they suffer from the carriage, and the water restores them. -
You have a cistern ?—Yes.
How many gallons does it hold 7–About 40 or 50 gallons.
Are there any insects in this water?—Sometimes.
In dry or in wet weather?—In dry weather, but then at such times we use pump-water
in the house. -
But you use this water generally for tea and cooking?—Yes, but I prefer pump-water;
I have a boiler supplied with the company's water, and this is generally taken by the
servant; being warm, it boils the sooner. ,4 -
Do you clean out your cistern ?—Frequently, every or every other day, in consequence of
what falls into it from the cleaning fish and oysters.
Is there much mud in it?—Not much.
Is it thick?—Yes, a little sometimes.
Have you no other cistern in your house?—No ; I have 23 houses, and some of the
tenants have pans or butts to cleanse the water. -
These tenants of yours make no particular complaints?—No, except that the water is
a little thick sometimes; and when they complain to me, I tell them they should have a
tub. -
Have any of them filters?—Not that I know of. I am one of the trustees of the poor of
Hackney parish; and I know that there is much water used at the workhouse, where there
are three large tanks. -
What quantity do they contain 2–The largest tank is 40 feet long, three feet ten wide,
and four feet deep, the other tanks are supplied from it.
How often are they cleaned out?—The largest four years since.
What quantity of mud or sediment is found at bottom when they are cleaned out?—
About one inch thick, the smaller less quantity.
Is the smell of the water offensive 2–Yes, when first opened, a little.
Is the smell of the water generally offensive 2–No; if there was any thing particular
against it, I should hear of it from my tenants, who are mostly respectable females, ... "
*
(94.) Is
40 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence on the
State of the Water.
Mr.
Anthony Starkey.
a-a-
Mr.
John Jones.
Is the Thames water injurious to eels?—Not that I know of; an eel will live almost
any where; I deal much in eels; 40 or 50 lbs. at a time I bring home, and when they aré
recovered from the effects of carriage will live as long as we please to keep them.
They are brought over, and you buy them of the Dutch?—Yes, the best information
about eels can be obtained at the Artichoke, Blackwall, where they keep eels; when the
Dutch eels come here, they turn up and die in fresh water, unless they are very strong.
The Thames water will not kill eels?—No, I think not; but smelts are very scarce to
what they used to be.
You think that the Thames water is injured 2–Yes, from the effects of gas and the
copper-bottomed ships. There used to be a number of men employed in catching smelts,
and they had quite a harvest; the season commenced about this time; when I first begun
business, about 35 years ago, there were plenty about 2s. or 3s. per hundred, and now
there are very few to be got.
How long is it since they first became scarce?—About 10 or 12 years.
And every year has been worse than the former year 2—Yes.
You have not heard the same thing about eels?—No.
Or about any other fish?—No.
ExAMINATION of Mr. JoHN Jon Es.
YOU are secretary of the London Hospital?—Yes.
From what company are you supplied with water 2—The East London Waterworks.
Have you any reservoirs?—We have seven tanks in all, five of iron and two of wood;
two are at the top of the house for the supply of water-closets, and, as the company do not
give high service, we are obliged to lift it into these tanks by the power of a horse. . .
What is the state of the water?—I have been a housekeeper in the immediate neigh-
bourhood 26 years, and the water has been complained of sometimes; after rains it is very
thick, but in eight or ten hours it will deposit.
What is the ordinary state of the water 2—Very fair.
Do you filter the water 2—No.
What are the sizes of your tanks 2—
Feet. In.
I. Iron tank over dead-house - - 10 0 wide.
10 0 long.
3 4 deep.
333 ft. 4 in. holds 1,998 gallons.
2, New iron tank by dead-house - 19 10 long.
Il 4 wide.
4 0 deep.
– 899 ft. holds 5,394 gallons.
3. Wood cistern in lobby to laundry 12 2 long.
6 2 wide.
3 9 deep.
- 281 ft. 3 in. holds 1,686 gallons.
4. Iron tank by horse-wheel - - 8 0 long.
4, 1 wide.
4 0 deep.
— 130 ft. 8 in. holds 733 gallons.
5. Iron tank next the last - - - 8 0 long.
- •. 4, I wide.
4 0 deep. -
130 ft. 8 in. holds 733 gallons.
6. Wood cistern at west end of roof 8 7 long.
- 6 6, wide.
5 3 deep.
292 ft. 8 in, holds 1,752 gallons.
7. New iron tank on roof - - - 26 6 long. - -
- 8 6 wide.
4 0 deep.
867 ft. holds 5,202 gallons.
We have 270 patients in the hospital, and about 30 servants and nurses, in all about
300 persons, and we have a water-closet in every ward. . . . . . . . . . . . :
- What
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. - 41
What is the quantity of water you consume *—The vacuum in the tanks for the use of Evidence on the
each day is supplied next day from the main, the quantity cannot be well ascertained. State of the Water.
You are never in want of water 2—For the last two years we have had plenty, since the Mr.
company have made additional reservoirs, and we have had two additional tanks put up; John Jones.
before we were occasionally scantily supplied.
You have no complaints of the water being bad?—None.
How often are your tanks cleaned out?—Generally twice a year.
What quantity of mud is found in them in a given time?—About two inches in every tank
"in six months. - -> -
... The water comes in muddy?—Very, sometimes; last Autumn the women complained of
it for washing. -
Are there any insects in it?—Yes; in my own garden, after standing a day or two in the
butt in hot weather, a great many animalculae and insects.
Is it the same in the hospital?—I do not know; the tanks are covered up, or at least the
surface of the water in them is out of sight in most cases. -
Are there any insects like shrimps ?–Actually shrimps from the Thames, and very lively
red insects.
ExAMINATION of Mr. JoHN HALL.
WHAT is your engagement?—Engineer at St. Catherine's Dock; and I reside at No. 3, Mr.
Nightingale-lane. John Hall.
From what company do you receive the water you use?—From the East London, I believe;
the house I reside in is found me by the Dock Trustees, therefore I do not pay the water-
rate; but I have inquired of Mr. Hall, the Secretary to the St. Catherine’s-dock Company,
and I am told by him that the water is from the East London Waterworks. -
Have you any observations to make on the state of the water?—I came to the docks on
the 10th of December, and found the water very impure, and could not use it; the clothes
that were washed in it were dyed, and made of a bad colour, and to remedy the evil I made
a small filter; the water is now muddy, but it is better than it was then. It has been better
during the late dry weather for about one month past. - -
Can you use it for culinary purposes 2–No ; not without filtering.
Is it muddy?—Not so much muddy as that it contains light floating substances.
Of what kind 2–More like feathers than any thing else; and when it is most impure there
is a kind of grub in it, and little lively insects; this was the case in December, January,
and February, during the wet weather.
Do you receive it direct from the main?—I do not know; it is received into a cistern.
What quantity does your cistern hold 7–It is lined with lead about ten feet long, three
feet wide, and two feet deep ; the contents about 60 cubic feet.
Is there much mud deposited in it 2—I have not observed this, there not being free
access to the cistern.
You have no objection to the water after it is filtered 2–No.
What kind of filter do you use?—It is a temporary one that I have put up, it is made
with a small tub—a butter firkin; the bottom is pierced with holes; some girting is fastened
near the bottom, covered with four thicknesses of flannel, and then with about eight inches
of washed sand, upon this is placed flannel as before, and on the flannel six inches more
of sand, the water drops slowly into this filterer, and it comes out pure.
Does this supply you with all the water you want ?—Yes, if it is attended to ; and also
sufficient to clear the clothes. be -
Have you enough in the supply from the company 2–Quite sufficient.
You have only resided where you now live since December, and therefore cannot speak
as to the quality of the water previously to that time?—No.
You are quite clear as to the company from which you are supplied ?–I give it on the
authority of the secretary, of whom I made the inquiry this morning.
ExAMINATION of Mr. WATTs.
WHAT is your situation?—Clerk to the Governor of Mary-le-bone Workhouse. Mr. Wałęs,
From what company do you derive your supply of water –The West Middlesex Water-
works. - ^ - " -
(94.) L What
42 APPENDIX TO REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence on the
State of the Water.
Mr. . Watts.
Mr.
Joseph Luckie.
fish where so few can be caught, when they can catch a greater number lower down.
- l
What receptacles have you for it ?—A tank at the top of the house.
Of what capacity is it ?—T ank, 1,985 gallons, cistern in scullery, 2,696 gallons.
How often is it cleaned out?–Once a month.
... What quantity of mud is found at the bottom in a given time?—Sometimes not any; after
heavy and continued rain there is a small quantity.
What is the state of the water 2—Very good; our apothecary drew some this morning,
and it was very good.
Is it ever very muddy after frost?—I have no reason to complain, none; I have asked all
our people, and there is no complaint.
Have you no other water?—Not soft; we have six or seven pumps, but all the cooking
and washing is done with it.
Have you baths?—Yes.
And those are clear 2—Yes.
Are there any insects in the water 2–No.
How often are you supplied ?–Constantly, being on the main.
You have no complaint as to quantity?—No. We have 1,200 to 1,400 people in the
house; we have now 1,300 persons.
ExAMINATION of Mr. JosBPH LUCKIE.
WHERE do you reside?—No. 27, Upper Mary-le-bone-street.
You have a fishmonger's shop?—Yes.
How long have you been in this business?—All my life; I have been brought up to it with
my father.
From what company are you supplied with water 2—The West Middlesex.
Have you any complaints to make as to the quality of the water supplied to you?—We do
not use much, we have a well of our own.
To you not use it for keeping fish?—We use it for keeping live fish in.
There is nothing detrimental to fish in this water?—Sometimes it is a little thick, nothing
II].OT6.
Do you keep eels in it?—Yes; and carp, and tench, for six weeks at a time.
And flounders?—We never keep them alive.
Or oysters?—We do not preserve oysters; we have a well, which is decidedly better
water than this is.
Is the company’s water ever muddy ?—In wet weather it is, and rather thick.
Have you any cisterns?—Three.
How much will they hold?—The one principally sized, upwards of 150 gallons.
Do you clean out these cisterns?—We use them for keeping fish in ; the water is con-
stantly flowing through for six or eight weeks at a time. They are not often cleaned
Out. -
What rental do you pay?–31. 14s, per annum. We do not use it for any thing but the
cisterns and domestic purposes.
What do you use the pump-water for 2–Cleaning the fish; because it is colder than the
company's water, which in Summer is warm; and the pump-water is also clearer. .
Do you ever get smelts alive from the Thames?—No.
You used?—No, never.
Where do you get eels from ?—From Billingsgate.
Caught in the river Thames?—Not now.
Nor any salmon caught in the Thames?—No.
There used to be a great many fish caught in the Thames; what is the reason there are
none caught now?--The men say it is owing to the gas, and the steam-boats, they frighten
the fish out of the river.
You have not now many fish from the river ?—No ; it is not worth while for the men to
Where
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 43
#
Where are the eels brought from ?—The rivers in Holland.
The trade of the Dutch in eels is dropping off?—Not that I know of.
Has the price of eels increased?—No; they can bring a greater quantity than we
can use; they bring them up alive in well-boats as far as Gravesend, and off the Tower-
stairs.
ExAMINATION of Mr. FREDERick WRIGHT.
YOU are resident apothecary at the Middlesex Hospital?—Yes.
From what company is this hospital supplied with water 2–The West Middlesex, Chis-
wick Division. *
What vessels have you to receive the water?—Leaden cisterns.
What is the quantity consumed 2–About 189 barrels per week.
How often are you served?—Three times a week. We have high service also.
What is the state of the water?—Particularly good in Summer, but thick and disagreeable
in Winter; which I attribute to the rainy weather; but it is in general good, and tolerably
clear; at present it is good.
Has it never any bad smell?—No.
Are there any insects in it?—No.
Is it used in the kitchen?—It is used all over the house, for every purpose.
Is it this water which is drank?—It is very much drank; but we have a fine spring of
water, and gentlemen who call for a glass of water have this spring-water brought
them.
This is hard water 2—Yes; the company's water is soft.
Is it ever thick and muddy ?—After rains it contains earthy particles.
Any straw or fibres in it?—No; I never detected any thing more than what arises from
the disturbance of the water by rain.
How often are your cisterns cleaned out?—Certainly twice a year, not oftener.
What quantity of mud is found in them, that is, the depth of mud 2—About one eighth
of an inch in about seven months.
How long have you been apothecary to this hospital?—Nearly three years.
ExAMINATION of Mr. HENRY HUTCHINs.
YOU are apothecary at St. George's Hospital?—Yes.
How long have you been there in this capacity?—Three years and a half.
From what company are you supplied with water 2—From the Chelsea Waterworks
Company.
Are there cisterns to receive the water 2—Yes.
What are the sizes of the cisterns, and how many are there?—There are six cisterns of
various sizes.
Feet. Inches. Feet. Inches.
One 12 6 long. Another 10 6 long.
5 0 wide. 5 6 wide.
2 0 deep. 2 0 deep.
A third 9 0 long. A fourth 7 0 long.
1 10 wide. 2 0 wide.
3 9 deep. 3 3 deep.
A fifth 4 0 long. A sixth 4 6 long.
2 6 wide. 3 6 wide.
4 6 deep. 4 0 deep.
How often are they cleaned out?—Once in every six weeks.
What depth of mud is found at the bottom when they are cleaned out?—After stormy
seasons, and in the winter, about half an inch depth of mud, but formerly it was found to be
twice this depth at such times; in fair settled weather there is very little mud at the bottom
of the cisterns.
What account can you give of the state of the water?—We have a pipe from the main
into the kitchen, from which the water is sometimes thick, and at other times as clear and
good as that which we receive from the cisterns. * -
(94.) - In
Evidence on the
State of the Water,
Joseph Luckie.
Mr.
Frederick Wright.
Mr.
Henry Hutchins.
44 APPENDIX TO REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence on the
State of the Water.
Mr.
Henry Hutchins.
Dr. Kerrison.
-ºr-sº
In general, what is its state 2–Very pure and good.
Has it always been so?—I have never heard any complaint of its being otherwise.
You have then no fault to find with this water 2—No; we use it constantly for tea and
for culinary purposes. -
Are there ever any floating substances in it, such as fibres or insects in it ?—No, I have
never seen any, except that now and then I have seen a small insect in my water jug, which
is, I believe, very commonly found in river water.
How often are the cisterns cleaned out?—Once in six weeks.
What depth of mud is found in them?—
Do you use the Chelsea Company's water for baths?—Yes.
And when the water is in them, being in a greater body, have you not observed it to be
muddy?—Our hot water comes from the cisterns (for hot baths) by a spiral pipe, through
the kitchen boiler, and has sometimes been observed to be muddy. The cold bath, which
is supplied by the main pipe, has generally been muddy when the water was first turned on,
but after running a short time it ran out clear.
There is no bad odour or bad taste in the water?—No.
Do you not filter 2—No, we do not. *
Have you a pump —None in the hospital; we do not make much use of pump-water for
drinking; we obtain water from a pump near us.
Do you use this water for medicinal preparations?—No; we use the river water for all
these purposes. -
ExAMINATION of Dr. KERRIson.
DR. KERRISON attended, and requested permission to offer a few words in explanation of
the causes which first directed his attention to the proceedings of water companies. He
observed that it was in consequence of the sudden advance of rate upon his house in the
year 1819, from 21. to 6l. 16s. 6d. annually, without any additional supply or variation in the
mode of service, and he declared that the deliberate and repeated refusal of the directors
(the proofs of which he offered to produce) to accept of a less sum than 5l. 10s. had induced
him to join other housekeepers who were at that time in public opposition to the principle
upon which a great advance of rates had been then lately made by the Grand Junction and
the West Middlesex water companies. He mentioned having been placed on a committee
of the inhabitants of the parishes of St. James and St. George, in October 1819. He
presented the outline of a Plan (see page 102) for obtaining water from Isleworth, accompanied
with a sketch of the line of road by which he proposed the water should be conveyed to
Notting-hill, near Kensington Gravel-pits. He observed that the distance by that route
would be only about three miles farther than the reservoir of the West Middlesex Company
is from their work on the upper mall at Hammersmith, whilst the source of supply would be
near six miles higher on the stream. He said that a further advantage in purity of the
water with respect to its combination with filth from London and its neighbourhood would
arise from the greater rapidity of the tide downwards than upwards, so that the water would
be even better than the mere comparative distance indicated; and he noticed the necessity
of ascertaining the rate of going of the tide at various parts on the river between London
and Teddington, in order to determine how far the impurities of London and Millbank were
carried upwards by the reflux of the tide at each tide. With reference also to spring and
neap-tides, the greatest difficulty, he observed, would be the river Brent, at the town of
Brentford, and the water must be conveyed under or over it. On a question being asked by
one of the commissioners whether he had considered the means of overcoming the difficulty
of passing the Brent, he said, “No,” for that was more particularly in the province of a civil
engineer. Upon further inquiry, by another commissioner, he said he thought it quite prac-
ticable to run a tunnel under it for the conveyance of water from Isleworth.
Have you considered the expense of the undertaking 2—I have not attempted to make any
computation of the expense of a suitable main; whether it would cost 20,000l. or 40,000l.
per mile must be determined by civil engineers.
Is the state of the river at Isleworth such that the navigation would not be injured by
taking the water from thence in dry weather, in summer, when the river is low 2–I have not
considered this point. -
[On this becoming a subject of conversation by one of the commissioners asking him the
state of the river at Isleworth, which had been previously noticed in the communication read
by him before any conversation commenced, Dr. Kerrison said, that he thought the quantity
of water required would bear so very small a proportion to the volume of the Thames at Isle-
worth in all seasons of the year, that he did not believe it would make any difference in the
facility of navigation.]
What is the state of the water supplied by the Grand Junction Company?—It is muddy,
but the supply is generally sufficient, although I have frequently found the cistern on the
f second
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, - 45
second floor scantily supplied lately; when this occurs, I desire the servant to fill it by the
force-pump in the back area, communicating with a well dug when the company deprived
me of the supply of water in October 1821. * *
Have you made any analysis?—No, I have not entered into the minute chemistry of the
Thames water.
Have you observed any muddiness lately 2—Yes; but I have a filterer made by Mr. Stone,
of Warwick-street, which renders the water clear, and it is used at my table for breakfast
and tea-time. Dr. Kerrison said that some water had been served lately by mistake, taken
from a boiler in the kitchen in constant use, and supplied from his cistern in the front area,
which he discovered by the sediment at the bottom of the slop-basin; and that this occurred
within the last fortnight.
When the water is filtered is it good? — I do not object to it them.
Did the water ever come to you in a putrescent state?— I have not observed it.
You clean out your cistern ?— Yes, about once a fortnight. On a question being asked
Dr. Kerrison as to the healthiness of the Thames water, mixed as it was now with so many
impurities, he said that he thought no individual ought to decide that question; that he had
already noticed, in his written communication, circumstances under which he considered
the water of the Thames, in its present state, would become extensively injurious to the
inhabitants of the metropolis; and that the comparative wholesomeness of water for
domestic purposes was a fit subject to be submitted for the decision of the Royal College of
Physicians. ---
Copy of LETTER from DR. KERRIson.
SINCE Dr. Kerrison had the honour of waiting on the Commissioners (February 5th),
he was induced, at Mr. Wright's request, to accompany him to Chelsea on Thursday the
8th instant, for the purpose of seeing the Ranelagh sewer at its outlet into the Thames,
which was done by passing through a gate usually locked into a piece of ground lately
attached to the garden of the hospital at its eastern extremity, and skirted for 200 or 300
yards by this open sewer, which divides it from the ground of the Grand Junction Water
Company, at the point of which next the river their steam-engine is erected.
The tide being low he went on the causeway near the landing to Chelsea Hospital to make
a closer inspection, when the foul and blackish stream from Ranelagh sewer (passing
between the steam-engine and the dolphin) was seen to be loaded with no small portion of
undivided floating filth from privies.
Since it is evident that the contents of this sewer must fall (except near low water)
UPoN the dolphin or inlet to the works of the Grand Junction Company, and that the
partial vacuum within this dolphin, caused by the action of the steam-engine, MUST become
a cause of attraction, it cannot be doubted that a considerable quantity of human excrement,
in a subdivided and undecomposed state, does actually pass into the dolphin ; and that
although the palpable impurity and common mud are separated by the filter, the water must
contain in great abundance the saline matter from the liquid part of sewer filth, which being
perfectly soluble, will pass the filter and become a real cause of objection to water drawn
from this source. For these reasons, founded on facts witnessed since Dr. Kerrison’s con-
versation with the Commissioners on the 5th instant, his opinion of the water after filtration
is changed, and he has now objections to it in every state as supplied from the works of the
Grand Junction Company; and he requests that this communication may form a part of
his evidence, in continuation of that of the day on which he had the honour of waiting on
the Commissioners.
With respect to the question to Dr. Kerrison by the Commissioners, of the putrescent
state of the water, he replied (speaking only of what he had seen) that he had not observed
it. This has probably arisen from the use of a filtering machine and a good well, both being
employed at his house every day; but he can now account for what has been stated in
replies to Mr. Wright by Sir Henry Halford, Dr. Twiner, Dr. Paris, Dr. Hooper, Dr. Bree,
Dr. Lambe, Dr. Hume, and Dr. Johnson, also by Mr. Keate, Mr. Brodie, and Mr. Thomas,
respecting the putrescent state of the water, because it is evident, from the situation of the
inlet to the works of the New Chelsea, called the Grand Junction Company, that much
crude filth must enter it without having been partially decomposed and deposited by the
flux and reflux of the tide, which would have occurred if the dolphin had been further from
the shore, even at the same part of the river, so that a decomposition and deposit of objec-
tionable matters received in their crude state actually takes place in the cisterns of the
inhabitants, or they remain diffused through the water constantly employed for culinary and
other domestic purposes.
In conclusion, Dr. Kerrison begs leave to remark, that by placing the dolphin in its
situation, or permitting it to remain there year after year, a culpable disregard of the com-
forts and health of the inhabitants of a large district of London has been exhibited by the
directors of a company, whose petition to Parliament for leave to establish their works
was chiefly founded on the assurance of sending water more free from impurities than
(94.) M any
Evidence on the
State of the Water.
Dr. Kerrison.
46 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence on the
State of the Water.
Dr. Paris.
Mt.
S. David Beare.
any then in use, and the promise of an unlimited supply, by which the sanction of the
Legislature, and the patronage of the Public, were obtained; both of which, in Dr. Ker-
rison's opinion, would never have been granted under circumstances which have existed
during the last eight or ten years.
ExAMINATION of Dr. PARIs.
DR. PARIS attended, and was asked if the water with which he was supplied was
impure?—The water is bad; very impure.
Have you examined it lately 2— No.
Is it offensive?—Yes.
And muddy?—Yes.
Do you filter it?— We do not use it except for washing.
What water then do you use?—We send to the Russian Ambassador's, where there is a
well and a pump.
What is the state of the cistern ?—That has been complained of. It has been often
emptied, and the mud as rapidly accumulates. The company send in mud with the water,
and then complain that we do not keep the cisterns clear.
What is the state of the water when it comes in 2–I can only speak generally. In the
summer, at which time I more particularly noticed it, there were large quantities of matter
mechanically suspended, and I should think many that were chemically dissolved in the
Water.
Have you any evidence that it stinks as it comes in 2— No, I cannot say that I have, but
I know that it does so very shortly after. I beg to mention that a printed paper which was
circulated, in which reference is made to myself, contains a complete mis-statement of the
facts; they were not as there represented.
Have you any high service from this company?—No ; we have, I know, a plumber almost
constantly at work; and I should think that no family has its cistern more frequently
cleaned out. -
How often has your cistern been cleaned out?—I cannot speak positively.
Mr. Wright said that you could give us some important facts —I have no connection
with Mr. Wright, but my opinion as a physician is that the water is injurious to health.
I visited a family who were all ill in the autumn, and I believe their illness arose from
drinking the water on coming to town; they changed the water, and drank other water, and
got well.
Have you thought of any remedy ?— No ; how far filtration may render it pure remains to
be proved; I should doubt its being made pure by such means; but I cannot speak positively.
At all events, I should not choose to drink it after any process to which it might be
subjected.
ExAMINATION of MR. SHIRLEY DAVID BEARE.
YOU are one of the proprietors of Hatchett's Hotel?—I am joint partner with Mr. Hatchett,
the resident proprietor.
You complain that the water of the Grand Junction Company is bad?—Yes, it is unfit
for our use, and the rate for it is exorbitant.
Has it been uniformly bad since the year 1821 –Yes.
Do you now speak of the water as it is supplied from the Company's works, or as it is
taken from your cisterns 2—We consider that as our cisterns are drawn out every day, that
the water from them is consequently a fair sample of what is sent in. Mr. Beare said,
that he had brought two samples of water with him, one supplied by the company and the
other from their own well. -
From whence is the company's water taken 2–It is from a boiler used for cooking by
Steam.
How often are your boilers cleaned out?—Not frequently, being chiefly supplied with
spring water.
The water in them is continually evaporating, is it not; and thus depositing a sediment?—
Yes, except those supplied with spring water.
Are your cisterns cleaned out?—Yes; with the purifying liquid.
How often, on an average 2–The cisterns supplying the water-closets not frequently;
we use spring water from a well we were obliged to sink, which is 300 feet deep; we serve
the cisterns for the coffee-room from the well, and this water is always used for breakfasts,
and tea, and mixtures.
3 - How
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 47
How often are your cisterns cleaned out?—Within the last fortnight, the greater part of
them, and about six weeks before that time.
Was there much mud —Yes, a very great deal.
Is the smell offensive 2–Yes.
Have you observed animalculae in the water 2–Yes, frequently; and within the last six
months an eel was taken out of one of the pipes, weighing from three quarters to one
pound.
Have you observed many impurities within the last six months?—Yes, it has been very
foul and dirty.
Is the supply you receive adequate to your wants ?—Not without the well.
What quantity of water do you consume?—Our plumber can tell; I have brought him
with me. Mr. Beare then presented a paper, which he said was an outline of the facts he
wished to communicate to the Board. Mr. Beare stated that when the well was sunk the
water rose to within 60 feet of the top in one hour and 10 minutes, since which time it
continues much higher. -
Copy of STATEMENT from Mr. BEARE.
Hatchett's Hotel, Piccadilly, was supplied by the Chelsea Water Company in the year
1814, at the rate of 91. 2s. per annum. The Grand Junction Water Company have supplied
this hotel with water from the year 1814 to the year 1818, at the rate of 6l. per annum,
agreeable to a contract entered into with an agent on behalf of the Grand Junction Com-
pany. From the year 1818 this company have increased the rate from 6l. per annum to
25l. per annum, which is paid at the present time, 1828. The supply of water was not
equal to the quantity required by the necessary consumption of the establishment. The
quality of the water was at the time the rate was increased so foul as to be unfit for many
purposes required by the trade, and the charge for the same appearing to be quite at the
option of the directors of the company. In consequence of these complaints, Messrs. Hatchett
and Beare were compelled to sink a well; from local circumstances, this was necessarily a
very expensive job; the well was commenced in 1820, and the spring which now supplies
the same being nearly 300 feet deep, together with the engine erected, plumbers work, &c.
has cost the proprietors more than 1,000l. to obtain a pure and wholesome water, which
they found impossible to obtain from the Grand Junction. The house is now nearly wholly
supplied by this spring water. -
ExAMINATION of Mr. Joseph SIMPKIN.
WHAT is your employment?—As a plumber, and I do the whole of the plumbing business
at Hatchett's Hotel.
How long have you been in the habit of doing this business?—For 14 years.
What is the quantity of water required for this house?—I should think about 400 or
500 gallons a day. -
How many cisterns are there that are filled with water by the Grand Junction Company P
—We have about 12 cisterns altogether, including five butts; that is, seven cisterns and five
butts; two of these cisterns are supplied with water from the well.
Some of these cisterns are supplied by high service?—That is according to what height
is reckoned high service; if six feet above the pavement, there are four cisterns and three
butts.
How often are they cleaned out?—Once in a month or five weeks, upon an average.
Do the cisterns that are supplied from the well require cleaning out 2–No ; there is
very little sediment indeed.
Is there any variation in the quality or appearance of the spring water 2–No; no
difference.
What is the depth of the well?—Near 300 feet.
Mr. Beare says it rose, when the water came, to within 60 feet of the top?—It was within
45 feet of the top the morning after; I was in the well when the water came, and it
all at once spouted up over our heads.
What was the nature of the stratum immediately above the water spring?—A reddish
clay of only a few feet, and above this a black soil.
Who sunk the well?—It was done under my directions.
Was there any chalk?—Not any.
What were the different strata through which you passed ?–1st. Gravel, 14 feet;
2d. Blue clay, about 230 feet; 3d. Red clay, streaked with very bright red, about 14 º ;
- ( 94.) 4t \ y
Evidence on the
State of the Water.
Mr.
S. David Beare.
Mr. -
Joseph Simpkin.
48 APPENDIX, TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence on the
State of the Water,
Mr.
Joseph Simpkin.
Mr.
John Hitchcock.
&
4th. A black soil like the bed of a river, more like peat, four feet; 5th. Green Sand and red
clay, about 20 feet; the rods dropped through this, and the water came; we found large
shells in the black soil.
Is the water soft?—Yes; there is very little difference in this respect between it and the
Thames water.
[The two samples of water were here exhibited, and Mr. Simpkin tried them with
soap; the well water decomposed the soap much sooner than the Thames water.
The Thames water had been drawn from a boiler, and was scarcely cold when
exhibited.]
Is there much deposit in the cisterns when they are cleaned?—About one and a halfinch
of mud in a month or five weeks; there has not been so much within the last few months as
there was formerly; there has been an improvement since the reservoirs have been used.
You do not then complain of the quantity so much as the quality?—Not now ; formerly
we were deficient in quantity.
ExAMINATION of Mr. JoHN HITCHCOCK.
YOU are the proprietor of the Blue Posts, Cork-street?—Yes.
You have complaints to make of the water supplied by the Grand Junction Company?—
Yes.
What are those complaints?—The water is muddy, and sometimes smells very bad. I
have a jug of water taken into my room at nine o’clock, about two quarts, and at eleven,
when I go to use it, there is half a table-spoonful of black mud at the bottom ; sometimes
there is a scum upon the water; and the only way of getting rid of this is by having the jug
filled, and blowing it off.
You take the water out of a cistern ?—Yes.
How many cisterns have you?—We have three.
What quantity do they contain —One about 150 gallons, and the other two about
110 gallons each.
How often are they cleaned out 2—About once a month.
Is there much mud collects?—I should think about half an inch in a month.
- You have not examined the water as it comes in from the pipe?—Lately I have thought
the water not so muddy as it was six months ago; we have two pumps, and only use this
water when we cannot help it. For boiling vegetables it is very bad; for if there is half a
spoonful of black mud in two quarts, which I find there is, the boiling vegetables in this water
will spoil them.
Do you find insects in the water 2—Yes; but I do not think so much of that; they will be
in river water.
Have you seen any lately 2—No ; in summer there are many; when the water has been
clear, the steam arising from it when it is boiling is offensive; it smelt very bad last
SUll]]]T1621”.
Where do you get your spring water?—I have two wells; one in each house.
How deep are those wells?—I do not know; they are old wells; have been sunk many
years. *
Is the water from these wells soft?—Not so soft as the river water; this of course will have
the preference for washing and cleaning.
Have you any complaints as to quantity ?—No, we have plenty.
What is the quantity you use?—The water comes in three times a week, Tuesday, Thurs-
day, and Saturday, but we are short on the Tuesday; we empty our vessels three times a
week; our cisterns are not large enough, or we should not be short. We are generally
obliged to use the spring water for tea and liquors; we use the Grand Junction water for
this when we can, because it is soft, and soft water is the best for tea, and liquors also.
Is this water clear enough for liquors?—No, unless it is boiled; and then we cannot use
it from a kettle, because the boiling throws up the mud; I have a boiler which is heated by
steam, and therefore the water in it is not subjected to the agitation which it has in boiling
in a kettle, in this the mud subsides, and from this boiler we can draw it off clear.
Have you thought of filtering?—No; it is not necessary for us, as we have well water.
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. 49
EXAMINATION of Mr. RICHARD GooDHUGH.
YOU have a shop —Yes; No. 6, Glasshouse-street.
You are a fishmonger ?—Yes.
Have you reason to complain of the water with which you are supplied ?—I had reason to
complain, but I have not now, for I have sunk a well.
What is the depth of it?—Eighteen feet, in a fine gravel, with eight feet of water; and
we use two or three tons per day.
How long have you been supplied by the Grand Junction Water Company?—Two years
and a half; we use this water only for the closets.
Is the water muddy?—Yes.
Is it offensive?—Yes; I have a cistern, into which, if fresh water fish are put, they will
not live more than six hours, and they turn a yellow colour.
How long will they live in well water?—If it is kept running, four or five days; in the
New River water they will live one or two years.
Have you used the New River water?—No; but I know those who do use it at Billings-
gate Market. . In the crimping of cod, if well water is used, the cod will crimp hard and
white, but if the water of the Grand Junction Company is used, the fish turns yellow, and
is bad.
This well water of yours is hard?—Yes, very hard.
Is it good for washing?—We put all our washing out; but it is very good for tea.
How long have you used this well?—Since September last.
Can you pump your supply without lowering it?—It does not lower.
How deep did you sink it?—Eighteen feet.
How high did the water rise?—Eight feet; it is now more, I believe. I agreed with a
man to sink it, and attach a pump to it, for a certain price, 15l. 15s., which I paid him. In
Evidence on the
State of the Water.
Mr.
Richard Goodhugh.
the Grand Junction water oysters will die in 24 hours; they require 24 hours to purge,
before they are fit to send out, after we get them; but in that water they are killed. The
eel cistern was obliged to be cleaned out three or four times a week.
Are there many insects in the Grand Junction water?—Yes, and leeches.
Is there any scum on it?—Yes, a kind of oily substance.
From what you have observed, do you think it better of late 2—Yes.
The New River water agrees with oysters?—Yes; Fenn and others at Billingsgate have
large cisterns supplied with New River water, in which they keep their stock of fresh water
fish; they have 200 or 300 brace of carp, tench, &c., and they will live 12 months.
Can these persons use the Thames water; will the fish live in it?—I cannot say, but I
could inquire.
Do you know of any complaints of the water from the Chelsea Company?—No; the
whole of our district is supplied by the Grand Junction; I lost a great deal of money by
using their water, the fish would not live more than six or eight hours, and turned yellow;
I lost as much as 15s. or 16s. per day; and fish left at night looked very bad, and this
entirely from the impurity of the water; and I therefore sunk a well.
You have no complaint as to the quantity?—No ; there was always a sufficiency.
ExAMINATION of Mr. JAMES Down Es.
YOU are a fishmonger?—No ; a purveyor of oysters.
Have you any complaints to make of the quality of the water?—Yes; the water last
summer, and before that time, was uncommonly foul, so much so, that it would not preserve
oysters; on the top of the water there is a scum like oil to be perceived; I could not use it,
although I paid a heavy rate, namely, 5l. 5s.; at the house in which I resided before I only
paid ll. 4s, and had double the quantity of water; and for the use of my shop, am obliged
to employ a man, almost constantly, in fetching water from the pump in Burlington-gardens;
the lodgers also fetch their water from the same place: this is the principal fault I have to
find, in being obliged to pay for an article I cannot use. -
The water you are supplied with, and complain of, is from the Grand Junction Water-
works?—Yes, it is.
How long have you been supplied with this water?—About four years.
(94.) N Is
Mr.
James Downes.
*m-.
~~...~###~.
50 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence on the
State of the Water.
Mr.
James Downes.
Letter from
Mr. Keate.
Dr. Yeates.
Is the water worse within the last two years?—Yes, it is ; I was supplied, where I lived
before, with water from the New River Company.
Where was that?—No. 17, Princes-street, Leicester-square.
You had no complaint to make of the New River water?—No ; and when I removed to
my present house, I complained of the charge; where I lived before I had cisterns which held
280 gallons, and here only 86 gallons; and served by each company three times a week.
Was the New River water always clear?—Sometimes it was a little muddy, but it would
soon settle, and was sweet; after the New River water has settled, it is fine and pure.
The Grand Junction water is also muddy?—Not so much muddy as filthy, with an oily
substance on it.
Has it been better or worse the last six months?—We use it so little now I can hardly
tell; we fetch all the water we want; I have not noticed it.
Do you often clean out your butt?—We clean it out frequently; and I have put into it
lime to destroy the insects. -
Are there many insects in it 2–Yes, a great many.
Did you discover insects in the New River water ?—Yes, of one kind only; a little insect
varying in size, and like a small shrimp.
There are no small insects in the New River water of the kind that are in the Grand
Junction water 2–No ; in the Grand Junction water there are many small red insects.
How long were you supplied by the New River Company?—Fourteen years; and by the
Grand Junction Company four years last Michaelmas. In Princes-street I had spring water,
but it was more for the accommodation of the neighbours. It is my intention to make a well
where I now live, and I am in treaty with a person to sink it.
At what depth do you expect to find water?—At about 40 feet will bring me to a good
spring of water.
Copy of a Letter from MR. KEATE, addressed to the Secretary, dated
Albemarle-street, 12th February 1828.
Sir,
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date, informing
me, that in consequence of a communication from Mr. Wright, the Commissioners appointed
by His Majesty to inquire into the Supply of Water to the Metropolis desire my attendance
on Friday next, at three o’clock.
I beg the favour of you to state to the Members of the Committee, that I have really no
information whatever to give, beyond the statement conveyed in my letter to Mr. Wright;
namely, that the water supplied to my house had been impure, and, in my opinion, unwhole-
some, and unfit for drinking or for common culinary purposes; and that it was much
more impure than the water that had been previously supplied by the New River Company,
who turned me over, without notice, to the Granki Junction Company. I have no other state-
ment to make ; but if it should still be the wish of the Commissioners that I should wait
on them, I request that they will oblige me by naming any other day than Friday, as I am
under the necessity of attending officially at the College of Surgeons on that day, at five
o'clock, and it will be impossible for me to get through my professional avocations by three
o'clock.
ExAMINATION of Dr. YEATEs.
YOU are supplied with water from the Grand Junction Water Company?—Yes.
What is the state of the water?—It is extremely bad, foul and dirty; as an example I
may mention, that in order, as I hoped, to keep the water closets wholesome when I go out
of town in the summer, I remove the waste pipe of the cistern, leaving the valve also of the
pan open, to give a free transit to the water; but notwithstanding this precaution, so much
loaded is the water with filth, that in the space of a few weeks the bottom of the cistern is
covered with mud, and the pipe leading to the pan choked with it, so as to require washing
out, before the water will pass freely; this impurity does not always exist to the same -
extent, being worse at one time than at another; but there is always some of it.
This has been the case since the subject of the impurity of the water has been taken up?
Has it been better of late 2–Yes, apparently so; for upon looking at it in a glass, as
taken from the cistern when it has just come in, you see a great deal of suspended impurities
floating in the water, and it requires some hours before a subsidence of these impurities
takes place, and before the water becomes clear ; and if at any time the water in the cistern
is agitated with a stick from the bottom, it then comes from the cock very muddy and foul;
upon the whole, however, it has been better of late. There is one point to which I wish to
4. advert,
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 5 i
advert, but which has not been noticed; it is asserted that if there be a deleterious quality
in the water, the quantity is so small that it cannot produce any injury; now admitting this,
there is a mode nevertheless by which these poisonous impurities do accumulate to an in-
jurious extent. In all the kitchens of houses of any size, there is a boiler constantly in the
fire, for the purpose of supplying hot water; evaporation is therefore continually going on,
and more water is repeatedly added to supply the waste; in this way an accumulation of
deleterious impurities takes place to a dangerous extent; in short, it is a concentration of
unwholesome qualities, if such should be in the water, by distillation. I know that this
occurred to a very serious extent at Tunbridge Wells, some years ago, when a disease
prevailed there, which I traced to the impurities of the water for domestic use. I was
fortunate enough in discovering the cause, and by its removal no such disease has occurred
since. An account of these circumstances was given in the Journal of the Royal Institution.
I speak of course of those substances which are not easily evaporable.
What are they to which you allude in the Thames water?—I chiefly allude to the experi-
ments of Dr. Lamb and Dr. Thomson, from which it is clear that this water holds animal
or vegetable matter in solution, which would not be got rid of by filtration, and would
accumulate in the vessel from which the water evaporates, and thus an injurious impregnation
would be given to soups, tea, coffee, and all other liquids drank in the house, which has not
undergone fermentation, and this mischief would be increased if the water added to the
boiler be not previously filtered, for then all the suspended impurities would be in addition to
those held in solution.
Have your patients ever attributed their illness to the use of this water 2—I have no
recollection of the kind, and it is not likely that they would, for the effect is not so immediate
and direct as to call their attention to the cause, it therefore escapes their notice.
You think it probable it may be injurious 2—Yes, I do ; by repeated introduction into the
stomach the injurious impurities would undermine the health ; but I cannot positively assert
that the animal or vegetable matter, discovered in solution by the experiments of Drs. Lamb
and Thomson, is positively dangerous to health; we want more facts before this can be
asserted absolutely, but it is not favourable to the salubrity of the water. I have
repeatedly mentioned to the collector the foul state of the water, and his reply has
been, that it was owing to the heavy rains ; at those times certainly the water is always
WOI’Se.
Has the water given out an offensive smell, or been covered with an oily substance 2–
I have not noticed either.
Are there any animalculae in it 2—I have frequently seen them of different kinds, one
I have remarked somewhat like a shrimp.
You speak of the water taken out of the cistern ?—Yes, I should say of this water that
it is not wholesome; I mean the observation to apply to any Thames water in and about
London, from the great quantity of foul matters continually pouring into it from numerous
sewers, &c. It would be desirable if we could get rid of such Thames water altogether for
culinary purposes, and substitute some other spring, or take the supply from the Thames
some distance above London, between this city and the source of the river. I should add,
that the house I now inhabit formerly was charged Il per annum by another company, the
Chelsea, I believe, which supplied it; but I now pay 4!. 10s.
You have high service perhaps?—The highest I have is to supply the cistern of a water
closet on the ground floor, the top of the cistern being somewhat more than five feet from
the floor, which is very nearly on the same level with the street; I have no high service above
this.
You have plenty of water 2–Yes; I am abundantly supplied.
ExAMINATION of Mr. WILLIAM IBELL.
YOU reside in Waterloo Place 2–Yes.
for.
You complain, we understand, that the water is sent in in an objectionable state?–It is
never fit for culinary uses; on its coming in in severe frost the water might be pure.
How long have you been in your present residence?—Six years this spring.
You mean by impurities that the water is muddy?—Not only muddy, there are fibres
floating in it and living substances. I examined some this morning as it was coming in, it
was very muddy. I have two cisterns; in one of them the water was clear to a certain extent,
but in this there were many floating impurities.
Is there any bad Smell?—I have not known it free from smell.
What kind of smell has it?—Muddy, and like the putridity of animals, and when it is
boiled it has this smell. -
(94.) - You
You are supplied with water by the Grand Junction Company 2–That is what I pay
Evidence on the
State of the Water.
Dr. Yeates.
Mr.
PWilliam Ibell.
52 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence on the
State of the Water.
M?".
William Ibell.
—l—
Dr.
W. Somerville.
You speak of the water as it comes from the cisterns, and not as it comes from the
pipes 2—As it comes from the cisterns.
How often have you found it necessary to clean out the cisterns —The servant tells me
she cannot go longer than a month.
Do you find a great quantity of mud in them 2–Yes, a great deal; I have not seen it
myself, the servant says eight or nine inches. Some time since the company circulated
a paper, complaining that the servants did not keep the cisterns clean, and my servant
brought me some water from the pipe with a great quantity of filaments in it, some half an
inch long, and many other impurities, to show me that the fault was in the water, and not in
a foul cistern.
Have you reason to think that the health of any of your family has been injured by the
use of this water?—Most assuredly.
In what way 7–Rather progressively. ... I employ a number of females in my business
which are from the country, and they are frequently affected, and also my family in general;
they appear first pallid, and then headache comes on, and they become affected in their
bowels; I have had seven or eight at a time thus affected; when it has been so for two or
three days, I then change the water to pump water, and in less than three days the effect is
gone. I use the pump water in Charles-street. In frost this has never happened; the times
that they have been most usually affected has been in the hot weather and heavy floods. The
males in my employ have not been so affected, and neither have I, but all the females have.
It was the same when I resided in the city, and there it was I first discovered the cause to be
in the water; at that time I used the New River water.
So that the same proportion of effect was produced from the use of the New River water
as from the use of the Thames water?—Yes, nearly so; but the water of the New River is
not so full of fibres as that of the Thames.
The Grand Junction water is better than it was 2–Nothing would induce me to use this
water in comparison with well water, and I intend to sink a well.
How deep do you expect to go for water 2—I am told, six or eight feet.
Note by Mr. IBELL.
I have referred to my servant respecting the eight and nine inches of mud I stated in
my evidence; I thought it incorrect; she is in the same opinion, from the power to move the
broom in cleansing the cistern. This morning I examined the same, and have found a deal
of mud, but not any thing like the above statement.
f
ExAMINATION of Dr. WILLIAM SoMERVILLE.
YOU are Physician to the Chelsea Hospital 2–I am.
What is the mode of the supply of water to the Chelsea Hospital?—Water is supplied
from the Thames; it is received from the river into two large canals in the garden, by valves
which are opened by the flow of the tide raising the water to their level; from the canals the
water is forced by a tide-engine into reservoirs, from which pipes distribute it.
The supply is all river water?—Yes, for culinary purposes; and there are pumps which
supply excellent water.
What is its state as to purity ?—It is frequently impure, especially after heavy rains to
the westward; indeed the water received into the canals cannot be pure, when it is con-
sidered that it is received from the river at the time that it has been agitated by the conflict-
ing forces of the descent of the stream, overcome at last by the tide repelling that stream,
after having stirred up the mass of impurity produced by all that is corruptible in the animal
and vegetable world, together with the noxious filth of gas and other manufactories that
constantly flow into the Thames, from Battersea down to Gravesend. Much of this horrible
mixture is deposited in the canals; I have seen shrimps in the water.
Does it vary in its purity ?—Answered in the reply to the former question; but I must
add, that the impurity of the water at Chelsea bears no comparison to that which was supplied
for years to my house in Hanover-square, which was not only frequently but generally
extremely impure, foetid, and offensive, it deposited much mud, and often contained enough
to render its colour blackish.
The water is not offensive to the smell at Chelsea?—No.
Are there any vegetable or animal substances in the cisterns 2—There are, occasionally, t
shrimps at Chelsea.
There are pumps at Chelsea?—Yes.
They are hard water —Yes; in Hanover-square I always complained of the foul state of
the water. It seems to me, that the question of the purity of the water has been placed
on a very erroneous footing by many, who say that there is no ingredient in the water in
. London
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. 53.
London to produce disease, and that chemical analysis detects nothing deleterious in the
mixture; this reasoning would equally apply to water taken from the pan of a water-
closet. The very idea of impurity is, in my estimation, sufficient ground for rejecting water
that flows from a foul source, or is contaminated by having putrid animal or vegetable matter
in contact with it. The case of the water-closet is no great exaggeration of the contiguity of
the dolphin and the cloacea maayima.
At what period are you speaking of?—About three years ago, when I resided in Hanover-
square. I may be permitted to inform the Commissioners, that Mrs. Hamilton Nisbett,
residing in the corner house of Portman-square and Gloucester-place, two days ago, told
me she had to complain of the quality and quantity of water supplied to her house;
the water has been so dirty that the laundry maids have been obliged to wash the linen
in hard water from the pump, to remove the impurity remaining from washing it in the
cistern-water.
Have you any reason to suspect that the water supplied to the hospital is affected by
the Ranelagh Sewer?—It is impossible for me to answer this question decidedly; I confess
the mouth of the sewer seems to me to be much too near a neighbour, especially when it is
considered that the sluices are open, which admit water into the canals when the tide is
making, and the distance from the sewer to the canal is not many yards ; I have seen
the sewer filthy, and I have smelt it. The canals in the garden contain probably several
feet of mud, deposited by the water from the river; the mud is occasionally dug out, in
order to cleanse the canals; it has been once removed since my appointment to be physician
to the hospital, and the smell during the operation was very offensive. $
Have you observed any bad effects in your practice?—No ; my patients are supplied with
beer, and are also very much disposed to correct the bad effects of water-drinking, by the
aid of gin.
Have you privies or water-closets at the hospital?—Privies by day, and water-closets b
night; the soil is carried from both by sewers to the Thames, adding our mite of filth to that
aggregate of impurities, which, being the ablutions and evacuations of between 600 and 700
persons, merits being taken into the account.
ExAMINATION of Mr. CHARLES COTTEREL.
WHERE do you reside?–In the Waterloo-road; I am the proprietor of the Waterloo
Inn.
Where do you receive your supply of water from ?–From the Lambeth Waterworks.
Do you find the water good or bad?—It is very bad.
For how long a time have you been supplied with this water?—About seven years.
How is it bad?—It is thick, and is not fit for tea or for grogs.
Is it muddy ?—Yes, very muddy.
Is the smell ever offensive 2–Yes, at times; I have a filtering-stone, and the water is so
thick it is cleaned out once a week.
How much water can you filter with this stone?—It should filter ten or twelve gallons per
day, but I can get only about three or four gallons from it.
When it is filtered you then can use it?—Yes, we can.
Has the water any colour after it is filtered 2–No, if the stone is clean.
And it does not smell then 2–No, the smell goes off.
Why is the water worse now than it was formerly 2–The pipes were not sufficiently
cleansed; the mud lodges in the pipes, and comes in with the water; it has been better
lately, because they have opened the pipes and let the muddy water out, after repeated
complaints.
Have you observed any thing floating on the surface of the water?—No, because I have a
very large tank, and it is in a situation that it is difficult to get at it.
Have you a sufficient quantity?—I have no reason to complain now of the supply; my
service is on the main now, but formerly it was not, and then I repeatedly had to complain
of want of water.
What quantity do you use 2–I cannot tell.
Is the water sent to the top of your house 2–I have a pump to pump it up to the
water-closet.
Where is your house situated; is it one of those, a part of which is very much below the
road?—No, it is opposite the church.
From whence do you get the water for mixing with spirits 2—What the filterer does not
supply, I send to Newington Causeway for, about three quarters of a mile.
(94.) O * You
Evidence on the
State of the Water.
Dr. W. Somerville.
Mr.
Charles Cotterel.
54 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence on the
State of the Water.
Mr.
Charles Cotterel.
Mr.
William Hadnut.
Mr.
William, Carr.
You have no pumps in the street near you *—No.
Is the pump-water hard or soft —Hard. The usual way of clearing the water is to have
three tubs returning one into the other, and in one week one of the tubs will be half full of
stuff as thick as pea soup; many use alum to fine with.
When it is filtered you can use it?—Yes; but the water is so bad we cannot possibly use
it without filtering.
f
ExAMINATION of Mr. WILLIAM HADNUT.
WHERE do you reside 2–Four, William-street, New Cut.
You are supplied by the Lambeth Company 2–Yes.
How long have you been supplied by this company 2–About 25 years.
Have you a shop 2–I am a builder. sº
What is the appearance of the water 2—I have no complaint to make of the supply as to
quantity or price; when it comes in it is thick at times, and not fit to use for several days;
it has been better for a month or six weeks of late than I have known it for years.
How do you account for this; by cleaning out the pipes?—Yes, I suppose so; I have
seen it come in quite thick; you might use a spoon to it.
Are there insects in it 2–Yes, if you let it stand; they have more the appearance of a
shrimp,
Have you seen any worms or leeches?—No, I have not seen any worms or leeches in it;
if you let it lie for a long time there will be insects in it; but we clean out our cistern.
What quantity of mud is there in a fortnight or three weeks?—A good deal will run out
with the water, but there will be half a pail full of thick in a month. I do not come to
complain of the gentlemen of the company; I think that they supply us as well as they can.
What is the charge for your house?—£1 per annum.
What is the size of it?—A six-roomed house.
Mr. Armstrong requested you to attend here to-day 2–Yes; and if the water could be
purified, or we could get a better supply, it would be very desirable.
You are supplied direct from the river?—Yes; and there is no tank or reservoir.
Have you never thought of filtering?—I do not think it would be better than by letting it
stand to settle; it might perhaps be clearer.
Is there no smell, not in summer?—No, I have not perceived it; if it is allowed to stand
long, it will smell; I have often found it stink in empty houses, where I have gone to repair
them. - -.
As it comes in it never Smells?—No, never; lately it is purer than it has been for a long
time; and I think it is by opening the pipes and cleaning them out.
You have no reason to think that any complaint or disease has been brought on by using
this water 2–No. -
And you have not found any ill effects from using it?—No.
EXAMINATION of Mr. WILLIAM CARR.
WHERE do you reside?—Eight, New Cut, Lambeth.
You are supplied with water from the Lambeth Company?—Yes.
How do you find it?—Very filthy indeed.
How long have you been supplied with this water 2–Three years and a half.
And found it so all this time?—Yes. -
Has it not been better of late —I do not think it has.
What is its appearance 2—If you put some in a phial or a glass, there will be a quantity of
mud settle in it; and there are many insects like shrimps in it. -
Do you speak of the water as it comes out of the pipe?—Yes; we clean out the butts
every fortnight or three weeks.
And what do you find in them 2–A great deal of mud.
What depth of mud —An inch and an half; sometimes more, sometimes less, in a
fortnight or three weeks. º
Is the smell offensive 2–Sometimes, a little.
But not generally 2–No.
Have you observed any thing on the surface —No, it looks thick and dark; I have two
porter-butts, from which I am supplied.
How much do they contain 2–About 120 gallons each.
ro 17 How
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS,
- 5r
5
How often are you supplied per week?—I do not know, but I think every other day. Evidence on the
State of the Water.
Have you enough 2–Yes.
Mr
that wou complain of the quality, and not of the anti *—Yes. sº
So that y pun ºwed ty, le quantity?—Yes. William Carr.
Are there any springs in your neighbourhood 2–Yes.
Is the water hard or soft?—It is hard water.
ExAMINATION of MR. HENRY WRIGHT.
WHERE do you reside?—No. 13, Waterloo-bridge-road. - Mr.
Henry Wright.
What are you?—A house-Smith.
From what company are you supplied with water?—The Lambeth.
How long have you been supplied ?–I have been a housekeeper three years.
What kind of water is it in general 2–It is better than it was, but in general it has not
been fit for a christian to drink; the supply has been very irregular, and the charge irregular
also. I pay 36s. ; a neighbour of mine, who has the same sized house as I have, pays only
28s. ; he has three butts, and I have only one.
How often are you supplied ?—Three times a week.
Is the water always muddy?—In general it is.
Has it not been clearer of late 2–I have seen in a glass of water an eighth of an inch of
mud; I speak of it as it comes in. *
How often do you clean out your butt?—It is a rum-puncheon, and holds about 120
gallons, and is cleaned out once in a fortnight or three weeks, and I have found an inch and
a half of mud in this time.
Is the water offensive?—In summer, particularly so.
Is it so at this moment 2–No.
Have you observed any thing floating on the surface?—No.
Do you attribute the dirt to the filth lodging in the pipes?—Yes, and for want of a
PeSel"VOII’.
You think it dirtier, then, than it is in the river from whence it is drawn 2–Yes.
So that the first jet of water is charged with mud —Yes.
Do the Company open the pipes to clear them 2–Lately they have been opened.
Is the water the better for this?—I think so; it must be so. *~~
Do you get water any where else?—No; I have made complaints as to the rate, and the
answer was, I must pay, or abide by the consequences.
You do not filter?—No.
Have you plenty?—I have no complaint of that; it is turned on for an hour at morning,
and if I wanted more, I might put a pipe with a larger bore. They sometimes change the
hour from six or seven in the morning to five or six in the afternoon. *
Are there any animalculae in the summer ?—Yes; I have shown them to Mr. Armstrong,
which he has noticed in his Report.
Of what colour?—A mouse-colour.
None of a red colour?—No.
ExAMINATION of MR. STEPHEN Booth.
WHERE do you reside ?—No. 43, Lambeth Marsh. - Mr.
Stephen Booth.
What are you?—Chair and sofa manufacturer.
Have you reason to find fault with the quality of the water?—Yes; it is bad, thick, and
full of insects. -
It has been better of late?—Yes, for a week or two.
You have no complaints as to the quantity?—No.
Do you get water any where else?—No.
Do you filter?—No.
When it has stood it becomes drinkable?—It is never free from taste of mud: the place
where it is drawn is bad; if it could be taken 14 or 15 miles higher up the river, it would
be better.
(94.)
56 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence on the º
State of the Water. ExAMINATION of Mr. WILLIAM PUNCHER.
Mr. WHERE do you reside?—At the Red Lion, Marsh-gate; I am the landlord of it.
William Puncher.
You are supplied by the Lambeth Company ?—Yes.
You have no complaint as to the quantity supplied ?–No, not now ; some time back
I sent to the office to complain that I had not sufficient; they only supply for one hour three
times per week.
Have you a cistern ?—Yes.
How many gallons will it hold?—About 2,000 gallons.
Do you clean it out?—Yes.
How often?—Once a year.
How much mud is there in it?—I do not know.
Is there an inch 2–Yes, more, and it sticks all round the side an eighth of an inch.
It has been better of late?—If it had been always as it is now, I should have had no com-
plaint to make. I pay 6l. per annum, and when I complained of the high rate, was told it
was in contemplation to double the rates generally, and it was of no use for me to
appeal. * -
Does the water smell?—Yes, sometimes.
Offensive?—Not very.
Is this you are speaking of from the cistern ?—I have caught it from the pipe, and it has
not been drinkable. -
Have you a filterer?—Yes, a common six-gallon one, and we clean it out every week, and
the water we are frequently not able to drink has a smell like bilge-water.
Is there any scum on it?—I have seen once or twice a kind of blue scum on the water in
the cistern, but not generally. If I was asked what the supply has been lately, I should say
very good. -
ExAMINATION of Mr. WILLIAM JAMEs.
Mr. WHAT is your employment?—A publican, at 206, Borough. I have been there
William James. 23 years. * - -
Where are you supplied with water from ?—Southwark Waterworks, Mr. Edwards's.
What is the state of the water?—In general it is very indifferent, and in summer there are
many insects in it. I have two butts for the service of the house. We cannot use it for
liquors.
Do you use the company's water for cooking?—Yes, except for greens; but we are
obliged to send out for pump-water.
Was the water better that was formerly supplied from the London Bridge Waterworks?—
The water is worse now.
What kind of insects are in it?—There are many kinds, such as worms, and different
kind of animalculae.
Do you clean out your butts?—Yes, every five or six weeks.
Is there much mud collects?—Two inches thick of mud, and this stinks very bad.
Have you a sufficient quantity of water?—We have plenty.
ExAMINATION of Mr. WILLIAM SHEPHERD.
Mr. WHAT is your employment?—A victualler. I reside at the corner of Blackman-street,
William Shepherd. in the Borough.
From what company are you supplied with water?—From the Southwark.
How long have you been supplied by this company?—Three years.
What is the state of the water?—It is very bad; we never use it except for washing and
cleaning; we use pump-water. -
Is it muddy?—It is like pea-soup, in wet weather.
Are there any insects in it?—Yes, like shrimps.
You have a cistern ?—Yes, and we are obliged to clean it out about every six weeks.
Is
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. .57
Is there much mud collects in it?—About two inches in this time, six weeks.
What is the size of your cistern ?—About 150 gallons.
Has the water any smell?—Yes; when we are cleaning out the cistern it smells very bad.
You are on the main —Yes; and we frequently cleanse the cistern by letting the water
'run through it; it is constantly on. *
You have no complaint as to quantity ?—No ; we have plenty.
Have you a pump in the house 2–No ; we are obliged to send out for the water we use.
ExAMINATION of Mr. JoHN SMITH.
WHERE do you reside?—No. 184, Union-street, Borough.
What is your business?—A cheesemonger.
From what company are you supplied with water?—From the Southwark Waterworks,
Mr. Edwards's.
What is the state of the water 2–Bad, generally; sometimes it is worse than at other
times.
In what respect is it bad?—Uncommonly thick.
Is it offensive 2–In warm weather particularly so, when the butt is turned out to be
cleaned, which is once a week.
What quantity of mud do you find in the butt when it is cleaned out?—Three or four
inches in a week or fortnight; the butt holds about 30 gallons. If all the water was carefully
drawn off there would remain two or three inches of mud.
How often does it come in 2—It comes in every day from the main.
Have you any other cistern ?—I have one at the top of the house.
What quantity of mud collects in this?—Nearly as much mud as in the other. If they
were to pull up the plugs, and let out the water occasionally to clear the pipes, the water
would not come in so bad; there are two or three plugs near us that have not been opened
for two or three months.
Have you made any complaints 2—Only to the turncock, and not at the office.
Do you use any other water than this?—When we want water for drinking we send to a
pump; we make tea with this water.
Is there any scum upon it?—I have never noticed any.
Do you filter it?—No; we mostly dip the water out of the butt after it is settled; the butt
stands nearly on the ground.
Your neighbours are all in the same case *—Yes; they all complain of the water.
The quantity is not deficient?—No ; we have plenty of it.
You signed the petition ?—Yes.
There is a difference in the water at different times?—Yes.
Has it been muddy of late 2–Yes.
Are there any insects in it?—Yes, like shrimps, very lively, and about the size of a
shrimp.
Do you see many smaller insects?—Not so many as the shrimps; there are insects in the
water-jug of a morning; we cannot draw the water from the butt, but are obliged to dip it,
in order to have it clear, and even then it will be thick. We have this butt in order that we
may get it clear. :
ExAMINATION of Mr. WILLIAM NASH.
YOU are steward of St. Thomas's Hospital 2–Yes.
You derive your supply of water from the Southwark Waterworks?—Yes, we do.
What is the size and number of your reservoirs?—The large reservoir is 39 feet 9 inches
in length, 19 feet 2 inches in breadth, 3 feet 6 inches in depth; it contains about 16,375
gallons; the Water Company calculate it to contain 22,800 gallons; they have measured it
to be five feet deep; it is only 3 feet 6 inches. There are 23 other cisterns in wards and
private houses, and 33 cisterns, belonging to various water-closets. The total quantity of
water consumed is estimated by the company at 131,733 barrels, or 4,742,388 gallons; and
our consumption is not much short of five millions of gallons per annum. • -
(94.) P Do
%
Evidence on the
State of the Water,
Mr.
William Shepherd.
Mr.
John Smith.
Mr.
William Nash.
58 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence on the
State of the Water.
Mr.
William Nash.
William Crocker.
Daniel Wheeler.
Do you use pump-water also?—We have five pumps of spring-water for general purposes,
and one pump for the cold-bath.
How often do you clean out the great reservoir 2–About once in six months; oftener, if
required; usually about once in three months. -
What quantity of mud is found in it?—About a foot deep of mud, the bricklayer tells me,
when it was cleaned out a few days ago (he is in waiting). - -
Have you observed any insects in it?—Yes; minute shrimps and eels have been taken
out. There is always mud and other matters; the water is thick; for baths it is very
unpleasant.
Do you use it for cooking?—Yes, and for brewing."
Do you filter?—No ; we trust to subsidence; and I conceive when it is settled that it is
pure and good water. -
Is there nothing collects in the pipes?—No. The water from the old works at London-bridge
was much cleaner; they drew their water from near the surface; these waterworks draw from
the bottom of the river; the old Southwark works belonging to Mr. Edwards had a reservoir,
but the water now comes direct from the Thames. The bath I use is sometimes liquid mud;
last Monday, after I had bathed, the bathman said that when the water was let out there
was the eighth of an inch of mud at the bottom of the bath; and in brewing, a scum arises
which may be skimmed off as if meat had been boiled in the copper: the brewhouse con-
Sumes 100,000 gallons per annum.
Is the smell of the water offensive 2–I have not observed it; I have sometimes noticed
the bath as smelling rather unpleasantly, but I cannot say whether it was the water, or an
accidental communication with the drains.
ExAMINATION of WILLIAM CRoCKER.
YOU are employed as bricklayer to St. Thomas's Hospital 2–Yes, for more than 10 years
constantly.
You clean out the cisterns and reservoirs?—Yes, four times a year generally, but the large
reservoir had not been cleaned out for five months; it was cleaned out on Tuesday last.
What quantity of mud was in it 2–Nine or ten inches.
And the time before, how much 2–A deal of mud, but not so much as this time.
*Is there any smell?—It is worse than it was; there is more mud than there was from the
old works.
Is there much mud in the cisterns 2—About the same quantity in proportion as in the
large reservoir.
Are there any fish 7–Not lately; but there were many.
Are there any shrimps?—Yes, and periwinkles.
What I with shells?—Yes, a great many round the sides of the reservoir.
Is there dirt or other kind of substance, such as rotten wood?—Yes, a great deal of that
kind, like borings and sawdust. -
Are there any juniper berries 2–Yes, something like it; small round black things.
ExAMINATION of DANIEL WHEELER.
WHAT are you?—Butler and brewer at St. Thomas's Hospital.
What is the appearance of the water 2—Very muddy and thick, very. - - *
What kind of substances are in it?—Small pieces of wood, like borings; I have not
noticed any juniper berries; when the squares are washed, the water comes out of the pipes
very muddy, and the men say it is not fit to wash the squares.
: How is it in comparison with the water supplied from the London-bridge Works 2—Much
WOI’Sé.
When you boil the water, is there any smell?—Not lately.
Is there any scum arises?—Yes, last week, a good deal; the brewing copper holds 600
gallons.
There is no complaint as to quantity?—No, not generally, except on Monday; we are
sometimes deficient on that day; from the London-bridge Works the water was always on.
Is the supply from the main, or from service-pipes?—From a main which was laid down
about 12 months ago for us. ,
8
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 59
ExAMINATION of Mr. JAMES BROWELL.
YOU are steward of Guy’s Hospital?—Yes.
You derive your supply of water from the Southwark Waterworks?—Yes.
What is the quantity you use?—We have two vats which hold about 12,000 gallons; we
consider this a supply for three days; our demand is about 4,000 gallons per day. "we
have a reservoir in a well, thirty feet deep, to which we can resort in case of accident, and
by this well we are independent of a daily supply from the waterworks, but we get OUI”
supply from them.
How often are you supplied ?–Every day, except Sunday.
In what state is it when it comes in 2–As all Thames water must be, turbid. I have been
steward four years; and when I first came I found a great quantity of weeds, which collected
in the pipes; but I have obviated this by placing a double hair-cloth over the main, and
which has remedied the evil. - * ... • •
Is there much mud collects in the vats?—Yes; they are cleaned out once a year.
What depth of mud is there then 2–Some inches.
Is the smell offensive ?—No; they are open to the air, and there is a continued succession
of water coming in.
Is there any thing else but weeds in the water; are there no insects?—No; occasionally
before the hair-cloth was put to the pipe there was a kind of shrimp.
This was your own plan of putting the hair-cloth over the pipe?—Yes.
Is there much impurity collects on the hair-cloth 2–No; from its position and situation
none can collect there.
Does it require to be often renewed 2–No; I have renewed it once in the four years.
Is this water used for baths 2–Yes, for every purpose.
What was the motive for sinking the well?—I believe the company talked of putting on
a higher rate than was paid.
And not from any complaint of the quality?—No.
What is the depth of the well?--Twenty-two feet; the land drain is II or 12 feet deep;
we sunk 22 feet for the well, and then bored 157 feet, in which were put cylinders of four
and a half, nine, and eleven inches. The 22 feet was steined to keep out the land springs
and this forms a reservoir, and will hold about 120,000 gallons. $5°5
What kind of water is this?—Very good; it rose within four or five feet of the land-
Spring. -
What power was used to raise the water from it?—A horse's power, not an engine; we
use the land-spring well, and have a pump in it. -
. Is this clear ?—It is beautiful water; very clear for drinking; I have observed this affected
in its level by the high tides; I think it is Thames water filtered.
You have no complaint as to the quantity supplied from the works?—No.
Does the river water come in turbid?—Yes; nearly as it is in the Thames.
Do you use it in this state for baths?—No; we let it subside in the reservoir.
You consider this inferior to the land-spring?—Yes, greatly, except for brewing.
Is it hard?—Yes.
You clean out your tanks once a year?—Yes; and I have never measured, but I should
imagine there was two to three inches of mud when it was cleaned out last summer.
Southwark Petition.
Memorandum :—Mr. Welch, the attorney who assisted in preparing the petition, attended
the commissioners on the 15th February, and handed to them a list of names of those persons
whom he said would give evidence on the state of the water supplied by the Southwark
Waterworks.
Mr. Birt, linen-draper, 189, High-street, Borough;
Mr. Millard, grocer, 190, High-street, Borough;
Mr. Frisby, fishmonger, High-street, Borough; and
Mr. Pfeiffer, Catherine Wheel, Union-street, Borough;
were accordingly summoned to attend on the 18th February. These persons neither attended,
or sent any explanation why they did not.
(94.) - Mr.
Evidence on the
State of the Water.
- Mr.
James Browell.
Southwark
Petition.
60 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence on the
State of the Water.
Southwark
Petition.
Evidence of Fire-
men as to Quantity.
S. Morton Hubert.
George Rose.
Mr. Welch was written to on the 19th of February, to explain the cause of their non-
attendance. He attended on the 22d, and stated, “ That he had seen those persons whose
names he had before given in, and that they did not attend for fear of losing their supply
of water.”
On the 7th of March a copy of the following letter was addressed to Mr. Birt and
Mr. Millard, as before, and to Mr. Cross, 175, High-street, Borough.
Sir, 9, New Palace Yard, March 7, 1828.
I am desired by the Commissioners appointed by His Majesty to inquire into the state of
the supply of water to the metropolis, to state to you that they think it very strange that
after having presented a memorial to the Secretary of State, praying for investigation into the
state of the water supplied to the inhabitants of Southwark, and which memorial has been
referred to them, signed by yourself and others, that you should withhold from them that
information which they naturally expected you would afford.
The Commissioners will be in attendance here on Monday next, the 10th instant, at three
o'clock, and thus give you another opportunity of substantiating the complaints you have
made. -
By order of the Commissioners, &c. &c.
Copy of Minute, 10th of March.
Mr. Birt, Mr. Millard, and Mr. Cross, three of the parties who signed the Southwark
petition, and who were written to on the 7th instant, did not attend.
EVIDENCE OF FIREMEN AS TO QUANTITY.
ExAMINATION of SAMUEL MoRTON HUBERT.
WHAT is your engagement 2–1 attend from the Sun Fire-office, and have attended in
consequence of a notice sent to the Secretary; and I have the secretary’s order for me to
attend here. I am superintendent of the firemen and fires.
How long have you been engaged in this situation ?—Twenty-five years.
In case of fires, have you any deficiency of water 2—Not now ; about four years since we
could not obtain a supply, and the fault often rested with the turncocks, sometimes from
repairing the mains; we have now the keys in the engines, the Sun firemen instructed, and
in the absence of the turncock can get a plentiful supply of water. º,
Are the mains always full?—Yes, always kept full; when we could not get water it was
always owing to the mismanagement of the turncock, in not turning the fire cocks, that
stops the water from the plugs. We have keys now, and can always get plenty of water;
the first thing we do after a fire is to inquire where the water comes from ; if there has been
a plentiful supply we report it to the Board, if not, we get a petition signed by the inhabit-
ants, which is sent to the water-company; but there is always plenty of water, if there is
Il O impediment to our having it.
There is no intentional impediment from the water companies?—No, none; the companies
have high reservoirs on the Middlesex side of the Thames.
On the Surrey side is there not a deficiency from the works not having a head of water?
—The water is forced into the houses by steam ; and if a fire happens when the steam is
down, we are obliged to wait till the steam is up. --
And in the meantime the house is burnt down 2–Yes.
Does this apply to all the companies ?—Yes, to all : we were better off before the London
Bridge Waterworks were taken down, for the only stoppage in them was at the turn of the
tide.
How long have you had to wait for water *—An hour and a half.
Do you know about the East London Waterworks 2–They have a head of water and
fire-plugs, and there is no deficiency in the supply from this company. The Sun, the
Phoenix, the Royal Exchange firemen, are all under my direction.
ExAMINATION of GEORGE Rose.
WHERE are you engaged 2–At the Phoenix Fire-office, as Fireman.
In cases of fire is the supply of water abundant?—In general it is.
Where is your station ?—Crown-street, Soho; but we are not confined to any spot if a
fire happens.
s Is
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. 61
Is the supply of one company different from another ?—If the turncock is called, we have;
if he is not called, I consider it is not the turncock's fault.
Have you suffered for want of water on the south side of the river ?—Yes; at the fire in
Bermondsey eight houses were burnt down before we had a supply of water from the South
Lambeth Company, and the water was thrown up from a tank in a tan-yard.
What is the cause of the deficiency of the supply on the south side?—I do not exactly
know, except it is the distance it has to go,
There is no head of water, and you have to depend upon the engine for the supply 2–
That is it.
ExAMINATION of EDWARD SyFR.
WHAT are you?—Foreman to the Protector Fire Insurance Company.
Have you known any deficiency of water at fires 2—There has been on the south side, and
also on the north side.
On the north side of the river do you find the mains charged 2–Yes.
Do you find them charged on the south side of the Thames 2—We are obliged to apply
to the waterworks.
So that if a fire happens time is lost 2—Yes.
And after this there is time lost till the engines are set a-going?—Yes.
On the north side is there any delay for want of water 2—I do not recollect any.
Do you recollect any instances in which houses have been burnt down for want of water
on the south side of the river?—Yes; at the fire in Bermondsey-street we were two hours
without water, and eight houses were burnt down. I was there at the beginning of the
fire with the engine, and saw them all burnt down for want of water. At Newington Cause-
way it was a full hour before we could get water; it ought to have been there before me; the
house was burnt down, and the next was damaged.
If you could have had water you might have saved this house?—The parish-engine was
there first, and if there had been water for it then the other house might have been saved
from damage.
EVIDENCE ON THE GENERAL STATE OF THE THAMES.
STATEMENT addressed by Mr. MILLs to the Board of Commissioners appointed to
inquire into the State of the Water supplied by the different Companies to the
Metropolis. -
Gentlemen,
IN obedience to your directions, I have arranged the evidence I have to give, relative to
the quality and quantity of the water at present supplied by the various Companies, in a
way which I hope may be considered clear and intelligible;
1st. As to quality.
I consider the River Thames, at ebb-tide, from Teddington Lock to its junction with
salt water in its passage to Sea, as a body of fresh water flowing down a regular inclined
plane, the particles of which keep nearly their own position, similar to globes of shot or
sand, and from the counter resistance of the tide as returning on the flow, subject to the
same natural regulation; and though I admit there is no definite line to be drawn to a
mile where the salt water ends, and the fresh water begins, yet we all know that at Wool-
wich the Thames is not salt, and at Sheerness it is not fresh. Supposing this stream to be
60 miles in length, and at midway it should receive daily a large supply of an oily fluid,
sufficient to fill half a mile of the stream, I apprehend we should perceive this fluid running
daily with the ebb several miles below the place at which it was received, and returning
with the flow several miles above, but it would not reach the sea at one end, or Teddington
Lock at the other. A similar effect, I conceive, is produced by the discharge of the drainage
of the Metropolis into the Thames, in its passage from Hammersmith to the River Lea.
The Thames is neither more or less than the common sewer of London, so far as receiving
the contents of all the sewers, which on the north side, as numbered by the Commissioners
of Sewers, are 99; and on the south 46; indeed there is no other recipient; and this com-
mixture is conveyed by the ebb a few miles downwards to the east, then, by the flow, re-
flºg London a few miles upwards to the west; but neither reaching Teddington or
the Sea. « - - - -
(94.) - Q It
Evidence of
Firemen
as to Quantity.
George Rose.
Edward Syer.
Evidence on the
General State of
the Thames.
Statement by
Mr. Mills.
62 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence on the
General State of
the Thames.
Statement by
Mr. Mills.
It does not belong to my profession to ascertain by analysis the quality of this water,
which must greatly vary in the various parts; for instance, opposite the King's Scholars
Pond Sewer, near Vauxhall Bridge, or the Fleet Ditch, if taken at the time of discharge, it
would be nearly the substantive contents of these channels of human ordure; indeed as
to an analysis of water, if we allow Bergman to be an authority, the task is sufficient to
deter an able chemist. He observes, “ the sum of all the saline substances dissolved in
some waters do not exceed a six thousandth part of their weight, and yet this is found to
be composed of six or eight different substances, so that some do not exceed a hundred
thousandth part of the water.” Again, “this branch of chemistry is one of the most
difficult, and demanding, in those who make it their study, the most extensive acquired
knowledge, with the greatest resources of natural sagacity.” Fourcroy, after recapitulating
all the various gases and salts in a great number of waters, as far as confirmed by analysis,
remarks, “whatever care we take in the employment of re-agents, they are not sufficient
to show the number and proportion of salts, they only give us preliminary ideas; but that
to analyze water accurately, recourse must be had to vessels of silver, earth, or porcelain,
and to the process of evaporation and fire, so as to obtain the residuum entire; and that in
some instances this process required years to perform it.”
A slender portion of common sense however authorizes me to affirm, that a stream which
receives daily the evacuations of a million of human beings, of many thousand animals,
with all the filth and refuse of the various offensive manufactories, which of necessity must
be carried on in one of the most populous cities of Europe, cannot require to be analyzed,
except by a lunatic, to determine whether it ought to be pumped up as a beverage for the
inhabitants of the Metropolis of the British empire. The question which you will decide,
is not whether a few grains of this immeasurable filth can by chemical process be
extracted from a bottle of water taken here or there, and subjected to the process of a
tea-kettle elaboratory, but whether, without any process at all, this stream, palpably known
to contain all this mass of filth, should continue to be supplied. This is the theory
which I have formed, and which I submit to your consideration. I will now proceed to
state some facts within my own personal knowledge.
It is seven years since which I have resided within ten yards of the side of the river
Thames, immediately opposite to the Chelsea Waterworks, during all which time I have
been under the necessity of using its water for culinary purposes, after subjecting it to a
filtration, by causing it to ascend a small lead pipe, through layers of alumine, sand, and
charcoal, of about three inches each in thickness, and thus obtaining it, stillatim, in small
quantities of about three gallons per day. I have never been able to produce a glass of
water equal in flavour to the spring-water I drink from a well in Abingdon-street; I have it
clear, but there is some smell, and evidently a mixture of certain gases and salts, over
which filtration has no power. If this then be correct, and I state the fact from seven
years’ experience, that filtration will not separate the noxious qualities of the Thames water
as flowing by my residence, and if it be also physically impossible to expose the quantity
daily consumed to the process of filtration, must we not look for another remedy. I have
also observed, for about half the year, when the quantity of the Thames water passing
Teddington is not much increased by rain, or in other words, when there is an absence of
land-flood water in the river, the Thames has a tendency to deposit the earthy particles
which are buoyant in it; and that during this period of the summer when the water has a less
turbid appearance, the quantities of slime and mud left on the banks is very considerable,
several inches in thickness, which in the following winter, when the river acquires a greater
velocity, is again absorbed and held in solution, and again deposited as the stream becomes
more quiescent. Another fact I have witnessed, which as it goes to confirm the theory laid
down, I will mention; scarcely a week passes, but the carcass of one or more dead dogs is
deposited on the bank, within a short distance of my residence, and unless removed by my
orders, I have frequently observed the same carcass float up and down with the tide for
several days, sometimes deposited a little above, then a little below, and this I have seen
for 10 or 12 days. It follows then, from my view of this subject, that the water is more or
less pure as it approaches Teddington : consequently,
The West Middlesex is the least impure;
The Grand Junction, the second in purity;
The Chelsea, the third ; v.
The South London, the fourth ; &:
The Lambeth, the fifth;
The New River Engine, at Broken Wharf, the sixth;
The Southwark, the seventh ;
The East Middlesex is somewhat different.
2dly. As to quantity.
It is now four years since I designed a supply of water for the Metropolis in the manner
I submitted to you yesterday, so as to be free from the disgusting filth poured into the
Thames in its passage through the city.
The first consideration which naturally occurred to me was the nature of the compact
entered into between the Public and the different Companies; and it then appeared to me,
that out of the immense revenue which these eight bodies enjoyed, notwithstanding the
9 SOI’í.
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, - 63
sort of professions too frequently made by the agents of corporations, that some of them Evidence on the
at least were profitable speculations at present, and possessed powers to increase their dues General State of
to a very serious extent; and therefore if pure water could be obtained, at a reasonable rate, the Thames.
the interest for the expenditure might probably be found to be fairly claimed at their hands.
My first survey led me to investigate the character and constitution of the River Thames
itself, and to ascertain how far it was possible to obtain from it a commensurate supply,
Statement by
Mr. Mills.
well knowing there was no other source that could be placed in competition with it. This
naturally led me to examine how much water would be required for the use of the present
existing Companies, and I have arranged them in the following manner, from the best
information I was able to obtain as to their engines, pumps, &c. &c.
No. 1. — WEST MIDDLESEX,
Number Hours Hogsheads Weekly
Steam Engines. Pumps. Stroke. tº *
per Minute. of Working. daily pumped. Consumption.
2 of *} 2 of 20-inch
power - diameter
8 feet - || 12 high service } s { 15,077 &=º-
| 15 low service 18,846 —
33,923 × 7=237,461
N. B. —This quantity of 237,461 hogsheads is the maximum or greatest quantity
which can be pumped at present, and would cover 82 acres, 1 foot deep, or 8+ acres,
10 feet deep. ..
No. 2. — GRAND JUNCTION.

Steam Horses Diameter Length Number Hours Hogsheads Weekly
Engines. Power. of Pumps. of Stroke. per Minute. of Work. . º per Supply.
2, each 24 - -
2 each - 2. ſº º 792
each 80 { inches }s feet is 16 - 48,256 337,79
The working engineer says the average quantity is three days a week for both engines,
and four days for one. - ... -
48,256 × 3–144,768
24,128 x 4– 96,512
The maximum of 337,792 hogsheads would cover 116 acres, I foot deep, or 1 lººr acres,
10 feet deep.
*
} 241,280--7 =34,470 hogsheads daily consumption.
No. 3.− CHELSE4.

Steam Horses Diameter Length Number Hours Hogsheads Weekly
Engines, Power. of Pumps. of Stroke. per Minute. of Work. p º p er Supply.
2 1 of 70 || 1 of 28 in. 8 feet - 12 20 | 32,838 gºsº
1 of 50 | 1 of 24 in. 8 feet - 12 16 19,303 —
When this survey was made in May 1827 the working engineer stated that the 70-horse
power engine did the whole at 20 hours per day, but that in summer both worked 16 hours.
The 70-horse, for 16 hours - Ǽ - 26,271
50-horse - do. º *= - 19,303
45,574x7=319,018
This maximum would require 110 acres, 1 foot deep, or 11 acres, 10 feet deep.
(94.) - f No. 4.--
64,
APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence on the
General State of
the Thames.
Statement by
Mr. Mills.
No. 4.—NEW RIVER AUXILIARY ENGINE.
Steam Horses Diameter Length Number Hours Hogsheads Weekly
Engines, Power. of Pumps. of Stroke. per Minute. of Work. º per Supply.
l 120 I of 33 in. 9 feet - I 2 I 8 46,189 323,323

This maximum, of the summer and frost supply, would require 113 acres one foot deep,
or 1143, acres, 10 feet deep.
No. 5. — EAST MIDDLESEX.

Steam Horses Diameter Tength Number Hours Hogsheads Weekly
Engines. Power. of Pumps. of Stroke. per Minute. of Work. º per Supply.
2 1 of 80 || 1 of 27 in. 8 feet - | 2
| 8 45,550 318,850
1 of 70 1 of 22 in. 8 feet - 12
This maximum would require 110 acres, 1 foot deep, or 11 acres, 10 feet.
Total North of the Thames, 1,536,444 hogsheads per week, for filtration or cleansing
would require 531 acres, 1 foot deep, or 53+ acres, 10 feet deep.
WATERWORKS SOUTH OF THE THAMES.
No. 6.—SOUTH LONDON.

Steam Horses Diameter Length Number Hours Hogsheads Weekly
Engines. Power. of Pumps. of Stroke. per Minute. of Work. pºº * Consumption.
2 1 of 40 | I of 18 in. 4ft. double
} | 8 | 6 25,080 175,560
1 of 20 | 1 of 16 in. |3#ft. double -
This would require 60 acres, 1 foot deep, or 6 acres, 10 feet deep.
No. 7. —LAMBETH.
Steam Horses Diameter Length Number Hours Hogsheads Weekly
Engines. Power. of Pumps. of Stroke. per Minute. of Work. p ºº per Consumption.
2 ! of 80 l l of 28 in. 58 in double
1 1 7% 13,404 93,828
1 of 36 || 1 of 18 in. 44 in double

This would require 32 acres, 1 foot deep, or 34 acres, 10 feet deep.
N. B.--I much doubt if the 73 hours, said to be all that the larger engine
worked, be correct.
No. 8.- SOUTHWARK,
Mr. Edwards declared himself to be sole proprietor, and refused to allow any inspection,
or to communicate any information.
I heard in the neighbourhood that he had one engine
of 36, and one of 16-horse power, by which he might possibly raise 20,000 hlids. per day,
or 140,000 per week, equal to 50 acres, one foot deep, or five acres, 10 feet deep.
General
suPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 65
General Recapitulation of Weekly Consumption.
Hhds. Acres.
Maximum north of River * - 1,536,444 53 I
-* south of Ditto - - 409,388 142
1,945,832 673 Acres, I foot deep.
*-
or, 674. Acres, 10 feet deep.
It should here be remarked, that four out of the eight have considerable reservoirs, but none
of them equal to one week's supply. The Grand Junction, which I think the most con-
siderable, consists of three reservoirs, two of them appear to have been designed for their
original works, as supplied from the Paddington Canal, and are situated about 110 feet
above the Thames. There is also a new one lately constructed, but none of them are
within 50 or 60 feet, I apprehend, of their high service, which the engineer informed me
was 160 feet and more above the Chelsea engine-pumps, so that by no possibility can any
portion of this water be allowed to cleanse itself before delivery. The Primrose Hill reservoir
is merely a head to the main. * -
It remains to speak of the Remedy.
In the Plan, the outline of which I submitted yesterday to the view of the Commissioners,
and upon which I have spent much labour, time, and thought, I apprehend a supply may
be found, and at a comparatively small expense, at least it must be a reasonable expense,
when we take into consideration the favourable level of the line of feeder, the absence of
houses from the line, and the convenience of reservoirs to a large extent at the termination.
It was from a conviction that there was no other practicable remedy that I have urged
Mr. Telford, for the last six months, to direct levels to be taken, and an accurate survey
made of this line, so as to be able to come before you with an estimate of the expense;
Mr. Telford did not consider himself authorized to give such directions; and I really cannot
afford to add to the labour already bestowed a still more considerable portion of expense
and time, so as to complete the survey at my own cost; but one remark I will make, that
if the survey be not prosecuted before the application be made by Lord Spencer to Parlia-
Evidence on the .
General State of
the Thames.
Statement by
Mr. Mills.
(The Battersea and
Wandsworth
Inclosure
ment for enclosing the parishes where the reservoirs are designed, fifty times the expense of Bill was thrown out 3i
this survey will be probably added to the purchase of the land for the design, if the Act
should be obtained.
I shall only remark, in conclusion, that my design is totally disconnected with any publi-
cations that have taken place upon this subject, and especially from the dispute between
the author of the Dolphin and one of the companies; I never heard of this dispute until the
meeting at Willis's Rooms, although since that time I have not hesitated to explain to
Mr. Wright the more extensive view I had taken of the subject in contradistinction to his
design of merely establishing another rival company to the Grand Junction.
(Signed) JAMES MILLs,
A hogshead is in every instance reckoned 15 feet.
ADDITIONAL PAPER received from Mr. MILLs.
The variation of the East London Water from the other seven arises from the following
circumstances: first, that a small portion of the river Lea is here mixed with the tide from
the Thames, which flows to this point; and secondly, that the reservoirs lately constructed
to the east of the Lea, containing about eight acres, can only be filled at the top of the tide.
This water may, therefore, be considered of a less variable quality than that of the other
seven; but whether more or less pure, I must leave to those who judge analytically; I can-
not, however, conclude my observations on the subject of analysis without remarking, for
the consideration of those who think the quality of the water can be easily determined by
this process, that from my own observation and experience I am fully convinced that it will
be found a most arduous undertaking.
Let us, for example, only confine ourselves to any one of the eight waterworks, the South
Lambeth, for instance. It is an incontrovertible fact, that not only in every month of the
year, as there is more or less of fresh water in the river, but at every successive moment
of . tide, in every day of the year, the water pumped up by this engine must vary in
quality.
At 12 o'clock to-day, when the river is full, the King's Scholars Pond Sewer, containing
an area of 30 Square feet of the most offensive matter, cannot discharge itself, being penned
back by the tide, consequently at that period there must be a less portion of excrementi-
tious matter received by the pumps. But at five o’clock, when the tide will be out, and this
sewer discharge its contents freely, immediately opposite the engine, the water then pumped
must obviously contain a considerable portion of human ordure, as may be seen every day by
any one who will take the trouble of inspecting the operation, and what applies to this one
sewer is alike applicable to the discharge from the one hundred great sewers for the space of an
(94.) - R. hour
March 1828.)
66 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERs ON
Evidence on the
General State of
the Tham €S.
Statement by
Mr. Mills.
—r-
Statement by
Mr. Armstrong.
hour or two before and after low-water, when the small quantity of water contained in the
river is daily charged with the contents of these sewers in a large proportion, after which, as
the tide increases, the filth becomes more diluted.
To obtain a fair analysis, therefore, of the water impregnated with the sewers, which are
much more offensive in summer than winter, it would be necessary to take it not only at
different times of the year, but at all states of the tide; and what must inevitably be the
result: is it not obviously certain, that though in some instances, when the river is full, the
samples might contain a less portion of offensive matter, yet at other times they would be
positively Saturated with animal excrements P There is another fact which I consider alike
incontrovertible, and which, I believe, is generally allowed by those who are most conversant
with the Navigation of the Thames; that the ullage of the Thames water is in a progressive
state of increase of offensiveness; indeed it appears to me that it cannot possibly be other-
wise, from the construction of the bed of the river, which, from my Survey, consists of a
series of excavations below low-water, from which it is impossible the feculence there depo-
sited can escape. If this be so, it follows that we must continue to analyse the Thames every
successive year, or it may reach to a state of putrescence in time.
I have shown that it is physically impossible for the present existing companies to obtain a
space of reservoirs sufficient even to allow this impurity to subside from settlement alone,
much less to filtrate 200,000 hogsheads every day. How simple ! How practicable ! How
complete is the remedy proposed, that of furnishing pure water for the whole, allowing each
company to keep possession of their engines, pipes, &c. which at an expense of many
hundred thousand of pounds, they have established under the guarantee of the Legislature;
and will the British Parliament then, with the example of Edinburgh and Paris before
their eyes, longer submit to hear of analysing the diluted evacuations of a tenth of our popu-
lation, and the refuse of our manufactories, in order to judge of the expediency of continuing
it our daily beverage.
JAMES MILLs.
Copy of STATEMENT by Mr. ARMSTRONG addressed to the Commissioners.
During the months of May, June, and July, of last year, I devoted much time in investi-
gating into the nature of the supply of water to the metropolis, and also on many occasions
since that period:—In the first place, I visited the various sources from whence the supplies
were taken by the different companies. On the north side of the river the West Middlesex
take their supply from Hammersmith; the Chelsea Company, their supply from opposite to
Royal's Ferry; the Grand Junction, their supply from opposite to Chelsea Hospital; the
East London Company, their supply from the river Lea, a little above Bow; and the New
River, their supply, in so far as regards the river Thames, from opposite to Broken Wharf.
On the south side of the Thames there are the South London Company, the Lambeth
Company, and the Borough Waterworks, one taking their supply from opposite to Cum-
berland Gardens, one below Waterloo Bridge, and the other above London Bridge.
On a survey I made of the common sewers, I found them to be as follows: from Chel–
sea Bridge to Vauxhall, 17; from Vauxhall Bridge to Westminster, 11; from Westminster
to Waterloo, 30 : from Waterloo to Blackfriars, 10, including Fleet-ditch, which is 12 feet.
wide; from Blackfriars to Southwark, 6, including the great Walbrook sewer, 7 feet by 4,
which has been known unable to discharge its filth; Southwark Bridge to London, 7 ; and
from London Bridge to the Tower, 7, including the Iron-gate sewer, 7 feet by 4. And from
§
the enormous quantity of filth constantly discharged by those sewers, bearing a large pro-
portion, comparatively speaking, to the pure water of the river Thames, which flows over
the top of Teddington Lock, it is impossible it can be wholesome, and improper it should
be used for any domestic purposes, containing, as it does, the impurities of upwards of a
million of people, and the whole refuse of this vast metropolis.
That several of the water companies have been at great expense in making reservoirs, must
in justice be admitted; but which in no way can tend in the slightest degree to the filtration
of the water, as is alleged by them ; they may assist in permitting the denser impurities of
the water to subside, but can in no way extract those poisonous qualities which water will
naturally hold in solution. That the sewers are continually discharging their horrid contents
into the river Thames no one can attempt to deny, and that the progress of the tide up the
river defies any complete discharge, so that in fact the filth is carried so far down the river,
and again by the tide brought so far back; and the only difference is, that it has undergone
a more complete mixture, rendering its impurities less visible, but not less abominable.
Without expatiating on the particular situations from whence the various companies take
their supplies, and which, from their contiguity to the principal sewers, seem to confirm it
as the opinion of the directors that sewer water is an advantage, I shall only observe that
the river Thames, so far up as the tide flows, can be considered neither more nor less than
the great common sewer of London, and consequently unfit to be the source from whence
the supply of water ought to be taken for the use of the inhabitants of the metropolis.
In the course of my examination of the East London Waterworks, I found their source
of supply equally bad with the others. The tide there forces up a quantity of the Thames
7 water,
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 67
water, which, at the mouth of the Lea, must be charged with all the filthy impurities of Evidence on the
the metropolis, and the reservoirs are so situated that they fill at high tide: within 200 General State of
yards there are vitriol and dye-works, and gas-works about 300 yards below, and from the the Thames.
quantity of pernicious fluid discharged from each of those works independent of the filthy
state of the river Thames here, leads me to consider the water of this company equally bad
with the worst of the others.
On the south side of the river none of the companies have any reservoirs, but deliver the
water to the inhabitants direct from the Thames, in a state unfit to be used for any purpose
until it settles, and even then it is full of filth and insects. In summer a glass of this water
was shown me by Mr. Wright, No. 22, Waterloo-road, and which I saw taken from the
butt absolutely alive with animalculae in the form of shrimps, and hundreds visible to the
naked eye : a more disgusting fluid for the use of human beings I never witnessed ; and in
this district there are much delay and deficiency in cases of fire.
Watering the streets from the common sewer has been a prevailing practice for some time
in the parish of St. Pancras, by the Commissioners of Roads, and remained unnoticed until
last year. One would imagine that so disgusting a practice could not have entered the mind
of man thus to collect filth and disease in cart-loads, and in the heat of summer spread it
under the noses of the inhabitants. The petitioners say in their petition, (which I had the
honour of presenting.) and truly so, “that their lives are endangered, and their property
rendered less valuable ;” and it is a fact that valuable houses have been deserted in
consequence of this practice. The filthy contents of the barrels I have seen so thick as
scarcely to be able to find its way through the holes perforated in the pipe for the purpose
of causing it to spread equally over the surface, and the defence set up by the offenders is,
that they cannot procure clean water in the summer months from the deficiency of supply.
That there is a remedy by which London can be supplied with pure and wholesome water
is not only certain, but easily accomplished; and I beg to observe that I do not speak from
any opinion merely of my own, but from the opinion of a gentleman whose eminence and
skill as an engineer are universally known.
Copy of a PAPER sent to the CoMMIssion ERs from the Secretary of the
South London Waterworks.
The watermen of Vauxhall and its vicinity, whose names are hereunto subscribed, do
declare that some of them for the last 15 years, and others for many years past, have plied
upon the River Thames; that they have been in all parts of the said river between Vauxhall
and London Bridges, and that they have observed that the tide upon the Surrey-side of
Vauxhall-bridge runs there particularly strong, in consequence, as they suppose, of its
setting over in a direct line from the public-house known as the “Spread Eagle,” about
half a mile higher up the river on the Middlesex shore.
They also declare, that upon the Surrey-side of Vauxhall Bridge, and opposite to the
Cumberland Gardens, there is a strong gravelly beach, and that although upon the opposite
side of the river, and lower down the river on either side, the shore is covered with mud at
this spot, in consequence, as they suppose, of the run of the tide, the shore is comparatively
clear, and as far as their observation has gone, they are confident that there is not a spot on
either side of the river between Vauxhall and London Bridges where the water can be
obtained so clear as in that part of the River Thames which is adjacent to the Cumberland
Gardens, Vauxhall, and the Surrey-side of Vauxhall Bridge.
Signed by Thomas Beale, and 13 others.
ExAMINATION of WILLIAM BUTCHER.
WHERE is your residence 2—No. 132, Long Lane, Borough. I am a fish-salesman,
and agent to several vessels from Holland.
Where do you get your water from ?—Vauxhall.
From what Company?—The South Lambeth Waterworks. The water I am supplied
with, the servant told me, smelt bad; I went into the cellar, and it had a smell similar to
gas.
Statement by
Mr. Armstrong.
Paper from the
Secretary of the
London Water-
works.
Examination of
William Butcher.
You use this water to keep eels in 2—No ; that is a distinct thing; I am speaking of my
private supply; the vessels to which I am agent come to Billingsgate, and the water of
the river runs through the wells where the eels are kept; the vessels are obliged to stop at
Gravesend for the eels to get inured to the water; formerly the eels would live a long while
in the river, but of late years, (within four or five years,) vast numbers have died when the
hatches are opened in the river; a smell arises from them similar to the smell of gas ; the
state of the water is very bad. I have been engaged in this business two years, and each
year the water has got worse.
(94.) Do
68 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence on the
General State of
the Thames.
William Butcher.
Do the fishmongers at Billingsgate keep live fish, and do they keep them in Thames
water 2–Large quantities of live fish are kept, but not in Thames water; formerly, they were
kept in Thames water, but now they are kept in New River water, because when the wheels
were taken away from London-bridge, they could not get Thames water. The City is sup-
plied with the New River water, and the West End with Thames water. They cannot keep
eels at the West End of the Town, that is those who have the river water; Mr. Myers
and Mr. Wise have the New River water; they never lose any eels.
When the fishmongers at Billingsgate had the Thames water, did they complain of it?—
I never heard of any complaints then ; there are not many that keep live fish; Fenn is the
principal one that does. I have known of vessels coming up the river at three parts flood-
tide, and three parts of the cargo of eels would die by the gas-water passing the vessel, which
showed itself like scum shining on the water. Mr. Rutt, of Simbury, has come to me for eels,
and has taken five cwt., and when I told him that he would lose them in going up the river,
he replied, that when he got safe to Putney they would all live, the water there not being
bad.
Where do the eels come from ?—From Friezland in Holland. There are 10 vessels in the
trade: they are kept alive in wells, through which the water flows, they are a very curious fish,
and will live either in salt or fresh water; formerly the vessels used to come up at once to
Billingsgate, but now they are obliged to wait some time down the river before they can come
up; I have known a vessel to lose all their eels in one night. A captain, with a vessel coming
up, run through some bad water in the river, which affected the eels, they jumped up as
though they were in pain; when he had passed the bad water, the eels became quiet and still,
but when the vessel had been moored about half an hour, the eels began to be restless, and
many died, the aforesaid bad water having overtaken him again. The bad water goes down.
the river, and returns with the tide.
How far does the bad water extend down the river ?—I do not know.
How long since is it that the vessels could come up to Billingsgate?—Ten or twelve years,
and they laid only a day or two, to inure the fish to the change from salt water to fresh. *
How long do they lie now?—They formerly could send a coff in the summer, containing
15 cwt. to ease the well, and find no difficulty in keeping them, whereas last summer #
they sent a coff, containing 900 or 1,000 weight, in Some instances, could find no more than
three cwt., and they with but little life in them; one of the owners came over, and he said
that if the evil continues, he should give up in the summer.
Does the trade go on all the year 2—Yes.
Do they live better in winter than in the summer?—Yes; but many die even then; I have
myself taken up some of the scum off the water.
ExAMINATION as to Mr. BUTCHER’s private supply.
IS the water you are supplied with at your dwelling muddy?—Yes; it comes in of a
clayey colour, and it stands sometime before it is fit to use. -
Have you a cistern ?—I have a butt.
How much will it hold 2–About 100 gallons. '
Are you served every day 2—Yes.
Do you often clean out your butt 2–About twice a year.
How much sediment do you find?—I should think about two inches.
Do you draw it off?—Yes; the cock is about two inches above the bottom.
Would the mud fill up the two inches —I should think not; I have a pipe which sup:
plies the kitchen, and this is fixed in the butt two inches and a half from the bottom, so that
we do not draw the water generally very low.
Does the water smell bad 2–Not from the butt.
Do you find any insects in it?—Yes, frequently small insects, none so large
I have had a pipe stopped with an eel. . .
Have you sufficient?—Sometimes not for two or three days; I lie higher than my neigh-
bours; they are supplied sometimes when I do not get any.
You use this water for tea?—Yes.
Do you use any other water 2—No.
Do you not filter —No, I do not.
The water is then clear enough for your purpose of tea, and so on 2–Yes,
as shrimps;
STATEMENT
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. 69
STATEMENT given in by Mr. BUTCHER.
Arrived at Gravesend during the month of July 1827, having full cargoes of healthy eels, Evidence on the
the several Dutch vessels annexed.
De Vrienderschap; K.B. Tappman, Master ( * > sº tº 15,000 lbs.
Marketed about 4,000 lbs. alive.
De Het-dorp Gaastmeer; R. S. Visser, Master sºs & 14,000 lbs.
Marketed about 4,000 lbs. alive. *=
De Jonge Jan Meini; P. V. Der Tee, Master - * — 13,000 lbs.
Marketed about 3,000 lbs. alive. - -
De Vissery; A. L. Wild Chut, Master “Eº *- sº 14,000 lbs.
Marketed about 4,000 lbs. alive. -
De Twee Jong Vreuwen Gerrit; A. Dykstra, Master sº 13,000 lbs.
Marketed about 4,000 lbs. alive.
De Twee Ge Broeders; A. Oversea, Master *s º wº 13,000 lbs.
Marketed about 4,500 lbs. alive.
De Nederland Kroonprince; J. P. Jelsma, Master * * 14,000lbs.
Marketed about 4,000 lbs alive. -
De Vierge Broeders; G. Nieuwland, Master tºº. º tºº 14,000 lbs.
Marketed about 5,000 lbs. alive.
About 12 years ago, in those warm months, would not find more than about 30 lbs. dead
in a night; of late, several vessels have lost all their eels in one tide, the weather being clear
and fine at the time.
EXAMINATION of JAMES NEWLAND, Master of the Vessel Four Brothers,
trading in Eels from Holland.
WHAT trade are you engaged in 2—The eel trade, and nothing else, from Holland
to London.
What cargo do you bring 2—About 12,000 to 14,000 weight; in summer less, in winter
more; this is the average. -
Have you found that of late the eels have not lived so well in the Thames as they did
formerly 2—Yes; particularly within the last two or three years; and it gets worse every
SUIII]]]].62]”.
How many years is it since you have observed a difference 2—It is five or six years since
I first noticed it. *
And you find it growing worse?—Yes; the last summer worst of all; formerly the Thames
water used to be bad at times, after storms of heavy rains, and the water run into the river
from the streets; but it was only at such times; now it is always bad.
What do you suppose to be the cause of the Thames water being bad?—The gas; I have
smelt the gas in the streets when the pipes have been opened, and it is the same smell comes
out of the hatches.
You have ascertained this yourself?—Yes, certainly.
What part of the river is worst 2–We do not come up higher than Billingsgate; there
are some fishsellers at Putney; a person from the Star and Garter comes down at low water
and carries the eels up alive; he comes down with the tide and returns with the tide, and the
eels will live at Putney. -
How far down the river have you noticed the eels feel the effect of the water P—Below
Woolwich, at Gallion's Reach; I have noticed them to turn sick here, and have put about
the vessel and gone lower down, and they have recovered. I have come up with a flood
tide, and have found bad water in Blackwall Reach. When we came into the Pool it was
better, the vessel having come up faster than the water flowed; consequently the water we
came through at Blackwall came past us when we were moored off Billingsgate. It was bad,
and had an effect on the eels. &
You have then had much loss —Yes; from two vessels in June and August last, each
carrying 13,000 to 14,000 lbs. each, we had not more than 9,000 lbs. marketed from the
two vessels alive.
How do you know when they are sick?—They jump up, are very uneasy; they start as if
they would jump out of the water, and would very soon die.
Do they change colour?—Yes; and they become spotted like Snakes.
Do you know about other fish?–In the Thames the fish will endeavour to get out of the
bad water on to pieces of wood that are floating; but only when the water is bad.
(94.) - Have
s
General State of
the Thames.
Statement by
Mr. W. Butcher.
Examination of
James Newland.
ºf 0 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence on the
General State of
the Thames.
James Newland.
I. I. de D' Iong.
Thomas Hatherill
and
William Hatherill.
Have you been in any other river?—No other than the Thames here. I have been to
Antwerp, and never lost any : and when I first came here I never lost any, except what is
common out of so large a quantity, and from the effects of the floods of rain washing the
streets. I have been captain 16 years.
You were obliged to accustom the eels to the change from salt to fresh water 2—Yes;
about Erith we stayed for two or three tides.
Your profits are of course diminished 2–Yes; there are two companies who send these
ten vessels, of five persons in each company; and if the water continues so bad they will be
obliged to give up the trade.
[Mr. Newland referred to a Paper that was given in by Mr. Butcher, as exhibiting
the very great losses sustained by the eels dying in consequence of the bad
water.] -
ExAMINATION of I. I. de D'IONG, Master of the Vessel Cornelia, trading in Eels
from Holland.
HOW long have you been in this trade?—Twenty-seven years to and from London.
I have been captain three years longer than Captain Newland.
When was the first time you noticed the water of the Thames being bad?—Seven or
eight years; and every year it has been getting worse and worse; an hour after high water
the eels will die in a short time. I have had 3,000 weight dead in half an hour. In August
last year a man came to me for 12 draft, a draft is 20 lbs., and we had only 80 lbs. left.
If the water gets worse, in two years more we must give up ; the bad water comes lower and
lower down; we did bring up at Gallions, but now we can only come to Erith.
What do you do with the eels when they die?—If they die at night, we sell them in the
morning if we can, and at a very great loss; and those we cannot sell are thrown away.
The duty last year was 131, 16s., and in three voyages did not make half the money.
Where are the eels caught?—Small boats are employed, and our cargoes are always ready
for us. The business is carried on entirely by poor persons; and a great many persons are
employed in the eel trade, and entirely depend upon it for support. This fish is the best
for poor persons to deal in, as eels can be kept alive better than any other fish; and what
is not sold one day can be sold the next. There are two fishermen at Lambeth who used to
catch fish in the Thames, but owing to the bad water the fish have died; the men sold their
boats, and now they come and buy eels of me, 20 or 30 lbs. a day, to sell again.
ExAMINATION of THOMAS and WILLIAM HATHERILL.
(Thomas Hatherill.) WHAT is your employment?—A fisherman; I was brought up to
it from the age of 12 years, but I have not done any lately.
In what part of the river did you fish?—From Putney to Woolwich; and we used to
catch flounders, eels, roach, Smelts, Salmon, &c.
Why did you leave off fishing?—The fishing dropt off, and we were obliged to give it up
five or six years ago; and it got worse every year. *
What was the reason 2—The gas. We could get plenty of dead flounders and no live
ones; I have seen the flounders put up their heads above the water, and if there was
a bundle of weeds in the river they would get on it out of the water.
Did you ever see any gas liquor on the water 2—Yes.
When is it most seen 2–In dead water, like oil upon the water.
What do you now do for a livelihood?—Buy fish at the market, and carry it about to sell.
I have sold my boats.
Is there any thing else besides gas that injures the water 2—There are other things that do
no good.
What part of the river is worst?—Between Vauxhall and London Bridge.
So that the great mischief is there 2–Yes; but the tide running up and down, it is bad
also above and below these bridges.
Which is the worst time for fish, dry weather or rainy weather ?–In summer, after dry
weather; when the rains come the fish turn up.
It was always so —No, it has been greatly worse of late years. A
(William Hatherill.) You have heard what your brother has said, are you of the same
opinion with him in what he has stated ?–Yes,
1 I You
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 71
You were a fisherman, and have given up the business for the same reason that your
brother did 2–Yes. - -
What did you make per week when you could catch plenty of fish?—On an average 50s
per week; there were two to earn this money. I now buy eels of the Dutchmen at Biliń.
gate, and I have seen 1,000 and 2,000 weight of their fish dead in an hour; and when the
wells are opened there is quite a stench arises; and it is like oil on the top of the water.
EXAMINATION of Mr. JoHN GoLDHAM.
WHAT is your engagement *—Yeoman of Billingsgate market; as clerk of the market,
to ascertain the quality of the fish, to seize and condemn that which is bad, and to receive
the dues, and regulate the market. -
Do you know what effect the Thames water has upon fish?—I was yeoman of the market
25 years ago, and at that time there were 400 fishermen, each having a boat and a
boy fishing above and below London Bridge, from about Deptford to Richmond, and the
fish they caught were roach, plaice, smelts, flounders, salmon, shads, eels, gudgeon, dace,
dabs, &c. These men were apprenticed to the business.
And they gained their livelihood by fishing in the river?—Entirely. At that time I have
known them to take 10 salmon, and as many as 3,000 smelts at one haul, up towards Wands-
worth; and as many as 50,000 smelts have been brought daily to Billingsgate. Some of these
boats would earn as much as 6/, per week; and as many as 3,000 salmon have been brought
to Billingsgate market in the season, caught in the river Thames. The Thames salmon
were the best salmon, and would frequently fetch 3s. or 4s. per pound.
What time are you now speaking of?—About 14 or 15 years ago.
Was there no change in the quantity for the first 10 or 11 years that you was yeoman?—
No ; the quantities did not begin to fall off till about 14 or 15 years ago, and every year since
that period there has been a diminution in the quantity; and now there are not 200 men
engaged in this fishery, and many of them are now selling off their nets and boats; last
week one man caught only 26 smelts, which he sold for 4s. 6d.
So that you reckon that this fishery is gone?—Yes.
Are there any salmon now 2–No ; I consider it impossible there should be any.
How long since is it that the salmon have ceased to be caught?—I have not seen salmon
for these 10 years, except a straggling fish now and then, caught high up or low down the
I’IVē!".
What do you attribute as the cause of the loss of this fishery 2–Rirst, the docks. Near
the West India Docks there was an inlet of 10 or 12 feet water, where the smelts used to
resort; but the gates of the dock being occasionally opened, and the water was let out,
which was very impure, from the bilge-water, and the effect of the copper-bottomed vessels,
and this I consider as the cause why all the smelts have left this spot. This water is so
impure, that if a man falls into it, it generally proves fatal. Another reason is, that all the
common sewers run into the Thames.
Was it not always so 2–No ; there are now a much greater number of drains which run
into the common sewers, as well as privies and water-closets; formerly the scavengers used
to carry away the soil at night, but that practice has of late years been much diminished.
The filth that they used to carry away is passed by the drains into the sewers. In the
Evidence on the
General State of
the Thames.
Thomas Hatherill
and
William Hatherill.
*-
Mr.
John Goldham.
river at Billingsgate we have many Dutch boats with eels; I have been on board, and
have seen 4,000 alive in the wells and coffs, and the next morning three fourths have been
dead; and the same proportion of loss has been sustained by all the Dutch vessels.
What is the cause of the death of the eels?—When there is but little water in the river
they do not die so much, as the water is less disturbed; but on heavy rains, after a dry
season, the filth which had been accumulating in the drains and sewers is washed into the
river, and disturbs the general sediment; the water is thus rendered very impure, and con-
tributes in producing the above effect.
It is a matter of fact, that fish suffer more after rains than in dry weather?—Yes. Other
causes of the increased impurity of the river, or its being worse than it formerly was, is
from the accumulation of filth brought down by rains after dry weather, the great fall at
London Bridge, and the steam boats stirring up the filth of the Thames, and keeping it in a
state of almost continual agitation. Another nuisance is the gas; I have noticed it at
12 o'clock at night. The gas-liquor is let out in the middle of the night; the river is often
covered with it, having the appearance of an oily substance, in patches of three or four feet
square. The tide ebbs seven hours, and goes about three miles per hour, and this will
carry it on this side of Gravesend; and as the tide flows five hours, this substance returns
with the tide. As a proof of the impurity of the water in the Thames, the flounders which
are brought up from sea reach Medway, &c., when they get to Woolwich fly about in the
wells of the boats, through which the water flows, and they turn up and die.
- - Where
(94.)
* 2 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Evidence on the
General State of
the Thames.
Mr.
John Goldham.
Mr.
John Dowley.
º,
Where are the flounders brought from ?—Some above and some below bridge.
Will they not live in Thames water 2—I think not; they are taken out of the wells about
Woolwich, and put on the decks, then into baskets, and brought up dry to market.
Do you know anything about white bait; are they in the same abundance as they formerly
were 2—White bait are certainly obtained in greater abundance than formerly, by poachers
(viz. fishermen who have been thrown out of their former employ) using unlawful nets. It
should, however, be observed, that white bait are taken at particular times of the tide, as
they are a salt-water fish, and come and retire with the water, which is partially salt; on this
account they are never known above Blackwall.
Do you think that the increase of manufactories within the last ten years have tended to
injure the water?—Yes; and it can be proved that many fishermen have been ruined by the
change in the water.
ExAMINATION of Mr. JoHN Dowl.E.Y.
YOU are surveyor to the commissioners of sewers for the Westminster district?—Yes.
Have you a plan of the sewers?—Yes (eahibiting one).
The King's Scholars Pond sewer is a town drainage?—Yes.
And the Ranelagh sewer is principally a country drainage?—Yes.
What is the area of the Ranelagh sewer at the mouth 2–It has a brick inverted arch
bottom, the chord of which is 16 feet, and the versed sine 2 feet 8 inches; the embank-
ments are sloped in the proportion of two to one, and it is about 60 feet wide at the top,
and about 15 feet deep in the middle.
The quantity of water in it varies?—Yes.
What area is necessary for winter floods?—It has been found to amount to a 72-feet
section north of Hyde Park, which must be considered to require a 100-feet section towards
the river.
Supposing the direction of the Ranelagh sewer was to be altered, what direction would
you recommend ?–Application has been made to turn it along the line of certain proposed
new streets from Knightsbridge, to unite with the old line, where it passes under Grosvenor
Bridge in the King's road; a more direct line would be along Elizabeth-street, if the
Grosvenor basin did not interrupt the passage. te
Would that line take in all the drainage which is now received into the Ranelagh sewer P-
At the south end of Elizabeth-street it would take in nearly all the drainage, by reversing the
falls which have a contrary direction.
What is the width of Elizabeth-street?—Elizabeth-street is about 55 or 60 feet wide.
From whence does this application come?—The application for altering the line from
Knightsbridge to Grosvenor bridges comes from Messrs. Cubitts; but their plan is not for
altering the sewer farther towards the river. .
Do you think that Cubitt would have any objection to that proposed line, namely, to carry
the Ranelagh sewer to empty itself near the King's Scholars Pond sewer?—No ; I think it
would be an advantage to him. -
Have you taken the levels for this proposed plan 2–I have all the general levels of those
parts.
What fall will there be?—That depends upon the depth to the bottom of Lord Grosvenor's
canal. The depth to the bottom of the canal I suppose to be 10 feet below the highest tide
level, and the depth of the water to be about seven feet.
How much below high water could you get an outlet at the river ?—The outlet at the
King's Scholars Pond sewer is about 14 feet below the highest tide level, and the Ranelagh
sewer about the same. When the alteration is made at London Bridge we may probably be
able to get more. The outlet perhaps may be 15 feet below the highest tide level, and that
would give five feet below the bottom of the Grosvenor basin.
You have five feet under the basin, which might easily have a cast-iron bottom; what
area do you want to pass the water of the Ranelagh sewer, that is, superficial feet of section ?
—I have not made the calculation. --
What is the length from Lord Grosvenor's basin to the river ?—The length from Lord
Grosvenor's basin to that part of the river near the mouth of the King's Scholars Pond
sewer is about 4,500 feet. .
And if three feet is allowed under the basin, there would be a two-feet fall for this length
of 4,500 feet?—With this fall the sewer would require a brick inverted arch bottom.
What is the breadth of the canal?–Seventy or 80 feet at top, and 30 or 40 feet at
bottom.
Suppose
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. '73
Suppose we have five feet under Lord Grosvenor's basin, and the drain under this to be
two feet less, to allow for a sufficient fall to the river, could you drain all the other water
into it?—We should have a fall of about six feet to reverse the fall of a length of about
2,000 feet, this being about the length of the line that must be made to divert that part of
the sewer.
You have accurate levels of the tides?—Yes, at the office, of the highest tide level.
Will you give them to us?—I can give that level.
You have high tides every 19 years?—Yes, generally very high tides, and the highest of
these tides is the one we take, because of its effects upon the low lands.
Where have you the levels of the high tides marked 2–We have the levels marked at the
mouth of the King's Scholars Pond sewer at Westminster Bridge, and over the outlets of
all the sewers.
What is the distance of the nearest available line from the Ranelagh sewer for the proposed
alteration of the course of this sewer?—From nearly the middle of the Lowndes' estate to
the Grosvenor basin, about 3,200 feet, and as before stated about 4,500 feet from the basin
to the river.
Would the proposed new line be an improvement?—Yes, I think so, if the Grosvenor
basin should not impede the passage of the sewer.
Would flood-gates be required 2–The commissioners do not approve of flood-gates where
they can be avoided.
If you do not have flood-gates you must embank?—Yes, the land about the Neat House
gardens, being about six feet below the high tide level, would require embanking even with
flood-gates. -
The stuff taken out would embank 7–Yes.
Have you made any estimate of the expense of such a sewer, and the dimensions of it?—
I think it must be about 12 feet wide, and more towards the river, and 10 feet high, and to
be made an arched sewer; the expense for a sewer 12 feet wide will be about 121 per yard
lineal, exclusive of the digging.
State the quantity of brickwork in a yard forward, and the calculations upon which your
opinion of the size and expense is founded?—A little time will be required for detailing
the particulars.
You have no power to build sewers?—No, only to maintain those which are made and
are under the charge of the commissioners,
Do you not alter sewers ?–Only when the defective state of an old sewer requires it to be
rebuilt; every improvement is then endeavoured to be given to it which the service of the
sewer may require, either in the line, the form, or the capacity of it. -
Would the proposed alteration be a better line —Yes, I think it would, if the Grosvenor
basin should not impede the passage of the sewer.
All the land through which the proposed line of sewer would pass is Lord Grosvenor's
—Yes, except two small pieces which belong to Mr. Wise and the Trustees of the Lowndes’
estate; Messrs. Cubitts have the whole on lease.
[The Map of the Sewers belonging to the Commissioners on the Supply of Water
was then marked with pencil, to show the proposed line for the new sewer.]
STATEMENT given in by Mr. Joseph EVANs.
IN March 1827 I went with William Russell and Mr. Scharf to the Dolphin Pile of the
Grand Junction Water Company, it being about one hour before low water; I could see all
around that the water resembled mixed oatmeal and water, which was caused by the south
westerly wind during the ebb tide along the shore, thereby causing the mud to float in the
way of the Dolphin piles. During a period of 30 years past I have seen floats of mud in
various parts of the river, when I have been going with the flood tide in a small boat.
N. B. Those floats of mud have greatly increased during the last 10 years. The shores
from Limehouse to Billingsgate present large beds of mud to the passenger; but the greatest
degree of nuisance I have first met with at Billingsgate Dock, from the great quantity of
putrid fish in the summer months; and I found a very offensive smell from putrid fish I once
saw lying on the mud at the east side of London Bridge; I noticed the great sewer at Dow-
gate wharf four times during the year 1827, and it was always discharging a great quantity
of black water. I have seen the Fleet-ditch sewer at Blackfriars at several periods of the
tide, and it was always discharging black slimy liquid, with gas oil, dead animals, and
entrails from the slaughter-houses. The sewers at Essex wharf and others towards West-
minster Bridge send out enough filth to keep the shores near them always very foul.
I have seen, at the sewer No. 49, the greatest quantity of the gas oil come out, with much
other filth too disgusting to name. Further descriptions of what I have seen are given in
(94.) - T the
Evidence on the
General State of
the Thames.
Mr.
John Dowley.
Statement by
Mr. Joseph Evans.
'74, APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Mr. Joseph Evans.
-**
Evidence on th €
General State of
the 'Th
3 ill CS,
Statement by
M?
Stephen
Leach.
the memoir of Mr. Wright, presented to the Commissioners for the Supply of Water. I have
seen large quantities of floating vegetables between Putney and Hammersmith, in the year
1827. In April 1827 I went from Kew Bridge with a spring tide, and by taking a bottle of
water from the river at Isleworth, I found it had a portion of the floating mud like Chelsea
Reach, and the same may be seen to the extent of the tide; I could not find clear water
until I arrived at Teddington lock. January 26th, 1828, I saw two large dogs, skinned,
lying on the mud at the Horseferry, Westminster. January 29th, 1828, I saw one cat,
skinned, and seven dead rats, lying on the mud opposite Millbank-row, Westminster; also
a great quantity of gas and other filth. February 20th, 1828, I took a bottle full of the filth
as it came out of the Fleet-ditch sewer, and was carried down by the tide past Broken-wharf
to London Bridge, at nine o’clock morning. At 10 o’clock, I saw about one third part of
Billingsgate-dock covered with putrid fish, such as plaice, sprats, and small cod. March 3d,
This morning I saw more than two dozen of flat fish lying in the sewer at Knightsbridge, in
a putrid state. N.B.-It is said by the Grand Junction Water Company that this end of
the Ranelagh sewer receives only the waste water from the Serpentine River. I have often
seen the filth from six drains mixing with the said “waste water” before it arrived at the
road side. During the year 1827 I have noticed the great sewer near Vauxhall Bridge at
least ten times, and it was always pouring out the same quantity and quality of filth as the
great Ranelagh sewer does at present.
ExAMINATION of Mr. STEPHEN LEACH.
WHAT office do you hold 2–Clerk of the works for the improvement of the navigation in
the City’s district above London Bridge.
What quantity of water ebbs and flows at different parts of the river; for instance, at one
of the bridges?—I have not made any observation on this point. We have gauges or marks
showing the variations in the height of the water at all the locks; the flow in general is
regular, except during floods.
Have you any estimate of the quantity of water that passes over Teddington lock 2–
No, it varies occasionally; therefore it is difficult to say. The last flood was nearly nine feet
above the lowest low water mark which is placed below the lock. The fall of Teddington
wear when shut in is three feet six inches.
What depth of water is there flowing over the wear at Teddington lock —From six
inches to a foot in the open part of the wear at the lowest water; the greater height is when
the flashes come down from above, which is generally twice a week during the summer.
Have you any idea how far the impurities of London are carried up by the tide 2–
I should think not farther than Isleworth, and that Brentford is not free from these impurities.
There is much also gets into the river at Brentford, where are a large soap manufactory, a
large distillery, and a gas work. The City are very jealous of the impurities from gas works
getting into the river.
The water which flows over Teddington lock at flood times is turbid?—Yes, very turbid;
the banks are destroyed, or much washed by the flood, and the water is therefore then very
thick; in its ordinary state the water is clear, and this is so for a great part of the year.
So that the water there is as turbid as it is at London 2–To all appearance it is so, but it
cannot be so offensive. - -
Is the navigation above Teddington lock ever impeded for want of water 2—No, never in
the City district.
Is it below at Isleworth?—Yes, at low water, and sometimes at neap tides; but it is our
endeavour to clear the river so as to prevent these impediments.
^.
If a sufficient quantity of water was taken for the supply of London, would the taking the
quantity of water injure the navigation?–No, certainly not, supposing the supply to be what
it is at present from the Thames, exclusive of the New River service.
If the whole of London was supplied from above Teddington lock, would not the navigation
be injured by it?—I think not. The rivers Colne, Wey, and Mole each supply a great
quantity of water, and there are also several smaller streams. The object of the improvements
in the navigation is to keep up a certain depth of water in the river, that is not less than
from four feet to four feet six inches in the navigable channel at low water; and the surplus .
is equal, I apprehend, to any thing that may be wanted for the supply of London, except
perhaps when the water in the river is in its lowest state; but the subtraction of water then
might be compensated by some additional ballasting, or deepening the barge channel.
Have you any knowledge of the velocities of the river at different places 2—No, I have
not tried them lately; of course, the greater velocities in the natural current will be in the
higher parts of the river, while both there and in the tide-way they will vary according to the
quantity of water coming down the river.
I I For
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. 75
For the most part of the year the water is clear —Yes, very clear; you may see to the
bottom in many parts of the river; it has a gravelly bottom. -
Where does the gravel commence?—It is all the way from Windsor (to my knowledge)
down to Putney; all above Putney within that distance is gravel. - - -
There is not much clean gravel below Putney?—We have had no occasion to excavate
below Putney.
PARTICULARS OF TAKING SAMPLES OF WATER."
REPORT of Mr. HENRY Robinson PALMER, on taking samples of Water, addressed to
the Commissioners. ar
Gentlemen, London Docks, March 17th, 1828.
I HAVE enclosed to you the table of the specimens of water taken from the rivers Thames
and Lea, in compliance with your instructions, dated the 1st February 1828. Unless
described otherwise, the specimens were obtained at the several places within two feet of the
bed of the river, by a contrivance made for the purpose.
The specimens numbered 13 and 14 of the water at the dolphin of the Grand Junction
Waterworks were taken when a sewer immediately above the spot was discharging a large
quantity of matter. The surface of the water surrounding the dolphin was distinctly coloured
by the matter discharged from the sewer, while the water near the bed of the river exhibited
no such appearance, and thus proved that the rapidity of the ebb tide prevented a mixture of
the impurities with the water of the Thames, within the distance of the dolphin, from the
orifice of the sewer. -
The position of the Chelsea Waterworks, which are at a short distance lower down the
river, is such as to lead one to expect a sample taken from that place would exhibit some of
the impurities discharged from the sewer; but although we may safely presume the admixture
to have taken place before the soil reaches that place, the appearance of the specimen exhibits
to the eye no indication of it. I am therefore led to suppose that the quantity of impure
matter discharged from the sewer is so small in proportion to the quantity of water in the
Thames at that place as to be imperceptible.
The specimens of water taken from the surface of the river Lea, at the mouth of the
reservoir of the East London Waterworks, were more transparent than the specimens taken
from the reservoir, itself.
Although a reservoir may be serviceable as a receiver of deposits of gross particles, it at
the same time becomes a depository for other impurities, by the accumulation of which the
object of the reservoir is in a great measure defeated, unless it be so constructed as to admit
of frequent cleansing. t *
In addition to the specimens taken as directed by the Commissioners in their original
instructions, I have procured three from the London Docks.
The green appearance of the water in these docks has led many to infer that it is much
impregnated with copper derived from the ships bottoms. The specimens are, one from the
surface, one at half depth, and one from near the bottom of the dock, and all appear colourless
and equally transparent when exhibited in so small a quantity as a wine-glass full.
I have the honour to be, &c. &c.
Low Water.
Name of Company. No. of Bottles. Date. Time. Wind. | Temperature.
East London * * tº 44 45 14 March - 1 0 15 S. W. . 49°
Southwark sº wº 3 4 || 11 March tº 5 P.M. S. W. 48°
New River Engine - 5 6 I 1 March - 5 20 S. W. 48°
Lambeth º as we 7 8 11 March - 5 40 S. W. 49°
South London - - || 9 10 | 11 March - || 6 5 S.w. 48°
Chelsea - tº gº 11 12 l 1 March – 6 20 S. W. 48°
Grand Junction - - | 18 14 | 11 March - || 6 35 S. W. 48°
West Middlesex - - 60 6] 15 March - 10 A.M. S. W. 529
( 94) * Half
Evidence on the
General State of
the 'i'hames.
Mr.
Stephen Leach.
Particulars of
taking Samples of
Water.
Report of
Mr. H. R. Palmer.
‘76 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Particulars of
taking Samples of
• Water.
Report of
Mr. H. R. Palmer.
Report by
Secretary to the
Commissioners.
Half Flood.
Name of Company. No. of Bottles, Date. Time. Wind. Temperature.
East London º * * * tº-º-º: wº- -
Southwark - gº º 16 17 13 March - 9 30 S. W. 48%.”
New River Engine º 18 20 13 March - 9 41 S. W. 48%.”
Lambeth - - - 21 22 13 March – 9 52 S. W. 48%.”
South London - - 23 24 13 March - 10 10 S. W. 48%.”
Chelsea &s - º 25 26 | 13 March - 10 22 S. W. 48%.”
Grand Junction * * 27 29 13 March - 10 30 W. 48%.”
West Middlesex - - || 62 63 | 15 March - | 12 55 S. W. 53°
EastLondon (extra taking), 46 47 14 March - I - from out of the Reservoir.

High Water.

Name of Company.
No. of Bottles. Date. Time. Wind. Temperature.
East London gº wº- ©º-º-º: --- * — -
southwark - - - || 48 49 || 14 March - |{ }; ; S. W. 50°
New River Engine t- 50 5 1 14 March - # ; S. W. 50°
Iambeth gº gº ºn 52 53 14 March - 1 4 S. W. 50°
South London - - || 54 55 | 14 March - 1 20 S.W. 50°
Chelsea º º ſº- 56 57 14 March - | 35 S. W. 50°
Grand Junction - - 58 59 14 March - I 43 W. S. W. 50°
West Middlesex - - 30 31 13 March - | ] 50 W. 484°
Half Ebb.
Name of Company. No. of Bottles. Date. Time Wind. Temperature.
East London - º | 2 II March - | 2 30 S. S. W. 48°
Southwark - * * 42 43 13 March – 4 0 W. 49%."
New River Engine tº- 40 41 13 March - 3 55 W. 49.4°
Lambeth º * * 38 39 13 March - 3 44 W. 50°
South London - º 36 37 13 March - 3 27 W. 50°
Chelsea - tº sº. 34 35 13 March - 3 15 S. W. 494°
Grand Junction - - 32 33 13 March – 3 7 S. W. 49%.”
West Middlesex - - 64 65 15 March - P.M. 6 25 N. W. 5.4°

REPORT by the Secretary to the Commissioners of Water Inquiry.
THE annexed List of samples of Water from various places were taken in addition to the
list signed by Mr. H. R. Palmer, and they have all been sent to Dr. Bostock for analysis.
Those from the Grand Junction dolphin, Nos. 66, 67, 68, were taken at low water after a
period of fine and dry weather.
The Ranelagh sewer was not running at the time.
Those from Teddington lock and Richmond were also taken after a period of fine weather.
Those from Chelsea Waterworks were from a filter and filter-bed, which had been at work
for some time.
Those taken on the 7th of April were taken after five hours rain, following a period of fine
and dry weather.
I have to add, that the whole of the samples in the list by Mr. Palmer were taken after a
period of fine weather, when the river was unusually clear.
(Signed)
Wm Rutt,
Secretary to the Commission.
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS.
77.
PLACE OF TAKING. Nos. SITUATION. Date. . Time. Wind. Temperature.
66 2 feet from bottom 1828:
4 feet from surface -
Grand Junction Dolphin, low water 67 4 feet from bottom March 17 | # past 11 || W.W. 53#9
2 feet from surface
68 at the surface - -
I. at Surface - tº
London Docks sº * = II. at 3 yards depth - >| March 21.
III. at 6 yards depth - .
Above Richmond Bridge tº - || 69 || 3 feet depth - - 45#9
Opposite Pope's villa tº - - || 70 6 feet depth - - - ſNearly Y do.
March 26 low >| E.
100 yards below Lock - - - || 71 || 3 feet depth - - water. J do.
200 yards above Wear - - - || 72 6 feet depth - - - do.
* ! chase, w 73 ||
Xhels * * wº tºº gºi wº il 2.
Filtered } helsea Waterworks { 74 } April ^.
Southwark Waterworks tº º; 75 7 feet 6 depth - r| 7 before 3 | N. W. *
- lº ºw} Blackfriars Bridge | 76 6 feet depth - - || 5 past 3 | N.W. Just after
p - > | April 7 & * turn of the
50 yards t g e . w H. tide f
tº: *}Blackflias Bridge 77 || 3 feet depth - - 10 past 3 |N.W. ... wº.
Lambeth Dolphin * = . º - || 78 3 feet depth - -- L| 20 past 3 | N.W. J
A N A L Y S I S.
ANALYSIs by Dr. Bostock.
Analysis by
Dr. Bostock.
To the Commissioners for Inquiry into the Supply of Water to the Metropolis.
Gentlemen, &
I RECEIVED, on the 18th of March, 62 quart bottles, which were stated to contain 31 speci-
mens of water from the River Thames, taken up at different places and under different
circumstances; the bottles were corked and sealed, and the appropriate numbers were marked
on the glass. I selected the following numbers for examination, being one of the bottles of
each specimen, the duplicates were for the present set aside : — Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 17,
18, 21, 23, 25, 27, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47,49, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 64. The
object to which I particularly directed my attention was, to ascertain how far the water of the
Thames, contiguous to or in the neighbourhood of London, is in a state proper for being
employed in diet and various other domestic purposes. I need scarcely remark, that it would
have required a much longer space of time to have performed a complete scientific analysis of
so many specimens of water; but as it appeared desirable that the report should be made as
speedily as possible, and because I conceived that such an analysis was not necessary to gain
the object in view, I beg to submit my observations in their present state. 1. The first point
was to examine the different specimens of water with regard to the quantity of mechanical
impurities which they contain. In this respect they were found to differ very much from each
other, for while there were a few of the specimens which were nearly free from extraneous
matter, the greatest part of them contained it in considerable quantity, and there were some
which were much more loaded with it than the rest. I accordingly classed the specimens in three
divisions; the first consisting of those that contained the least of it, and the third the greatest
quantity, the second being intermediate. The trial was made by inverting the bottle, and
observing the extraneous matter as it subsided through the water. The arrangement is as
follows : —
1st Class. 2d Class. 3d Class.
Nos. 3. Nos. 1. Nos. 13.
9. 5. 33.
31. '7. 35.
45. ll. 39.
47. 17. 4].
(94.) U (continued)
'78. APPENDIX To REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Analysis.
Dr. Bostock.
1st Class. 2d Class. --- 3d Class.
Nos. 61. Nos. 18. Nos. 51.
63. 21. 53.
65. .* 23.
- 25.
27.
37.
43.
49.
55.
57.
59.
By a simple inspection of the specimens, I think myself fully warranted in asserting, without
any reference to experiment, that in all the waters, except those of the first class, the quantity
of extraneous matter was so considerable as to render them improper to be employed in diet;
those of the third class especially may be justly characterized as absolutely foul. Of the first
class, the specimens Nos. 3, 9, 41, 47, were in a state which, as far as depends on their
mechanical impurities, might be tolerated; while the specimens, Nos. 31, 61, 63, and 65,
although not without extraneous matter, may be styled sufficiently free for ordinary purposes.
The real quantity of ponderable matter that was suspended in the waters, or which may
be obtained from them by filtration or subsidence, was, perhaps, less than might have been
expected from their appearance, in consequence of its lightness and its flocculent and fibrous
texture. As I found it very difficult to obtain it in a separate state by means of the filtre,
I adopted the method of subsidence. I employed 60 cubic inches of the water, and by pouring
off the clear portion of it at two or three intervals, I obtained a quantity which did not exceed
one sixtieth part of the whole, and which contained nearly all the extraneous matter; this
residual quantity was evaporated at a temperature not exceeding 200°, until the solid matter
obtained ceased to lose weight. **
Proceeding in this way, I found that 60 cubic inches of each of the waters Nos. 13, 41, 51,
and 53, left on an average ,8 grains of solid residuum. During the evaporation a nauseous
odour was emitted from the fluid, which may be described as resembling the smell which
proceeds from foul drains. When the evaporation was completed a dark grey heterogeneous
mass was obtained, which exactly resembled dried street mud.
2. With respect to the appearance of the extraneous matter while suspended in the water,
it is not easy to make any very precise remarks; there were, however, two obvious varieties
of it. What appeared to be in the greatest quantity resembled masses of flocculent matter,
which seemed composed of a fibrous substance, probably of vegetable origin. The next most
abundant ingredient was like minute white scales, similar to what are often exfoliated from
the cuticle; these were much longer than the fibrous matter in subsiding, and were again
mixed with the water by a very slight agitation. Besides these there were bodies resembling
the exuviae or larvae of insects; and in one specimen there were masses of white fibres,
radiating from a centre like the patches of mould that are formed in some paste or jelly; in
many of them there were bits of straw or chips of wood, &c.
3. I next proposed to examine the sensible properties of each of the specimens separately.
The method pursued was to agitate the water, so as to diffuse the extraneous matter through
it; then to pour about eight ounces of it into a cylindrical glass jar, to notice the colour,
taste, and odour of the water, to observe the length of time necessary for the subsidence of
the extraneous matter, and any farther changes which it might experience during the space
of 24 hours, or a longer period if necessary.
No. 1 contained a considerable number of floating masses, fibres, films, &c.; it was slightly
opake, and of a brown tinge; no odour; a flavour which may be characterized as like that
which exists in water that has had decayed wood macerated in it; it emitted a number of
very minute air bubbles. The mechanical impurities completely subsided in 24 hours, and
the water was left transparent, but with a slight brown tinge. -
No. 3 had considerably less of extraneous matter than the average; what it contained was
a few of the fibrous masses; it was transparent, without taste or odour.
No. 5 contained a considerable number of the small particles floating in it, but no fibrous
matter; it was without flavour, but had a slight odour of bilge water, and a degree of opacity
in consequence of the number of small floating particles; it became clear by subsidence, and
lost its peculiar odour.
No. 7 may be characterized as nearly resembling No. 1.
No. 9 was very similar to No. 3, perhaps rather more of the fibrous masses in it.
No. 11 was considerably loaded with extraneous matter, a number of fibrous masses, films,
bits of straw, &c.; it was slightly opake, without odour, and had a degree of the unpleasant
flavour which exists in stagnant water. It became clear by standing, but slight agitation
caused the films to diffuse themselves through it.
8 No. 13
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. '79
No. 13 was one of the most impure of the waters; it had various flocculent and fibrous
substances floating in it, but was otherwise transparent; it had a slight brown tinge, and the
flavour and odour of decayed wood.
No. 17 contained a considerable quantity of the fibrous masses; it had a brown tinge
and a slight flavour, and odour of decayed wood ; it emitted small air bubbles rather
copiously. -
No. 18 contained a considerable quantity of extraneous matter, many long fibres, bits of
straw, &c.; it had the flavour of stagnant water; no peculiar odour.
No. 21 had rather less than the average quantity of extraneous matter, less of the fibres,
and more of the flocculent masses, tinged brown, and had a slight flavour of decayed wood.
No. 23 was very nearly like No. 21.
No. 25 was in the same state.
No. 27 had more than the average quantity of extraneous matter.
No. 31 had less than the average of extraneous matter.
No. 33 had more than the usual quantity, slight flavour of decayed wood, and a degree of
opacity.
No. 35 was one of the most impure specimens, many of the flocculent masses had a brown
tinge and an unpleasant flavour.
No. 37 nearly in the same state with No. 21.
No. 39 was more loaded with extraneous matter, and had a decided woody flavour.
No. 41 was one of the most impure of the waters; it contained the flocculent masses
alluded to above like patches of mould half an inch in diameter, also many films and fibres;
it had a brown tinge, slight sourish taste, and the odour of decayed wood.
No. 43 was nearly in the same state with No. 21.
No. 45 was nearly in the same state with No. 3.
No. 47 was nearly in the same state with No. 3.
No. 49 was about in the same state with No. 21.
No. 51 was much loaded with extraneous matter; there were a great number of the small
white particles, and many large fibrous masses; it had none of the woody flavour.
No. 53 was perhaps the most loaded with the large fibrous masses of any of the specimens,
and had a decidedly unpleasant odour and sourish taste.
No. 55, although considerably loaded, was less so than the last; it had the usual flavour
of stagnant water. -
No. 57 was considerably loaded both with the large fibrous masses and with the white
films, so as to render it slightly opake; it had also a brown tinge, and the flavour and odour
of decayed vegetable matter. -
No. 59 was very similar to No. 57.
No. 61 was probably the purest of all the specimens, bright, clear, without taste or smell,
but it had a few fibres floating in it.
No. 63 was very similar to No. 61, but with rather more fibres, and a few small bits of
straw floating in it.
No. 64 was very similar to No. 63.
On the 23d of March I received three more specimens, marked Nos. 66, 67, 68, said to
consist of water taken from the same situation, but at different depths from the surface. They
were all of them very much loaded with the white films, and had some of the fibrous masses;
they had the flavour and odour which I have denominated woody, but I could not pronounce
that there was any decided difference between them.
On the same day, I received three other bottles, marked I. II. III., which like the preceding
were said to contain specimens of water taken from the same situation, but at different distances
from the surface. They were all of them above the average state of purity as to the quantity
of fibrous matter, nor did I perceive any of the films; but they contained what appeared to be
small particles of wood, and what looked like hairs floating in them : they had also a very
decided odour of tar. This odour was the strongest in the one marked III., but in other
respects I could not perceive any difference in them.
On the 29th of March I received four specimens, marked Nos. 69, 70, 71, 72; they
were all of them very similar to each other — clear, bright, without odour, containing a few
detached fibres and straws, but none of the films; they may be said to be very nearly similar
to No. 63.
(94.) 4. With
Analysis.
Dr. Bostock.
80 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Analysis.
Dr. Bostock.
4. With respect to the nature of the extraneous substance separated from the water by
subsidence, it was first subjected to a red heat, by which it lost about 40 per cent. of its weight,
and was converted into a light reddish brown earthy-looking substance. The combustible
matter seemed to consist principally of a carbonaceous substance, although there was sufficient
evidence of its containing a portion of animal matter. The earthy residuum was treated
with various re-agents, and was found to be composed principally of lime and silex, with a
small quantity of alumine. After it had been acted on by the mineral acids, the presence of
iron was indicated by the appropriate tests, but no iron could be detected in it before the
action of the acids. There was no decided indication of sulphur in the residuum, although
when it was first exposed to a red heat there was an odour produced, which might be attributed
to the presence of a little sulphur in combination with animal matter.
5. In examining the specific gravity of the waters, they were suffered to remain at rest
for 24 hours, when a portion was poured off, so as to be as free as possible from mechanical
impurities. The specific gravity of the different specimens was found to be not very different
from each other, certainly the difference bore no proportion to the apparent impurity of the
water. I found, however, for the most part, that those waters which contained the greatest
quantity of extraneous matter, even after subsidence, had a greater specific gravity. . The
specific gravity of No. 61, which I regarded as the purest water, at the temperature of 60%
was 100,022; while that of No. 41, was 100,033, and that of No. 53, 100,050; but in both
of these latter it is probable that there was still a portion of the filmy matter suspended in
the water, which might add to its weight, besides what was in actual solution. I found none
of the specimens lighter than No. 61, and none heavier than No. 53. The New River
water, as delivered into the cistern in the upper part of my house, on the 30th of March,
was 100,022, that of the pump in Tavistock-square, 100,028, and that from Russel-square,
100,044. A circumstance occurred in taking the specific gravities which at first caused some
embarrassment, that on one or two occasions I found the water apparently lighter than
distilled water; it was not until after some time that I discovered the cause to be a number
of extremely minute air bubbles, which could only be discovered after a careful inspection.
I think I was able to perceive that they remained attached to the small white films, some
of which were still suspended in the water, and which probably prevented the air from being
discharged.
6. In order to ascertain the total amount of solid contents in the water, 10,000 grains
were slowly evaporated in a glass capsule at a temperature not exceeding 200°, until the
residuum ceased to lose weight by a longer application of the heat. Portions of water
were taken both from those that were the most loaded with extraneous matters, and those
that were the least so, the bottle being agitated so as to diffuse the sediment equally through
the fluid. The waters marked No. 61 and No. 53 may be taken as an example of each.
The residuum from No. 61, weighed 1.95 grains; it was a light grey mass, with an indistinct
appearance of crystallization round the edges. During the evaporation a film of white
particles formed on the surface of the water, and a number of white rings were formed on the
capsule, as if from portions of the white matter being deposited during the evaporation.
The residuum from No. 53 was very nearly double the weight of that from No. 61; it was of a
much darker colour, and appeared to consist of a mixture of black matter mixed with the
lighter. Hence we shall have, on the average, nearly three grains of solid contents either
dissolved or suspended in 10,000 grains of the Thames water; taking the average of the
different specimens. Of this nearly two thirds, or more accurately I-88 grains, would appear
to be saline matter held in solution; while the remainder may be considered as consisting of
a mixture of animal and vegetable remains with some earthy matter, of which 53 grains is
mechanically suspended in the water, and 59 grains, probably animal and vegetable matter,
either dissolved in the water or suspended in it in a state of such minute division, as scarcely
to be visible to the eye, and to require a much longer space of time for its separation.
7. The nature and proportion of the saline ingredients were ascertained by the application,
of the appropriate tests and re-agents. The presence of muriatic acid was detected by nitrate
of silver, that of sulphuric acid by muriate of barytes, of lime by the oxalate of ammonia,
and of magnesia by comparing the effect of carbonate with pure ammonia, and by the
phosphate of soda and ammonia. Various other re-agents were employed, either for the
purpose of indicating the presence of other substances, or of ascertaining the quantity of such
as were present.
By digesting the residuum in water, a solution was obtained, which yielded by evaporation
crystals of the muriate of soda, mixed with a quantity of animal and vegetable matter,
and which gave an indication of magnesia, but which did not appear to contain either
muriate of lime * or sulphate of soda ; hence I concluded, that the muriatic acid was prin-
cipally combined with soda, and that the magnesia was in the state of muriate ; the
sulphuric acid I supposed to be in combination with lime, while the excess of lime was
presumed to be in the state of carbonate. The absolute quantity of muriatic acid was
* To this remark I found some exceptions, but not such as to affect the general conclusions.
ascertained
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. 8I.
ascertained, partly by the quantity of muriate of silver obtained by the addition of nitrate
of silver, and partly by comparing the quantity of nitrate of silver necessary to produce its
full effect on the water, with the effect produced on a solution containing a known weight
of muriate of soda. The estimate of the sulphuric acid was made by an analogous
application of the muriate of barytes, and the quantity of lime was ascertained from the
oxalate of lime produced by adding oxalate of ammonia. Proceeding on this principle, the
constituents of the water No. 61 will be nearly as follows: 10,000 leave by evaporation
1.95 grs. of solid contents, consisting of
- grs.
Carbonate of lime - - - - I -53
Sulphate of ditto - - - - 0° 15
Muriate of soda, and muriate of •2
magnesia – * tº wº } -
1-88
Organic matter - º •07
I •95
On comparing the analysis of the water No. 53 with the above, I can scarcely say that I
was able to detect any decided difference in its saline contents; I suspected, indeed, that it
contained rather more magnesia and rather less sulphuric acid : the muriatic acid and the
lime were in the same proportion as in No. 61, while there was not only a much greater
quantity of the visible extraneous matter, but also of the animal or vegetable substance in
that state of solution or of fine division which was referred to above. Its composition will
be as follows: 10,000 grs. of No. 53 contain • *
grs.
Carbonate of lime - tº ſº - 1:55
Sulphate of ditto ** º gº - 0° 12
Muriate of soda and of magnesia - 0-23
Alumine, a trace, and also a distinct
indication of ammonia.
1-88
Organic matter $º ~ 2.02
3.90
I was not able to detect the presence of iron in the waters themselves, or in the residue
obtained from them, until they had been acted upon by the mineral acids, when the ferro-
prussiate of potash produced a slight indication of iron; I could not obtain any unequivocal
proof of the presence of sulphur, of potash, or of phosphoric acid in the water.
The saline contents of four specimens of the water which I examined, including two of
the most pure, Nos. 61 and 65, and two of the most foul, Nos. 53 and 13, so nearly coin-
cided that I thought it unnecessary to pursue the investigation, except on the specimen
No. 41, and that marked III. which attracted my attention on account of their peculiar
odour. On evaporating 4,000 grains of No. 41, I. obtained a residuum which very much
resembled that from No. 53; but, in addition to the dark grey mass that was left in the
bottom of the capsule, the sides were coated with a thin film of a brown substance, which
had the appearance of resinous or extractive matter.
The distinct odour of tar in the water marked III. led me more particularly to examine
its nature; I found that it contained the same saline ingredients with the other specimens,
but with a decidedly greater quantity of muriate of soda ; a portion of it was evaporated,
and a residuum was obtained which was light coloured, and not very different from that in
No. 61, except that there appeared to be a somewhat greater number of the black particles
dispersed through it; during the evaporation the smell of tar which was so perceptible in
the water was entirely dissipated, and nothing of the kind could be perceived in the residuum ;
I could not discover any trace of copper in this water.
I had made the classification which is given in the commencement of this report, and
had proceeded a considerable way in my experiments, before I was made acquainted with
the situation from which the different specimens were taken; but in order that I might
be able to draw the proper inference from my experiment, a list was given me, specifying
the names of the different waters in correspondence with the numbers that were marked on
the bottles. From this list it appeared that the water contained in the first series of bottles,
from Nos. 1 to 65 inclusive, had been taken from eight stations, and at the four periods of
the tide, with the exception of Nos. 46 and 47, which were from the reservoirs of the East
London Waterworks; Nos. 66, 67, and 68, were from the Grand Junction Dolphin, taken
at different depths from the surface; the specimens marked I, II, and III, were at different
depths from the London Docks; while Nos. 69, 70, 71, and 72, were taken from the Thames
(94.) X Ill
Analysis.
Dr. Bostock.
—r-
82 APPENDHX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Analysis.
Dr. Bostock.
in the neighbourhood of Teddington and Richmond. The following Table exhibits the
situation from which the waters were taken, the state of the tide, and a general account of
their respective properties.

Low Water.
Half Flood.
High Water.
Half Ebb.
t
East London -
Southwark º
Broken Wharf -
Lambeth , sº
South London -
Chelsea tºº
Grand Junction
West Middlesex
45. Transparent;
no taste or odour;
a few fibrous mas-
SeS.
3. The same as
45.
5. No fibres, but
many small par-
ticles; opake ;
odour of bilge
Water. *
7. Nearly resem-
bling No. 1.
9. Nearly similar
to No. 45.
11. Considerably
loaded with im-
purities ; opake ;
stagnant flavour.
13. One of the
| most impure spe-
flavour.
cimens;
and odour of de-
cayed wood.
61. Purest of all
the specimens.
47. East London
similar to No. 45.
17. Many fibrous
masses; brown ;
flavour and odour
of decayed wood.
18. Oonsiderable
quantity of extra-
neous matter; fla-
vour of stagnant
Water.
21. Nearly re-
sembling No. 49.
23. Nearly simi-
lar to No. 21.
25. Nearly simi-
lar to No. 49.
27. Rather more
than the average
of eXtraneous |
Inatter.
63. Nearly as
pure as No. 61.
Reservoir:-Nearly
49. Less of the
fibres, more of the
flocculi; brown;
flavour of wood.
51. Much loaded
with extraneous
matter, fibres and
white particles;
flavour of decay-
ed wood.
53. Perhaps the
most loaded with
eXtraneOuS lllat-
ter; unpleasant
odour.
55.Considerably
loaded with ex-
traneous matter;
flavour of stag-
nant Water.
57. Loaded with
fibres and films;
opake ; flavour
and odour of
decayed wood.
59. Very similar
to No. 57.
31. Less than
the average of ex-
traneous matter,
but rather more
than 61 and 63.
1. Floating mas-
ses offibres, films,
&c. slightly opake
and brown; slight
woody flavour.
43. The same as
No. 49.
41. One of the
most impure, in
all respects.
39. Loaded with i
eXtranëOuS mat- ||
ter ; decided
woody taste.
37. Nearly simi-
lar to No. 49.
35. One of the
most impure spe- |
cimens.
33. More than
the average of ex-
traneous matter ;
opake; flavour of
decayed wood.
65. Nearly in the
Same state as No.
63.
Nos. 66, 67, and 68, taken from near the Grand Junction dolphin, were very similar to
each other and similar to No. 59. The specimens marked I. II. and III. taken from the
London Docks had less than the average quantity of extraneous matter, and had the odour
of tar, which was most perceptible in the one marked III. Nos. 69–72, taken from Ted-
dington and Richmond, were very similar to No. 61 or No. 63.
On the 7th April, when I had completed my experiments, I received four additional spe-
cimens, which were described as follows: “ No. 75, taken at low water about 100 yards
below Southwark Bridge, in the middle of the river; No. 76, taken at low water at about
100 yards from the third pier at the north end and below Blackfriars Bridge; No. 77, taken
at low water at about 50 yards from the third pier at the north end and above Blackfriars
Bridge; No. 78, at the dolphin of the Lambeth Works above Waterloo Bridge.” They
were all stated to have been “taken just at the turn of the tide after low water, and after
five hours rain following a period of fine and dry weather.” The specimens were all opake
and discoloured; they contained a considerable quantity of filmy and flocculent matter, but
not many of the large fibres : No. 77 was the most loaded with extraneous matter, and
No. 78 the least so, they had the odour and flavour of stagnant water, which was the most
perceptible in No. 77. The flocculent matter subsided very slowly, and the dingy colour
remained with little alteration for several days.
9 Ori
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, S3
On the 11th of April I received two bottles, which were stated to contain water “taken
in the river, in the current of and immediately at the mouth of the King's Scholars
Pond Sewer.” It is unnecessary to say that it was in a state of extreme impurity, opake
with filth, and exhaling a highly foetid odour; on this day, April 14th, a large quantity of
black sediment has subsided from it, but it still remains perfectly opake, and with no diminu-
tion of the foetid odour. - t
I conceive that the above experiments are sufficient to enable me to return an answer to
the proposed inquiry respecting the state of the Thames water. It appears that the water of
the Thames, when free from extraneous substances, is in a state of considerable purity,
containing only a moderate quantity of Saline contents, and those of a kind which cannot
be supposed to render it unfit for domestic purposes or to be injurious to the health; but as
it approaches the metropolis it becomes loaded with a quantity of filth, which renders it
disgusting to the senses, and improper to be employed in the preparation of food. The
greatest part of this additional matter appears to be only mechanically suspended in it, and
separates by mere rest; it requires, however, a considerable length of time to allow of the
complete separation, while, on account of its peculiar texture and comminuted state it is
disposed to be again diffused through the water by a slight degree of agitation, while the
gradual accumulation of this matter in the reservoir must obviously increase the unpleasant
odour and flavour of the water, and promote its tendency to the putrid state.
The preceding table will enable us to form some opinion respecting the effect of the tide
on the Thames water. Regarding the greatest part of the extraneous matter in the Thames
as mechanically mixed with it, we may conceive that a variety of incidental circumstances
will affect its quantity in the same situation and under the same circumstances of the tide;
but the observations are sufficiently uniform to warrant us in concluding that the water is in
the purest state at low tide, and the most loaded with extraneous matter at half ebb; a
conclusion which might probably have been anticipated as the natural result of the circum-
stances in which the Thames is placed when contiguous to London, with respect to its
natural current and the influx of the sea water at its mouth.
It would appear, however, that a very considerable part if not the whole of this extraneous
matter may be removed by filtration through sand, and still more effectually by a mixture
of sand and charcoal. The effect of filtration in purifying foul water is too well known to be
insisted on, and I made some experiments expressly on the subject in December last, when
in consequence of the long continued rains the water of the New River was delivered into
my cistern in a muddy and discoloured state: I found that by filtering it through a stratum
of clean sand mixed with a quarter of powdered charcoal it was deprived of all its sensible
impurities. Two bottles were sent to me for inspection on the 2d April, one containing the
water of the Thames (I believe taken from the neighbourhood of Chelsea), the other con-
taining water from the same source after having been filtered through a bed of sand; the
former exhibited the usual appearance, while the latter was perfectly free from visible impu-
rities, and had lost all unpleasant flavour or odour. I think therefore we may conclude, that
the process of filtration, if properly conducted, would be in all respects unexceptionable,
provided a sufficient quantity of water could be prepared by this means for the supply of
the metropolis.
(Signed) J. Bostock.
ANALysis of WATER sent to the Commissioners from the East London Waterworks,
addressed to Joseph Steevens, Esq.
Sir,
I HAVE analysed the sample of water taken from the company’s great south reservoir, and
find that an imperial pint of it contains
Common salt - * * * tº-e - ,66
Sulphate of lime (gypsum) sº sº cº-sº * – ,62
Carbonate of lime (chalk) *º º tº * - 1,02
Silex ** •º * * * * º * – 224
Combustible matter (probably vegetable) - & – ,08
Total quantity of extraneous matter sº - 2,62 grains.
I have also examined a sample taken from the main in Whitechapel, and find it similar to
the above.
I am, Sir, &c.
(Signed) WM. WILSON.
Analysis.
Dr. Bostock.
East London
Waterworks.
*-*===-
(94.)
84 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Analysis.
William Lambe,
M. D.
An INVESTIGATION of some of the Properties of the Thames Water,
by WILLIAM LAMBE, M.D.
IT appears to be acknowledged, that in the examination of the properties of a water applied
to dietetic uses, the principal object of inquiry should be, whether the water be impregnated
with organic matter, in a state of decomposition. This matter may be either of vegetable
or of animal origin: but I know not that we possess any criterion to determine, with abso-
lute certainty, whether matter which may be discovered, and which is decidedly of organic
origin, was derived originally from the one or the other of these two species. I shall there-
fore use the term organic matter, as comprehending them both. The object of this memoir is
to prove that the water of the Thames, whether taken up in the vicinity of London, as high
up the river as at Windsor, or at an intermediate point, as above Twickenham, is impregnated
with matter of this description; and to point out, as far as can be done, by an examination
not often repeated, the variety of quality of the Thames water in these separate points.
To prove the general proposition, I propose to show that there may be extracted from the
Thames water charcoal, and its combinations carbonic acid and an inflammable gas, yielding
carbonic acid, azotic gas, and nitrous acid, sulphuretted hydrogen gas, phosphoric acid in
union with iron (hydrocyanic or prussic) acid; moreover, a strong suspicion of arsenic or
arsenious acid. Many other phenomena have been presented deserving of further and the
most strict investigation; but the time will not allow, for the present, the further prosecution
of the inquiry, and I trust, therefore, that the Commissioners will make an allowance for the
imperfections of so obscure, and at the same time so extensive a research, which it may be
truly said is only just instituted, and which, besides its defects, must be attended with un-
avoidable errors.
The presence of organic matter in waters often becomes evident to the senses without the
aid of chemical analysis, for they are apt to exhale a foetid odour. In this respect the water
of the Thames at London is highly objectionable ; but even at Windsor, though the water
itself was not offensive, the matter left after evaporation had a disgusting and disagreeable
smell.
In this investigation I have used two different modes of examination, or a combination of
the two, which I shall here mention.
First, I have evaporated considerable quantities of the water, submitted the residuary
matter to a decomposing heat, and collected and examined the gaseous products; it has
been done however less perfectly than I wished. After this process, the matter remaining
was examined by common chemical agents. The gaseous products, it appeared, came prin-
cipally from the insoluble portion of the residuum. The soluble portion was treated also by
heat, in a similar manner, and has given some unexpected and important results; but I
have not as yet been able to make a complete analysis of the product of the operation.
Secondly, I have used precipitants, and examined the matter precipitated. I have con-
fined myself to two, which have answered the object I had in view. The first is the salts of
lead, and I have preferred the muriate (or chloride) of lead; because it appears that the prin-
cipal saline matter in the Thames water is common salt, which cannot be affected by this
agent, but which would be decomposed by the nitrate of lead; I prefer it to the acetate of
lead, because, in addition to the former objection, it may be suspected (I believe justly), that
the acetic acid may contain some organic matter as an impurity which may be precipitated
with the lead, and influence the result of the experiment. I form the muriate by precipi-
tating muriate of lime by nitrate of lead; and it was, therefore, I presume, free from all
foreign contamination. The other precipitant employed was the nitrate of mercury, made
without heat, called the proto-nitrate; and examined the result of this precipitation.
Each of these processes gave charcoal, or a product of charcoal, and each of them de-
monstrates, therefore, the existence of matter having an organic origin.
What other facts have appeared in the process of the inquiry will be best shown by the
experiments which I shall now proceed to relate. I began my inquiries with the examination
of the water supplied by the Grand Junction Company, but I have seen no reason to believe
that this water differs, in any essential particular, from that taken from the body of the river
at any spot near London. I include it therefore under the title of “Water of the Thames at
London.” The two other points selected are Windsor and a spot at a short distance above
Twickenham. I shall now, therefore, detail the observations made on the water taken at
these several points.
1. WATER OF THE THAMES AT WINDSOR.
This water was taken from the bed of the river, just beside the church of Old Windsor.
It was muddy, from the river being considerably swollen by much rain, but not overflowing
its banks. Previous to examination it was filtered through clean sand.
(A.)—Effects of Re-agents.
1. Muriate of lead in solution, added to the water, produces a copious white precipitate.
This precipitate is immediately re-dissolved by the addition of a little nitric acid, which cir-
cumstance distinguishes it from sulphate of lead, which is insoluble by nitric acid.
2. I
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. *
85.
2. I boiled some of the water, to precipitate the carbonate of lime contained in it, having
experienced that this matter decomposes salts of lead. But the muriate of lead still made a
white cloud, as before.
3. Nitrate of mercury causes also a copious white cloud.
4. Muriate of lead was added to some water which had been previously precipitated by
mitrate of mercury, and filtered.
A second precipitation took place by this addition.
It is evident, therefore, that if a water is hardly, or not at all, affected by a salt of lead,
it is not a necessary consequence, that that water is free from organic matter. The nitrate
of mercury precipitates the muriatic salts, and it will be proved, both in the present, and in
the article (II.) that these salts are united to organic matter. In the water of the Thames
it is evident that there are two distinct forms, at least of this matter, in solution, namely,
that which combines with the oxide of lead; and a second, with the oxide of mercury.
(B.)—Evaporation.
Six gallons of the water were evaporated to dryness; the residuum consisted partly of
insoluble matter, of a white colour, with a slight tinge of yellow, and partly of a saline
soluble matter. The insoluble residuum weighed 64 grains; the soluble portion was not
weighed, but was certainly less than 20 grains.
(C.)—The insoluble Residuum.
1. The 64 grains of insoluble residuum (B.) were introduced into a small coated glass re-
tort, with a tube attached to it; the retort was heated to redness, and the gas which
escaped was received over water.
2. The gas obtained measured 30 cubical inches, and that remaining in the apparatus
must have been 8 or 10 more: after the process, the matter in the retort weighed 42 grains;
it was found to consist partly of lime; it was, therefore, exposed to the air for a fortnight;
when its weight was found to be 46 grains; hence about 8 cubic inches of carbonic acid must
have been expelled from the carbonate of lime contained in the residuum. Therefore about
30 cubic inches of gas was expelled from that part of the residuum which was not carbonate
of lime.
3. Carbonic acid.—Owing to circumstances, which it is needless to detail, nothing further
was ascertained concerning the constitution of this gas, than that the greater portion of it was
carbonic acid, with a residuary gas not soluble in water.
4. Hydrocyanic acid. – I was induced, from some former observations, to look for the
hydrocyanic acid among the gaseous products of this distillation. . For detecting it I used
the process described by Scheele in his Essay on Prussian Blue, that is to say, I moistened
a slip of paper with a solution of green vitriol, on which I precipitated the oxide of iron by
potash; this slip of paper was introduced into the neck of the retort; the process being
finished, it was taken out, and moistened with muriatic acid, in consequence the paper
became tinged of a blue colour.
5. The 46 grains (2.) were now treated by solution with muriatic acid in excess, (which
excited a brisk effervescence, and the offensive odour of sulphuretted hydrogen gas,) by
evaporation to dryness, by re-solution, and precipitation; 1st, by pure ammonia, and 2d, by
sub-carbonate of potash. These processes gave, - (a), a small quantity of insoluble black
matter, little more than 5 of a grain; — (b). a matter of a bright reddish-yellow colour, ap-
proaching to that of brickdust, its weight was 2.5 grains; — (c.) a matter of a bright yellow
colour, weighing about 5 of a grain; – (d.) carbonate of lime, which weighed 27 grains,
We will take them in this order:
(a.) Charcoal —-appearance of arsenic. This very small portion of black matter was mixed
with three or four grains of peroxide of copper introduced into a bent tube, heated by a
spirit-lamp, and what gas could be obtained was received over mercury; the process was
performed by M. Pereira, at the lecture-room, at the General Dispensary, Aldersgate-street,
in the presence of Mr. Pollock, chemist and druggist, of Fenchurch-street, and of myself.
An evident trace of carbonic acid was observed, so that we concluded that the black matter
contained charcoal; but what most attracted our notice was a sublimate in the tube, having
very much the appearance of metallic arsenic, with some white matter, at its superior edge.
I have not thought it right to submit this matter (at present,) to further examination, but
the tube has been hermetically sealed to preserve it for inspection.
(b) Phosphate of iron.—This matter was mixed with its weight of sub-carbonate of soda,
and exposed to a low red heat in a silver crucible, the alkali became neutralized, the salt
formed precipitated muriate of lime, and the precipitate re-dissolved in muriatic acid with-
out effervescence; the form of the crystals corresponded also with those of phosphate of soda ;
this is not, however, a pure phosphate of iron, for I observed a small portion of matter inso-
luble in muriatic acid after the precipitation by muriate of lime; I presume (from the au-
thority of Ures’ Dictionary of Chemistry), that this matter should be considered to be a
super-phosphate of iron,
(94.) Y (e.) This
Analysis.
William Lambe,
M. D.
86. APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Analysis.
William Lambe,
M. D.
(c.) This matter was insoluble in muriatic acid, and seemed to contain iron; I consider it
to be a small residuum of phosphate of iron retained in the solution. 3
(d.) The carbonate of lime weighing only 27 grains, there is still a deficit of about
15 grains of the matter operated on, and I have made the same remark three or four times
in corresponding circumstances; a small part of this deficit is to be placed to the account
of sulphuretted hydrogen, there is therefore an hiatus in this analysis, which requires to be
supplied by future observations directed to this purpose.
(D.) — The soluble Residuum.
1. This matter was very deliquescent, which impeded crystallization; the only crystals
that could be observed were cubical crystals of common salt; having been re-dissolved in a
moderate quantity of water, nitrate of mercury was added to the solution, which caused a
copious precipitation; the precipitate was edulcorated and dried.
2. Charcoal.-The precipitate was exposed in the bulb of a glass tube to a low red heat
from a spirit-lamp; a white sublimate, mixed with globules of revived mercury, rose into the
tube, and some pure charcoal remained in the bulb ; there was also an acid matter driven off,
distinguishable both to the smell and taste; it follows then, that there is some organic
matter leaving a residuum of charcoal in union with the saline matter of the water; the
question therefore is, what is the matter which contains this principle; I suspected it to
belong to the deliquescent substance, and have made experiments to ascertain this point,
which it may not be improper to introduce in this place; the matter operated on was not
indeed taken from the water taken up at Windsor, but this is obviously of no con-
Sequence.
3. Properties of the deliquescent substance.
(a.) This matter has no doubt been considered whenever it has been observed to belong
to the deliquescent earthy muriates or nitrates; this is, however, an error easy of detection,
for an alcali put into the saline residuum of the Thames water abounding with this deli-
quescent matter causes no precipitation.
(b.) There is no difficulty in obtaining this matter in a separate form. I tried first to
separate it by rectified spirit of wine from the salt of the water, but what I obtained was
mixed largely with common salt, and the saline mass on which the spirit had been digested
continued deliquescent. I then separated the soluble portion of the residuum of some
Thames water, by solution, in a small portion of water, and boiled and digested the re-
mainder of the residuum in about a couple of quarts of water; this, filtered and evaporated
to dryness, left some sulphate of lime, but obviously mixed with a deliquescent matter; I
therefore digested this in rectified spirit, which separated the deliquescent matter from the
sulphate of lime, evaporated the spirit which left the deliquescent matter in a state as
pure, I suppose, as it can be obtained.
(c.) Its solution in the spirit was of a deep yellow colour, with which colour it tinges the
salts, to which it adheres; evaporated, the edge of the dry mass is of a deep yellow, and
glossy; it very speedily deliquesces, leaving a yellow stain on the glass; when concentrated,
it has a taste of some sharpness; when moderately diluted, it has a mild bitterness, some-
what nauseous.
(d) A small portion of this matter was heated to redness in a silver crucible; it seemed
to be wholly destroyed by the heat, there remaining only a minute portion of common salt
and of oxide of iron; I suspect both of these have been accidental ingredients.
(e.) The small quantity that I could obtain by the process (b.) was precipitated by
nitrate of mercury, and the precipitate heated in a tube by a spirit-lamp, in the mercurial
trough. There arose a white sublimate, mixed with revived mercury, and in the bulb of the
tube charcoal was found; but besides these substances, the tube was filled with red vapours
of nitrous acid, and a little water thrown up the jar gave indications of the mercury having
been acted upon by nitrous acid; this observation seems to indicate that the constitution of
this deliquescent substance is very complicated. It would appear to contain chlorine,
azote, and carbon, as its elements, and there can be no doubt that the charcoal obtained in
the foregoing experiments was derived from this deliquescent substance.
II.-WATER OF THE THAMES AT LONDON.
The water, of which an account will now be given, was taken out of the river at a
short distance below Blackfriars Bridge. Its obvious physical properties I need not
mention. Before examination it was filtered through sand, or double folds of paper. When
sand was used it in a short time acquired a tenacity which made it very tedious to continue
the process, and the sand acquired an offensive fish-like odour.
(A.)—Effects of Re-agents.
1. The effects of re-agents are the same as those already described. (I. A. 1, 2, 3, 4.)
. 2. In one trial two gallons of water, with muriate of lead, yielded a precipitate of 25 grains;
in a second, four gallons yielded 45 grains. t
3 3. This
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 8%
3. This last precipitate was introduced into a tube with a bulb, duly prepared for the ob-
ject in view; heat was applied by a charcoal fire, and the gas formed received under water;
by this process several cubical inches of carbonic acid were formed, and in the bulb, when
cooled, the lead was found reduced in the form of minute globules, disseminated through a
charcoally-matter. It is indisputable therefore that this precipitate is composed of an oxide
of lead, united to organic matter, or it may be of metallic lead, in union with an organic
oxide, for the former hypothesis the charcoal produced is more than sufficient for the
reduction of the metal.
4. Charcoal.—I precipitated no less than thirty gallons of this water by nitrite of mercury;
collected the precipitate, and sublimed it in a small retort; by this process I obtain about
28 grains of charcoal, the only matter remaining in the retort; a white sublimate, and revived
mercury, filled the neck of the retort.
5. Appearance of an oily matter.—The ensuing observation being quite unexpected, the
account I can give of it is imperfect; it has been partly explained by a second observation,
which will be related in its place. &
The sublimate of the last experiment was removed from the neck of the retort shaken
with water, which was (as I believe”) filtered and put in an oven to dry. On removing the
matter from the oven, it did not seem perfectly dry; it was therefore kept in a moderate
heat a considerable time, but it still retained the appearance of moisture; on cooling,
however, that appearance ceased, and was renewed by a moderate heat; the matter was
tasteless, unctuous to the feel, melting like wax or tallow by a moderate heat, and therefore
must be placed among this class of bodies. My first conjecture was, that it was of the
nature of adipocere, but it did not possess the chemical properties of that substance. The
experiments I made upon it, and by which it was in a great measure destroyed, are too im-
perfect for relation.
(B.)—Evaporation.
I have found considerable variety in the quantity of residuum after evaporation in
the water taken up at the same point at different times, and I have concluded that
the river becoming more loaded with foreign matter in its course, the water taken up
near the high tide will yield a more copious residuum than when it is low. I have
noted the insoluble portion of the residuum left by six gallons to vary from 60 to 108 grains;
but, what may not be readily believed, I have distinctly observed this insoluble matter may
be dissipated in part, even by the heat of boiling water. It is therefore possible that two
equal portions of the same water may give unequal quantities of residuum, according to the
manner of conducting the process. To this circumstance I shall presently revert. . Two
specimens of the Chelsea water gave nearly uniform results; six gallons of the first yielded
88 grains of residuum ; of the second, 90 grains. These 90 grains consisted of 58 grains of
insoluble matter; 32 of soluble.
Six gallons of the water, the subject of the following experiments, yielded by evaporation
Insoluble residuum - sº gº gº sº &º
Soluble - - - , ºre Lººk - - - 54
Total - - - 162
(C.)—The Insoluble Residuum.
1. One hundred and nine grains of this matter, (90 from five gallons, and 19, the remains
of a former evaporation,) heated to redness with a proper apparatus, yielded a copious current
of gaseous matter, which was collected in different bottles. The whole quantity collected
was 77 cubic inches, to which 10 more at the least must be added for waste, and the part
remaining in the apparatus; we will call it however 80 cubic inches.
2. About seven eighth parts of this gas was carbonic acid, that is to say, 70 cubic inches;
the remainder was inflammable,
3. The matter in the retort weighed 65 grains, but having been exposed to the air for
a fortnight, it acquired 20 grains. It is to be observed that the heat was greater and longer
continued than that applied to the former residuum, which accounts for the great difference
in the absorption of carbonic acid which was observed. It being now 85 grains, we may
consider therefore 40 cubical inches of the carbonic acid to have been produced from the
carbonate of lime, and 30 from the remaining portion of the residuum.
The Inflammable Gas.
4. This gas, mixed with less than its own bulk of common air, exploded with a force almost
as strong as that made by hydrogen gas. Every portion examined proved inflammable, and
we believed it to be of the same nature. It was observed, however, that in the first bottle
*~~~~~
* Note—I say, as I believe, because the difficulty lies in conceiving how the matter of this kind
could be so united with the water as to pass through the filter ; but I relate the facts as my memory
has suggested. *
(94.) g # $ of
Analysis.
-------- * * ****
William Lambe,
M. D.
88 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Analysis.
William Lambe,
M. D.
w
of gas received, the absorption of the carbonic acid by the water was much slower than in
the others, so that we thought at first that it did not contain carbonic acid. The flame of
this gas was of a deep blue colour, and the appearance is said by Mr. Pereira to be entirely
similar to that of cyanogen.
5. The very last portion of the gas was examined by inflammation in the mercurial trough,
with the assistance of Mr. Pereira, who is chemical lecturer at the Aldersgate-street
Dispensary. -
a) We first inflamed a portion with double its volume of oxygen gas, carbonic acid was
produced, and absorbed by pure potash; the oxygen remaining was absorbed by a solution
of green vitriol (proto-sulphate of iron). It appeared that more carbonic acid was produced
than could have been formed by the oxygen consumed, and that there was a large residuum.
of azote.
(b) We therefore now mixed two volumes of the gas with one volume of oxygen gas, and
made three examinations of this mixture operating upon 5 of a cubic inch; after the explo-
sion there was uniformly a dilation of about one fifth of the mixture, that is to say, the .5
parts became 6 or a very little more. The carbonic acid produced was more than the
oxygen consumed; the gas therefore must contain some oxygen in its composition. Finally,
the residuary gas could not be inflamed by an additional quantity of oxygen. It is possible
therefore that the whole oxygen added had not been consumed, but we had not matter
enough to examine this point. The principal portion of the residuum must be considered to
be azotic gas.
The last trial gave the following result:
Cubical Inches.
Gas to be examined - -* gº - - * 0.333 l - 5
Oxygen - - ** * - º - - 0.166 ſ - “
After explosion - - º a- sº 0-600
Carbonic acid formed 0-250
Azote - - - 0:350
This analysis is sufficient to prove that the elements of this gas are oxygen, carbon, and
azote, and that probably, therefore, it is a product of animal matter in a state of decom-
position.
6. No trace of hydrocyanic acid was observed, though the method used (I. C. 4.) was
here applied.
7. Sulphuretted hydrogen.—The 85 grains of residuum (II. C. 2.) were dissolved in an
excess of muriatic acid, and a slip of paper moistened with a solution of nitrate of lead
was exposed to the gas evolved. The paper was instantly blackened. A strong smell of
sulphuretted hydrogen gas was also emitted.
8. The experiments used in the former analysis (I. C. 5.) were here applied without
variation. The result was,
Grains.
(a) Insoluble matter - -: -º e- * - 7
(b) Left by evaporation - *- wº * -: - 15
(c) Precipitate by ammonia - --> *- º - very minute.
(d) Carbonate of lime’ - sº * * - - 59
(a) The insoluble matter was chiefly silex, a little of which, in brilliant crystals, is depo-
sited during the evaporation of the water. It contains also a little sulphate of lime, readily
detected by common methods.
I attempted to gain from this residuum traces of arsenic, as in the former case (I.C. 5. a.),
but did not succeed; but I satisfied myself that a similar matter was united to the oxide of
copper. It would be out of place, however, to relate the experiments here.
(b) Phosphate of iron.—The matter left by evaporation was more of a yellow ferruginous
colour than that described. (I. C. 5. b.) Being heated with its weight of sub-carbonate of
soda, the alcali was not perfectly saturated; to the solution, therefore, muriatic acid was
added, and the excess of acid expelled by evaporation. After this the salt showed the
common properties of phosphate of soda, nor was the appearance of any other matter
observed.
(c) See (I. C. 5. c.)
(d) The deficit in this experiment amounted only to four grains, for which the sulphuretted
hydrogen, and unavoidable waste of the process, sufficiently accounts. It is evident, there-
fore, that the loss of 15 grains in the former analysis cannot be accounted for by the escape
of sulphuretted hydrogen, but there must have been some other volatile matter, probably
soluble in water, which escaped observation, and which it is highly necessary to discover.
(a) I obtained from six gallons of this water 20 grains of what is called the carbonate of
lime, by boiling it in separate portions, and collecting the matter separated on a filter. This
matter was exposed to a red heat, to examine what gas could be procured from it. The
whole
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. 89
whole quantity obtained was only eight cubic inches, of which a small portion only (about
a single cubical inch) appeared to be carbonic acid. The residuum gave no Satisfactory
result, being mixed probably with too large a portion of common air.
(b) The gas now ceasing to rise, a phial holding about a cubical inch was substituted for
the first employed, and the heat was raised. By this means the phial was filled with what
may be considered the pure gas discharged from the matter to be examined, and eight Ol'
ten cubical inches of the same gas must have been retained in the apparatus.
(c) This gas proved to be as nearly as possible one half carbonic acid; the remaining half,
as far as could be judged from a single trial, was precisely the same as that obtained from
the heating of the whole mass. See (II. C.)
(d) The matter in the retort now weighed 12 grains; was of a dark colour. It dissolved
in muriatic acid with effervescence, and emitted sulphuretted hydrogen gas. The solution
freed from acid forms Prussian blue, with prussiate of potash. …
(e) There was a black insoluble matter, but too small to be duly examined.
We see then that this deposit is really a very compounded body, containing iron, sulphur,
carbon, and azote; and that the carbonate of lime is only the preponderating ingredient.
(D.)—The Soluble Residuum.
1. The solution of the soluble matters is of a dark yellow colour, and by concentration of
the fluid it became as dark almost as port wine; when dried it speedily deliquesces. The
deliquescent matter, though holding a portion of saline matter in solution, may be partially
separated by draining, leaving the saline portion coloured and moist, but not deliquescent.
When dried and re-dissolved a dark brown powder is deposited, but by accident this was not
examined.
2. The solution of what had been 45 grains of this matter (the product of five gallons of
water) was divided into two equal parts.
3. One portion was precipitated by nitrate of mercury, the properties of which were
precisely such as has been already described. (I. D. 1.)
4. The other portion having been dried, was heated to redness in a wide glass tube,
coated at its closed extremity. When heated the tube became filled with red vapours,
which, from the colour, Smell, and taste, were obviously vapours of nitrous acid. -
5. The matter being removed from the glass, deposited during solution a small quantity of
a white powder, hardly exceeding a grain in weight. This powder being heated with its
weight of sub-carbonate of soda, the alcali became neutralized, and the salt formed appeared
to be phosphate of soda. The base to which the acid was united seemed to be silex, or
some modification of silex; at least it was a white powder insoluble in muriatic acid.
6. The salts after the deflagration were colourless, and still deliquescent. An alcali
caused no precipitation from them. +.
7. I added to this deliquescent matter nitrate of mercury, with the object of ascertaining
whether the charcoal of the soluble residuum had been wholly destroyed by the deflagration.
The precipitate obtained was merely a minute yellow powder. This matter was heated in
a tube. As the tube became hot its upper end became covered with yellow drops, which
ran together. Its smell was sooty, and its appearance that of an oil. Globules of revived
mercury rose with this oil. The lower end of the tube was broken in removing the coating,
so that I could not fully ascertain the production of charcoal. But a few shining black
particles were observed at the lower extremity, and some black matter had sublimed at this
part. h
Thus was I so fortunate as to obtain, a second time, an oily matter from this water. It
did not appear to be exactly the same matter as that described, (II. A. 5.) but rather to be
a product of the decomposition of that matter.
III.—WATER of THE THAMES FROM ABOVE TWICKENHAM.
It was my intention to make the third examination upon the water of the Thames at
Teddington, and I procured some, as I was informed, from that spot. I found, however,
subsequently, that it was really taken up about half a mile below Teddington, nearly oppo-
site to the eleven-mile stone on the turnpike-road from London, which point is, I believe, in
the parish of Twickenham; but at so short a distance, it may be fairly called Teddington
Water.
(A.)—Effects of Re-agents.
1. The Re-agents employed before (I. A. 1, 2, 3, 4,) have the same effects on this water as
those described.
2. Four gallons of this water were precipitated by muriate of lead. The weight of the
precipitate was 38 grains.
3. A stream of carbonic acid was procured from this precipitate by the same process as
that employed (II. A. 3,) and the lead was reduced. In this case some large metallic globules
were formed embedded in a concreted matter with a yellow surface. º
(94.) Z
Analysis.
*mº
William Lambe,
M.D.
90 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Analysis.
William Lambe,
M. D.
(B.)—Evaporation.
1. It appears that considerable variety has been found in the quantity of residuary matter
of the water near Londen. In the first examinations which I made I had found the river
below Blackfriars Bridge more loaded with foreign matter than that supplied by the Grand
Junction works. Six gallons of the first gave a residuum of 93 grains, of the second of 76
grains only. But there was a striking difference in the proportion of the soluble and inso-
Iuble parts of the residuum. In the London water the soluble matter was 10 grains only;
thé insoluble 83; but in the Chelsea, or Grand Junction water, the soluble matter was 25.5,
the insoluble 50.5. Concluding from these observations that I should find the river less
loaded the higher I went up, I was resolved to examine it at a considerable distance from
London, and accordingly procured that which I call Teddington water, which must be the
same in quality, and which is the point from which it has been proposed that the supply for
the metropolis should be taken. The event, however, proved quite contrary to my expecta-
tions, for this water gave a residuum of 122 grains, of which 92 was insoluble and 30 soluble
matter. According to this experiment then, this Teddington water was more loaded with
foreign matter even than that taken from below Blackfriars Bridge.
2. But there may be a fallacy even in the estimation of the insoluble residuum of the
same water. For it is important to observe that this portion of the residuum is not a fixed
matter, but one of which a large proportion may be dissipated even by the heat of boiling
water. I observed this fact in obtaining the sulphate of lime for the purpose of extracting
the deliquescent matter, as related above (I. D. 3. b.) I used more than an ounce (Troy) of
this insoluble residuum. By boiling it in about two quarts of water, and evaporation,
I found the loss of weight of the matter far exceeded that of the sulphate of lime obtained,
and that in consequence much had been carried off and dissipated by the boiling and
evaporation. -
3. I used the 92 grains of the residuum of the Teddington water to ascertain this point
more exactly. This was boiled in a large quantity of water, and the water evaporated.
The matter obtained (chiefly sulphate of lime) did not amount to 10 grains, but the whole
loss of weight by the process was 37 grains. There were therefore at the least 27 grains of
the insoluble residuum dissipated by the boiling and evaporation.
These observations prove this residuum not to be a fixed and uniform matter, but rather
of the nature of organic matter, constantly varying in its qualities from the changes going
on in the progress of decomposition, and that it may be decomposed and volatilized even
by the heat of boiling water. Its quantity will therefore probably vary, not merely from the
state of the water, but also with the mode of evaporation; whether it be done gently, or with
great heat and rapidity, perhaps; whether the water be recent, or has been kept for a time;
whether it be evaporated in a close vessel, or exposed to the air, and so forth. The material
of the evaporating vessel is also of the first consequence.
4. Six gallons of this water taken up at another time gave by evaporation
rains,
Insoluble residuum * * * gººse 23
Soluble matter * $º tºº sº sº 30
Total Eº 53
If in the former example I was surprized at the magnitude of the product, I was very
much more so at the smallness of this *, which in fact thwarted one object I had in view,
namely, to examine more minutely than before the gaseous products.
* Note:-It may be suspected, perhaps, that I was deceived by the man employed to procure
this water ; but in fact, both in this and in the previous instance, I saw it myself taken out of the
I’IVěre
But since this observation was made I have met with a difference quite as great in the water taken
up at London; for six gallons gave me no more than the following product:-
Grains.
Carbonate of lime º tº-g * 20
Insoluble residuum wº wº gººd 14
Sulphate of lime gº º ſº 3
Soluble residuum * sº tºº 7
44
We see then that the insoluble residuum has varied from 108 to 37 grains, and the soluble matter
from 54 to 7 grains, in the water taken up at the same spot.
The most reasonable conjecture on the cause of this great variety appears to me to be, that it
depends principally on the time of the year. The Teddington water was taken up in January ; the
Londºn water in February. In the winter months all putrefactive processes are probably checked
by cold ; and the products of putrefaction, among which I consider the contamination of water, will
be less abundant.
10
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. 91
(C.)—The Insoluble Residuum.
1. The 23 grains of this matter were submitted to a red heat to obtain the gas, as on the
former occasions, but a sufficient quantity for examination could not be procured. Just
enough for a single trial with common air was obtained; it inflamed with the same appear-
ance as that obtained from the London water.
2. The matter remaining weighed only nine grains, which by solution lost three; the un-
dissolved part having the appearance of a charcoally substance.
3. No vestige of hydrocyanic acid appeared in this process. The great difference of the
constitution of this specimen from any hitherto examined, makes it necessary to have
recourse to the observations made on the former sample taken up at the same spot. I must,
however, previously relate the observations made by a different mode of analysis, a mode
that in one respect gave a very satisfactory result, but in another led to an erroneous
inference.
4. Thirty gallons of Thames water, taken up both at London and at Chelsea, were eva-
porated in a tin vessel, the bottom of which was a little rusted, and of which the tinning
was quickly destroyed. Separating the insoluble residuum, and dissolving what was soluble
in muriatic acid, I obtained by this simple process alone considerable quantities of charcoal,
mixed with a few silicious crystals, and a little sulphate of lime. That the matter was
principally charcoal was proved by heating it with an oxide of mercury, which yielded
a current of carbonic acid, and the matter was, I believe, a sort of plumbago. By evaporating
the muriatic acid, I obtained phosphate of iron, and by precipitation with ammonia oxide of
iron in considerable quantity, and I concluded that this oxide of iron was a constituent
principle of the water. But when this same water was evaporated in a glass or earthen
vessel the result was totally different. No charcoally residuum was observed, and ammonia
precipitated no oxide of iron. It was clear, therefore, that in the former case the iron came
from the corroded bottom of my tin vessel. But still the charcoal must have come from
the water, and on this account I think the observation to be of great value as affording an
easy method of obtaining charcoal from the water of the Thames, and showing the great
chemical change introduced into its constitution by the introduction of a small portion of
oxide of iron.
Now the six gallons of Teddington water which gave me so large a residuum, when treated
in this manner, proved to have exactly the same properties as that taken up in the vicinity
of London. The insoluble residuum, treated with muriatic acid, left a black insoluble matter,
which was proved to be principally charcoal, the superfluous acid being driven off, phosphate
of iron was obtained, and ammonia precipitated oxide of iron from the solution. I concluded,
therefore, from these facts, what I still consider to be a just and legitimate conclusion, that
the river Thames above London may be considered to be nearly like an immense stagnant
pool, but, from the influence of the tides, in a state of constant agitation; and that whatever
contaminations the water receives, either from London, or from any other places, flow
not only downwards but upwards, giving the whole body of the river to a certain extent an
uniform quality, as far as the influence of the tide extends; nor do I consider this conclusion
invalidated by the opposite result of the second examination, since positive facts are incon-
trovertible, and the exceptions are but limitations of our conclusions, dependent on particular
circumstances. The point from which this water was taken is very nearly the limit of the
tide, and reasons may be readily assigned why about this point the water may admit the
greatest variety of quality.
The water from Windsor was evaporated in the same tin vessel, but the residuum had
little or no ochrey appearance, looking like chalk, with a slight yellow tinge, and I found
no oxide of iron precipitated by ammonia. . The power, therefore, of copiously dissolving
the oxide of iron depends upon the impurities received by the river in its course.
In order to form some estimate of the relative proportion of the substances extracted from
the water taken up at London and near Teddington, when treated by this process, I here
add the result of the experiments: Six gallons of water taken up at London gave a black
residuum, almost wholly charcoal, of 10 grains; upon an average of two trials, the Tedding-
ton water yielded a residuum of 6.5 grains only; the London water (on a similar average)
gave of phosphate of iron 4.25 grains; the Teddington I-5 only of the same matter. I omit
the oxide of iron, as being extraneous matter.
5. (Appearance of arsenic.) One experiment made the black and apparently charcoally
residuum of the second sample of Teddington water give a prospect of bringing the question
of the existence of arsenical matter in water to a successful issue, and I therefore here
relate it.
(a) This black matter (III. C. 2.) weighing 6 grains, was mixed with 24 grains of
peroxide of copper, and heated to redness in a tube plunged in mercury; the tube from
its capacity contained a good deal of air; no sublimate of a metallic appearance was formed,
but a small white sublimate rose, which was again volatilized by the heat of the spirit-
lamp.
(b) The whole matter was then transferred to a coated Florence flask, and kept in a red
heat some hours; contiguous to the matter on one side of the flask there was ared subli-
(94.) mate,
Analysis.
William Lambe,
M.D.
92 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Analysis.
William Lambe,
M. D.
Mr. Phillips.
Grand Junction
Waterworks.
mate, adherent to the glass; the rest of the flask had a small coating of white matter.
I applied nitro-muriatic acid to this coating, which I expelled by heat, the acid dissolved
this coating, and left by evaporation a deliquescent body. So far the phenomena were
such as would have been given by white arsenic; but the matter produced was not acid, but
had an astringent cupreous taste. I cannot assert it to have been an arseniate of copper; but
what other body could it have been 2
6. The acid, holding 3 grains of matter in solution (III. C. 2.), was driven off by
evaporation. There remained a small quantity of matter, having the appearance of phos-
phate of iron, and a trace only of muriate of lime; the water therefore in this sample had
hardly a sensible portion of carbonate of lime.
(D.)—The Soluble Residuum.
1. This matter (amounting to 30 grains) formed a deep yellow solution, and deposited by
evaporation a small quantity of yellow matter; it gave crystals of common salt, joined to a
highly deliquescent substance. -
2. Having been re-dissolved, and dried a second time, it was heated to redness in a coated
glass tube; the matter melted and effervesced, and the tube became filled with the red
vapours of nitrous acid. -
3. The tube being cleaned and broken, appeared corroded wherever it had been in contact
with the fused matter; on solution there was a deposit of white matter similar to that men-
tioned (II. D. 5.); the saline solution was now colourless, but still deliquescent.
4. (An alcalescent matter.) I suspected from this solution continuing to be deliquescent,
and giving no precipitate with potash, that it might possibly contain potash, to which it owed
its deliquescent property, I therefore dipped paper tinged with turmeric in this solution, and
found it instantaneously reddened. So far then my conjecture appeared to be right; but I
have obtained no further indication of the production of potash, and believe the appearance
of alcalescenceto be owing to another cause.
5. The matter producing this appearance is the deliquescent substance. I had a little of
this matter, obtained pure, as formerly described, on a slip of platinum ; the heat of a wax
candle first turned it black, and then caused it to fuse with effervescence: it was then
heated by the blowpipe, and moistened with a little water, when it discoloured the turmeric
paper like an alcali; I believe the appearance caused by the evolution of lime.
Here I find myself under the necessity of finishing this inquiry; nor shall I trouble the
Commissioners with more than a single remark of my own on the subject; it is, that pro-
bably the far greater part of whatever is communicated to the water from the decomposition
of organic matter escapes the action of the tests employed in chemical analysis. Vapours
are constantly arising, which from their odour sufficiently show their origin: now these
vapours have no effect on the chemical tests commonly used. I find that the first water
which rises in distillation from the Thames water affects neither nitrate of mercury, nitrate
of lead, nor nitrate of silver, and is apparently quite pure; but there can be no doubt that it
is contaminated with the vapours which arise from the waters, it being universally allowed
that this is the case with what first arises in distillation.
Till, therefore, this defect in chemistry is removed, all chemical analysis will be of necessity
imperfect; nor can chemical experiment alone determine any thing with regard to salubrity,
which is a question that can be solved only by experience.
ANALysis of Thames Water by Mr. PHILLIPs, sent to the Commissioners from the Grand
Junction Waterworks Company.
I have analyzed the water which you brought to me for the purpose of examination, the
results are as follow :- -
Water from the North Reservoir at Paddington, taken Tuesday, 1st May 1827.
An imperial gallon of this water contained ºths of a grain of mixed impurity which was
separated by the filter.
The saline contents were as follows:
Grains.
Carbonate of lime (or chalk) -*. tººl -* 16++
Sulphate of lime (or gypsum) - - º 6
Common Salt sº - +- - -* * 2
Total saline contents of an imperial gallon -sº 24+ºr
The water also contained a trace of silica (or sand), and a little carbonaceous matter.
Water
suPPLY OF water IN THE METROPOLIS. 93
: Water taken from the house cistern of the Burlington Hotel, when the water was on, Analysis.
Tuesday, Ist May 1827. -
y; y & tº * e 9 tº Mr. Phillips,
An imperial gallon gave ºths of a grain of mixed impurity, which was separated by the Grand Junction
filter; the saline contents were, Waterworks.
Grains.
Carbonate of lime &=º sº * sº * g- 15 #5
Sulphate of lime g=- tºle tº . *s *s yº 5 +%;
Common salt ſº i = } gº * º *i- mºſt 1 +ºr
Total saline matter in a gallon - 22 ºr
This water also contained a trace of silica or sand, and of carbonaceous matter.
Water taken from the Lock above the Waste Weir at Teddington, 29th April 1827.
An imperial gallon of this water contained ºths of a grain of mixed impurity, separated
by the filter; the saline contents were,
tº Grains.
Carbonate of lime tºº e- * est º -º 14 fºr
Sulphate of do. gº gº wº wº ºf tº sº 1 +%
Common salt img * * º * = s * : * 1 + ºr
Total contents of a gallon – – 17 tº
There was also a trace of silica and of carbonaceous matter.
You will observe, that the above samples of water differ extremely little, and in no
important respect whatever, either as to the quantity or quality of their contents; the analysis
of the last water agrees as nearly as possible with that which I performed some time since of
Thames water, taken (I think) above Vauxhall Bridge.
- (Signed) R. PHILLIPs.
Copy of Analysis made by Dr. PEARSoN and Mr. GARDENER, received from the Grand Dr. Pearson,
Junction Waterworks Company. M. 3.
T. (17'Olé776.7°.
IN order to judge rightly of the properties of the Thames water, specimens of it were Grand Junction
taken from the different parts of the river under mentioned, between Teddington Lock and Waterworks.
the Dolphin, at Chelsea; care was employed to use new and perfectly clean glass vessels,
and to seal them securely.
*
Nos. 1 & 2. —Two imperial two-quart bottles, or a little more than one wine gallon, were
filled at Teddington Lock, on Sunday, April 29th, 1827, at half past 10 o’clock, A.M. a clear
calm day, no wind.
Note.—These two parcels, to prevent confusion, were subsequently designated No. 1. .
No. 2.-Two wine gallon measures were filled at the Dolphin, at high water, at half past
4 o'clock, P.M., on Saturday 28th April 1827, wind blowing fresh from the east, with great
swell on the river.
No. 3.—Two gallons of water, from the Surrey-side of the river, opposite the Dolphin,
within 150 feet of the bank, immediately after taking No. 2.; high water.
No. 4.—Two gallons of water, taken at the 2d starling from the centre arch of Battersea
Bridge, five minutes past five o’clock, P.M., on Saturday 28th April 1827; high water.
No. 5.—Two gallons of water, taken at the 2d starling from the centre arch of Battersea
Bridge, at low water, twenty-five minutes before one o'clock, P.M., on Monday, 30th April
1827; calm wind, west.
No. 6.—Two gallons of water from the Surrey-side of the river, opposite the Dolphin, about
150 feet from the bank, five minutes after one o'clock, P.M., Monday 30th April 1827; low
Water.
No. 7.—Two gallons of water, taken at the Dolphin five minutes before one o'clock, P.M.,
about half an hour after flood, on Monday, 30th April 1827. --
No.8.—Two gallons of water, taken at the Dolphin twenty minutes after three o'clock,
P.M., tide half up; on Monday, 30th April 1827.
No. 9.-Two gallons of water, taken at the 2d starling from the centre arch of Battersea
Bridge, a quarter before four o’clock, P.M., on Monday, 30th April 1827; tide half up.
No. 10,-Two gallons of water from the Surrey-side of the river, opposite the Dolphin,
About 150 feet from the bank, at twenty-five minutes past three o'clock, P.M., on Monday,
30th April 1827; tide half up.
Simple Properties.
Four wine-quart measures being poured off from each of the samples, without disturbing
the transparency, by the sediment deposited on standing, were subject to investigation.
(94.) - A a All
94, APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Analysis.
Dr. Pearson,
and
Mr. Gardener.
Grand Junction
Waterworks.
All the waters, when first taken from the river, were slightly turbid, but by repose had
become quite clear, and rather bright, but not so bright as distilled water. The sediment
which rendered the water rather turbid, it is presumed, having subsided, they were quite
colourless, inodorous, tasteless, and did not feel rough on rubbing between the hands, more
slightly decompounding soap than almost any spring-water. No particles of air were seen
suspended.
Specific Gravity.
The difference in this property was inconsiderable.
No. 1. Teddington water - tº- º sºme º º - 1000- 18
Distilled water - tº- º- - - Gº - - 1000-
No. 2. Dolphin water, at high water - - º * - . 1000-40
Distilled water - tº- - tº- *- * * - 1000-
No. 3. From the Surrey-side, opposite the Dolphin, at high water 1000-40
Distilled water º tº º - gº º tº - 1000-
No. 4. Water from the 2d starling of the centre arch, Battersea
Bridge * sº * * *- tºº º - 1000-40
Distilled water - , - fº . º - - 1000-
No. 5. From 2d starling of centre arch of Battersea Bridge, at low
Water º ºs - - - - - º - 1000-40
Distilled water tº- º - -> t- - - - 1000-
No. 6. From Surrey-side, opposite the Dolphin, 150 feet from the
bank - º - wº- m amº º º - 1000-18
-- Distilled water tºº tº- * tº sº º - 1000-
No. 7. From the Dolphin, five minutes before one o’clock, half an
hour after flood - *...* - - tºº º - 1000-40
Distilled water gº gº º cº - - - - 1000-
No. 8. From the Dolphin, twenty minutes after three o'clock, P.M.,
tide half up * º - ſº- * Ǻ - - 1000-30
Distilled water tº ºn º º º --> — — 1000-
No. 9. From 2d starling at Battersea Bridge, centre arch, at a -
quarter before four o’clock, P.M. º mº- - - 1000-30
Distilled water * gº º º º º - 1000-
No. 10. From Surrey-side, opposite the Dolphin, about 150 feet
from the bank, twenty-five minutes after three o'clock - 1000-40
Distilled water tºs * º - -Q - - - 1000-
Results of the analysis of the Thames water from the ten different parts of the river above
stated, between Teddington Lock and the Dolphin at Chelsea.
Quantity of Solid Matter.
The quantity of solid matter obtained by evaporating in a sand bath, a wine-gallon in
porcelain vessels of each parcel of water above designated.
No. 1. * sº sºme º wº
º *- º 11:10 grains.
2 - º - * - º º * 15:50 —
3 *- tºº tº sº * - - - 14° 10 —
4. tº-e - - •- º * - tº- 14.0 —
5. * * * * * * - - 12-0 —
6. - º º º * - ſº- tºs sº tº 12.80 —
*7. -w tºº º º t- º g- - 13°20 —
8 - tº-º tºº º: tºº * - *- 13-80 —
9 * > cºm - - t- tº- - - 14.0 —
10 - - - - - - - - 14-0 —
The ingredients of these products were ascertained by the following processes:
Processes by which the Results were obtained to exhibit the Composition of the Thames
Water in ten different places between Teddington and the Dolphin at Chelsea.
1st Process.-Ten wine gallons of the ten different parcels of water above stated to have
been examined, were evaporated to dryness in ten porcelain vessels. The substances, saline
and earthy, with some vegetable carbonaceous matter, were then collected and weighed, as
stated as above.
These products were all treated in a similar manner; but the product, No. 2, Grains 15:50,
was selected as an example.
2d Process.-The saline, earthy, and carbonaceous matter of the former process was put
into a glass vessel, and alcohol, of the specific gravity 8:30 to 1000 distilled water, eight
times the weight of those matters, was added to them.
After standing 24 hours, during which time the vessel was frequently agitated, the
alcoholic liquid was decanted, and a similar quantity of alcohol was added to the undissolved
matters. This was also digested for the like time, and then decanted, and added to the
former dissolution.
These
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. 95
These alcoholic liquids were then evaporated to dryness, and the residue was digested, in
order to be re-dissolved in a small quantity of distilled water.
3d Process. This solution in water was divided into two equal portions; to one of these
portions nitrate of silver was added, till no further precipitation was produced. The preci-
pitate so produced, being collected and dried, amounted to grains 2.10.
4th Process. To the other half of the liquid of Process 3, a solution of oxalate of ammonia
was added, but no precipitation was occasioned. The liquor was then evaporated to
dryness, the dry residue being ignited in a platina crucible, there remained a minute portion
of magnesia, viz. about #5 of a grain.
5th Process. The residuary matter not dissolved by alcohol in Process 2, was subjected
to dissolution by repeated effusions of distilled water, till no further matter was extracted
by this menstruum. The insoluble matter was set apart for further examination.
6th Process. The aqueous solutions of the last Process were divided into two parts
equally, one half was decompounded by nitrate of barytes; the precipitate of sulphate of
barytes so obtained being collected and exsiccated on a filter, weighed grains 1:60.
7th Process. The other half of the liquid of Process 5, being treated with oxalate of
ammonia, oxalate of lime was obtained, amounting to 1-60.
8th Process. To the substance which resisted dissolution in distilled water, diluted nitric
acid was added; the whole was nearly dissolved with a brisk effervescence. A minute portion
of matter was still left undissolved by the acid, amounting to about three tenths of a grain,
which, on further examination, appeared to consist of silica and carbonaceous matter,
in nearly equal proportions. -
9th Process. The acid solution of the last process was decompounded by adding solution of
carbonate of soda to the boiling acid solution, till no further precipitation took place, and
the whole was poured on a filter. The precipitate so obtained was washed with distilled
water, dried and weighed. -
The weight amounted to grains 11-80 of carbonate of lime.
The products then of the grains 15:50 of the matter examined, obtained from a gallon of
Thames water, were as follows:
Muriate of Magnesia - *w- - * * * - – 0,28.
Muriate of Soda * – - assº - - * * - 1,40.
Sulphate of Lime - - - º - - - - 1,44.
Carbonate of Lime * - - * — |- - – 11,80.
Silica and carbonaceous matter - * º - ~ - 0,30.
15,22.
Loss - - 0,28.
15,50.
The Kind and Quantity of each of the ingredients contained in one Gallon of Thames
Water from ten different places between Teddington and the Dolphin at Chelsea.
Silica, Amount
Muriate of Muriate Sulphate | Carbonate and Vegetable of all the
—- Magnesia. of soda. of Lime of Line. “‘º." nº.
{..} No. * | *r * | * | * º;
Do. - 2 || 0-28 || 1:40 | 1.44 11.80 0-30 || 15-22
Do. - 3 || 0-28 || 1:30 1 °44 | 10-60 ()-30 I 3-92
Do. - 4 || 0:20 1-24 1-30 | 10-70 0.20 13-64
Do. - 5 || 0 || 4 || 1-09 || 1:30 9' 10 0.15 I 1.78
Do. - 6 0° 14 1-09 1-22 || 9-60 0- 15 12-20
Do. - 7 || 0-28 || 1:20 | 1.30 9-90 0.20 1 2-88
Do. - 8 || 0-28 || 1:26 1°44 || || 0:20 0-20 13:38
Do. – 9 l 28 || 1:20 | 1.44 || 10:30 0-20 13.42
Do. - 10 || 1:20 | 1.18 || 1:30 | 10:0 0-30 13-98
Note:-The deficiency in the total amounts of the ingredients in the last column of
this table comparatively with the amounts of these ingredients stated in the preceding
page, must be accounted for by the unavoidable loss by waste in performing the processes.
* g
Analysis.
Dr. Pearson,
and
Mr. Gardener.
Grand Junction
Waterworks.

(94.)
96 APPENDIX To REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Analysis.
Dr. Pearson,
* and
Mr. Gardener.
Grand Junction
Waterworks.
The Deposits.
THE spontaneous deposits from the Thames water, on standing as above mentioned, are
decidedly matters not dissolved, but merely suspended, and which fall by their gravity to
the bottom of the containing vessel; these deposits must therefore be considered as quite
adventitious things to the water under examination as above stated; when the water has been
once decanted off quite clear, no more sediment is thrown down by further standing; it
remains quite inodorous, tasteless and clear, or even bright, probably for an unlimited time,
provided no extraneous matter be introduced. This, in a great measure, is sufficiently proved
by the ten samples of Thames water under investigation. From this statement of the mode
of junction of the matter of the deposits with the water in the river, it will be easily
imagined that the quality and proportion of them must be extremely various; their origin
must be chiefly and generally from the earthy and other matters mechanically mixed with
the river water by the agitation of it, produced by various circumstances, such as the fall
of heavy rains, high tides, floods, and perhaps various other local accidents; accordingly,
there must be a considerable variety in the quantity of these adventitious matters, and
perhaps some difference in the kinds at different times. , Hence, although the composition
and dissolved ingredients of the water will be found probably nearly the same at all times
to a considerable extent of the river, as appears from the present analysis, yet the analysis
must not be considered as affording a standard for the quantities, at all times and in all seasons,
of the suspended ingredients. However, it will be satisfactory to know that the depositions
take place very readily and effectually, and that they are of such substances as might reason-
ably be expected. Having, I hope, explained sufficiently the distinction in their nature
between the component ingredients of Thames water and the suspended adventitious
substances, I shall make a statement of the latter as found in each of the ten different
samples, subject, however, to great variation in quantity of each ingredient.
Quantity of deposit, after desiccation, from each sample of two gallons of water.
No. Grains.
I – - - - 1-8 Of a fine gray powder.
2. -. - º - 5 Of a brown powder. -
3 – º sº – 3:50 Of a powder of the same appearance.
4 – - º - 5.50 Of a reddish-brown powder.
5 — - * - 1:0 Of powder ash colour.
6 – - *- - 1.90 Reddish-brown powder.
7 - – - – 3.0 Ash colour.
8 - - - - 9 Small particles ash colour.
9 - - - - 418 Brown powder.
10 - - *- - 1-8 Reddish powder.
The result of the examination of the above deposits is, that they consist of, 1st, vegetable
matter, affording the carbonaceous residue on incineration, with sometimes an inappreciable
quantity of animal matter.
2d. A pretty large proportion of silica.
3d. Carbonate of lime.
4th. Aluminous earth, earth of clay.
5th. Oxide of iron.
6th. Sulphate of lime.
As a specimen of the processes of which the above results were obtained, the following
account is given :
A quantity of the spontaneous deposit from the water, Nos. 3 and 4, amounting to nine
grains in weight, and of an ash-grey colour, was heated to redness for a few minutes in a
platina crucible; during the process of ignition a strong smell of burning vegetable matter
was perceptible, and when removed from the fire, and suffered to cool, the substance had
assumed a light-brown colour; it had lost two grains in weight. t
2d. It was now digested in diluted muriatic acid as long as this acid continued to dissolve
any thing, and the solution, when filtrated, was put aside for further examination.
3d. The residuary matter which was insoluble in muriatic acid, and which amounted in
weight to four grains and a half, was heated with pure potash in a silver crucible, and
found to consist of silicious earth and argillaceous or aluminous earths, in nearly equal
proportions.
4th. To half the muriatic acid solution pure liquid ammonia being added, a precipitate
consisting of oxide of iron, and of alumina, was obtained.
N. B.-A portion of this muriatic acid solution was assayed by nitrate of barytes, and 8.
very slight precipitate of sulphate of barytes took place; hence the presence of a minute
quantity of sulphate of lime is inferred.
5th. To the liquid which was decanted from the foregoing precipitate (in 4) an addition of
oxalate of ammonia produced a separation of oxalate of lime, amounting to two grains and
a half.
From
suPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 97
From the preceding experiments, it would appear that the matter separated from the
two gallons of water, by spontaneous deposition, consists of the following ingredients:
Silica. •. Carbonate and sulphate of lime.
Alumina. Vegetable carbonaceous matter.
Oxide of iron.
Conclusion.
IT appears, then, according to the preceding Analysis now submitted to consideration,
that the Thames water between Teddington Lock and the Dolphin at Chelsea, on examination
from ten different places, contains on the average about 13 grains of impregnating matter
in each wine gallon, or three grains and a quarter in each quart, i.e. one grain and three
quarters in each pint, the largest quantity being 15% grains, and the smallest being nearly
11 grains in each wine gallon; the largest quantity of carbonate of lime (chalk or lime-stone)
being II grains and nearly a half, and the smallest quantity being eight grains and a half,
or nearly so, in each wine gallon, i.e. on the average about one grain and a quarter in each
pint. The largest quantity of muriate of soda (common salt) being less than one grain and
a half in a gallon, and the smallest being one grain in a gallon, i.e. one-eighth of a grain in
each pint; the largest quantity of muriate of magnesia being one grain and ºr of a grain
in a gallon of water, of sulphate of lime, being less than one grain and a half in a gallon.
Silicious earth and vegetable carbonaceous matter being tº of a grain in the largest quan-
tity. It will be easily imaginable from these results, that the impregnating ingredients of
the Thames water are as perfectly harmless as any spring-water of the purest kind used in
common life; indeed there is probably not a spring, with the exception of Malvern, and one
or two more, which are so pure as the Thames water. The well-known fact that the Thames
water becomes frequently offensive, after being confined in casks, is owing to the dissolution
of the wood of the vessel, or at least it is chiefly, if not entirely, owing to this circumstance,
and perhaps occasionally from adventitious suspended matters. The same offensive smell is
liable to occur from any other water, under similar circumstances.
PLANS OF REMEDIES.
The following Letter, addressed to Sir Francis Burdett, was given in to the
Commissioners of Water Inquiry, by Mr. Wright.
Sir, London, 21st January 1821.
I BEFORE wrote you for your experienced interference as to the water companies of
London at large, the quality, and its enormous price for high service. About 1813 and 1814
I urged my plans as follow, and I know there is none better : The outline thereof was to
buy up the mills from Iver to the Thames, which property principally is the Duke of Nor-
thumberland's, and on my plans laid down to his Grace then, I could have given the same
number of mills overshot from Paddington into the interior of London as I should thus put
out of work, for meal only, on account of not injuring the purity of this trout stream, which
was uncontaminated with town-wash in its line, or any works of filth. I could have run my
level from Mr. Clowes's mills at Iver to Paddington, as the Grand Junction Canal does from
nearly opposite these mills; and the Cowley Lock to Paddington is a plain criterion to judge
from, for there is no lock in all this canal-line to London; here thus is regular quantity and
unexampled quality, I know, as an old resident twenty years near it. Now the other alter-
native is, if the companies are to get rich by poisoning the people, the longest operation of
their lives is thus: An entire and only reservoir, must be made a proper distance beyond
Brentford, to the extent of 15 acres, for this town is with immense rectifying works, and even
300 beasts and upwards are housed at a time; and besides this, the poisonous dregs of such
a distillery, together with the wash of this sinkhole of a town, is enough to poison the water
for culinary or drinking purposes, bids defiance to any other mode lasting. I am sure the
gates must be shut against returning tides. s
If people have spent their fortune in these monopolizing waterworks, it was for lucre, not
a public good, and ought not to last as a usurious transaction. Sir, I trust your attendance
to the committee. 3 *
I have the honour to be, most respectfully, &c.
THoMAs HIPKINs.
P. S.—I submitted this to His present Majesty, and Mr. Nash has my plans.
Sir Francis Burdett, Bart, &c. &c. &c.
(94.) - B b
Analysis.
Dr. Pearson
and
Mr. Gardener.
Grand Junction
Waterworks.
Letter from
Mr.
Thomas Hipkins.
98 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Plans of Remedies.
Note from
Mr.
Thomas Hipkins.
Plan by
Mr.
Henry Francis.
NoTE addressed to the Commissioners by Mr. T. Hipkins.
T. HIPKINs presents his respects to the Water Committee, and herewith is his recollection
of his former project for supplying London; he is quite, if supported, competent to, as
it is what all great public projects should be, clear and very easy, if it is nationally supported as
ought; but if for preservation of the shareholders money none employed, their plans are to
be improved, and then continued. There ought, I am certain, to be a reservoir a mile beyond
Old Brentford, of 15 acres extent, for the day's supply, and sediment, for supplying their
reservoirs in and about town, and the gates of this large reservoir to shut out the swell of
the returning tide-water, as it contains floating oil of gas, and all other poisonous and noxious
cleanings from Brentford, &c. &c. &c. and general manufactories. T. H. will attend the
committee as soon as he returns to town again, and wishes an inquiry this day, Saturday,
instead of Monday; he's by previous engagements bound to attend in the country, but if
this day is inconvenient, and the committee is not prepared, he writes these hasty observations
from impulse of immediate recollections for their guidance. -
9th February 1828.
Memorandums of T. Hipkins, when residing at the Parsonage near Uxbridge, as to the
conveyance of a better quality of water for household uses than was projected to be
drawn illicitly for sale from the Grand Junction Canal for the service of London, which
various conversations with the following gentlemen took place on my project, having myself
opposed theirs; namely, the late Mr. Robson, Manchester-square, Mr. Charles Simpson of
the Grand Junction office, with Mr. Peashill, a great owner of shares.
Ist. The water thus drawn was an infringement on our mill-property, as if sold it must be
taken at night, by opening the locks of the gates below Uxbridge town, and then they drew
it so low for their reservoir at Paddington, that the large craft on the canal ploughed up the
stagnant bottom, which was pestilential to the scent, much more for household uses: how-
ever this was persevered in for some time, and such puddle served out to the public, with
the addition of the bilge-water from the long-boat craft, carrying night soil and other
dung drainage to the wharfs to Uxbridge, and other wharfs adjacent. On my getting
his late Royal Highness the Duke of Kent to introduce my name to the late Duke of Nor-
thumberland, first, to stop this infringement on the mills, and secondly, to promote a general
good for the public's health, to obtain the requisite of life, pure water for household services,
I projected the only good plan to relieve the western part of London from this joint im-
position of the Grand Junction Company; to sell what they got indirectly then from the Colne
river, and secondly, Mr. Robson’s retailing, after its contamination, this puddle, for the uses
of houses of the first class, and the general public: finding even a scanty supply of this,
Charles Simpson, my old schoolfellow, the then director of the Canal Company, in Surrey-
street office, declared, if the craft floated even in nearly mud he would not let any interruption
to the company's trade take place. Robson complained of the want of supply; and I heard,
after many altercations, a bargain was struck for the company to pay forfeit to Robson, whom
I always told did not care if he poisoned the public, to answer his company’s dishonourable
gains. As the faculty had at this time analysed this canal-water, and it was passed by some,
rejected by others, from 1811 to 1814, I had frequent conversations, and I at last asked his
late Grace the Duke of Northumberland to join me in this most consequential project of
mine, by running a rivulet of pure trout-stream from Iver to Paddington, and as I should
purchase some mills, and also put his Grace out of employ, I would make it answer a great
imutual service ultimately; first, to the public, and afterwards to his Grace: on my explana-
tion, I knew his Grace's mind was for it, his health against it.
A T. HIPKINs.
PLAN by Mr. FRANCIS, addressed to the Honourable the Commissioners appointed to
inquire into the state and quality of the Water supplied to the Inhabitants of the
Cities of London and Westminster.
PLAN submitted to their consideration for obtaining a supply of more pure and wholesome
water than is at present afforded by the different water-companies.
THAT pure and wholesome water in unlimited quantity is to be extracted from the earth
the experience of thousands of experiments for thousands of years past have sufficiently
proved. The incessant pumping that mines of great depth require, clearly demonstrate and
prove, that the more abundant and purer the water becomes the greater the depth excavated;
and that no failure occurs of finding springs of pure water; the very ingenious method
discovered by Mr. Ryan, of boring and bringing up through a tube a fountain of water
above the surface of the earth, hath in another way proved it, and introduced a new subject
for discussion upon the theory of springs of water.
One instance which I am about to describe, as analogous with the principle I intend to
ropose for affording a supply of pure water, was some years ago effected by order of the
Board of Ordnance at Sheerness, a situation least likely by appearance to create such an
effect as was produced, it being a swampy peninsula that projected into the sea. A well of
| large
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 99
large dimensions was sunk about 100 yards from the sea shore to a great depth, that pro-
duced a supply of the purest water, and which rose when the spring was obtained about
150 feet from the bottom in less than 30 minutes, overflowed the top of the well for several
days, then subsided a few yards, and ever since has remained inexhaustible. The wet docks
constructed in the vicinity of London, although excavated to a depth of not more than
20 to 30 feet from the surface, have usually employed three or more engines incessantly
pumping.
The plan whereby I propose to supply the inhabitants with pure spring water is, to cause
each water company to excavate a spring-water tank, near enough where their present
engines are erected by the Thames side, so as to be within reach of them, as then no altera-
tions in the main pipes will be required, and the advantage of supplying the engines with
fuel by water-carriage will be continued.
The dimensions of these tanks to be 100 feet diameter, and excavated to a depth of 100
or more feet deep, or until the pure spring-water is produced. Each of these tanks will
yield by estimation 100,000 barrels every 24 hours. Eight of the water-companies drawing
their supply from the Thames, from those situations where the water is most turbid and
impure, by adopting the method before stated, will be enabled to supply their tenants with
pure and wholesome water.
I wish it to be understood, that the before-described tanks are to have no direct commu-
nication with the river, but to depend entirely for supply upon the springs. The same end
will be obtained in almost every other situation; but as engines will be required to work
them, the advantages to the different companies will be in continuing to the present sites.
An estimate of the expence of constructing a tank of the largest dimensions, as before
stated, is enclosed herewith ; some of the companies may require one of not more than
half the amount.
No. 118, Regent-street, January 1828.
ESTIMATE for constructing a Spring-water Tank, for the purpose of supplying the
Inhabitants of the Metropolis with pure Spring-water, and calculated to yield a supply
of 20,000 cubic Yards, or about 100,000 Barrels daily:
£' s. d.
Dimensions of the tank, 100 feet diameter by 100 feet deep; cubic con-
tents, 29,085 cubic yards; charge for excavating and depositing the
earth, 1s. per yard cube lººt *E* - *s *-* tºº * - 1,454 5 0
Steam-engine, and machinery to raise the earth out of the tank * sº 500 0 0
Fuel, and engineer working six months – sº º sº gº sº 600 0 0
472,500 bricks, for lining tank, at ll. 15s. per thousand tººl * º 826 17 6
Workmen laying ditto, at 10s. per thousand * = r tº tº sº tºº 236 5 O
Cement - gº * &º gº ºre ~ e-º sº tºº º tº 100 0 0
Timber, and implements attending the process of excavating - tº- º 600 0 0
- 4,317 7 6
If the earth can be deposited in a convenient situation near the tank, about
one third may be deducted from the charge for excavating - * sº 484, 15 0
sé 3,832 12 6
LETTER from Mr. FRANCIS, addressed to the Honourable the Commissioners appointed
to inquire into the state of the Supply of Water to the Inhabitants of the City of
London and Westminster.
Gentlemen,
THE plan for supplying the Metropolis with pure spring water, in lieu of that at present
so much complained of, which I had the honour to submit for your consideration on the
1st of the present month, and as what I then took permission to present may be considered
a preliminary and outlined statement of the method whereby, it may be effected, I am
desirous of adducing further experimental facts which are now in full operation and use,
and on sufficient scale and magnitude, I consider, to carry demonstration and proof of their
efficacy and parallel as applicable to the purpose which I have in my plan stated.
If favoured by the Commissioners with an interview, should feel honoured by submitting
my suggestions to their consideration.
I am, Gentlemen, your very humble servant,
- HENRY FRANCIS.
No. 118, Regent-street, 19th February 1828.
Plans of Remedies.
Plan by
Mr.
Henry Francis.
(94.)
i00 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Plans of Remedies.
Plan by
R. M. Kerrison,
M. D.
From RoRIRT MASTERs KERRIson, M. D.
No. 14, New Burlington-street, February 4th, 1828.
To the Commissioners appointed by His Majesty, relative to a Supply of Water for the
Inhabitants of the Metropolis. *
Gentlemen,
IN submitting for consideration the outline of a plan which suggested itself to my mind
for the supply of good water to the inhabitants of the western and north-western districts of
London, I beg to offer a few words in explanation of the motives which first induced me to
give attention to the subject.
In the summer of 1819 the assessment upon my house was suddenly raised from 21., which
had been fixed by the directors of the Grand Junction Company, and paid for several succes-
sive years, to 6l. 16s. 6d. per annum, without any increase in the quantity, or variation in
the mode of supply, above 250 per cent. advance on their rate. After having made various
endeavours to obtain a more reasonable assessment, the particulars of which are stated in
the postscript, and abstained from public interference until all hopes of redress had vanished
by the deliberate and repeated refusal of the directors to act towards me upon their own
ostensible principle, of an advance of 25 per cent. on the former rate, or to accept a smaller
sum than 5l. 10s. 175 per cent. advance on the rate fixed by themselves in 1813, I attended
a public meeting held at Willis's Rooms in October 1819, stated the facts alluded to, and
joined the opposition which had been formed near three months to resist that which ap-
peared to be unreasonable and unjust on the part of the Directors of the Grand Junction
Water Company.
My name was placed on the committee of which Mr. Weale was chairman, for the purpose
of investigating the causes of complaint of a numerous body of housekeepers, and the
manner in which the directors of the company had deviated from their engagements.
The subject went before Parliament in the session of 1821, when something like a pledge
was given to the public for the more equitable government of the affairs of Water Com-
panies; and the interference of individuals seemed to be no longer necessary.
In the course of the Parliamentary Inquiry, I was called before the Committee, and replied
to such questions as they thought proper to put to me, the material points of which have
been noticed in the printed Report.
The manner in which the Parliamentary Inquiry of 1821 proceeded did not impress my
mind with much expectation of advantage to the community; and the effrontery with which
the pecuniary interest of shareholders of the company were advocated by the anonymous
writer of a “ Calm. Address,” both as regarded false assertions and erroneous influences,
induced me to write something on water speculations, and a critique on that book in the
winter of 1821, with the intention of publishing it.
It was at that time the outline about to be presented suggested itself to my mind, and the
pamphlet containing it, with the other subject, was ready for the printer. On re-considera-
tion, however, it occurred to me that many persons might think I was actuated by unworthy
motives, and that (the subject having been recently discussed in Parliament) it would be
more proper to allow full time to ascertain the result of that interference; the manuscript
was therefore put aside, after having been shown to two persons who had been on the Com-
mittee with me in 1819–20, Mr. Weale the chairman, and Mr. (now Sir Peter) Lawrie.
This was in the early part of 1822. From that period until the public meetings soon after
the appearance of a spirited pamphlet called the “Dolphin' in the spring of 1827, I ceased
to think of the water question, except when the collector called on me for 5l. 5s. annually,
and on such occasions as the more than usual impurities of the water forced it upon my
notice. As soon, however, as I had read the “ Dolphin,” the author of which was totally
unknown to me, and I found that the subject had been taken up by noblemen and gentle-
men who had power to make themselves heard in Parliament, and that both members for
Westminster went into the inquiry, I sent my manuscript to Sir Francis Burdett, with
a request that he would avail himself of its suggestions at any time, and in such a manner
as he might judge proper.
Sir Francis perused and handed it to Mr. Wright, from whom I have lately received it;
and this will account for my name having been mentioned to you by that gentleman, and
will be, I trust, accepted as an excuse for the trouble incurred, if no remark should be found
worthy of your attention.
I have the honour to be, Gentlemen,
with much respect, your obedient servant,
Rob ERT MASTERs KERRISON, M.D.
To the Commissioners, &c.
SUPPLY OF wATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 10 |
OUTLINEs of a PLAN by RoberT MASTERs KERRIson, M.D.
THE Water in rivers and wells dissolves and holds in solution certain salts and other
principles in the strata of earth through which they rise, or the channels in which they
flow. These exist in various degrees and combinations. When they are in such abundance
as to be very perceptible to the senses, or to produce active effects upon the functions of the
human body, they are called saline and mineral waters, and are unfit for the daily use of
man and animals in a state of health. Such waters are found at Cheltenham, Harrowgate,
Bath, Buxton, &c. if
Purity in water then, for the supply of a large city, must ever be comparative; all that
can be expected is to obtain it without much saline impregnation in a state most free from
palpable and insidious impurities; or, in other words, most exempt from adventitious and
unwholesome substances in mechanical mixture or in chemical solution. The water in the
Thames between Chelsea and Limehouse has long been contaminated with gross impurities,
which have been of late so much augmented by the increased population of the Metropolis,
by the more general conveyance of night-soil into the sewers, by the establishment of gas-
works, by the more extensive employment of copper sheathing, and other causes, that the
water within that district has become so loaded with filth as to be in all seasons less suitable
for domestic purposes than it was formerly.
The extent to which this contamination must proceed in order to produce an endemic
mortality in the inhabitants of London, is too serious a subject to be put to the test of expe-
rience; it will not be denied, however, that such an unwholesome constitution of the air as
occurred in London during several years, and was described by Sydenham to have been
extensively fatal, might be re-produced, and that its deleterious effects would be aggravated
by the use of such impure water as exists at present in the Thames within the limits just
noticed.* There seems to be a general conviction of the necessity of an improvement in the
quality of water distributed to certain parts of the Metropolis.
The history of water companies would be misplaced here. The fact is assumed that the
water of the Thames, unmixed with the impurities of the city and suburbs of London,
would answer every useful purpose; and the object of this communication is to suggest the
means by which I believe it could be obtained with tolerable facility, and at moderate
expense.
It is a self-evident proposition, that if the source of supply be beyond the point to which
the tide flows, none of the contaminations of the London district could be derived, and that
the only causes of impurity would be the drainage from the respective towns and villages
higher on the stream. These being so largely diluted by upland water are partly deposited
and partly diffused through such a volume, and in some measure decomposed by the
abundant vegetation at the bottom and sides of the Thames, as to become free from all
important objections.# It may be, however, inexpedient to go so far as the extremity of
the tide, on account of the great expense of pipes on a large scale, so that every mile of
direct distance which can be saved consistently with the attainment of the object must not be
overlooked. -
The tide at London Bridge, under ordinary circumstances, runs upwards about five hours
and a half, and downwards or towards the ocean about seven hours. This occurring twice
in 25 hours causes the difference of high water at London to be an hour later every day.
The variations of spring and neap tides, of much or little upland water, from an abundance
or deficiency of rain, are to be considered; still the tide flows downwards during a longer
period than upwards, and the stream is stronger or more rapid in its course towards the
ocean, by which a volume of fresh water is daily brought into the Thames at London, and
serves to dilute the intensity of the refuse of animal and vegetable substances in a decom-
posing and decomposed state, although a large portion of such impurities return far above
Chelsea, by the reflux of the tide.
The difference of time required for the flowing downwards and upwards of water at
various places on the banks of the Thames is worthy of notation. The flow upwards is
shorter, and downwards of longer duration, at every village between London Bridge and
Teddington, or thereabouts, where the tide ends, and the water is always flowing towards
London. It appears to me desirable to ascertain with exactness the ordinary rate of going
of the tide at different places between London Bridge and Richmond; when this has been
defined, a computation could be made of the distance upwards to which the impurities of
the river at London or Chelsea, near the great sewer, or King's Scholars Pond, usually
reach, by comparing its celerity or tardiness of motion with the period of its reflux, from
which could be deduced with tolerable accuracy the point nearest to London where the
*—
– re.
* This is a question to be decided by the College of Physicians.
+ This valuable fact has been explained by Professor Brande, at the lectures in the Royal Institu-
tion, with his usual clearness and felicity of expression. It has been proved that the water in ponds
and rivers is rendered more pure by the vegetation of aquatic plants, which absorb carbonic acid, and
yield oxygen gas.
(94.) C c Water
Plans of Remedies,
Plan by
R. M. Kerrison,
M. D.
102 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Plans of Remedies.
Plan by
R. M. Kerrison,
M. D.
water is exempt from combination with the foulness from London, or the great sewer at
Millbank above the Vauxhall Bridge. -
In reflecting upon this part of the subject with reference to the avoidance of the large
and dirty town of Brentford, in which gas-works have been established, the nearest point
which occurred to my mind as likely to answer the proposed purpose was at or near Isle-
worth, where I was informed, by personal inquiry there six years ago, that the tide ran
upwards for about an hour, or rather longer, and downwards during near eleven successive
hours. The exact period can be ascertained with precision, and it will be found I believe
that the water is flowing towards London full 21 out of the 24 hours every day.
The Thames at Isleworth is tolerably clear, except during a short time after a great rush
of upland water from heavy rains; but in summer and dry seasons the bed of the river can
be seen at considerable depth. The land or sediment on the shore presents a striking
contrast with the deposit at Millbank, or in the Pool at London; and it is probable that the
putrid matters held in solution, or other combination with the water at and below Chelsea,
never reach Isleworth. A glance at the serpentine line of the river, and the greater distance
by water than by land, will exhibit what I have endeavoured to describe by words.
If it should be found that London impurities never flow so high as Isleworth, (presuming
it to be an eligible spot,) the next consideration would be to avoid the objectionable drainage
into the Thames from the large villages on its banks between Chelsea and Brentford,
including the latter, as Battersea, Wandsworth, Putney, and Fulham, Hammersmith,
Chiswick, Barnes, Mortlake, and Kew. This could be effected by permitting a short time
to elapse, varying probably from an hour to an hour and a half at each tide, when whatever
had passed upwards from Brentford will have returned below the intended or ‘proposed
source from which the water is to be drawn. &v
Above Isleworth the Thames proceeds in a southerly and westerly direction, receding
from London towards and beyond Teddington. It appears to me a proper subject for con-
sideration, whether the three miles by land from the former to the latter place would not
add to the difficulty or expense of conveyance, (on a large scale,) in a greater proportion
than its comparative usefulness; for it will be shown by a line traced on the annexed Plan,
that water can be procured from Isleworth by a distance of only three miles further than it
is now obtained from Hammersmith mall, whilst it would be taken from a point near six
miles higher on the stream, and of great Superiority as to purity.
The proposed line of Conveyance from an open space between Isleworth Church and
Twickenham Lane to Notten Hill. -
From Isleworth into the Great Western road through the town of Brentford, following
the London road until within 200 yards of the Pack Horse at Turnham Green, then leaving
the turnpike road, crossing a gardener's ground diagonally on the north side of the road, and
south of Fair Lawn House, to a strip of waste called Acton Green or Back Common, tra-
versing this near a mile from west to east, then proceeding through a lane at the eastern
extremity of this strip to Cackle Goose Green, which is at the northern extremity of
Mr. Scott's house, the front of which is opposite Theresa Terrace, Hammersmith; then con-
tinuing eastward by Gold Stock lane to the south western boundary of Shepherds Bush,
crossing that space in an easterly direction, with a few points to the north, and falling into the
Uxbridge road near Norland House, (lately destroyed by fire,) turning into a road at the
western foot of Notten, called also Notting Hill, by the eastern wall of Norland House, and
proceeding across a couple of fields on a line parallel with the Uxbridge road, about 200
yards to the north of that road, to an elevated spot nearly opposite the two mile-stone from
Tyburn turnpike, of sufficient extent to form a reservoir, and at an elevation equal or nearly
so to the reservoir belonging to the West Middlesex Water Company, at a short distance
on the south side of the Uxbridge road. It will be seen that the sweep of turnpike road,
between the western end of Turnham Green and Kensington town, will be avoided by the
proposed line, and that near a mile will be saved without interference with property, which
might be of difficult or expensive acquisition. - X--
Whatever facilities exist for the distribution of water by the works of the West Middlesex
Company must attach to the spot described. If the supply of water at Isleworth should
be too distant from Notting Hill for practical purposes, Ealing Common, an elevated flat,
between three and four miles from Notting Hill, and not at a greater distance from Isleworth
than the works at Hammersmith mall are from Kensington Gravel-pits, presents an interme-
diate station. If that should be required, the line of direction must be altered by turning
northward at Brentford.
The manner in which the directors of the West Middlesex and the Grand Junction or
new Chelsea Company have broken their engagements with the public, was ably shown in
1819–20 by the notices and pamphlets of Mr. Weale, and lately by a printed memoir to
the Commissioners by Mr. Wright, so that no remark of mine upon these points is necessary
at this time. The recital of incontrovertible facts by these gentlemen affords another proof
that in commercial speculations public principle, even in men respectable as individuals, is
too weak a protection against the temptations of cupidity, where the power of gratifying it
t IS
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 103
is granted in the form of a monopoly, or (if the expression be admissible) a number of mono-
polies, admitting of a collusion or confederacy of interests, for the exclusive advantage of the
monopolists.
I am inclined to believe that the only safe course, and that alone which would satisfy the
expectations of housekeepers, and remove every reasonable cause of complaint, would be __
the appointment by Parliament of commissioners for the performance of a public trust, who
would engage engineers and subordinate agents, accountable for their acts, investing them
with authority to establish works and levy assessments on housekeepers, bearing an equi-
table reference to the expenses incurred, and to the supply of water required at each house;
the whole being conducted on principles of strict economy. The establishment of a new
company of adventurers in water would inevitably lead to a repetition of the abuses of
public confidence, which have been so justly exposed and censured.
I am not prepared to state the exact portion of London which could be conveniently
supplied from Isleworth; such details are in the province of civil engineers. I think it not
improbable that the parishes of St. Mary-le-bone, St. James, Westminster, St. George,
St. Margaret, and St. Anne, also St. John, Westminster, could be adequately served with water
in the manner I have endeavoured to describe; a population of near 300,000 individuals.
Having respectfully submitted these particulars for your consideration,
I have the honour to be, Gentlemen,
Your obedient servant,
RoBERT MASTERs KERRIson, M.D.
PostScript.—The letter to the Editor of the Morning Post, inserted in that paper of
November 30, 1819, here annexed, contains a correct outline of my causes of dissatisfaction
with the directors of the Grand Junction Water Company. Every part of that statement
can be authenticated by documents in my possession.
At Michaelmas 1820, the company’s servants separated the pipe going to my house,
although I protested against such a proceeding in the presence of a witness, and the men
employed by the company went to the office for instructions how to act. They returned and
said they had been desired to do their duty.
Immediately after this occurrence I caused a well to be dug on my premises, and obtained
an abundant supply of clear wholesome water at a depth of 14 feet, which was employed
for every purpose in my family until March 1822, about a year and a half. At this time
I was induced to require a supply from the pipes of the company called the Grand Junction;
this was done by a short note, with no reference to past transactions, and the charge made
by the company was 57, 58. annually, which I have paid without any remark, complying with
an exaction, not consenting with the principle by which it has been assessed.
RoBERT MASTERs KERRIson, M.D.
The anonymous communication referred to is in the “Post” of November 1. It is an in-
direct puff, by a proprietor of the Grand Junction Water Company, and was paid for as an
advertisement. The following letter was inserted in the “Post” of November 30, 1819, as
an act of justice, and no charge was made.
WATER MonoPOLY. *.
To the Editor of the Morning Post.
Sir, –IN one of your late publications my name is mentioned in the communication of
some individual under the designation of an “ Inhabitant of St. James's,” under the head
of “Water Monopoly.”
The object of that letter must be evident to every person of common understanding; but
as my name has been made use of by an anonymous writer, who has neither given a true
account of my statement at the meeting of the 25th of October at Willis's Rooms, nor a
fair abridgment of it, I appeal to your candour to insert the following particulars, being
the outline of what I did say, as the only proper mode of correcting the error, and of re-
moving any false impressions which that communication may have occasioned.
1st. I informed the meeting that I had been supplied with water by the New River Com-
pany from 1808 to 1813, at the annual charge of 21. 2s., and had no reason to complain of
its quantity or quality; that I then had a cistern on the second floor, supplied by a force-
pump, and that my dwelling had neither stables nor outbuildings.
2d. That in the year 1813, at the request of a gentleman who was interested in the
success of the Grand Junction Water Company, I was induced to leave the New River
without making any bargain about paying more or less; that printed papers were distributed
at that time to me and other housekeepers, stating that the charge should not exceed that of
other companies, and offering a supply to any part of the house free of extra charge, and
that in consequence of such offer I had removed my force-pump, and received the supply to
the cistern in that manner from such period to the present. I noticed the inconveniences
sustained by the cistern often remaining empty, and I now repeat that up to this time it is
very imperfectly replenished.
(94.) 3d. "That
Plans of Remedies.
Plan by
R. M. Kerrison,
IM. D.
------ºmsº
104. APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Plans of Remedies.
Plan by
R. M. Kerrison,
M.D.
Pſan by
Mr.
Philip Taylor.
3d. That at the latter end of July last I received a printed notice of my annual rate being
raised from 21. (the sum fixed by the Grand Junction Company in 1813) to 6l. 16s. 6d.;
and that my next neighbour, whose premises are exactly like those I occupy, had been
advanced from 21. to 7 l. 7s.; that the collector had reduced it to 6l. 16s. 6d.; and that this
gentleman (Mr. Mathias) had been to the office of the Grand Junction Water Company,
but received no satisfactory answer to his inquiry as to the cause of the advance.
4th. That I wrote to the gentleman at whose request I had taken the water from the
Grand Junction Water Company, observing that I should not pay such advance until the
company were legally authorized to enforce the payment of it.
5th. That on receiving an assurance from that gentleman that the fair interests of the
company required an advance of 25 per cent. on the rates of 1810, Ivoluntarily offered to
pay such advance on the higher rate, viz. upon the 21, 2s. per year formerly paid to the New
River Company. I also stated to the meeting that I had renewed my offer in writing, and
pledged myself to pay such advance, whether the company should or should not be able to
establish a legal claim to it, observing that I had no wish to interfere with the affairs of the
company, except to protect myself from what I considered an unreasonable demand.
6th. That the secretary of the Grand Junction Water Company had called on me and
declared that the lowest sum which would be accepted of was 5l. 10s., viz. 31. 15s. for a
common supply, and Il. 15s. for the cistern, called high service; that I had since renewed
my offer of 25l. per cent. on the rate of 1810, in an appeal to the directors, and was informed
that no further reduction could be made.
7th. That I considered it gentlemanly and proper to abstain from all intercourse with those
who were in public opposition to the pretensions of water companies until the final answer
from the directors had been received; that I had done so, and not being satisfied with their
answer, I came to the meeting to state the circumstances of my own case, and to pay my
subscription to the fund then raising to protect the public from the consequences of the
monopoly.
I pledge myself, sir, that the above is a faithful account of all I said at the time men-
tioned; and to prevent anonymous writers or others from misrepresenting my sentiments or
misunderstanding my motives, I take this opportunity of observing, that I entertained no
hostility towards the Grand Junction Company, and I was not even aware of their defeat
in the attempt made last session of Parliament to procure an Act to augment the rates; that
my communications with individuals and the directors were the result of my own view of the
tendency of their proceedings, and that the gentleman who presided at the meeting of the
25th October was personally unknown to me until that day; and further, that it was not
until within a week of such time that I had seen his able letters on the subject, although
published some months before. It is only necessary further to remark, that the deliberate
refusal of the directors to accept my offers of 25 per cent. on the rate of 1810 placed me in
the alternative of consenting to the arbitrary equalizations and assessments of those who
have a personal interest in augmenting their demands, or of opposing such pretensions, until
they shall have received the sanction of the Legislature. I have preferred the latter course;
and the very numerous assemblage at the second meeting on the 8th instant (amounting to
many hundreds), with the statements there made by different individuals, induce me to believe
that there are reasonable and abundant causes of dissatisfaction with the conduct of those
who have entered into arrangements to destroy fair competition, and after appropriating to
themselves the exclusive supply of water to a certain district, avail themselves of such a
situation of the public to make demands which no company would hazard the loss of
patronage by making under any other circumstances.
I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,
12, New Burlington-street, ROBERT MASTERs KERRIson.
November 27, 1819.
[The following Plan was sent to the Board, in Mr. Philip Taylor's name, by
Mr. Martineau. Mr. Taylor was requested to attend on the 11th of February,
but he was then in France.] *
Thames water Company.—At a meeting held the 6th of October 1824, at the Albion
Tavern, Aldersgate-street, for the purpose of considering the expediency of es-
tablishing a company for supplying the Metropolis with pure water from the river
Thames, a report was read by Mr. Philip Taylor, engineer, from which the following
are extraCfS:—
The plan for supplying London with pure water, which I have now the honour of sub-
mitting to your consideration, has been formed in consequence of an application from some
gentlemen who are desirous that the result of the present meeting may be the establish-
ment of a new water company, possessing powers and advantages calculated not only to
benefit the Public in an essential manner, but also to ensure a fair return to those who may
invest capital in it, which can only be accomplished by adopting means not hitherto acted
upon or proposed. * ..
I do
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 105
£º.
I do not consider it necessary to enter at length upon the various and powerful reasons
which may be advanced in favour of such an undertaking. The vast importance of a copious
and regular supply of pure water to the Metropolis is sufficiently obvious, whether we
consider the health, comfort, or safety of its inhabitants. f
It is perfectly well known that the Public are at present supplied either with water of
far inferior quality to Thames water, or with such as is drawn from the river after it has
become contaminated by torrents of impure matter of various kinds, arising from so vast a
population : — that the number and offensive nature of the manufactories established on the
banks of the Thames within late years have tended to increase this evil: — that even this
supply is languid and uncertain, especially in the more elevated parts of the Metropolis, and
when it is most urgently called for, in case of fires: — and that under the existing state of
things, no option is left to the consumer of this great necessary of life, either as to terms or
quality. — These are evils too notorious to be disputed, and for the remedy of which I have
directed my attention to the two following most important points for consideration:—
First, The source from whence to obtain a sufficient quantity of pure and wholesome
water; and Secondly, The best mode of producing a regular, equal, and effective supply,
on fair and liberal terms to the Public. -
I believe that better water need not be desired than such as is to be found in the Thames
before it has become polluted by the offensive matter from the sewers and manufactories of
London and its widely extending neighbourhood, the impurities of which are carried by the
tide to a considerable distance above the places where they are discharged into the river.
In order, therefore, to obtain a supply of pure and untainted water, it is absolutely neces-
sary that some point of supply should be fixed upon beyond the influence of existing
nuisances, or those which are likely to be created by the extension of population.
The modes at present resorted to for bringing water from a distance, and of raising it to
reservoirs, from which mains are supplied for its distribution, are liable to various difficulties
and objections.
The New River, after passing through 40 miles of country, terminates in a reservoir only
84 feet and a half above the level of the Thames, and steam-power is required to raise a
portion of the water to a greater height. To execute a work on this plan, an immense
quantity of land must be purchased, and compensation must be made for water rights. The
original cost of forming such a water-course is enormous, and the current expenses of
maintaining it, with all the bridges, embankments, tunnels, &c. upon the line, are ex-
tremely heavy.
Other water companies have placed their steam-engines on the banks of the Thames, in
London or its immediate vicinity, and have forced water from the river to reservoirs on some
elevated spot at a distance. By following such a plan much of the power exerted is lost,
in consequence of the friction and resistance occasioned by forcing an ascending column of
water through a long extent of pipe; and the desire of avoiding this waste of power has
probably induced such companies to draw water from parts of the river too near to the Me-
tropolis to obtain it of good quality, and to select situations for their reservoirs not sufficiently
elevated for the effectual supply of the Public.
The highest reservoir supplied in this way is only 121 feet above the level of the Thames,
which has been found insufficient for the purposes required; and in consequence the water
has been also forced into the mains direct from the engines. This method is liable to all the
objections arising from loss of power by friction, to which must be added the great evil
of the supply depending on the constant action of mechanical power, as a large quantity
of water may be required in case of an extensive fire, at a time when such power is not in
operation.
To avoid these evils and objections, and to ensure to the Public water of the best possible
quality, at a moderate charge, delivered with such force as would produce a regular flow at
an elevation that can be desired, I have projected the following plan;—
A part of the River Thames being selected, from which pure and unpolluted water may
be obtained (and which, I believe, will be best found between Brentford and Richmond),
I propose cutting a subterraneous aqueduct from such point in a line that will terminate
under an elevated spot near the metropolis; and no situation presents so many advantages as
Hampstead Hill or its vicinity.
The summit of Hampstead Hill is 437 feet above low water mark at Hammersmith ; and
all the intermediate altitudes will be seen by reference to the Plan and Section which I have
the honour of placing before you, and which are laid down from a survey made for the
present object.
A reservoir or reservoirs may be formed at any elevation shown on this plan, and an
abundance of open space is to be obtained upon any part of the line for this purpose. The
situation and altitude of the reservoirs being determined upon, engine-shafts will be sunk
perpendicularly to meet the aqueduct, and the water at once raised by steam-engines into
the reservoirs, from whence it will be distributed to the various parts of the Metropolis with
a force proportioned to the elevation.
(94.) ID d Taking
Plans of Remedies,
Plan by
Mr.
Philip Taylor.
106 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Plans of Remedies.
Philip Taylor.
Taking into consideration the advantages which would result to the Public from having
a supply of Thames water drawn from so remote a part of the river, — conveyed in a subter-
raneous aqueduct, where it would be subject neither to contamination nor obstruction from
frost, as in a long open water-course, – and raised to an elevation sufficient to ensure a supply
to the top of any house, – no fear need be entertained with regard to the support which
such a work would meet with. It would not, perhaps, be too much to expect, even if such
advantages could only be obtained at a greater expense than has been incurred by other
companies, that still the undertaking would be profitable; but I believe I shall be able to
show that the execution of the work I have proposed will not be more expensive than others
possessing very inferior powers, maintained at a heavier annual expense, and consuming a
much larger quantity of coals.
The operation of raising water is carried on with more economy and to a greater extent
in the mines of Cornwall than in any other part of the world; and the improvements of
late years have rendered the means of doing this so certain and comparatively cheap, that
many extensive mines, formerly abandoned from the difficulty and expense of draining
them, are now worked with large profit. It is not uncommon, in many of these mines, to
raise the water from more than 1,000 feet in depth, in vast quantities, and, of course,
incessantly.
The means by which I propose raising water from the aqueduct to the reservoirs for the
service of the Metropolis are the most improved means now adopted in the Cornish mines;
and it is obvious that, by the use of such means, a like quantity of water will be raised to
a given height with the same expense of fuel. No untried plan and no doubtful calculations
are involved in this part of my proposal, as printed reports are published every month giving
the return of water raised and coals consumed by every large engine in Cornwall. I have
already stated, that a considerable quantity of power is lost by the usual mode of forcing
water through a sufficient length of ascending pipe to reach a reservoir at a distance,
which loss will be obviated by the mode I have proposed of raising it at once by a
perpendicular lift. *
That it is most desirable to supply a city from a large reservoir at a considerable elevation
is so obvious that I scarcely need to state the advantages. Should such water-works as I
have proposed be undertaken and brought into action, the supply of water would be certain
in all parts of the Metropolis, and cisterns might be filled on the roofs of houses, manufac-
tories, and theatres, thereby giving a great security against the ravages of fire. -
The works on this plan would be always operative, as the force of supply would depend
simply on the gravitation of a lofty column of water fed by an ample reservoir at its summit.
The pressure of such a column would produce so great a force, that fountains equal to any in
Europe might be placed in our squares; and an extinguishing main might be always charged
with such a pressure that by merely attaching to it an engine-hose the water would be
thrown to a greater height than it can be by the fire-engines at present in use; and this
might be resorted to in case of fire at a few minutes notice, and be brought into action
without labour. Branches for such an extinguishing main might also be laid into buildings
or manufactories, to be used only in case of fire. With a hose fixed to such a branch,
coiled up and hung against a wall, any party, at a moderate annual charge, would have an
engine commanding his whole premises, and one which would never fail him in case of need.
The supplying a city from a reservoir on a very elevated situation would also be advan-
tageous to the company who engaged in such a work. It is well known that the quantity
of water that can be delivered through a pipe depends not only on its size, but also on the
pressure or force applied. If the pressure is considerable, the pipes may be reduced in
proportion; and when it is taken into account that the laying of mains must form the
greatest item of expenditure to a water company, any reduction in the sizes required will
materially reduce the amount.
I will only addin conclusion, that the undertaking now proposed appears more likely to
combine public utility with adequate and fair remuneration to the individuals engaged in it
than any work of the sort hitherto projected. In this vast metropolis there is not a person,
however high or however low, who is not interested in obtaining an ample supply of good
water. Every step, therefore, to attain this end is of the utmost public importance; and it
is not hazarding too much to say, that it would now be attained in a far greater degree than
by any former attempts of the kind. The means by which it is proposed to effect it rest
upon no theory which may or may not admit of practical application. The positive effect
of the improved steam-engines employed in draining the vast mines of this country is well
known, and the aqueducts of Rome are amongst the most stupendous and indestructible
monuments of that city’s greatness: no doubt, therefore, need be entertained of the practi-
cability of this plan, as it is simply a new combination of works well tried, and resting on
the sure basis of experience. It is but fair to expect that a company possessing not only
the advantages of the purest water which it is possible to obtain for the metropolis, but also
being enabled to afford an ample and certain supply of it at all times with equal facility to
the highest as well as to the lowest parts — not depending upon the constant action of artifi-
cial power for its conveyance, but upon the application of a natural power which acts equally
at all times; it is, I say, but fair to expect that such a work will not fail to ensure the general
and cordial support of the public.
London, Oct. 6, 1824. PHILIP TAYLOR.
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 107
The above Report having been read, it was resolved,—That it has long been matter of just Plans of Remedies,
complaint throughout the Metropolis that the supply of water is of inferior quality for
domestic use, besides being uncertain, and very generally insufficient for the ordinary
consumption. &
Plan by
Mr.
g Philip Taylor.
That this uncertainty and insufficiency have occasioned numerous and heavy losses of -
property, by reason of the impossibility of obtaining a supply of water in cases of fire for
many hours after the arrival of engines. -
That it is most essential to the safety of the inhabitants of this great metropolis that there
should be a boundless and constant supply of water, and equally so to their comfort and
health that it should be of unexceptionable purity.
That in consequence of the great increase of population in the neighbourhood of London.
and Westminster, and the establishment of manufactories of various kinds on the banks of
the Thames, by which the stream is constantly polluted and rendered unwholesome, it is
impossible to draw a supply of pure water from any part of the river near to the Metropolis.
That Mr. Philip Taylor having laid before this meeting the result of the surveys, and
the estimate which he had prepared by order of the promoters of this undertaking, it is
the opinion of this meeting that, by the adoption of the plan proposed by him, a boundless
supply of water, drawn from a part of the River Thames so distant as to preclude the
possibility of pollution, may be furnished even to the attics of the highest situations in the
Metropolis; that in the event of fire that supply will always be instantly available in every
part of the town, and may be carried in an overwhelming column to the top of the highest
houses, even without the aid of fire-engines; and further, that it appears likely that this
plan may be carried into execution at an expense which would enable the company to furnish
the supply upon terms in no case exceeding those of other companies, and in many cases,
and particularly where the water is carried to any considerable height, at much lower rates
than are now charged, and also secure to the proprietors a liberal return for the capital to
be invested.
That application be made to Parliament, at the next session, for an Act to incorporate
a Joint Stock Company, under the title of the Thames Water Company, to carry into effect
these important objects.
That the capital of the said company be 750,000l. to be raised by transferable shares of
100l. each, with power to increase the same; and that a deposit of 21. per share be paid
at the time of subscribing; and that Messrs. Glyn, Mills, Halifax, Glyn, and Co. and Sir
Walter Stirling bart. and Co. be authorized to receive the same.
That the concerns of the Company be managed by 24 directors, to be hereafter chosen by
the body of proprietors.
That Mr. Philip Taylor be appointed engineer to the company, and that he be requested
forthwith to prepare the estimates and details which are further necessary.
That it be referred to a committee of management to investigate the further details and
estimates, and to take such other steps as may appear to them to be necessary.
That the following gentleman do form such committee, with power to add to their numbers:
— Sir Edward Banks, William Stanley Clarke esq., Thomas Brunton esq., James Burton
esq., W. Crawshay esq., Walpole Eyre esq., John Garratt esq. alderman, R. T. J. Glyn esq.,
William Grenfell esq., Thomas Halifax esq., Thomas Hood esq., George Lyall esq., Richard
Mee Raikes esq., Robert Rickards esq., Wm. Routh esq., Edmond W. Rundell esq.,
Robert Slade esq., Sir Walter Stirling bart., W. Thompson esq. alderman and M. P., John
Fam Timens esq., Colonel Trench M. P., John Tulloch esq., William Venables esq. alderman,
Samuel Williams esq., Thomas Wilson esq.
That Messrs. Freeman and Heathcote be appointed solicitors to the company, and that
they do forthwith give the necessary Parliamentary notices.
That all applications for shares be made by letter, addressed to the committee of manage-
ment, to be left at the office of Messrs. Freeman and Heathcote, Coleman-street.
London, October 14th, 1824.
The Committee of Management are anxious to lay before the Public the fullest information
that can be afforded; but there are certain points as to situation, and as to the detail of
estimates, which it would be premature to publish. They are justified, however, in stating
that Mr. Taylor's estimates for the execution of an aqueduct capable of conveying a super-
abundant quantity of water from so distant a part of the Thames that its purity will be un-
questionable, as well as for erecting steam-engines, and forming ample reservoirs, calculated
to ensure an abundant and constant supply of water to the utmost height that it can be desired,
do not exceed the sum of 180,000l., leaving so large a proportion of the proposed capital
for laying pipes, that by its expenditure this company will be in a situation to command a
very extended rental.
The Committee of Management feel confident that the mains will be executed on terms
more advantageous than in the case of any other similar undertaking, not only from the various
(94.) circumstances
108 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM commissionERs on
Plans of Remedies.
Plan by
Mr.
Philip Taylor.
circumstances which have reduced the cost of such work, but also from the fact that smaller
pipes will be required on account of the pressure which will result from having the supplying
reservoirs at so great an elevation above the highest parts of the Metropolis, as it is well
known that the quantity of water which will pass through a pipe, depends not only on its
size, but also on the pressure which is applied.
The Committee of Management are also satisfied, from calculations founded on ample
experience, that the water required by this company will be raised to a much greater height
than that to which it is raised by the existing companies, with a much smaller consumption
of coals.
The benefits likely to result to the public and to this company may be judged of by com-
paring the amount of the estimates with the magnitude of the proposed works, which are
calculated to supply a much larger quantity than is supplied by any company in the Metro-
polis, and having an effective steam-power more than equal to that of all the present
-: companies.
The Committee of Management are convinced that no new water company will meet
with the sanction of Parliament, or the support of the Public, unless effectual means are
adopted to supply purer water, and in a better manner than at present; and they have every
expectation that the plan suggested to their consideration will afford the most effectual
means by which these important objects can be attained, and that in an economical manner
with reference to the magnitude of the work.
CoNve RSATION with Mr. PHILIP TAYLOR.
Mr. Philip Taylor came to the office of the Commissioners and requested an interview;
he was accordingly called in, and he stated that his object in waiting on the Board was to
lay his own plan for bringing a supply of water to London before the Commissioners. Mr.
Taylor brought with him a printed copy of the outline of his plan, and which had before
been presented by Mr. Martineau, his partner in business, on Mr. Taylor's behalf, Mr. Taylor
at that time being in France. Mr. Taylor stated, that he had been at very considerable expense
in making the survey and taking the levels, the particulars of which, namely the original
drawings, were in the hands of the solicitors who were employed at the time of the meeting
when these plans had been brought forward; that he had not received any remuneration
whatever for the expense he had been at; and now he had applied for his own plans to the
parties who held them, and he could not get them, the solicitors stating that they hoped
to make something of the plan themselves; and he therefore maturally wished to present his
own plans to the Board, as it was not improbable that it would be attempted to be done by
others. Mr. Taylor then gave in a small drawing, showing the general line of his proposed
aqueduct, and the situation of the reservoirs referred to in the report.
Mr. Taylor stated that the distance for the tunnel would be nine miles and a quarter, and
he proposed a brick aqueduct of six feet diameter, and with a head of one foot there would
be a flow equal to the quantity of the New River.
Mr. Taylor was asked what power of engines would be required at Hampstead, and he
replied that the expense of engines, on his plan, would not be more than one fourth of the
expense of the engines now employed by the water companies; for the forcing of water
through a great length of iron tubes, and up inclined planes, was attended with so much
friction, that these engines did not more duty than to lift 18 millions of pounds one foot high,
with the consumption of one bushel of coals; whereas the Cornish engines which were em-
ployed in pumping water from the mines, by direct and perpendicular lifts, performed the
duty of raising as much as 74 millions of pounds one foot high, by the consumption of the same
quantity of coals; and this latter plan of employing engines, namely by a direct perpen-
dicular lift, was the one, and the only one, that would be adopted on his plan.
The following note was received from S. M. Phillipps, Esq. of the Home Department, ac-
companied by a letter from Freeman, Heathcote, and Osborn, enclosing Mr. Philip Taylor's
Plan (see page 104), with manuscript remarks appended to it:
“Mr. Phillipps presents his compliments to the Commissioners for Inquiry into the quality
of Water supplied to the Metropolis, and transmits to them, enclosed, a communication
which has been addressed to Mr. Peel, from Messrs. Freeman, Heathcote, and Osborn,
upon the subject now under the investigation of the Commissioners.
“Whitehall, April 3d, 1828.”
Sir, Coleman-street, 2d April 1828.
THE pending Inquiry on the subject of the Supply of pure Water to the Metropolis has
induced us to take the liberty of handing you a report of the proceedings of a committee of
management of a company, under the title of “ The Thames Water Company,” which was
projected in the year JS24, for the purpose of supplying the Metropolis with pure water, but
not then proceeded with from various circumstances. To the company we were appointed
solicitors, and have now in our possession the plans and drawings which were obtained at a
considerable
suPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 109
t
considerable expense for the object in view. In addition to the report, we have also taken
the liberty of enclosing some remarks and suggestions, and shall be happy to wait upon you
at any time you may please to intimate, and give any information in our power.
We beg leave to add, that some of the gentlemen mentioned in the accompanying report
would immediately embark in an undertaking of the description mentioned, provided they
were assured of the support of His Majesty's Government, and there was a prospect of a
beneficial investment of their capital. . •e
We have the honour to be, Sir, your very obedient humble servants,
FREEMAN, HEATHCOTE, and OSBoRN.
REMARKs appended to Mr. TAYLOR's PLAN. (See page 104.)
THE following Remarks are suggested under the supposition that the supply of water to
the Metropolis will have been proved to be inadequate, and of an impure quality, and to
require the interference of His Majesty's Government, in order that the population may
for the future have a certain, ample, and salubrious consumption, with as little interference
as possible with the vested rights of individuals who have embarked capital in water-com-
panies on the faith of the Acts of the Legislature. The formation of any company at the pre-
sent moment would be looked upon with great suspicion by the Public; and those who have
read with attention the very able Reports and Evidence respecting water-companies before
Committees of the House of Commons, will perhaps have a strong impression that it would
be ruinous to embark capital in such a company, which must compete with those in
eXIStence.
The following is an extract from a Report, dated the 18th May 1821. “Competition in
ordinary cases adjusts the supply to the demand through the liberty which the sellers have
to go out of the market, as well as to come into it; but in trades carried on by means of
large capitals wested in fixed machinery, and furnishing a commodity of no value but for
consumption on the spot, the sellers are confined to the market by the nature of the trade,
and the new comer has to seek immediate employment for large works, by taking custom
from the established dealer; as there can be no great difference in the quality of what they
sell, they must vie in the lowness of price, and will probably be driven to under-bid each
other down to the point of ruin, because it is better to take any thing than to take nothing
for that which cannot be carried away; and this must go on until both are worn out, or one
has out-lasted the others, and succeeded to a real and effective monopoly, or until, by some
arrangement between themselves, they can put a stop to their mutual destruction.” Supposing
this view of the subject to be correct, the evil justly complained of does not arise from defective
watercourses or pipes to supply the houses, but in the source from which the water is taken.
The remedy suggested is the making an aqueduct or canal from an eligible position of
the Thames to an elevated spot near the metropolis, sufficiently large to supply its wants;
Mr. Philip Taylor's Report to the Committee for forming the projected Thames Water Com-
pany will give some idea of the practicability of such a project (a copy of Mr. Taylor's
Report was left with Mr. Holmes a few days back). From the grand reservoir the different
water-companies should be obliged to lay down aqueducts to their reservoirs, and thus sup-
ply the Metropolis with pure water. Capitalists might be found to make such an aqueduct,
under the designation of “The Thames Aqueduct Supply Company,” upon the following
conditions:
That they should be a chartered body :
That the water-companies should be compelled to take their supply from the projected
company, and the company should be restricted from laying down pipes to supply houses
in the Metropolis, unless in places where the water-companies could not do so:
That the parties investing their capital in this undertaking shall, after deducting all ex-
penses, be entitled to per cent. per annum on the capital invested, and no more:
That the revenue shall be calculated pro rată on the quantity of water supplied each
company: .
That an account shall be laid before Parliament annually, giving a statement of the affairs
of the companies. Without making any pledge as to the accuracy of the calculation which
may have been effected by events which have occurred since such calculations were made,
or that Teddington and Hampstead are the most proper places for the commencement and
termination of the project, it is taken for granted that the only certain and effectual mode of
supplying the metropolis with water is by an aqueduct or canal. The necessity of making
one being obvious, it is essential that the construction should be of the most durable
materials, and sufficiently capacious not only to meet the present but the probable demand
for water, which an increasing population may require; therefore the companies will be
supplied with water cheaper than if each had its own aqueduct, paying only a fair remu-
neration for capital, which they themselves would otherwise be obliged to invest:
That previous to the commencement of the work the drawings shall be approved of by the
Secretary of State for the Home Department.
(94.) E e
Plans of Remedies.
Plan by
Mr. ,
Philip Taylor.
| 10 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Plans of Remedies.
Plan by
Mr. Martin.
*=----.
Statement by
* Mr.
George Smart.
==rssº
Copy of a PLAN presented to the CoMMISSIONERs by Mr. MARTIN.
Reference to the Letters marked on the accompanying Maps (Nos. 1 & 2.) showing
a proposed Line of Aqueduct from the river Colne to London.
A.—In the map, No. 1, shows the point at which the proposed Aqueduct would commence
deriving its supply from a branch of the river Colne, which now intersects the Grand Junction
Canal, passing underneath a lock of that canal, at Cowley, about 14 miles from London.
It may here be necessary to observe that this river is most abundantly supplied with
water of the purest quality, even in the driest seasons; at times overflowing its banks and
inundating the country through which it passes, particularly in the neighbourhood of
Windsor, the evil consequence of which would be greatly obviated by the formation of a
new channel.
B.—Dotted blue line, denoting the course of the proposed new aqueduct, from its com-
mencement at Cowley to Paddington-green, following the course of the Grand Junction
Canal, which Canal might itself be made the channel of conveyance, should economy
render it expedient.
C.—Waste water, affording a supply to the ponds in the Regent's Park, sufficient to effect
a change and circulation therein, and to prevent the ill effects arising from its present state
of stagnation. -
D.—Main reservoir, from which it is proposed to supply the western part of the metro-
polis, being about 80 or 90 feet above the level of the Thames, and of a sufficient elevation
to supply that part of the Metropolis without the assistance of an engine.
E.—Proposed public baths, 200 yards by 100 yards, supplied by the surplus water, and
surrounded by building and plantation.
F.—Ornamental water in front of a range of proposed new buildings, terminating the
western extremity of London, commanding a view of the Park, Kensington Gardens, &c.
forming an imposing appearance to the entrance of London from the Uxbridge road, pre-
venting at the same time any further inclosure round the Park by an increase of buildings,
so objectionable in appearance and detrimental in effect, by obstructing the free admission
of air. -
G-Line of communication from the ornamental water above described, and the Serpen-
tine River in Kensington Gardens.
H.—Channel from the Serpentine, communicating, by ornamental and picturesque water-
falls, with the water in the gardens of Buckingham Palace.
I.—Line of communication from the water in the gardens of Buckingham Palace, passing
through the Green Park into the new-formed ornamental water in St. James's Park, at the
extremities of which it is proposed to introduce two fountains.
J.—Line of exit from the water in St. James's Park into the Thames at Whitehall-stairs.
Copy of Mr. SMART's STATEMENT on sinking a Well.
Dear Sir, - King's Arms-yard, Lambeth, 16th Feb. 1828.
WITH this I send you samples of the substances I have bored through to get a supply of
pure and soft water at my mills, York-mead, Lambeth, and a sample of the water. For
several years I have only had a mixture of river and land-spring water for the use of my
steam-engine from the ditches. The havoc in boilers, tubes and pipes, has been great from
the mixture and impurity of the water; the stone or fur accumulated so fast as to make it
necessary to chip and clean out every week; a sample of the foul-water stone from off one
of the tubes I have sent for your inspection. About six months ago I set the well-borers to
work, and have been successful in obtaining a great supply of fine pure soft water from a
depth of 211 feet, which rises to within 14 feet of the surface, and my pump discharges about
32 gallons per minute, much more than I want for my engine. From my success, two of my
neighbours have bored with equal success, one about 300 yards from mine, and the other
about 100 ; one is a table and ale-brewery, the other a steam-engine; and I find my water
keeps its first level.
In conversing with the borers they inform me that in and about London, from 300 to 200
feet down, a great supply of water is to be found, but that it will not in all places rise
within the reach of a common lifting-pump. Being uncertain of the height it would rise at
my place, I sunk a well six feet over, down to the stiff clay, and stemmed out the land-
springs; by this I was prepared to fix my pump as low as necessary, should the spring not
rise; but fortunately I did not want it, for it reached up within 14 feet of the surface; the
whole of my expense was under 150l.
Should any of the above hints be of any use to your important inquiries on the supply of
water, I shall be glad, and am, -
Dear Sir, your's ever truly,
(Signed) GEORGE SMART.
Depth
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, H II
Depth from the surface.
. Feet. Inches.
1st. A mixture, made-ground, gravel, and clay tºº * 30 0
2d. Stony blue clay *E* * tºº tºº - 139 0
3d. Clay-stone * * * gº gº 0 6
4th. Hard rock sº tºº tºº - sº º I 6
5th. Hard mixed clay and sand - - sº - 20 {}
6th. Sheel and pebble stones gº ſº tºº q=º 6 ()
7th. Green soft sand-stone came up in sand - tºº 14. 0
Sand and water at 2] I 0.
Copy of a LETTER from Mr. NICHOLAS BRowN of Wakefield, addressed to Lord Wharncliffe,
and by him sent to the Commissioners.
My Lord,
SEEING in the Times Newspaper a long Memoir signed by J. Wright, and addressed to
the Commissioners appointed by His Majesty, in pursuance of an Address of both Houses
of Parliament, to inquire into the state of the Supply of Water to the Metropolis, and
learning also that your Lordship is upon that Commission, I am sure you will excuse me in
the liberty I am taking in addressing you upon the subject, so far as relates to the supply
given out to a portion of the Metropolis by the Grand Junction Waterworks Company,
which I cannot state in a more clear point of view than is already done by Mr. Wright's
Memoir. The object I have in view is to point out to your Lordship what has been done
for the town of Manchester under similar circumstances, and from thence to draw an
inference that there is every reason to conclude the same may be done for that part of
Westminster, &c. which at present is served with an impure water.
In the latter end of the year 1823 I was called upon, by the direction of the Manchester
and Salford Waterworks Company, to view some situations, which had been pointed out
for one or more reservoirs, and to state my opinion, whether I thought the situation proper
for the purpose, and whether there was a probability of procuring a sufficient supply of
water for so large a population. Previous to this time, about the year 1807, an Act of
Parliament was obtained for supplying the towns of Manchester and Salford with water by
a Company principally residing in London, at least very few of the inhabitants of Manchester
were shareholders, if any, and the works were then carried into effect under the directions
of the late Mr. Rennie, by pumping water by means of steam power out of the river Med-
lock, a small stream that derives its supply from the hills above Oldham, into a reservoir
of about seven Lancashire acres. The water from this river being at times very much
polluted, that portion of it which was taken out by means of a gauge-weir was passed into
two small reservoirs, in which to deposit the greatest parts of its impurity. It was thence
pumped up to the seven acres reservoirs, and pipes laid to convey it to the town.
The original promoters of this scheme having been previously engaged in manufacturing
stone pipes, they were laid as mains to the town, and through the various streets (hence the
name given to this company, the Stone Pipe Company). So soon as the works were complete,
the water was turned upon the mains, and the pressure of the water being too powerful for
the stone pipes, they gave way in all directions, and the town was literally in a state of
inundation.
Various attempts were made to repair the breaches, partly with stone, and partly with iron,
but in vain; the stone pipes were obliged to be abandoned, and iron substituted. From the
various expenses then incurred, the then proprietors sold their interest in the works to a
Plans of Remedies.
Statement by
Mr.
George Smart.
Letter from
Mr.
Nicholas Brown.
number of the inhabitants of the town and neighbourhood, and for a time the works
continued upon their original construction. But the increase of population, and thereby
demand for water, and their not having the power of taking a further supply from the
Medlock, without injury to the mill-property, and the increasing impurities of that river,
occasioned by the erection of various dye, bleach, and other works upon its banks, gave rise
to an application to Parliament in 1823, to enable the company to procure a further and
more pure supply from another source.
This Act of Parliament being obtained, it fell to my lot to carry the new works into
execution. Two reservoirs were constructed upon some small stream at the distance of
about three miles from the town, with the necessary works to convey the water to the town,
and notwithstanding our meeting with considerable delay for want of the cast iron pipes
being furnished us from the founderies, the works had so far advanced that water was
drawn from the new works to the town on the 4th May 1826, and has continued to flow
from that time to the present, and the works are now complete; the engine, as well as the
polluted water from the river Medlock, are given up altogether, and the town is now
supplied with abundance of pure water, notwithstanding the large quantities there used in
the various manufactories.
The two new reservoirs are situate, the one immediately above the other, the higher
covering 31 acres, the lower 23}, making together 54% statute acres, the cubical contents
(94.) - I calculated
112 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Plans of Remedies.
Plan by
Mr.
Nicholas Brown.
Communication
from
Mr. E. Chambers.
I calculated to hold 37,534,235 cubic feet; and taking into consideration the extent of
ground, which is 1,600 acres only, and from which the water is collected to supply the
reservoirs, I was led to conclude that the two would be filled twice and a half within the
year, and affording a supply to the town 1,600,000 gallons per day.
Since these works have been completed it is ascertained that my estimate, was underrated,
and that notwithstanding the very dry summer in 1826, there was two months supply in
the reservoirs at the setting in of the wet season, independent of a large quantity which had
been allowed to run waste.
During the old establishment, when the water was pumped out of the river Medlock, the
supply given out was from 7 to 800,000 gallons per day; since the new works have been carried
into effect, partly from the increase of services, and partly owing to the quality of water
being more pure, the quantity now given out is not less than 1,200,000, a certain number
of hours each day to upwards of 9,500 families, exclusive of 900 services to the different
branches in trade, such as for steam-engines, common brewers, dyehouses, public
stables, &c. &c.
I now, my Lord, come to that part of the statement to which I beg to call your Lord-
ship's particular attention; that if 1,600,000 gallons per day can be procured from so small
an extent of ground as 1,600 acres of land, Surely some eligible situation can be found
upon the Brent or Colne, or rather upon the feeders of one or other of those rivers, upon
which a reservoir of sufficient capacity may be formed, and into which a sufficient drainage
can be effected, to give out that supply which may be required for that district to which
the works of the Grand Junction Company have been applied, and to an extent much
beyond their present power. I am aware, that to a certain the extent the Grand Junction
Canal Company have the control of the two rivers as feeders to their canal; but I feel con-
fident, from a reference to the county survey, the district must afford means of making
sufficient provision without at all interfering with their right. This however can only be
ascertained by a careful examination and survey of the district; and should your Lordship
be of opinion, that it is not now too late, and that your Lordship should advise it, I would
come up to town and make the necessary inquiry and survey to be laid before the Commis-
sioners. In the mean time I am given to understand that the Evidence already brought
before the Commissioners has been published; should this be the case, and that it is not
contrary to the proceedings of the commission, I should feel highly honoured by your
Lordship directing me a copy to be sent down into the country; it might elicit some points
to which my attention may not have been directed, and give me a more general view of this
subject; or if there be any other information which your Lordship may think will be of use
to me in this inquiry, I shall feel happy to receive it.
I have the honour, &c. §
(Signed) NICHOLAS BROWN.
CoMMUNICATION from Mr. EDWARD CHAMBERs, addressed to the Commissioners.
Gentlemen, Edward-street, Hampstead-road, 27th February 1828.
CoNCEIVING that the high and important office, wherewith, under the Commission
for the Water Inquiry, you are intrusted, must have for its object, either the pro-
curing the future supply of water to the Metropolis from a purer source altogether, or else in
causing all those supplies as drawn from their present sources to undergo a process of
filtration, permit me to suggest for your adoption, in the event of the latter measure being
resorted to, a method of filtering water on a scale of sufficient magnitude, as to render it
peculiarly applicable in the present instance, as affording a thorough remedy against the
nuisance so generally complained of, and which is capable of thoroughly filtering and
rendering quite pure all the water supplied by all the water-companies to the Metropolis.
It is now nearly a year since I submitted to Sir Francis Burdett this method of purifying
the water supplied to London, when the honourable Baronet informed me that he had already
heard of the plan, but that for the present he would not further inquire of me respecting it,
as the inquiry then going on in the House of Commons was not sufficiently advanced to
make it opportune his then inspecting what I had to propose; but that as soon as such
parliamentary investigation should have arrived at a more mature stage, he would duly apprize
me of the same; and about a fortnight since, on my laying before him certain certificates
of the success of this patent, he was kind enough to refer me to the spirited Author of the
Dolphin, who recommended me to lay what propositions I had to make before yourselves.
I should not forget to state, that my father, to whom the merits of this invention are
wholly due, offered to filter for the New River Company at one farthing per ton, but which
proposition was not acceded to, either (I conclude) because no complaint had up to that
period been made by the inhabitants of the unknown impurities they were daily drinking,
or because the source whence the New River Company drew their supply might possibly
be more pure than that of Some others. - --
In
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. ..] [3
In further illustration of the merits and efficacy of the process, which, in a general way,
I have been endeavouring to describe, drawings shall be laid before you for your inspection,
should you require them, together with various samples of waters, both unfiltered as well as
filtered by the above-mentioned process, &c. &c. -
I have the honour to subscribe myself, gentlemen,
Your most obedient Servant,
E. CHAMBERs.
Copy of a LETTER from Mr. Jon Es of the LoNDON HospitaL,
addressed to the CoMMISSIONERs.
Gentlemen,
SINCE I had the honour of being before you on Friday last, I have revolved in my mind
many floating ideas as to the quality of the water of the River Thames for domestic purposes:
the immense quantities of ordure, filth, and noisome matter from such a vastly-increased
population, must always tend to make it abound with impurities; it is too late to make regu-
lations of the sort now ; but if the sewers of the metropolis had been constructed to carry
away only the waste and sullage, and the night-soil removed as formerly by carts, a great
part of the bad effects might have been avoided; it seems to me that other resources might
be found without-depending so much on the River Thames. * -
This appears to me very easy to be accomplished, by constructing sufficient basins or
reservoirs at convenient places on all sides of the town, by turning the waters of the Colne,
the Dart, and other tributary streams, into those reservoirs which now go into the Thames;
and by making an aqueduct from thence to other basins or works contiguous to town, thus
supply the metropolis on all sides with pure wholesome water, such as the New River
Company’s water; and upon some such a plan I hope these crude and unscientific notions
will not be thought impertinent; and I should be glad if you, gentlemen, should approve the
idea, you will please to acknowledge this.
*. I have the honour to be, &c.
(Signed) J. Jon Es.
LETTER from Mr. W. ANDERSON, addressed to the CoMMIssion ERs. .
Gentlemen, - - ... - . .
LAST April I surveyed the River Thames at Teddington Lock, in order to see what mode
could be adopted to get pure water from thence to London; the river at that place has a fall
of about two feet, the water was very clear, but I observed a great quantity of fish-spawn and
vegetable matter all along the river, for about half a mile above the Teddington Lock, where
the river divides itself into various channels.
I inquired of a fisherman the height of the winter-floods, and he pointed to a city-mark
on one of the piles, which was the height of the high flood in December in 1821, being ten
feet above the ordinary height of the river. The winter floods are generally from five to seven
feet above the river, at the head of the Teddington Lock.
It therefore occurred to me, that if the water was to be taken at the height of the
Teddington Lock, and conveyed to London to supply the inhabitants with water, that the
channel for its conveyance must be embanked sufficiently high to be out of the reach of
the floods, and running parallel to the river, or in high ground, by deep cutting, to be out
of reach of them ; and supposing no obstacle to be in the way by the landowners, the
shortest length of the channel would not be less than 15 miles; and with a fall of five feet,
would convey the water to the neighbourhood of Chelsea about mid-tide level, so that it
would require reservoirs made in that part all below the said level, to receive the water;
and as the land in that part is generally about five feet above high water, the excavation
would be nearly 20 feet, which at that depth would reach the land-water, and destroy the
purity and quality of the Thames water. In making the aforesaid channel, it will be seen
that the whole drainage of the country would be intersected by it; and a branch of the
Colne must be crossed by a tunnel at Isleworth, and the River Brent in like manner.
There are also a great number of drainage-streams in the winter, that cannot well be con-
veyed over the channel, and therefore from necessity must drain into it; but independent of
the obstacles above stated, the most valuable property of every description on the banks of
the Thames is of itself a sufficient reason against any plan of a channel running parallel to
the river, to convey water from Teddington to London.
I examined also the south side of the river, and I see the same objections in every respect
as that on the north, excepting the property not being quite so valuable; but as the water
must be conveyed across the River Thames at some place, it makes it even more objectionable
than on the north side.
On further examination it occurred to me that the only plan would be to erect powerful
engines at Teddington; and by laying a main pipe one mile and a half in length to the ridge
of the ground at the oil-mill near Wilton, which is about 50 feet above the river at Tedding-
ton Lock, it would get over part of the difficulty as above stated; it might then cross the
(94.) F f valley
Plans of Remedies.
Communication
from
MT. E. Chambers.
-- * ---------------a < ------
Letter from
Mr. J. Jones.
Letter from
Mr. W. Anderson.
}l 4, APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Plans of Remedies.
Letter from
Mr. W. Anderson.
Copies of Petitions.
Petition from
the Inhabitants of
Southwark.
valley of the Wilton by an aqueduct; and continuing along that part of the high ground,
cross the Hounslow road, near Osterly Park, and continuing in a north-east direction to the
valley of the Brent, cross the canal and river by an aqueduct, where the valley is very wide;
the line might then pass by a short tunnel under Boston-lane, where it might pass from
thence on a level sufficiently high so as not to intersect the drainage of the country; it might
then be continued in a line to the neighbourhood of Hammersmith, Brompton, and Chelsea,
where reservoirs might be constructed for the use of the West Middlesex, Chelsea, and
Grand Junction Water Companies; and although there would be much difficulty in getting
pipes laid from the reservoirs to their different works, and independent of the valuable land
in the neighbourhood of London, and the great expense attending this plan, it appears to me
as the only practicable mode that could be adopted to convey the Thames water from
Teddington to London.
From the rough survey I have made of the above plan, I do not presume to give an estimate
of the expense of it; but to pump the whole quantity of water at Teddington to supply the
three companies, according to their present consumption, would cost, for coals alone, and
wear and tear of engines, an annual expense of 7,000l. ; and the outlay for engine-house,
engines, and main pipe, would amount to 76,000l. These sums are exclusive of the cost of
land, and making the channel or aqueduct. Independent of the great expense of purchasing
land, there are many objections to an open aqueduct passing in the neighbourhood of popu-
lous villages; in the summer time the inducement for people to bathe in it, and the cattle
treading down its banks, washing dogs, and other nuisances; and in the winter time the
rains falling on the inside slopes of the banks, and the trouble in severe frosts of getting the
water along. The New River Company have experienced this in most severe winters;
the West Middlesex and Grand Junction Companies were under the necessity of supplying
them with water in the severe winter a few years ago, until they could get the river cleared of
the small ice. On the whole, I see no real advantage of conveying water from the Thames at
Teddington Lock to supply London. There have also been great objections made by the
City of London to allowing any water to be taken from the river above Teddington Lock, as
it would be a serious injury to the river and its navigation for the want of back-water in the
summer months. The removal of the old London Bridge, by giving more water-way, will
cause the water in the river at that place to be much lower at low water than it now is.
This appears to me to be a complete objection to taking any water from the River Thames
above Teddington; and if any plan is proposed of bringing the Colne water to London, it
would deprive the River Thames of that quantity of water for navigation, and consequently,
the same objections arise to taking the water from that river as those above stated, indepen-
dent of the valuable mill-property on that river. There are a variety of subjects which in a
statement of this kind cannot be sufficiently explained, but I shall be most willing to give any
further information that may be required. º
* ...' - I am, &c.
(Signed) WM. ANDERSON.
COPLES OF PETITIONS.
\
Copy of a PETITION from the Inhabitants of Southwark to the Right Honourable
His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department.
WE, the undersigned Inhabitants of the Borough of Southwark, humbly beg leave to lay
before you the following Statement, in the hope that our situation may induce the Govern-
ment to refer the case to the consideration of the Commissioners appointed to inquire
into the state of the supply of water to the Metropolis by the present existing Water
Companies.
The water which is furnished to our houses is taken out of the River Thames a very short
distance west of London Bridge, and contains the impurities with which that part of the
river is infected, without any attempt whatever to cleanse the same by competent reservoirs,
although in other instances several of the present water-companies have constructed such
reservoirs at a very considerable expense.
We forbear to dwell upon the effects resulting from the present system, as we shall be per-
fectly content to have the case investigated by the Commissioners, to whom Government
‘have referred the general supply.
Signed by DANIEL BIRT, and 17 others.
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, l 15
Copy of a PETITION from the Inhabitants of Battle-bridge to the Right Honourable the
Members of His Majesty's Cabinet Council.
THE humble Petition of the undersigned inhabitants of Battle-bridge, in the parish
of St. Pancras, and extending from thence to Camden Town, to the New River
Head to the east, to St. Pancras New Church to the west, and parts adjacent:
THAT your petitioners, understanding that a commission has been ordered by His Majesty
to inquire into the state and supply of water to the Metropolis, beg leave to represent, that
from a deficiency in the supply of pure and wholesome water, the streets and roads in front
of their houses are watered from the common sewers, by which abominable and disgusting
practice the health of your petitioners is greatly injured, their lives endangered from contagion,
and their property rendered less valuable: - w
Your petitioners therefore, strongly impressed with the serious consequences certain to
accrue from breathing such obnoxious vapour, the natural effect of evaporation, most humbly
beg that their case may be included in the aforesaid commission, and that wholesome water
may be ordered for that purpose, or grant such relief as to the honourable the Commissioners
may seem meet.
Signed by T. L. FENNER, and 78 others.
Copies of Two PETITIONs referred to in J. Peppercorn's Statement to the Honour-
able the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in
Parliament assembled.
THE humble Petition of the undersigned inhabitants of the parishes of Lambeth and Christ-
church, in the county of Surrey, - :
Sheweth, That the inhabitants of the parish of Christ-church, and parts of the parishes of
Lambeth, St. George the Martyr, in the Borough of Southwark, all in the county of Surrey,
and other places adjacent, containing many thousand houses, and above 100,000 inhabitants,
are mainly supplied with water from the Lambeth Waterworks Company, established under
an Act of Parliament passed in the 25th year of the reign of his late Majesty:
That in the 45th year of the same reign another company was incorporated for supplying
the inhabitants of other parts of the parish of Lambeth, and several other parishes and
places in the county of Surrey, with water, but your petitioners are thereby prohibited from
receiving a supply from any other company except that established under the first-mentioned
Act, which continues to enjoy a monopoly of the supply of water to a very populous and
increasing district, whereby your petitioners are deprived of the benefit of competition, and
are subjected to the payment of whatever rates may be demanded of them :
Your petitioners, therefore, strongly impressed with the injustice and impolicy of this
monopoly, most humbly but earnestly pray that your Honourable House will be pleased to
take their case into consideration, and to throw open to competition the supply of water to
your petitioners, or to grant them such other relief as to your Honourable House shall seem
Iſleet.
And your petitioners shall ever pray, &c.
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
in Parliament assembled. .*
THE humble Petition of the undersigned inhabitants of the parish of St. Mary, Lambeth,
and parts adjacent in the county of Surrey,
Sheweth, That an Act of Parliament was passed in the 25th year of the reign of his late
Majesty, authorizing the Company of Proprietors of the Lambeth Waterworks to supply the
inhabitants of the parish of Lambeth, and parts adjacent, with water:
That another Act of Parliament was passed in the 45th year of the same reign, incorpo-
rating another company for the purpose of supplying with water the inhabitants of part of
the parish of Lambeth, and several other parishes and places adjacent; but such company is
expressly restricted from supplying the district inhabited by your petitioners, (which has much
increased in population since the passing of the first-mentioned Act,) under a penalty of
10l. per annum for every house so supplied, whereby an impolitic monopoly is in effect.
Copies of Petitions.
Petition from
the Inhabitants of
Battle Bridge.
Petitions referred
to in the Statement
of J. Peppercorn.
Petition from
the Inhabitants of
St. Mary, Lambeth.
*ºm
secured to the Lambeth Company, manifestly prejudicial to the interests of the inhabitants,
of the prohibited districts, whereby your petitioners security in cases of fire is materially
hazarded:
Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the supply of water to your petitioners
may be thrown open to competition; and that the Commissioners, in any commission that
may issue to inquire relative to the supply of water to the Metropolis, may be directed to
extend their inquiries to the district now supplied by the Lambeth Waterworks Company, or
to grant your petitioners such other relief as to your Honourable House shall seem meet.
And your petitioners will ever pray, &c, &c,
-º-
(94.)
} || 6 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Copies of Petitions. * Copy of a PETITION.
Petition from
the West part of
the Metropolis.
Commissioners for
inquiring into the
Supply of Water.
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
in Parliament assembled.
The Petition of the undersigned Inhabitants of the western portion of the Metropolis,
Sheweth, That your petitioners beg leave to submit to your Honourable House, that the
principle of the Acts of Parliament under which the several companies supplying the Metro-
polis with water were instituted, was to encourage competition, seeing that it is only from
competition that a perfect security can be had for a good, a cheap, and a plentiful supply.
That nevertheless, by an arrangement entered into about the year 1817, between the
several companies supplying the Metropolis with water, all competition was put an end to,
and a monopoly of this necessary of life virtually established. That the water taken up
from the river Thames at Chelsea for the use of the inhabitants of the western portion of the
metropolis being charged with the contents of the great common sewers, the drainage from
dunghills and laystalls, the refuse of hospitals, slaughterhouses, colour, lead, and soap-works,
drug-mills and manufactories, and with all sorts of decomposed animal and vegetable sub-
stances, rendering the said water offensive and destructive to health, ought no longer to be
taken up by any of the water-companies from so foul a source.
That the Grand Junction Waterworks Company having engaged to supply their customers
with water of the purest and most wholesome quality, to be drawn from the rivers Colne and
Brent, and from an immense reservoir of nearly 100 acres, fed by the streams of the vale of
Ruislip, have nevertheless, since the month of September 1820, drawn their supply from
the Thames, at the foot of Chelsea Hospital, and nearly adjoining to the mouth of the great
Ranelagh common sewer.
That the water supplied by the Grand Junction Company to more than 7,000 families
has been pronounced by professional men of the first eminence to be a filthy fluid, loaded
with decayed vegetable matter, and other substances equally deleterious to health, and unfit
for domestic purposes. -
That your petitioners are convinced that if an inquiry be instituted by your Honourable
House the several allegations of this petition will be satisfactorily established, and that
means will be discovered for placing the supply of water to the western portion of the metro-
polis on a sure and lasting foundation.
Your Petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that your Honourable House will forthwith cause
an inquiry to be made before a Committee of your Honourable House.
And your petitioners will ever pray, &c. &c.
COMMISSION for INQUIRING into the SUPPLY of WATER in the METROPOLIs.
GEORGE R.
GEORGE the Fourth, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, &c. To Our trusty and well-beloved Peter Roget,
doctor of medicine, and William Thomas Brande, and Thomas Telford, esquires,-greeting.
Whereas an humble address has been presented to Us by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal
in Parliament assembled, beseeching Us that we would be graciously pleased to order a com-
mission to be issued to inquire into the supply of water in the western part of the metropolis:
And whereas two humble addresses have been presented to Us by the knights, citizens, and
burgesses, and commissioners of shires and burghs in Parliament assembled, beseeching us
that We would be graciously pleased to appoint a commission to inquire into the state of the
supply of water in the metropolis, and that We would be graciously pleased to direct that in
the said inquiry should be included an inquiry into the water-companies on the south and
Surrey-sides of the Metropolis: Know ye, that We, reposing great trust and confidence in
your intelligence, discretion and diligence, have authorized and appointed, and by these
presents do authorize and appoint you, the said Peter Roget, William Thomas Brande, and
Thomas Telford, to be Our Commissioners for inquiring into the state of the supply of water
in the Metropolis, including the South and Surrey-sides thereof: And We do by these pre-
.#ents give and grant unto you, Our said Commissioners, or any two of you, full power and
"authority to inquire of and concerning the premises by all lawful ways and means, and to
call before you, or any two of you, such persons as you shall judge necessary, by whom you
may be the better informed of the truth of the premises: And We do further by these pre-
sents give and grant unto you, or any two of you, full power and authority, where the same
shall appear to be requisite, to administer an oath to any person whatsoever to be examined
before you, or any two of you, touching or concerning the premises: And We do hereby
nominate and appoint our trusty and well-beloved Robert Pauncefote to be and act as your
clerk for the purpose of aiding you in the execution of these presents: And We further will
and command, and by these presents ordain, that you, or any two of you, shall certify under
... - . 3 - your
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. } iº
your hands and seals unto our Lord High Treasurer, or to the Commissioners of Our Treasury Commission for
for the time being, what shall be a fit and suitable recompense for such clerk’s pains and inquiring into the
service hereby required to be by him performed: And We do by these presents require and Supply of Water,
command you Our Said Commissioners, or any two of you, to report unto Us, in writing under
your hands and seals, without delay, all and every of your proceedings by virtue of these
presents, and your observations and opinions touching and concerning the premises: And
We further will and command, and by these presents ordain, that this Our commission shall
continue in full force and virtue, and that you Our said commissioners, or any two of you,
shall and may from time to time proceed in the execution thereof, and of every matter and
thing therein contained, although the same be not continued from time to time by adjourn-
ment. In witness whereof We have caused these Our letters to be made patent.
Witness Ourself at Westminster, the 12th day of July in the eighth year of Our reign.
By writ of Privy Seal,
BATHURST,
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE HOME DEPARTMENT.
Copy of a LETTER from Mr. S. M. Phillipps, to the Commissioners of Water Inquiry.
THE inhabitants of Southwark, and the inhabitants of Battle-bridge in the parish of St. with the
Pancras, having addressed memorials to the Marquess of Lansdowne relative to the supply Home Department.
of water in their respective neighbourhoods, I am directed by his Lordship to transmit these —
memorials to you for your consideration.
I have, &c.
To the Commissioners for Inquiry S. M. PHILLIPPs.
into the Supply of Water to the Metropolis.
Copy of a NoTE to the Right Honourable the Marquess of Lansdowne,
from the Commissioners of Water Inquiry.
THE Commissioners for Inquiry into the Supply of Water to the Metropolis beg leave
respectfully to represent to your Lordship, that for the purpose of enabling them to fulfil the
objects of that inquiry, it will be necessary for them to have the assistance of some person
conversant with the business of engineering, who is known to them, and in whom they can
place perfect confidence, to act as their secretary, and to execute, under their directions, various
plans and surveys, which they will require in the course of their investigations. A person
indeed has been named in the Commission as their clerk, but as they have no knowledge of
him, or of his qualifications for the peculiar kind of business they will require to have executed,
they venture to submit to your Lordship that from the assistance of such a person they could
derive comparatively little advantage. As expenses must necessarily be incurred in the
prosecution of an inquiry of so extensive a nature as that which has been intrusted to them,
the Commissioners, previously to commencing their labours, beg to request information from
your Lordship as to what sums will be placed at their discretionary disposal for defraying
these incidental expenses. Among the sources of expense they would beg leave to specify
the taking of levels, the making surveys, the procuring plans of various kinds, and the proper
remuneration to be made to a competent assistant. -
We have the honour to be, &c.
(Signed) P. M. Roger.
* g. WILLIAM THos BRANDE,
London, 10th November 1827. THoº TELFORD.
Copy of a LETTER from Mr. Spring Rice to the Commissioners of Water Inquiry.
Gentlemen, Dated 20th November 1827.
I AM directed by the Marquess of Lansdowne to acknowledge your letter of the 10th of
November, and to inform you that he lost no time in communicating with Mr. Sturges Bourne
upon the subject.
His Lordship regrets that so much delay should have occurred in effecting the purpose
for which the Commission issued, framed as that Commission was upon the addresses of both
Houses of Parliament; but he trusts that you will now be enabled to proceed in your inquiry
with all practicable expedition.
(94.) G g The
}} 8 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Correspondence
with the
Homel)epartment.
The individual selected as clerk to your Commission was chosen by Mr. Sturges Bourne,
from the experience he had acquired acting in a smilar capacity on former occasions, and
the Marquess of Lansdowne has every reason to think him qualified for the office. It was
not conceived that for the discharge of such duties the knowledge of a civil engineer was
required, as it does not appear, either from the terms of the Parliamentary Addresses, or of
the Commission itself, that it was contemplated that any works should be undertaken; and
with respect to surveys and levels, the Commissioners will observe, that having a power
of examination, it is probable that the several water-companies will be enabled to furnish
documents explanatory of all the existing evils. Should you think, however, on further con-
sideration, and after communicating with the clerk named in the Commission (whom it does
not appear that you have yet seen),that he is ineligible to act under your authority, Lord
Lansdowne will receive and pay every attention to your suggestions for the appointment of
a person better fitted for the office.
With respect to your other inquiries, Lord Lansdowne directs me to add, that the neces-
sary expenses of this proceeding will be defrayed, as has been usual in similar cases, when
the Report of the Commissioners has been made, making payments in the mean while from
time to time for any expenses actually incurred. But that, should it be actually indispensable
for the purposes of investigating the state and supply of water in the Metropolis, that any
new works should be commenced, it would be expedient, in the first place, that an estimat
should be made and sent into this office for the consideration of the Treasury. *
The more immediate objects of your inquiry would, however, seem to Lord Lansdowne to
be the salubrity and description of the water itself, and the quantity in which it is furnished,
together with such observations upon the whole of the subject as cannot fail to occur to
gentlemen so highly qualified to give the desired information to the Public as those whom it
has pleased His Majesty to name in the present commission.
These objects appear to Lord Lansdowne as not likely to lead to any very protracted
examination, and he therefore hopes that you will be enabled to furnish him, with all
practicable expedition, the information required by the votes of Parliament.
I have, &c.
The Commissioners of Inquiry T. SPRING RICE.
into the Supply of Water to the Metropolis.
Copy of a LETTER from the Commissioners of Water Inquiry to Mr. Spring Rice.
London, 23d November 1827.
THE Commissioners for Inquiry into the Supply of Water to the Metropolis present their
compliments to Mr. Spring Rice, beg to acknowledge the receipt of his letter of the 20th of
November, and to assure him that their application to the Marquess of Lansdowne arose from
their anxious wish to discharge faithfully the whole of the duties of the Commission which
they have had the honour of receiving from His Majesty. Not having yet been favoured
with copies of the Parliamentary documents referred to in that Commission, and which
Mr. Sturges Bourne had mentioned would be sent to them, they were desirous of obtaining
more precise information as to what was required of them than could be collected from the
terms of the Commission, which are simply to inquire into the supply of water in the Metro-
polis, including the Borough of Southwark.
The Commissioners beg also to observe, that in consequence of the absence from London,
on professional duties, ever since the Commission was issued, and the dangerous illness of
Mr. Telford, it has been impossible for them to meet for the purpose of transacting business
until the present month. As the Commissioners have not been able to learn the address of
Mr. Pauncefote, the person nominated in the Commission as their clerk, and which they
find is unknown at the Home Office, and as Mr. Pauncefote himself has not yet waited upon
any of the Commissioners, they beg to request that he may be made acquainted with their
wish, that he would see them without further delay. The application of the Commissioners
for the assistance of a clerk competent to the procuring of information of various kinds
relating to civil engineering was founded on the supposition that their duties would be of
a much more extensive nature than would appear to be expressed in the letter of Mr. Spring
Rice.
The Commissioners will proceed with all possible dispatch to execute the duties of their
Commission as soon as they shall have received the necessary Parliamentary documents,
and have been enabled to have an interview with their clerk.
We have, &c.
(Signed) P. M. Roger.
WILLIAM THoº BRANDE,
THo° TELFor D.
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, }I 9
Correspondence
Copy of a LETTER from Mr. T. Spring Rice to the Commissioners of Water Inquiry. with the
HomePepartment.
*-
Gentlemen, - - Whitehall, 27th November 1827.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 23d instant, which
has been considered by the Marquess of Lansdowne. -- : - - - - -
His Lordship directs me to communicate to you the votes of both Houses of Parliament,
to which I presume you refer, and to add the Report of the Committee of the House of
Commons respecting the water-companies, which may possibly contain some information
useful for the furtherance of your enquiries.
Mr. Pauncefote shall be directed to leave his address at your residences, and to attend to
your further orders.
Lord Lansdowne directs me to add, that he will be happy at all times to give any further
support and information that you may require to enable you to prosecute and complete the
object for which the Commission has issued.
I have, &c.
(Signed) T. SPRING RICE.
Since the above was written, the gentlemen forming the late Commission of Irish Education
Inquiry have transmitted to this office a very strong testimonial in favour of Mr. Pauncefote's
qualifications for official business, a copy of which I think it right to enclose.
Minute of Meeting, 3d December 1827.
IT having been suggested by Mr. Spring Rice that an application should be made to the
Speaker to request that one of the spare committee-rooms of the House of Commons should
be appropriated to the use of this Board,
Resolved, That the following letter should be addressed to The Speaker thereupon:
Sir, 39, Bernard-street, Russel-square, 3d December 1827.
THE Commissioners appointed by His Majesty to inquire into the state of the supply of
Water in the Metropolis have the honour to apprise you, that it would greatly facilitate the
course of their proceedings if they could be accommodated with one of the spare committee-
rooms in the House of Commons, in which the business intrusted to their Board might be
entered upon without delay.
They beg leave therefore to request, that in case such an arrangement should not be
deemed objectionable, you would be pleased to give the necessary directions for carrying
the same into effect.
We have, &c.
(Signed) P. M. RogDT.
- - - - WILLIAM THos BRANDE,
The Right honourable The Speaker. THo° TELFor D.
Copy of a LETTER from The Speaker of the House of Commons to the
Commissioners of Water Inquiry.
Gentlemen, - Palace Yard, December 4th, 1827.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date, request-
ing permission to occupy one of the committee-rooms of the House of Commons, to carry on
your inquiry.
I regret that I cannot comply with your request, not feeling myself at liberty to appro-
priate any of the committee-rooms under such circumstances to the use of any commission.
I have, &c.
(Signed) C. MANNERs Sutton.
Copy of a LETTER from Mr. Spring Rice to the Commissioners of Water Inquiry.
Mr. T. Spring Rice presents his compliments to the Commissioners of Inquiry into the
Supply of Water for the Metropolis, and is directed by the Marquess of Lansdowne to inform
them, that Mr. Robert Pauncefote, who had been named as their secretary, has resigned the
appointment. Lord Lansdowne will be happy to receive from the Commissioners the
suggestion of the name of any person qualified to act in the room of Mr. Pauncefote,
Whitehall, December 7.
(94.)
120 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON .
Correspondence
with the
HomePepartment.
Copy of a NoTE from Mr. Telford to Mr. Spring Rice.
24. Abingdon-street, 10th December 1827.
Mr. Telford begs to remind Mr. S. Rice of the letter he proposed sending to the Com-
missioners for Water, &c.; they meet to-morrow, but are unwilling to proceed with the
arrangements mentioned to Mr. Rice until they receive regular authority.
Mr. T. is prevented from waiting personally on Mr. Rice by engagements in the city.
The communications alluded to may be sent to 24, Abingdon-street.
Copy of a NoTE from Mr. Spring Rice to the Commissioners of Water Inquiry.
Mr. T. Spring Rice presents his compliments to the Commissioners of Inquiry into the
Supply of Water for the Metropolis, and is directed by Lord Lansdowne to communicate
his Lordship's assent to the appointment of a messenger, and to the appropriation of a sum
not exceeding 100l. for paying the rent of apartments at which the business of a Commis-
sion may be carried on.
Lord Lansdowne at the same time wishes to convey to the Commissioners his expectations
... that progress may be made, and the inquiry completed with as little delay as possible.
Whitehall, December 10th, 1827.
Copy of a LETTER from the Commissioners of Water Inquiry to Mr. Spring Rice.
24, Abingdon-street, Westminster,
Sir, -- December 11th, 1827.
AGREEABLY to your note of the 7th of December, the Commissioners for Inquiry into
the Supply of Water to the Metropolis have seen Mr. William Rutt, of Hackney, who has
expressed his willingness to accept the office of secretary to the Commission, and they beg
to recommend him to this situation. -
The Commissioners also beg to acquaint you, that they intend to engage a house, No. 9,
New Palace-yard, in which to carry on the object of their commission; and they have
appointed a messenger to attend on them, who was formerly employed by the Irish Educa-
tion Commission, of the name of Henry Shrimpton, at the rate of 80l. per annum as
salary, and an allowance at the rate of 20l. per annum for lodging.
We have, &c.
(Signed) P. M. RogFT.
WILLIAM THoº BRANDE.
THo° TELFor D.
Copy of a LETTER from the Commissioners of Water Inquiry to Mr. T. Spring Rice.
Sir, 9, New Palace-yard, December 31st, 1827.
WE, the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the Supply of Water to the
Metropolis, have to apply to you for funds to enable us to discharge the expenses that are
incurred in carrying on the execution of our duties; and that you will for the present place
the sum of 200l. Sterling at our disposal for these purposes, and to inform us where it can
be drawn from as occasion requires.
- t We have, &c.
(Signed) P. M. RogFT.
W. THoº BRANDE.
THo° TELFoRD.
Copy of a LETTER from Mr. Spring Rice to the Commissioners of Water Inquiry.
Gentlemen, * Whitehall, 1st January 1828.
I HAVE received, and laid before the Marquess of Lansdowne, your letter of yesterday's
date, applying for a sum of 200l. to be placed at your disposal, to enable you to discharge
the expenses that may be incurred in carrying on the execution of the duties of your
COIIIf]].1SSIOIl.
And I am to acquaint you that Lord Lansdowne has recommended to the Lords of the
Treasury that the sum of 200l., as applied for by you, should be issued to you for the
purposes mentioned in your letter. s
I am, &c.
(Signed) T. SPRING RICE.
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, i2]
Copy of a LETTER from Mr. Phillipps to the Commissioners of Water Inquiry.
Gentlemen, Whitehall, 11th January 1828.
REFERRING to Mr. Spring Rice's letter of the 1st instant, I am directed by the Marquess
of Lansdowme to acquaint you, that it has been notified to this Department, by direction of
the Lords of the Treasury, that Mr. Sargent, of their Lordships office, has received instruc-
tions to pay to you the sum of 200l. out of Civil Contingencies.
- * I am, &c.
(Signed) S. M. PHILLIPPs.
Copy of a LETTER from Mr. Phillipps to the Commissioners of Water Inquiry.
Gentlemen, - Whitehall, 19th February 1828.
I AM directed by Mr. Secretary Peel to inform you, with reference to the interview you
Correspondence
- with the
Home Department.
had with him a short time since, that upon referring to the Addresses of Parliament and the
terms of the Commission, Mr. Peel's impression is the same with that which his predecessor
Lord Lansdowne seems to have entertained, namely, that the main objects of the Commis-
sion are, the description, the quantity, and the salubrity of the water now supplied to the
inhabitants of London by the several water-companies. Mr. Peel also concurs with his
Lordship in the hope, that that information upon these points which was in the contempla-
tion of Parliament may be procured without any very protracted examination, or the taking
of levels or making surveys.
I have, &c.
(Signed) S. M. PHILLIPPs.
Copy of a LETTER from the Commissioners of Water Inquiry to Mr. Phillipps,
. Apartments of the Commissioners,
Sir, - 9, New Palace-yard, 29th February 1828.
WE have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 19th, referring to
the interview we lately had with Mr. Secretary Peel, and conveying to us his opinion that
the main objects of our commission are, the description, the quantity, and the salubrity of
the water now supplied to the inhabitants of the Metropolis by the several water-companies,
and his declining to furnish us with the means of taking levels and making surveys, which
we stated would have been necessary to enable us to decide upon various plans for remedy-
ing the existing evils. We beg leave at the same time to represent to Mr. Peel, that we
have been laboriously occupied for the last four months in collecting a large mass of evi-
dence, relating to a much more extended inquiry than is comprised in the questions to which
he has now limited our commission. This evidence we hoped would have prepared the way
for our recommendation of a practicable and efficacious plan of supplying the whole of the
Metropolis with pure and wholesome water, an object which we cannot but esteem as of
considerable importance, and which, as appears from the several petitions to Parliament
giving occasion to the present Commission, has been so loudly and so earnestly called for
by the Public. While proceeding in that course of investigation which appeared. tO US
best calculated to satisfy the expectations of the petitioners and of the Public, we considered
it a very material object to obtain the most correct knowledge of the true nature of Thames.
water, which has been so much the subject of complaint, in different parts of the river, from
the mouth of the Lea to Teddington; and for that purpose we were about to procure accu-
rate analyses of the water taken from different places, and more particularly from those
whence the several companies derive their supply, and in different states of the tide. But
as, from the expressions of Mr. Peel's sentiments with regard to the nature of our commis-
sion conveyed in your letter, we are led to apprehend that he may not sanction our proceed-
ing further in the inquiries we were undertaking, we beg to be informed whether the
expenses necessarily attendant on such an investigation will be defrayed by Government,
as we had originally reason to expect they would be, from the letters of Mr. Spring Rice to
us of the 20th and 27th of November last. With regard to the mere questions of the
description and quantity and alleged quality of the water supplied by the companies, (as
far as can be known from information supplied by the companies themselves, and from such
further evidence as we have examined,) we are already in possession of sufficient materials
for answering these questions. But with regard to the salubrity of the water, it will not be
possible for us to give any opinion which shall be satisfactory either to the Public or to our-
selves, unless we are furnished with the information to be derived from the several analyses
of Thames water, of which we had already traced the plan, and taken all the preliminary
steps to carry into effect. } -
* We have, &c.
(Signed) P. M. Rogº.T.
WILLIAM THoº BRANDE.
THos. TELFORD,
(94.) ii h
122 APPENDIX To REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Correspondence
with the
Home Department.
Copy of a LETTER from Mr. Phillipps to the Commissioners of Water Inquiry.
Gentlemen, - Whitehall, 4th March 1828.
I HAVE laid before Mr. Secretary Peel your letter of the 29th ultimo, and I have received
his directions to acquaint you, that he proposes to recommend to the Treasury that the
intentions of the Secretary of State by whom the Commission for Inquiry into the Supply
of Water to the Metropolis was originally appointed, with respect to the payment of
expenses necessarily incurred in carrying into effect the precise objects contemplated by the
Commission, and with respect to the remuneration of the persons employed in that Com-
mission, shall be fulfilled. -
Mr. Peel has referred to Mr. Sturges Bourne, who filled the office of Secretary of State
when the Commission was appointed, in order to ascertain what were his views in recom-
mending its appointment to the Crown; and he has learnt from Mr. Sturges Bourne that
those views were in conformity with the terms of the petition to Parliament, and of the
petition itself; videlicet, that the Inquiry should be into the description, the quantity, and
the salubrity of the water now supplied to the inhabitants of London by the several water
companies.
I am to state, that Mr. Peel certainly did presume that an inquiry into the salubrity and
description of the water would not be complete without an accurate analysis of the water
taken from the different parts of the river from whence the several companies derive their
supply; and that certainly his impression was, that such an analysis must have been made
during the period that has now elapsed since the appointment of the Commission. Mr. Peel
thinks that it ought to be made without delay; and he requests to be informed whether
(the plan for such analysis having been already traced, and all the preliminary steps taken
for carrying it into effect,) it can now be completed.
- 1 I am, &c.
(Signed) S. M. PHILLIPPs.
ExTRACT of a LETTER from the Commissioners of Water Inquiry to Mr. Phillipps.
Apartments of the Commissioners,
Sir, 9, New Palace-yard, 10th March 1828.
IN answer to the letters we had the honour of receiving from you, dated the 4th and 7th
ultimo, we beg to state that we have, in consequence of the opinion of Mr. Secretary Peel
therein expressed, given immediate orders for proceeding in the collecting and analyzing
portions of water taken from the different parts of the river from whence the several companies
derive their supply, according to the plan we had previously laid down; and that we have
every reason to expect that these analyses will be completed in the course of six weeks from
the present time. -- -
CONVERSATION WITH Mr. WRIGHT.
Mr. Wright attended, and upon being asked whether he had any new facts to mention in
addition to those which were contained in the “Memoir” sent by him to the Board, stated
that since his return to town on the 2d of January, he had received a great many complaints,
from persons who had signed the petition, of the continued bad quality of the water supplied
by the Grand Junction Company. It had, they assured him, never been in a more foul
condition than it was during the months of December and January.
He said he had that morning seen a baker, living in Glasshouse-street, Regent-street, who
had assured him, that although he was made to pay a high price for the above company's
water, he could not use it in his business, but was obliged to keep an extra hand for the
purpose of fetching in pails a more wholesome supply from another quarter.
Mr. Wright presented three lists of names of persons whom he said he wished to have
examined. The first, a list of those who could speak generally to the quality of the Grand
Junction Company's water, as far as regarded health, comfort, and cleanliness; the second,
a list of those persons who could speak to the state of the Thames in the direction between
Chelsea Hospital and London Bridge; the third, a list of those persons who had any thing
to propose in the way of remedy. The lists were handed to Mr. Wright, and he wº
requested, to mark those who could speak most decidedly on the subject, which he
accordingly did. -
Mr. Wright also gave in a paper, being a plan for sinking wells proposed by Mr. Francis,
and addressed to the Commissioners; also a letter addressed to Sir Francis Burdett by
Mr. Hipkins, proposing a plan for obtaining a supply.
Have you any motion of new plans?—I understand that several plans for bringing a plen-
tiful supply of pure water will be offered to the Commissioners. I am myself entirely
ignorant of these matters. My attention has been accidentally drawn to the subject.
I have not, however, conversed with a single person who entertains a doubt as to the pos-
ibility of fixing upon a practicable plan. It appears to me a subject for public reward, to
be given to the person who should devise the best plan, in the same way as we offer rewards
for the best models of public monuments, &c. t
All
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. 123
J
All the witnesses whose names you have given in refer, in their complaints, to the water of
the Grand Junction Company?—Yes; but I understand that the inhabitants of the Borough
and of Lambeth are loud in their complaints. That is a matter in which I have not in the
least interfered. I beg, however, to direct the attention of the Commissioners to the
dolphin belonging to the Penitentiary, as I cannot help thinking that the water taken up at
that spot is, at least during the heat of summer, of such a fever-generating quality as to
render it dangerous to be admitted into that confined place for any purposes whatever,
MEMOIR OF MIR. J. WRIGHT.
MEMOIR, addressed to the Commissioners appointed by His Majesty, in pursuance of the
Addresses of both Houses of Parliament, to inquire into the State of the Supply of Water
to the Metropolis. By J. Wright. December 16, 1827
January 12, 1828.
Sir, - London, 22d November 1827.
AS our Meetings in the execution of the Commission respecting the Supply of Water to
the Metropolis have, after some delay, in consequence of the necessity there has been for
several communications with the Secretary of State for the Home Department, now com-
menced, we shall be much obliged by your favouring us, as soon as convenient, with the
statement you are so good as to offer, of the alleged grievances on that subject; and by your
pointing out to us the best modes of obtaining information as to the truth of those alle-
gations, and the persons whose evidence on these points it will be proper to collect.
4. I am, Sir, your most obedient Servant,
J. Wright, esq. P. M. ROGET.
Gentlemen, 1 12, Regent-street.
I HEREwiTH enclose you an outline of the Water Question, as I consider it to stand at
the present moment; and I accompany it with a list of the persons whom it appears to me
necessary to call before you, to substantiate the several allegations contained in the petition of
the inhabitants of the western part of the Metropolis to both Houses of Parliament.
I have the honour to be, gentlemen, your most obedient servant,
- - J. W. RIGHT,
The Commissioners for the Supply of Water, &c.
MEMOIR, &c. &c.
Contents.
Introduction. r, -- -
I. Of the Necessity of a Pure and Wholesome Supply of Water to the
Inhabitants of the Metropolis.
II. Of the Monopoly.
III. Of the Grand Junction Company.
IV. Of the River Thames, between Chelsea Hospital and London Bridge, con-
sidered as a Source for the Supply of Water to the Inhabitants of the
Metropolis.
V. Of the Remedy.
INTRODUCTION.
ABout two years ago my attention was directed, in the way which I shall presently have
occasion to state to the Commissioners, to the bad quality of the Water furnished to the
Western portion of the Metropolis, by one of the five companies which had partitioned the
town between them, and had thereby established a monopoly of an element of nature and
prime necessary of life. The result of the inquiries which I was, in consequence, induced
to make, was a strong conviction that, owing to a variety of causes, partly arising out of
that monopoly, and partly out of the enormously-increased size and population of the
Metropolis, the supply of water thereto rested upon a very unsound foundation.
In the December of 1826 I came to the determination of directing the attention of the
public to the subject; but, before I carried that determination into execution, I thought
proper to address a letter to Sir Francis Burdett, in which I pointed out to him the evils which
a monopoly of an article, designated by the great Mead as “the vehicle of all our nourish-
onent,” had brought upon his constituents, and expressed a confident hope that he would
further the object I had in view, by calling the attention of the House of Commons to so
crying a grievance. To this letter I received from Sir Francis an immediate reply, in which
he stated, that he considered the subject to be one of great importance; that he would
recommend a public meeting of the aggrieved inhabitants, and a petition to Parliament; and
(94.) . - that
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
124, APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
that he should be happy to lend a helping hand towards the overthrow of so mischievous
and so unprincipled a confederacy. -
Thus encouraged to proceed, I set about collecting together my facts; and on the 19th of
March last year, I published a small pamphlet, which I called “ The Dolphin.” I have
been blamed for giving to it a title, which I was told not one man out of a thousand would
comprehend the meaning of: but that very ignorance on the part of the inhabitants was pre-
cisely my reason for selecting it. So immediately bound up are the health and comfort of
every family with the supply of pure and wholesome water to their habitations, that a know-
ledge of the qualities of that which they are daily using for domestic purposes must, at all
times, be an object of great importance. Self-evident, however, as this proposition appears
to be, it is nevertheless a fact, that, during the twelve months attention which I had paid to
the subject, I had not met with half a dozen individuals, out of the many hundred thousands
interested in the present inquiry, who could point out to me the source whence the impure
water which they saw running into their cisterns was drawn. *
Being anxious that such a state of things should no longer continue, but that every man,
woman, and child, compelled by monopoly to drink the water supplied by the Grand Junction
Company, should be aware of the spot from which it was taken, I determined on calling my
publication “ The Dolphin,” that being the name given by the Water Companies to the small
wooden erection, somewhat resembling a Martello-tower, which they place in the river to
enclose and to indicate the source or head from which, by means of a steam-engine, their
supply is obtained.
That I selected this title I have no reason to regret; seeing that “the Dolphin” erected
by the Grand Junction Company in the Thames, at the foot of Chelsea Hospital, and nearly
adjoining to the mouth of the great Ranelagh common sewer, is now almost as well known
and as much pointed at by passengers going up and down the river, as the Royal Hospital
itself. Indeed, the word, in the above acceptation, is become so familiar, that I have no
doubt it will find its way into the next edition of Johnson's Dictionary.
On the 21st of April, two days after the appearance of my pamphlet, the Grand Junction
Company put forth in the “Times” newspaper, a long statement, by way of advertisement,
in which they pledged themselves to prove upon oath, “time and place fitting,” that every
one of my charges were “as false as they were malignant,” denounced me as “an anonymous
slanderer,” and my book as “a most wicked publication,” and threatened me with the
terrors of a prosecution.
On the same day, in pursuance of his promise to do every thing in his power to further
the object in view, Sir Francis Burdett went down to the House of Commons, and gave
notice, that, shortly after the Easter recess, he would call the attention of the House to the
“State of the Supply of Water in the Western Part of the Metropolis.”
Immediately upon this notice being given, the chairman of the Grand Junction Company
waited upon Sir Francis, and stated to him the readiness of the directors “to afford the
means of the fullest investigation of every point connected with the powers of supply, or the
rates charged by the company.” To this proposition the honourable Baronet did not, upon
reflection, think it advisable to accede; and the directors say, “they have neither the right
nor the wish to complain of his determination.”
But, although the directors do not complain of Sir Francis Burdett's determination, one
of their advocates has thought proper to do so. The injustice, however, of such complaint
will at once be seen, by a reference to the words of his notice. A mere investigation of the
Grand Junction's Company’s “powers of supply” would have left the great question of
monopoly untouched. Further than this, Sir Francis's non-acceptance of the invitation of the
directors was accompanied with his distinct reasons, given in writing, for so doing. “Since
I met you yesterday,” said the honourable Baronet, “I have seen so many persons, and the
supply of the town with water is so important, that as I get more information I extend further
my views; so much so, that I lose sight of one company, and look to the whole system;
and I plainly see that no satisfaction can be given to the Public without an inquiry in the
House of Commons. My intention, therefore, is to move for a committee of inquiry into the
subject. I take the earliest opportunity of apprizing you of my intended mode of proceeding,
that you may be prepared accordingly, and, in the mean time, take such steps against
Mr. Wright, by prosecution or otherwise, as you may think your interests demand.”
“ The Dolphin’ had not been published many days before it excited a good deal of atten-
tion at the west end of the town. Indeed, it has been charged against me as a crime by the
Grand Junction Company, that I “created a sensation approaching to a panic; and that,
through malevolent and interested motives, I had endangered the very existence of the com-
pany.” On the other hand, many noblemen, gentlemen, and tradesmen called upon me to
express their approbation of what I had done—their hope, that a public meeting would be
immediately convened, to take into consideration the best means of procuring a pure and
wholesome supply of water to the western parts of the Metropolis — and their readiness to
sign their names to a requisition for that purpose.
A public meeting accordingly took place on the 9th of April. It was numerously attended;
and the newspapers, one and all, agreed in stating, that, for the rank of the persons com-
- 3 -
posing
suPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 125
posing it, it was one of the most respectable that had ever been held. The following is a
copy of the resolutions agreed to thereat:
SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE WESTERN PortION OF THE METROPOLIs.
t a public meeting, held on Monday the 9th of April 1827, at Willis's Great Room,
St. James's, to take into consideration the means of procuring a supply of pure and
wholesome Water to the Inhabitants of the Western Portion of the Metropolis;
Present, Sir Francis Burdett, Bart. M.P., in the Chair.
The Marquess of Salisbury, the Earl of Jersey, the Earl of Tankerville, the Earl of
Hardwicke, the Earl of Rosslyn, the Earl of Sefton, Lord Auckland, Lord Wharncliffe,
Sir W. W. Wynn bart. M.P., Sir Henry Halford bart., the honourable William Pon-
sonby M.P., the honourable Douglas Kinnaird, John Cam Hobhouse esq. M.P., C. Baring
Wall esq. M.P., Dr. Turner, Dr. Paris, Dr. Macmichael, Dr. Robert Bree, Professor
Brande, Samuel Rogers esq., John Murray esq., M. W. Andrews esq., H. Robson esq.,
Mr. Fores, Mr. W. B. Stone, &c. &c, &c.
“ Resolved,
“1st. That a constant supply of pure and wholesome water is essential to the health and
comfort of the inhabitants of this great and thickly-peopled Metropolis. *
“ 2d. That the principle of the Acts of Parliament under which the several companies
supplying the Metropolis with water were instituted, was to encourage competition; seeing
that it is only from competition that a perfect security can be had for a good, a cheap, and
a plentiful supply.
<< 3d. That, nevertheless, by an arrangement entered into, about the year 1817, between
the several companies supplying the Metropolis with water, all competition was put an end
to, and a monopoly of this necessary of life virtually established. -
“4th. That the water taken up from the river Thames at Chelsea, for the use of the
inhabitants of the western portion of the Metropolis, being charged with the contents of the
great common sewers, the drainings from dung-hills and lay-stalls, the refuse of hospitals,
slaughter-houses, colour, lead, and soap-works, drug-mills, and manufactories, and with all
sorts of decomposed animal and vegetable substances, rendering the said water offensive
and destructive to health, ought no longer to be taken up by any of the water companies
from so foul a source. --
“5th. That the Grand Junction Waterworks Company, having engaged to supply their
customers with water of the purest and most wholesome quality, to be drawn from the rivers
Colne and Brent, and from an immense reservoir of nearly 100 acres, fed by the streams of
the vale of Ruislip, have, nevertheless, since the month of September 1820, drawn their sup-
ply from the Thames, at the foot of Chelsea Hospital, and nearly adjoining to the mouth of
the great Ranelagh common sewer. - - - s.
“ 6th. That the water supplied by the Grand Junction Company, to more than 7,000
families, has been pronounced, by professional men of the first eminence, to be a filthy fluid,
loaded with decayed vegetable matter and other substances, equally deleterious to health,
and unfit for domestic purposes.
“ 7th. That the Grand Junction Company, having promised to supply their customers
with water at a comparatively small charge, have, nevertheless, exacted an increased rate,
equivalent, in no case, to less than 50 per cent.; and extending, in most instances, to 90
and 100 per cent. ; and that they obtained, in May last, the sanction of the Legislature to
a new table of rates, by which an addition of from 50 to 300 per cent, may be levied on
their customers.
“ 8th. That a petition be presented to both Houses of Parliament, praying that a full
Inquiry into the constitution and practices of the several companies supplying the Metropolis
with this all-important necessary of life may be instituted, in order that the nuisance comi-
plained of may be speedily abated, and the supply of pure and wholesome water to the
western portion of the Metropolis be henceforward placed on a sure and lasting foundation.
“9th. That a subscription be entered into to defray the expenses, which must be incurred
in preparatory measures connected with the object of the present meeting, and that the
following noblemen and gentlemen be a committee to receive and appropriate the same : —
VIZ. -
* The Marquess of Lansdowne, the Marquess of Salisbury, the Earl of Essex, the Earl
of Jersey, the Earl of Tankerville, the Earl of Hardwicke, Earl Grey, the Earl of Rosslyn,
the Earl of Sefton, Lord Grantham, Lord Auckland, Lord Wharncliffe, Lord Francis
Leveson Gower, Sir Francis Burdett bart. M.P., Sir W. W. Wynn bart. M.P., Sir
Henry Halford bart., Sir Ronald Fergusson M.P., the honourable G. A. Ellis M.P., the
honourable William Ponsonby M.P., the honourable Douglas Kinnaird, John Cam Hob-
house esq. M.P., Henry Brougham esq. M.P., C. Baring Wall esq. M.P., W. J. Denison
esq. M.P., E. W. Pendarves esq. M.P., John Marshall esq, M.P., Joseph Birch esq. M.P.,
(94.) I i W. S. Poyntz
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
126 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
W. S. Poyntz esq. M.P., R. Knight esq. M.P., Dr. Turner, Dr. Robert Bree, Dr. Paris,
Dr. Hooper, Dr. Macmichael, Dr. Hume, Dr. Kerrison, Professor Brande, Robert Keate
esq., Samuel Rogers esq., Richard Sharp esq., R. Williams esq., B. C. Brodie eSQ.,
Alexander Rainy esq., Charles Dumergue esq., John Murray esq., E. Driver esq., Everard
Brande esq., M. W. Andrews esq., Henry Colburn esq., H. Robson esq., Joseph Kennerley
esq., G. Squibb esq., Mr. William Stewart, Mr. Fores, Mr. James Ridgway, Mr. W. B.
Stone, Mr. J. Wright, with power to add to their number.
“10th. That the thanks of this meeting be given to Mr. Wright, of Regent-street, for
having directed the public attention to this important subject.
“ 11th. That Sir Francis Burdett bart., and John Cam Hobhouse esq., our representatives
in Parliament, be instructed to support the prayer of the said petition.
“ 12th. That the thanks of this meeting be given to Sir Francis Burdett bart., for his
impartial conduct in the chair. -
(Signed) “ FRANCIS BURDETT.”
On the 12th of April, the committee appointed at the above meeting met at the Thatched
House Tavern, the Earl of Sefton in the chair, and agreed to the following Petition:
“To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
in Parliament assembled, -
“The Petition of the undersigned Inhabitants of the western portion of the Metropolis,
<< Sheweth :
“That your Petitioners beg leave to submit to your Honourable House, that the principle
of the Acts of Parliament under which the several companies supplying the Metropolis with
water were instituted was to encourage competition; seeing that it is only from competition
that a perfect security can be had for a good, a cheap, and a plentiful supply.
“ That, nevertheless by an arrangement entered into, about the year 1817, between the
several companies supplying the Metropolis with water, all competition was put an end to,
and a monopoly of this necessary of life virtually established.
“ That the water taken up from the river Thames at Chelsea, for the use of the inhabi-
tants of the western portion of the Metropolis, being charged with the contents of the great
common sewers, the drainings from dunghills and lay-stalls, the refuse of hospitals, slaughter-
houses, colour, lead, and soap-works, drug-mills, and manufactories, and with all sorts of
decomposed animal and vegetable substances, rendering the said water offensive, and destruc-
tive to health, ought no longer to be taken up by any of the water companies from so foul
3. SOUITCé.
“ That the Grand Junction Waterworks Company, having engaged to supply their cus-
tomers with water of the purest and most wholesome quality, to be drawn from the rivers
Colne and Brent, and from an immense reservoir of nearly 100 acres, fed by the streams of
the vale of Ruislip, have, nevertheless, since the month of September 1820, drawn their sup-
ply from the Thames, at the foot of Chelsea Hospital, and nearly adjoining to the mouth of
the great Ranelagh common sewer. …
“ That the water supplied by the Grand Junction Company, to more than 7,000 families,
has been pronounced, by professional men of the first eminence, to be a filthy fluid, loaded
with decayed vegetable matter and other substances, equally deleterious to health, and unfit
for domestic purposes.
“That the Grand Junction Company, having promised to supply their customers with water
at a comparatively small charge, have, nevertheless, exacted an increased rate, equivalent in
no case to less than 50 per cent., and extending, in most instances, to 90 and 100 per cent.;
and that they obtained, in May last, the sanction of the Legislature to a new table of rates,
by which an addition of from 50 to 300 per cent. may be levied on their customers.
“That your Petitioners are convinced, that if an inquiry be instituted by your Honourable
House, the several allegations of this Petition will be satisfactorily established, and that
means will be discovered for placing the supply of water to the western portion of the
Metropolis on a sure and lasting foundation.
“Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray, that your Honourable House will forthwith
eause an inquiry to be made before a Committee of your Honourable House.
“ And your Petitioners will ever pray.”
This Petition, and a similar one to the House of Lords, were, after they had been signed
by the members of the committee present, and by a numerous body of the inhabitants, pre-
sented to both Houses; the former by Sir Francis Burdett, the latter by Lord Wharncliffe.
The prayer of the Petition was, that an inquiry might be instituted by Parliament; but,
owing to the adjournment which immediately after took place, in consequence of the nego-
tiations going on at that time for the formation of a new administration, it was found, on the
- 3 re-assembling
suPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 127
re-assembling of the two Houses, that a Parliamentary inquiry could not be satisfactorily
gone into at that late period of the session, and it was thought proper to substitute for it a
Commission, to be appointed by the Crown. t
Accordingly, on the 11th of June, Lord Wharncliffe moved, in the House of Lords,
“That an humble address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will be
graciously pleased to order a Commission to be issued, to inquire into the supply of water in
the western parts of the Metropolis.” The motion was agreed to without opposition; as was
likewise a similar motion made in the House of Commons by Sir Francis Burdett. A
Commission was accordingly appointed by His Majesty; but, in consequence of the inhabi-
tants of Lambeth and of the borough of Southwark having petitioned to be included in the
Inquiry, its labours were not confined to the western parts of the town, but were extended to
the whole Metropolis. - -
Such was the origin of the present Inquiry. That the Company which considered its
“existence” endangered by my little publication should remain passive spectators of what
was going on, was not to be expected. Accordingly, Sundry counter-statements were put
forth by the directors and their paid agents, having in view the entire stuitification of the
inquiry. I give, at the foot of this page, a list” of them; and I do so, first, because I shall
have occasion to refer to them; and secondly, because I consider them as coming directly in
aid of the cause which they were intended to overthrow.
In support of the allegations contained in the foregoing petition, I proceed to lay before
the Commissioners, at the desire of many of the petitioners, the facts which I have collected,
and the observations which appear to me necessary for their illustration. For the sake of
distinctness, I arrange those allegations under the following heads:
I.—“ That a constant supply of pure and wholesome water is essential to the health
and comfort of the inhabitants of this great and thickly-peopled Metropolis.
II.-4: That, although the principle of the Acts of Parliament under which the
several Companies supplying the Metropolis with water were established was to
encourage competition, an arrangement was nevertheless entered into, about the year
1817, between five of the said Companies, by which competition was put an end to, and
a monopoly of a necessary of life was virtually established.
III.-“That the Grand Junction Waterworks Company, having engaged to supply
their customers with water of the purest and most wholesome quality, at a com-
paratively small charge, have not only exacted a greatly increased rate, but have
changed the source of their supply to a spot in the Thames, at the foot of Chelsea
Hospital, and nearly adjoining to the mouth of the great Ranelagh common sewer;
and that they now furnish to those customers water, which has been pronounced, by
professional men of the first eminence, to be a filthy fluid, loaded with decayed vege-
table matter and other substances, equally deleterious to health, and unfit for domestic
purposes.
IV.-‘That the water taken up from the River Thames, between Chelsea Hospital
and London Bridge, for the use of the inhabitants of the Metropolis, being charged
with the contents of more than 130 public common sewers, with the drainings from
dunghills and lay-stalls, the refuse of hospitals, slaughter-houses, colour, lead, gas,
and soap-works, drug-mills, and manufactories, and with all sorts of decomposed
animal and vegetable substances, rendering the said water offensive, and destructive to
health, ought no longer to be taken up by any of the Companies from so foul a
SOUll'Cé. -
V.—“That it is the duty of the Legislature to deal with the monopoly—to revise the
powers intrusted to the confederated companies—and to devise means for placing the
supply of water to this great Metropolis on a sure and lasting foundation.”
* 1. Remarks upon the Resolutions passed at the Meeting held at Willis's Rooms, April 9th, 1827;
addressed by the Directors of the Grand Junction Company to the Inhabitants of the district supplied
by the Company. Not signed ; but understood to be drawn up by Sir Gilbert Blame, M.D. an
ex-director. -
2. Petition of the Grand Junction Waterworks Company to the House of Commons, 14th June
1827.
3. A Letter in “The Times” newspaper, of the 21st of March 1827; signed by the Secretary of
the Grand Junction Company.
4. Two letters in “The John Bull” newspaper, of the 29th of April and the 18th of May 1827;
signed by the Secretary of the Grand Junction Company, -
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
(94)
12s. APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Memoir of
* * *ight. I.-ON THE NECESSITY OF A PURE AND WHOLESOME SUPPLY OF
WATER TO THE INHABITANTS OF THE METROPOLIS,
ALLEgation—“That a constant Supply of pure and wholesome Water is essential to
“ the Health and Comfort of the Inhabitants of this great and thickly-peopled
“Metropolis.” -
THE above allegation which, at the public meeting held at Willis's Rooms, was moved
as a resolution by Sir Henry Halford, and seconded by Lord Wharncliffe, has been called a
truism, or proposition too self-evident to require stating : but such persons do not seem to
be aware how powerfully it tells against the Grand Junction Company; for if “a constant
supply of pure and wholesome water be essential to health and comfort,” how criminal
must those persons be who vend this necessary of life, “ loaded with all sorts of impurities,
and unfit for domestic purposes ſ”
It was with this view that I endeavoured, in my little publication, by impressing my
readers with the salutary properties of good water, to make them alive to the dangerous
consequences resulting from the use of bad ; and I introduce some of my authorities into
this memoir—not, assuredly, for the information of the Commissioners, but to show them
that my opinions were not lightly formed, but were founded upon those of wise and
emlnent mell.
I ventured to lay it down as a principle, that “without pure air and pure water, the in-
habitants of large cities cannot enjoy a sound mind in a sound body:” and the following are
a few of my authorities for so thinking.
First, as to Air—
Sir William Temple.—“ The common ingredients of health and long life are great
temperance, open air, easy labour, simplicity of diet, and pure water. The vigour of the
mind decays with that of the body; and not only humour and invention, but even judgment
and resolution, change and languish with ill constitution of body and of health.”
Dr. Trotter.—“The remote causes of nervous diseases are chiefly to be sought in popu-
lous cities. A pure air is of the first importance to sustain animal life in full health and
perfection. High buildings and houses, narrow lanes, small apartments, huge warehouses,
kitchens under ground, consumption of fuel, and a dense population, are so many sources
whence the air is contaminated. The ventilation of the upper parts of the building is
imperfect: but the lower stories, particularly what is under ground, can receive no pure
portion at all.”
Dr. James Johnson.—“ The air is the great agent in the production of disease, both
by its vicissitudes of temperature and by its noxious impregnations. If we examine the
streets, the houses, the manufactories, the dormitories, &c. of great and crowded cities, we
shall be astonished that the incalculable mass of exhalations of all kinds, which is con-
stantly floating in the lower strata of a civic atmosphere, is not more detrimental to health
than it is. Even the respiration of man and animals must, in some degree, deteriorate the
air of large and populous cities. No man who has felt the exhilaration of the country air,
and the depression of spirits which almost uniformly takes place on returning to town, can
doubt, that a heavy tax is levied on the health of man in civic society. Its most visible
effects are depicted in the complexion, which is pale and exanguious; and this uniformly
obtains, whenever, man is excluded from the pure breath of heaven. There is every
reason to believe that scrofula first originated, and still continues to be produced, by the
confined air, sedentary habits, irregularity of clothing, and derangement of the digestive
organs, so prevalent in civic life.”
Again—“It is scarcely possible to form an idea of the debility and relaxation which
must be induced throughout the muscular systems of people congregated in large cities,
cooped up in confined apartments, and employed in sedentary occupations, without adequate
air or exercise. The physical effects resulting from these causes are so glaring and
f conspicuous in every street through which we pass, in every house or manufactory which we
enter, in almost every individual whom we contemplate, that the medical philosopher is
struck with the enormity of the evil.”
Sir John Sinclair.—“Fresh air is found as necessary for man, as clear water is to fishes;
and thence the choice of good air is accounted by Hippocrates, a circumstance claiming the
first rank in the regimen of health. This is particularly the case in regard to children; for
it is a melancholy fact, that in a great measure owing to the impurity of the air in London,
one half of the children born there die before they are two years old.” ;
Next as to Water—
Hippocrates.—“To distinguish that water which is wholesome is of the first importance
to health, for a train of evils are the consequence of the use of bad water.”
Encyclopedia Britannica.--tº Water, whether used pure, or mixed with wine, or taken in
under the form of beer or ale, is the great diluter, vehicle, and menstruum, both of our
food,
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 129
food, and of the saline, earthy, and excrementitious parts of the animal juices: and it is
more or less adapted to the performance of these offices, in proportion to its purity.”
Dr. Griffiths—“With regard to the water we use, we cannot be too scrupulous; the
purity of this element being almost of equal importance to us with the air we breathe.”
Dr. Frederick Hoffman,—“If there is in nature, a medicine that deserves the name of
universal, it is, in my opinion, common water, of the best and purest kind. The use of this
is so general, and so necessary to us all, that we can neither live, nor preserve our bodies
sound and healthy, without it. For it guards against every disease, protects and defends the
body from all kind of corruption that may prove fatal to life, and answers all possible inten-
tions of cure; so that without it, no disorder, whether, chronic or acute, can be happily and
successfully removed. For confirmation of this opinion, I do not insist on the medicinal
springs, but confine myself to common water—but, of the best and purest kind. If every
physician would make it his practice carefully to examine into the quality of the water used
in the houses he visits, he might confidently hope to practise with more satisfaction to him-
self, and benefit to his patients.” - -
If such are the salutary qualities of this element when used in a state of purity, its
insidious and deadly attributes, when contaminated by animal and vegetable matters in a
state of putrefaction, are, it will be seen, not less striking:— -
Dr. Mead.—“ Thus much concerning poisonous exhalations and airs. I shall now make
Some remarks on the mischief of another fluid; which, as it is next in use to this we have
been treating of, so the bad qualities of it, when it comes to be altered, must necessarily be
almost equally fatal and dangerous. I mean water; which is of so constant service, not
only for our drinks, but also in preparing of our flesh and bread, that it may justly be said
to be the vehicle of all our nourishment; so that whenever this happens to put on other
properties than are necessary to fit it for this purpose, it is no wonder if, in its passage
through the body, these do make suitable impressions there.” -
Again—“A late author, by Searching into the first accounts of the distemper we call the
scurvy, finds that the origin of it was, in all times and places, charged upon the use of un-
wholesome water. He shows, that where the water is worst, there this malady is most rife;
so that he has put it out of all doubt that most of the complicated symptoms which are
ranged under this one general name, if they do not entirely owe their birth to the malignity
of this element, do however acknowledge it to be their main and principal cause.”
Dr. Lind.—“The scurvy is to be seen chiefly among the poorer sort, who inhabit low
damp parts of the provinces, and continue to live upon rancid pork, coarse bread, and are
obliged to drink unwholesome water. Bad water is, next to bad air, a frequent cause of
sickness, in places situated under the Torrid Zone.” -
Encyclopédie Méthodique.—“Vitruvius informs us, that the ancients inspected the livers
of animals, in order to judge of the nature of the water of a country. The size and condition
of the liver is a pretty sure indication of the deleterious quality of the water, which, espe-
cially when it is stagnant, produces in cows, and particularly in sheep, fatal diseases; for
instance, the rot, which frequently destroys whole flocks.”
Dr. Harrison.—“The dry rot in sheep has its cause in the poisonous residuum of water.
On a dry-limed lay, or fallow ground, in Derbyshire, a flock of sheep will rot in one day;
and on some water meadows in that neighbourhood, when the weather is sultry, in half an
hour.”
M. Cabanis.—“ Rapports du Physique et du Moral de l’Homme.”—“ Water loaded with
putrid vegetable matters, or with earthy substances, acts in a very pernicious manner on the
stomach, and the other organs of digestion. The use of them produces different kinds of
diseases, both acute and chronical; all of them accompanied by a remarkable state of atony,
and a great debility of the nervous system. They blunt the sensibility, enervate the muscu-
lar force, and dispose to all cold and slow diseases. It is well known that in many countries,
otherwise fertile and rich, the inhabitants are forced to use unwholesome water. The
incommodities which they produce quickly extend their action to every point of the
system.” - - -
Mr. Abernethy.—“ It seems sufficiently ascertained that diseases have been excited by
water, and therefore it is necessary that whatever is used should be as pure as possible.”
Dr. William Lambe.—“It is the putrescent matter which is the most noxious principle of
common water. It is a matter of common experience that water, according to its different
qualities, affects the stomach with a peculiar feeling which we call weight; that the purest
water feels the lightest, and what is reckoned the worst feels the heaviest on the stomach.
In healthy persons this sensation is little regarded; but in disease it becomes very distinct,
and is often very tormenting; sometimes the stomach feels as if it would burst; sometimes
the sensation is, as if a cord were tied round the middle of the body.”
Again—“The peculiar noxious principle of bad waters is nothing but the corrupted animal
and vegetable matters with which they are impregnated; these matters are therefore poison-
ous; in consequence, they ought to be suspected, wherever they are found. In inquiring,
(94.) K. k therefore,
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
130 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
therefore, into the salubrity of waters in general, or into that of any particular example, it is
this impregnation which ought to be the chief object of research. Simple earthy matter
(though much has been said against it) has never been shown to be particularly un-
friendly to the human system. Metallic matter, of all kinds, is a more just object of
suspicion. But the putrid or putrescent matter, the animal or vegetable substances in a
state of decomposition, is that which is actively mischievous; it is immediately and directly
deleterious; and it is astonishing to consider how greatly the influence of this matter has
been overlooked, even by writers who were fully aware of the general importance of the
subject.”*
II.—OF THE MONOPOLY.
Allegation.—“That although the principle of the Acts of Parliament under which the seve-
“ral companies supplying the Metropolis with water were instituted was to encourage
“ competition, an arrangement was entered into about the year 1817, between five of
“ the said companies, by which all competition was put an end to, and a monopoly of a
“ necessary of life virtually established.”
The companies which have monopolized the supply of water to the Metropolis are five in
number:—i. The New River. 2. The Chelsea. 3. The East London. 4. The West
Middlesex. And 5. The Grand Junction.
The history of the arrangement above referred to, by which arrangement a monopoly of
the sale of a necessary of life was, to all intents and purposes, established, will be found in
the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons, which sat in the months of February
and March 1821, on the Supply of Water to the Metropolis; to which Report, as well as to
the Minutes of Evidence taken before it, I beg leave to direct the attention of the Com-
missioners.
It therein appears that the principle of the Acts of Parliament under which the several
water companies were instituted, was to encourage competition; seeing that in this, as well
as in other cases, it is only from competition, or the expectation of competition, that a per-
fect security can be had for a good, a cheap, and a plentiful supply.
By an arrangement, however, which took place between the five confederated companies,
all competition was virtually put an end to. The scheme for partitioning the town, and
establishing a close monopoly, was arranged towards the close of the year 1817, and carried
into effect at Christmas, by the simultaneous retirement from each allotted district of all the
companies previously employed, except the individual company which was thenceforward to
be left in exclusive possession of the field.
The companies gave no previous notice whatever of their intentions; and in reply to the
remonstrances of their customers, informed them that for the future they could only be sup-
plied by the one continuing company; and those customers were also given to understand
that an increased rate would shortly be exacted. The indecency of the proceeding produced
a temporary burst of indignation; but so deadening are the effects of monopoly, that the
imposition was, after a slight struggle, submitted to, and the nefarious scheme brought to
completion. e * - - “S
That a combination, bottomed in such a disregard for the public welfare, should exist for
any long period, without producing the train of evils ever attendant on monopoly, was not to
be expected; but that, in the space of less than nine years, it should have given birth to
the enormous grievance which I am about to expose, could hardly have entered into the
imagination. - -
III.—OF THE GRAND JUNCTION COMPANY.
Allegation.—“That the Grand Junction Waterworks Company, having engaged to supply
“ their customers with water of the purest and most wholesome quality, at a compara-
“tively small charge, have not only exacted a greatly increased rate, but have changed
“ the source of their supply to a spot in the Thames, at the foot of Chelsea Hospital,
“ and nearly adjoining the mouth of the great Ranelagh common sewer; and that they
“ now furnish to those customers water which has been pronounced, by professional
“men of the first eminence, to be a filthy fluid, loaded with decayed vegetable matter
“ and other substances, equally deleterious to health, and unfit for domestic purposes.”
I. Origin of the Grand Junction Company.
In the year 1810, when the rage for wild speculations of every description was nearly aS
prevalent as it was during the disastrous year 1825, it so happened that the Manchester
* “It cannot,” says Dr. Ure, in the last edition of his Dictionary of Chemistry, “but be an inte-
resting object to ascertain the component parts and qualities of the water daily consumed by the
inhabitants of large cities. A very minute portion of unwholesome matter daily taken, may consti-
tute the principal cause of the differences in salubrity, which are observable in different places.”—
[April 1828.]
- Waterworks
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 13]
Waterworks Company, then a new concern, had a committee holding its sittings in London.
Out of the brain of one of the gentlemen composing this committee started the company
whose doings I am about to lay before the Commissioners. He invited, it seems, several of
his brother committee-men to embark with him in a project, for supplying the inhabitants of
Paddington and Mary-le-bone with water. Previously, however, to so doing, they de-
spatched their secretary, for the purpose of obtaining information as to the state of the supply
in that quarter of the town. “I employed myself,” he says, in his evidence before the
Committee of the House of Commons, in February 1821, p. 45.—“I employed myself seve-
ral days for that purpose; and I almost found universally that there was a deficiency in the
supply of water.” s
On receiving this report, the Manchester gentlemen considered it to be so satisfactory?
that a scheme for a New Grand Water Company was forthwith issued; the capital to be
225,000l. ; the number of shares 4,500l., of 50l. each. At one time the shares fell down to
27 l. ; but no sooner was this company admitted a branch of the monopoly, than matters took
a favourable turn ; so much so, that 50l. shares have been as high as 74l.
Such was the origin of this company. That the speculation has worked well for the
original projectors, there can be little doubt. How it has worked for the inhabitants of the
Metropolis, the Commissioners will now see.
2. Original Engagements of the Grand Junction Company with the Public.
The Grand Junction Company enticed the public to leave the old companies, and to
become their customers, by a series of promises and engagements, of the most solemn
kind. The first proposal issued by the company is dated the 15th of November 1810, and
is as follows: - -
“ Grand Junction Waterworks.
“By Act 38 Geo. 3. c. 33. the Grand Junction Canal Company are empowered to make
waterworks to supply the parish of Paddington, and parishes and streets adjacent, with
water. Pursuant to this Act, works are now constructing and reservoirs making, with
powers to effect their purpose, far superior to any other in this kingdom, and calculated at
once to give to the inhabitants of the parishes and streets to be supplied, an abundance of
pure and eacellent soft water, even in the upper stories of their houses or other buildings.
“This the proprietors will be enabled to do at a comparatively small expense, from the
abundance of their sources, from the height of the ground whence the water will be taken
being so much above the level of the Thames, and its being so contiguous to the parishes of
Paddington, Mary-le-bone, St. George's, Hanover-square, &c. including all the new streets
now making and intended to be made.
“The grand main at present casting is thirty inches in diameter, and will extend down
Oxford-street, conveying a body of water unequalled in the Metropolis, and affording an
immense advantage in the cases of fire, to all the districts through which the pipes will
pass.
“Great attention being necessary in the execution of an undertaking of such magnitude
and public importance, the Grand Junction Canal Company have thought it for the general
good, that it should be under a distinct and separate management from their other concerns;
they have therefore entered into an agreement with certain gentlemen, for the purpose of
carrying it into effect; in pursuance of which, and for the more effectual establishment
of the undertaking, application will be made to Parliament, the ensuing session, praying to
have the agreement confirmed, and to have the proprietors formed into a distinct
Company.
“ The water in its present state, has been analysed, and found excellent for all culinary
and domestic purposes; it is also lighter, and contains less foreign matter than the Thames
water, besides which, the Grand Junction Company are now engaged in making additional
reservoirs, and introducing other streams of water, which are of the finest quality, and
which will enable them, not only to perform their engagement, of giving a supply for at
least 40,000 houses, but also to meet the demand for water to any extent that may be
required. Hence it is obvious, that the undertaking will be attended with great public
benefit, and the proprietors trust they have reason to feel confident of the liberal support of
the public.”
The Company’s second engagement with the Public was as follows:
“ Grand Junction Waterworks Office.
“The proprietors have proved the absolute power of their works, the excellence of their .
water, and the certain success of their plan. On these grounds they solicit support to an
undertaking, combining the welfare of the public with the Company's advantage.
“Their level is 10 feet above the highest street in Mary-le-bone, and (what has never
before been effected) they give a supply so copious and regular, that the water is always on.
This abundant supply of water is always pure in the pipes; it is constantly fresh, because it
is always coming in.
(94.) “ Their
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
132 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright
“Their powers, from height of situation and largeness of main, raise water above the
highest house in London, without any interruption of service to the tenants; and this
economical accommodation is felt, not only in Small houses, but in laundries, nurseries, &c. .
or upper stories, for which high service no additional charge is made.
“Ravages of fire are increased by delay and scanty supply. No houses watered by this
company can suffer in these respects. Their water is never off; their pipes are always full.
The water being perfectly clear, would not in case of fire, tarnish the furniture /*
“The annexed Analyses show the water to be peculiarly adapted to all domestic purposes.
It is drawn from two large filtering reservoirs, situated at Paddington; the main supply to
which is derived from the rivers Colne and Brent, and from an immense reservoir of nearly
a hundred acres, fed by the streams of the vale of Ruislip; and the water being taken at a
considerable distance above the basin of the canal at Paddington, is consequently as pure
as if it were drawn immediately from those permanent sources. It is laid on free of expense
to the tenants. -
“Analyses of the Water.
“The analysis I have made of the Grand Junction water is highly favourable to the
opinion of its salubrity and excellence for the important public object which it is intended to
fulfil.”
(Signed) “ C. R. Akim.”
“I have analysed the Grand Junction water, and find it to be excellent for all domestic
purposes; to be also lighter, and to contain less foreign matter than the Thames water.”
(Signed) “ Frederick Accºm.”
Their third engagement will be found in the following card, which was profusely distributed
over the town : ‘.
“ The Grand Junction Waterworks Company have the pleasure to inform the Public,
that since the opening of their works they have given universal satisfaction to their
CùStOnnerS.
|
“Advantage of situation and great powers of machinery ensure a constant supply, at the
tops and in every story of the houses, and prevent the inconvenience of force-pumps, and
expense attending them.
“The same powers ensure to the Grand Junction customers a facility in extinguishing
fires; for, where a sufficient service is obtained, means will be established of playing upon
the houses much more effectually than by the assistance of a fire-engine.
“The Public are respectfully requested to observe, that a daily service is given. The
water is collected from a number of pure streams, into a reservoir of near 100 acres, and is
of a fine soft quality, perfectly clear ; which may be seen as it comes in from the pipes at the
company’s office, or a reference given to the inhabitants that are served with it. — N. B. No
eatra charge is made for supplying the upper stories; and water will be furnished gratis for
watering the streets.”
Engagement the fourth was the subjoined lure to that useful class of individuals,
Laundresses: • 4
“The Grand Junction Waterworks Company give the advantage of a never-ceasing supply
to the lower parts of the houses; and the high service to the attics three times a week. The
company's water is particularly soft and fit for laundresses, and all domestic uses. The
company undertake to give all these advantages at a moderate charge.”
The fifth and last engagement soared at higher game, and was couched in the following
very polite terms: -
“The eacellence of the Grand Junction water, and the great convenience afforded by its
service at the tops of the houses, having already induced the greater part of the nobility
and gentry in St. George's parish to have it laid on to their houses, the Company beg to
acquaint those inhabitants who do not take the water, that their pipes are laid in every street
in the parish.” .
“The agent will have the honour to call to receive orders.”
Such were the engagements entered into by the Company. A recapitulation will be
useful. - i
1. Quantity.— “An abundance of pure and excellent water ’’ — “a never-ceasing supply
to the lower parts of the houses”—“ the high service to the attics three times a week” —
“immense advantages in cases of fire” — “ the water always on ” — and “a daily service
given.” -
2. Price.— “Expense comparatively small ” – “pipes laid on free of expense to the
tenants” – “no extra charge for service ’’ – and “water furnished gratis for watering the
streets.” -
- - - - - 9 3. Quality. —
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. I33
3. Quality.—“ The main supply derived from the rivers Colne and Brent, and from
an immense reservoir, of nearly 100 acres, fed by the streams of the vale of Ruislip”—
“ the water collected from a number of pure streams”—“ of a fine quality”—“ always
pure”—“ constantly fresh”—“perfectly clear”—“so clear as not to tarnish the furniture in
cases of fire”—“so soft as to be peculiarly fit for laundresses”—“ excellent for all culinary
and domestic purposes”—“ lighter and containing less foreign matter than the Thames
water”—“ which may be seen as it comes in from the pipes at the company’s office.”—And,
as if these were not enough,-‘‘the company are engaged in introducing other streams of
water, which are of the purest quality.”
That flesh and blood should withstand these extravagant representations,—representa-
tions which put far in the shade the mural productions of blacking merchants and quacks,—
was almost impossible. Accordingly, many of the inhabitants quitted the old companies,
and came over to the new. The York Buildings Company was actually annihilated, and
thus was a competitor taken out of the market; while the Chelsea Company was left with
so small a district that it would undoubtedly have been extinguished but for the con-
federacy that was entered into. Indeed, it appears by the evidence taken before the Com-
mittee of the House of Commons, in 1821, p. 81, that at a public meeting a director of the
Grand Junction Company declared “ that the object of the establishment of these new
works was to crush the old companies.” A
3. The Company diminish the Quantity and advance the Price of their Supply.
The Commissioners have now before them the engagements solemnly entered into by this
company. To what a frightful extent those engagements have been departed from, it next
becomes my duty to point out.
If the obligation of promises is to be measured, as Dr. Paley says it ought to be measured,
“ by the expectation which the promisers voluntarily excited,” then are the Grand Junc-
tioners indeed culpable. In price—in quantity—in quality, they will be found to have
broken EVERY engagement which they entered into; and to have sported with the comforts
and the health of their customers in a way that has rarely been exceeded.
No sooner was the monopoly completely established than the company began to give
proof of the mischief ever attendant upon the possession of exclusive powers. Instead of
the promised “ daily supply,” it was sent into the houses of their customers only three days
out of seven. Instead of “ immense advantages in cases of fire,” after almost every fire
that has broken out in the division, since the combination of the companies, complaints
have been made in the public journals, of the much greater delay which has taken place
than was formerly known. Instead of selling the water at a “ comparatively small charge,”
the company exacted, in August 1819, an increased rate, equivalent in no case to less than
50, and extending in numerous instances to 90 and 100 per cent. Instead of making “ no
extra charge for high service,” an advance, in some cases amounting to 100, 150, and even
200 per cent., was demanded. Instead of a supply being “furnished gratis for watering the
streets,” an express rate was levied for so doing.
As this extraordinary conduct naturally excited a considerable degree of irritation, the
company, in order to allay that irritation, circulated an immense number of copies of a
pamphlet, entitled, “A Calm. Address to the Housekeepers of St. James's and St. George's
Westminster, calculated to settle their opinions on the Conduct of the Water Companies.” It
was left at the houses of the inhabitants by the servants of the company, with a notice,
that it was “to be returned” when read; and as it was given out that it came from the pen
of Sir Gilbert Blane, “ M.D. F.R.S.S. Lond. Edin. Gottin. et Paris, First Phys. to the
King, &c. &c.” and a leading director, it was received as an authorized statement of the
case of the company. -
It has been asserted, however much the assertion may appear like a reflection on the
judgment of the inhabitants, that the “ Calm Addresser's" sedative operated so power-
fully on the majority of them, and so “ settled their opinions,” that they were thereby
induced to comply with the exorbitant demands made upon them; and that, encouraged by
that success, the company proceeded to extort payment from others, less easy or less willing
to be duped. © -
That so strange a compound as the Commissioners will find the “ Calm Address” to
have been, should have had any such effect on the householders of those enlightened
parishes, appears highly improbable. Their compliance with the exaction demanded arose,
I am convinced, from the natural reluctance of individuals to contend against the branch
of a monopoly, having a lawyer at its elbow, a banker at its back, and an interested “Calm
Addressing ” director, ready to impute “ malevolent and interested ” motives to those who
might think it their duty to expose imposition. -
4. The Company change the Source of their supply from the rivers Colne and Brent,
fed by the streams of the Vale of Ruislip, to a spot in the Thames, at the foot"
of Chelsea Hospital, fed by the streams of the great Ranelagh Common Sewer.
Having pointed out to the Commissioners what monopoly has effected for the customers
of the Grand Junction Company, as far as regards quantity and price, I come now to the
most important point of all; namely, the quality of the water supplied by this company.
That water was promised to be “pure”—“bright”—“soft”—“clear”—“so clear as not to
(94.) Ll tarnish
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
134, APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Memoir of tarnish the furniture in case of fire”—“fit for all domestic purposes”—“lighter, and con-
Mr. J. Wright. taining less foreign matter than the Thames water”—and “ the main supply derived from
the rivers Colne and Brent, and from an immense reservoir, of nearly a hundred acres, fed
by the streams of the vale of Ruislip.” -
To read this description, every man of plain understanding would necessarily conclude,
that the company really possessed lands and reservoirs at a distance from the impurities of
the Metropolis. The Commissioners will find no such thing to have been the case ! Not an
inch of ground did they purchase, excepting about two acres and a half, at Paddington, on
which to erect their steam-engine, and to build their reservoirs. Instead of the water coming
in clear from the country, their supply was actually taken up at Paddington, out of the Grand
Junction Canal. So that, instead of being supplied, as they were promised, by a pure,
running river, their customers were actually drenched with the noxious contents of a stag-
nant pool;-the waste of a canal, abounding with all sorts of impurities, -
In this state of things—their professed object being the “general good”—the Company,
finding that it was not in their power to obtain pure and wholesome water—that their
“ Grand Scheme of Public Utility,” as Sir Gilbert Blane called it, had totally failed—ought
to have walked off with their pipes and their engines, and have abandoned the wretched
speculation. - - -
Far different, however, was their view of the matter. It so happened, that just at this
critical juncture the Regent's Canal Company had completed their works; and a discovery
was, somehow or other, made that it would be “ a matter of accommodation” to the three
Companies,—that is to say, the Grand Junction Canal Company, the Regent's Canal Com-
pany, and the Grand Junction Waterworks Company,+for the last-mentioned Company
to discontinue the supply of the boasted etherial streams of the Paddington Canal to their
customers, and to give them, in lieu thereof, the water which the Regent's Canal Company
had, by Act of Parliament, the power of drawing from the river Thames;–water not intended
for the human stomach, but merely for the purpose of working their navigation. An agree-
ment to this effect was accordingly entered into between the parties on the 26th of May 1819,
and in September 1820 the Grand Junction Company bade a lasting adieu to the Colne and
the Brent, and the pure streams of the vale of Ruislip, and planted their standard on the
banks of the Thames, - that Thames, the waters of which the said Company had, in their
original engagements, passed a strong condemnation upon. To the evidence of their secre-
tary given before the Committee of the House of Commons in 1821, p. 45, I call the parti-
cular attention of the Commissioners.
*
The nonchalance with which the agent of these water changers and water exchangers tells
the story, will, I think, strike the Commissioners with astonishment. Thus, without the
consent, or even knowledge, of their customers—without sending round to them an analysis
of the water—without in the first instance, asking leave of Parliament to effect such an
important change in the supply of a necessary of life to 7,000 families—did this Company
in their zeal for the “public welfare” and the “general good,” go and erect their Dolphin
at the foot of Chelsea Hospital, and form a grand junction with the great Ranelagh common
sewer. From this spot do they send up into the Metropolis, at the rate of 36,000 hogsheads ,
per day, to be used at the breakfast-table; in the composition of bread, pastry, soups, broths;
and in the boiling of meats, poultry, and pulses, a fluid, which has been pronounced, by
professional men of the first eminence, to be “loaded with decayed vegetable matter and
other substances, equally deleterious to health, and unfit for domestic purposes.” The
following is a correct representation of the scene.
# =#=== Scº-º:
thºſlº### S s=
==S$ºsée==== =#= ==º =~!
ºğ. |ffinºjº º &->|-E” | ºfflº, ޺rs
# * * * * * * * * * s ºn * I | |lb| It is º º l G Nºrtſ § T. - § º
fººligºlº sº
gº | º º º
§§§:..º.º. E iºiºſº
iºniº Biº º
* |||| #| £3:ES: º | {|| º
>=::===######ji== º
•=" *** ** -
§
§§
ſ
!] It
t
º-> 2 ſ
º % | | ſ | g ſ -: 5.
º : #| || ...alſº
2C--- ... } ºf || || utú |.
3===# | L: |||||||}|†
-. º Jºlº ill
- * - Tºr. >E= 222- _-Eš. "-s-
* …sº: s_ºf_2~ - wºme"
>- -
No. 1. is the Dolphin, or spot from which the Company derive their Supply.
2. is the mouth of the great Ranelagh Common Sewer.
3. is the Company's Steam-engine, which draws up the daily supply. -
4. is Chelsea Hospital. At low water, the Dolphin is about three yards from the shore.























































SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. 135
The company, in one of their publications, say, that the preceding engraving gives
a “false, and it is difficult not to conceive a wilfully false, impression of the real state of
the case.” Now this is an attack, not upon me, but upon a respectable artist, who was sent
thither to do his duty; and in a review of my pamphlet in the Monthly Magazine for May
last, the writer bears the following testimony to its correctness:
“ In all its material bearings, Mr. Wright's drawing is a fair one. The Grand Junction
dolphin, as it appeared to us, upon actual inspection, is directly abreast of the Ranelagh
sewer; so directly, that supposing that sewer to be full, as it is in rainy weather, when it
empties out suddenly the impurities which have long been accumulating, it is hardly pos-
sible to doubt that its whole stream of filth and foulness must run directly upon the com-
pany’s dolphin, and be taken up with the water which may be pumping in from it. When
the Ranelagh sewer is full and swollen with rain, we should say, that even with the river
also full, and the tide running smartly, the rush from the sewer would be sufficient to pene-
trate the stream of the river, and to reach the dolphin. But besides these cases of mischief
from occasional floods upon ordinary occasions, we think that there would be two periods in
every day when the water taken up would also be impure. While the tide is flowing up, the
floodgates of all the sewers are of course closed; or if they were open, the contents would
not issue, but be forced backwards with the entering water. And while the tide is running
fast down, the stream that issues from the sewer, if small, would be at once carried away
along the shore by the force of the ebb, without getting far into the bed of the river. But
at the time of low water, and for a while previous to and after that period, when the body
of water in the river is small, and for a time almost stationary, then the stream pouring out
from the sewer, even, although slight, being carried neither upwards nor downwards by any
tide, would make its way directly into the river, and towards the company’s dolphin; and
if it so happened that the stream from the sewer was copious at such a moment, the effect
would go far beyond this, and almost the whole quantity of water taken up at the dolphin
during the interval described would be pumped from its contents. By a peculiar infeli-
citousness in the arrangements of the company, their dolphin stands perfectly in a nest of
sinks and drainage ; and there is another sewer which Mr. Wright entirely omits, which runs
along the western boundary of the Hospital, and is so wide as to admit a barge, which must
pour its stream down upon the dolphin during the whole time of the returning tide.”
The Company say that this Ranelagh common sewer “ is not a sewer at all, or only in
a very minute degree.” The extravagance of the assertion is palpable, seeing that the
Ranelagh sewer receives the drainage, of every description, from Brompton and a great part
of Chelsea, and has recently been deepened at a large expense, in order that its daily
increasing mass of filth and putridity may slide, with greater rapidity, into the Thames.
I beg leave, in this place, to notice a few of the assertions contained in the Grand Junction
Company’s defence.
1. “ The truth is,” say the directors, “that until the company ceased to take their supply
from the Grand Junction Canal, frequent complaints were made of the quality of the water.”
Now, if such be “the truth,” what becomes of their former solemn assurances, that “ they
had proved the absolute power of their works, and the certain success of their plan;” and
had given “universal satisfaction to their customers ?”
2. “ In fact,” continue the directors, “ such complaints were not without reasonable
ground. The waters of the Brent, and of the Ruislip reservoir, were discovered to be so
foul, that it was necessary to prevent their entering the canal; the supply from both those
sources proving unfit for the use of the waterworks.” What the water of the boasted
Brent, and the pure streams of the vale of Ruislip—which was “ to be seen running per-
fectly clear, as it came from the pipes at the company’s office,”—so foul as to be unfit for
use ! Their secretary, on being asked, by the Committee of the House of Commons, in
1821,–“ When you took your water from the Thames instead of the canal, was it not in
consequence of the water of the Brent being foul”—answered, “No ; we had got rid of that
altogether P” Now, both these statements cannot by possibility be “fact.”
3. “If, when the dolphin was first placed in its present situation,” continue the directors,
“it had been supposed, that the supply of the company could be affected by it, is it credible
that men of sound mind would have permitted it to be so placed * Now, there is some-
thing extremely disingenuous in this question. The spot was, years before, selected by the
Regent's Canal Company, merely as a source from whence to draw up a supply to work the
barges on their canal. It was left for a company, whose directors say, “ they considered it
a high moral duty to take care that the water they supplied should be the best,” to divert the
filthy fluid from the aforesaid canal, to the stomachs of their customers.
4. “But,” add the directors, “a yet greater inducement for the company to fix their
dolphin in its present situation existed in the unlimited supply which might be obtained from
the Thames; which the constantly increasing wants of the public rendered necessary.”
Now, on referring to the Act passed in May 1826, the Commissioners will find, that, instead
. º unlimited, the supply is expressly limited to forty thousand tons in every twenty-
Olli Ilol II’S. - -
5. In conclusion—what, I ask the Commissioners, is the Company's own description of
that supply?—“We will admit frankly, and at once, that, during a certain period of the
(94.) year
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
136 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
year, the water of the Thames is not such as ought to be delivered to the inhabitants of the
Metropolis.” What an admission is here, on the part of a joint stock company, which raised
itself into existence by denouncing and impugning the water of the Thames, and by
promising to give a purer supply than that noble river can afford
The company's whole defence is a tissue of inconsistencies and misrepresentations—a series
of contradictions and self-condemnations. -
5. Analysis of the Grand Junction Water.
When, as I have already observed, the Grand Junction Company were soliciting cus-
tomers, and enticing them away from the old companies, the better to effect their purpose,
they caused their water to be analyzed by two eminent chemists; thereby obtaining a tes-
timony to its pure and salubrious qualities. But when they exchanged that water for the
puddle at the foot of Chelsea Hospital they did not come forward with any such analysis.
I, however, have had it analyzed for them. As soon as I had made up my mind to call the
attention of the public to the subject, I caused a quantity of the water, as it ran from the
company's pipes, to be sealed up, in the presence of one of their own directors, and I sent it
to the successor of Mr. Accum, with the following letter:
“ Sir, January 4th, 1827.
“ I REQUEST you to analyze the water herewith sent, with a view to ascertain its specific
nature and quality; and that, when you have so done, you will have the goodness to say,
whether you consider it to be “clear,’—‘pure,”—“free from foreign matter,’—and,' excellent
for all domestic and culinary purposes.’
“I am, &c.
“ J. Wright.”
The answer was as follows:
“ The water sent for assay was found to be loaded with decomposed vegetable matter;
and in such quantity as to be unfit for use, without tedious purifications.
“Compton-street. (Signed) “ F. Joyce.”
6. Opinions of Professional Men with regard to the quality of the Grand Junction Water.
That water, which was so loaded with filth and decomposed vegetable matter, as to be
unfit for ablution, could not be fit for other domestic purposes, was evident to common
sense; but, in order that the family who were constantly using it, might be aware of the full
measure of their danger, I thought it right to address the following letter to a few of our
eminent professional men, and to wait upon them with a specimen of the said water:
“ Sir, 112, Regent Street.
“ For the last twelve months, I have been strongly impressed with a conviction, that
more than 7,000 families at the west end of the town are supplied by one of the water
companies who have partitioned the Metropolis between them, with a necessary of life,
loaded with filth and all sorts of impurities; and I am about to make an effort to awaken
such of the inhabitants of Westminster and its suburbs as are served with it to a sense of
their danger.
“ The water which the said Company engaged to supply to their customers was to be
of the purest quality, perfectly clear, fit for all culinary and domestic purposes; and it was
to be * derived from the rivers Colne and Brent, and from an immense reservoir of nearly
100 acres, fed by the streams of the vale of Ruislip;' and furthermore, it was to be lighter.
and to contain less foul matter, than the Thames water.’
“ The water which they actually supply, and of which I herewith send you a specimen,
is drawn at the rate of 36,000 hogsheads per day, from the River Thames, at the foot of
Chelsea Hospital, and within a few yards of a great common sewer.
“ Now, Sir, you would much oblige me, and, I think, benefit the Public, if you would
inform me, whether you consider this water to be of the purest quality,” and fit for all
culinary and domestic purposes:’ in other words, whether you consider it fit for the break-
fast table, and to be used in the making of bread, puddings, broths, Soups, &c.; and in
the boiling of meats and vegetables. Or whether, on the contrary, you do not consider,
that the daily use of such water has a direct and positive tendency to engender those dis-
eases, to which the inhabitants of so thickly a peopled city as Westminster are especially
liable.
“I have honour to be, Sir, yours, &c.
“ J. Wright.”
My first visit was to Mr. Abernethy, of whom I had heard much, but whom I had never
before had the pleasure of seeing. Scarcely had I put the above letter into his hand,
when I unfortunately held up the specimen bottle, and asked him, “whether he thought
- 10 such
suPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, lsº
such water could be wholesome?” Never shall I forget the countenance of this eminent
man at that moment ' The very sight of the turbid fluid seemed to occasion a turmoil in
his stomach. He began pacing the room backward and forward, and the only words I
could extract from him were, “How can you ask me such a question ? How can you ask
me such a question? There is such a thing as common sense ! There is such a thing
as common sense !” I left his house, satisfied that I had so far established my case.
In a communication which I have since been favoured with from Mr. Abernethy, he
has had the goodness to confirm my interpretation of his exclamation, and to say, that
he considers the question to be one which may be “terminable by the common sense of
the Public.”
Upon reading my letter, and examining the specimen of the water, Dr. Wilson Philip,
of Cavendish Square, the author of the “Treatise on Indigestion,” declared that its im-
purities were so evident to the sight, that to certify that it was “unfit for culinary and
domestic purposes,” was altogether unnecessary. He, however, politely offered me his tes-
timony, as to the necessity of using only pure and wholesome water, and wrote as follows
at the foot of my letter: --
“ Cavendish Square.
“I HAVE no hesitation in saying, that I consider good water as EssentIAL to health.
(Signed) “ A. P. W. Philip.”
The following are twelve out of the answers which I received.
1. Dr. WILLIAM LAMBE.
“, Sir,
“ HAVING considered the foregoing statement, and observed the great impurity of the
specimen of water shown to me, I cannot doubt that this water is loaded with noxious
matter; much of which is obvious to the eye, and much, no doubt, is contained in
solution. I have no hesitation in saying, that such water, used as an article of diet, must
be unwholesome.
“ William Lambe, M.D.”
2. Mr. THOMAs.
« Sir, Leicester Place, Feb. 17, 1827.
“I HAVE examined, with great care, the specimen of water you sent for my inspection.
“ On the first view, it presents a fluid loaded with impurities; and upon a more minute
analysis, is found saturated with decayed vegetable matter, and other substances equally
deleterious, which must be very prejudicial to the health of those who are obliged to employ
it in the common purposes of domestic life.
“That such is the fact may, I presume, be readily ascertained by inquiries amongst the
inhabitants of the districts who are supplied with water from the same source.
“With my best wishes for the successful termination of your laudable undertaking,
“I remain, Sir, very truly yours,
(Signed) “ H. Leigh Thomas.”
3. Dr. Hooper.
“ Sir, Saville Row, Feb. 12, 1827.
“I LAMENT: I have not had it in my power to acknowledge the receipt of, and to answer,
your letter before. -
“I beg to inform you, that I have been aware of the very impure nature of the water
supplied by the Grand Junction Company, ever since it came to my house. At one time,
it was not only filthy in appearance, but had an unwholesome smell.
“ Until my supply of water came from the Grand Junction Company, that which I had
was excellent: but now scarcely a week passes that I am not presented with a leech; a
shrimp-like skipping insect, near an inch in length; a small, red, delicate worm, which I
believe is the lumbicus fluviatilis, or some other animalcula; and the water is mostly opaline,
muddy, or otherwise impure.
“ That the daily use of impure water has a tendency to produce, or is a cause of many
diseases, there cannot be any doubt; and it is a question of much importance, whether
such matters in the stomach do not greatly contribute to the production of that state of
faulty digestion, and impurity of blood, of which the inhabitants of this and other large
cities are constantly complaining. - -
“I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
(Signed) “ R. Hooper.”
i.
*
(94.) - M m
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
138 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
4. Mr. BRodie.
“ Sir, 16, Saville Row, Feb. 24, 1827.
“THE water which you have shewn me corresponds in appearance with that which is
supplied to my own house by the Grand Junction Water Company. It is manifestly very
impure; and, from the quantity of foreign matters which it contains, must, I conceive, be
unwholesome, and altogether unfit for culinary purposes.
“I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
- (Signed) “ B. C. Brodie.”
5. Dr. PARIs.
“ Sir, Dover-street, Feb. 15, 1827.
“ IN reply to your letter, I feel no difficulty in stating, as a housekeeper, that the water .
with which I am supplied is extremely impure and unwholesome.
“As a physician, who has devoted much attention to the subject, I cannot find terms
sufficiently expressive of the awful effects it may be likely to produce upon the health, and
even lives, of the inhabitants of the Metropolis. *
“I am most anxious that you should pursue some plan to obtain redress from the Legis-
lature.
“I remain, Sir, your humble servant,
(Signed) * J. A. Paris.”
6. Mr. KEATE.
“ Sir, * Albemarle-street, March 1, 1827.
“ IN reply to your letter of the 27th ultimo, which I have this day received, I may
observe, in the first place, that I had no occasion for the specimens which you sent me of
the New River and Grand Junction Waters, and that I have never ceased to regret the effect
of that combination, which deprived me of the former, and compelled me to pay dearly for
the latter. t - A.
“ I can have no hesitation in avowing my opinion, that the water supplied by the Grand
Junction Company is so filthy and impure as to be unfit for the breakfast table, or for culi-
nary purposes; and that it adds so much to the other impure and unwholesome constituents
of bread, as to render every meal injurious to the health of thousands.
“ It is well known that Thames water is unfit for domestic purposes, until it has undergone
a process somewhat analogous to fermentation: after which, it is pure and capable of being
preserved in a state of purity for a long period; but where the tanks or reservoirs are dis-
turbed every day by the accession of fresh supplies, this process cannot take place; and I
doubt whether the experiment has ever been tried with the water pumped up from the
débouche of a common sewer.
* I am myself obliged to send out for spring water to a considerable distance from my
house, for most purposes; and by the aid of filtering machines, and a steam-kitchen, I
endeavour to avert from my family the mischiefs and dangers which I should otherwise
apprehend from the use of the sad compound which is laid into my house.
“I cannot conclude without expressing to you my thanks for the attempt which you
appear to be making in the cause of humanity, for many must be the sufferers from the
evil you complain of
“ I have the honour to be, Sir, &c.
(Signed) “ Robert Keate.”
7. Sir HENRY HALFORD.
“ Sir, Curzon-street, March 1, 1827.
“I HAVE been disgusted, for some time past, by the filthy fluid which has been served to
my house by the Grand Junction Water Company; and, although I am not prepared to
prove that its influence on the health of the inhabitants of the west end of the town has
been deleterious, I conceive it likely to become so, if it continue to be supplied in the same
foul and muddy condition in which it comes into our houses at present.
“I must add, Sir, that I think the public is under great obligations to you for bringing
this subject of the supply of Water to the Metropolis to the notice of Parliament.
“ I am, Sir, your's truly,
(Signed) “ Henry Halford.”
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, }39.
8. Dr. TURNER.
“ Sir, Curzon-street, March 3, 1827.
“ IN reply to your letter respecting the water supplied by the Grand Junction Company,
I should say that it is, at no season of the year, fit for culinary purposes, and that after
rain it is generally mixed with so large a quantity of filth as to render it unfit even for
washing, or any other domestic use. During the hot weather of last summer, the water in
my cisterns frequently became quite putrid, though they were repeatedly cleaned out by my
direction. -
“ Whether this impure state of the water has any influence on the health of the inhabit-
ants of Westminster, is a question that would admit of much controversy. I therefore
pass it over; but must express to you, Sir, my sincere thanks for the trouble you are taking
for the public good.
“ I am, Sir, your faithful Servant,
(Signed) * Thomas Thºrner.”
9. Dr. HUME.
“ Sir, 9, Curzon-street, 5th March 1827.
“ IN reply to your question, I have no hesitation in stating, that the water supplied to this
house by the Grand Junction Water Company, ever since I have resided in it, which is now
nearly five years, has been so loaded with mud and all sorts of impurities, that I have never
been able to use it for any purpose whatever, except that of ablution; and, even for washing,
it has been almost always, in winter, so foul and dirty, and in the dry hot weather of summer,
so filled with animalculae, that it has been necessary to filter or boil it before it could be
used without disgust.
“ I have been supplied with water from a spring in the neighbourhood, for tea and all
culinary purposes, in consequence of the dirtiness of the water served by the Grand
Junction Water Company; but I am not able to assert that this water has been prejudicial
to the health of the inhabitants in the west end of the town ; although I have no doubt of
a continued use of such water, without filtering or depuration, being, in the end, capable of
producing deleterious effects.
“I have the honour to be, Sir, your very obedient servant,
(Signed) “ J. R. Hume.”
10. Dr. MACMICHAEL.
“ Sir, r Half-Moon-street, March 10, 1827.
“THE specimen of water you have shewn me, and some specimens which I have frequently
seen in my own house (which is supplied by the Grand Junction Water Company), are cer-
tainly very filthy; and I should think no other argument could be required, than the con-
sideration of the disgusting source from which this impure water is obtained, to prove how
desirable it would be to procure a wholesome supply from a more pure source.
“...The Public is certainly obliged to you for taking the trouble of calling ther'attention of
Parliament to this very important subject.
“ I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
(Signed) “ W. Macmichael.”
11. Dr. RoberT BREE.
“ Sir, 17, George-street, Hanover-square, March 14, 1827.
“ THE statement you have done me the favour of sending for my opinion carries the
testimony of a strong and culpable breach of faith on the part of the company which supplies
my house with water. f
“I have been convinced, by experience, of the impurity of their water, and have had
water from a spring in Hanover-square, for constant use as a drink, and for particular uses.
“. I think it obvious that the Company has deceived the public, and not less plain that
an impure water must be deleterious to the health; and that the necessity of filtering, or
of subjecting water to the action of heat, for the purpose of rendering it innoxious, is a
shameful imposition on the inhabitants, which, in equity, should make the contract with
the company void, or set up a charge of expense against their rates.
“I wish you success in your endeavour to develope this public abuse, and am sensible of
the debt which the inhabitants of Westminster must owe to your exertions.
“I am, Sir, very truly yours,
(Signed) ‘‘ Robert Bree,”
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
(94.)
140 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
12. Dr. JAMEs JoHNson.
“ Sir, Suffolk-place, Pall-mall East, Feb. 13, 1827.
“I HAVE always looked upon the water used in London, and taken up in or near the
Metropolis, as most disgusting to the imagination, and deleterious to health. But, as
I have publicly stated my sentiments nearly twelve months ago, in the Medico-Chirurgical
Review (which I herewith send you), on the subject of the water taken up at Chelsea, I need
not now re-state them here. .
“ I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
(Signed) “ J. Johnson.”
The following is the extract from the Medico-Chirurgical Review, vol. iv. p. 207, to which
Dr. James Johnson refers. It is brief; but it embraces the great question which the Com-
missioners have to decide upon :
“ We sneer at the delicacy of the Hindoo, who slakes his thirst at the same tank where
his neighbour is sacrificing to Cloacina; but, what shall we say to the delicate citizens of
Westminster, who fill their tanks and stomachs with water from the Thames, at that very
spot into which one hundred thousand cloacae, containing every species of filth, and all
unutterable things, are daily disgorging their hideous and abominable contents.
“It is absolutely astonishing that, in these days of refinement, and in a metropolis whose
inhabitants pride themselves on delicacy and cleanliness, a practice should obtain, at which
posterity will shudder, if they can credit it. We do not believe that a parallel instance of
bestial dirtiness can be cited from any part of the globe.
“ A time must come when the people of London will open their eyes to this scene of
corruption, veiled and concealed as it is by iron tubes and stone pavements. We are not
among the idolaters of the ancients; but we do admire the delicacy of their taste, in ex-
pending so much labour and wealth in commanding abundant supplies of pure and salubrious
water for the everlasting city.
“ The New River and the Hampstead waters are ethereal streams, compared with those
of Chelsea. It is difficult to say how far health may be affected by drinking from such a
polluted source; but surely such deleterious substances, however minutely divided, cannot
be salubrious. It is therefore probable, that part of the insalubrity of the city, as compared
with the country, may be owing to this cause.”
Such were the answers which I received to my letter. In general, the first question put
to me was, as to the motives which had induced me to take up the subject; and, upon
finding that I was totally unconnected with any of the water companies, and had no object
in view but a public one, they entered into my views with a liberality, and with a spirit of
perfect independence, that do honour to the profession.
7. The Company's New Table of Rates.
The Commissioners have seen that in August 1819 the Grand Junction Company exacted
an increased rate, equivalent in no case to less than 50 per cent., and extending in most in-
stances to 90 and 100 per cent. As, however, they had, between that period and the year
1826, done so much for the “public good,” they began to think it but fair to do a little for
themselves. Accordingly a private Bill, so private that none of the members for West-
minster or Middlesex even knew of its existence, was brought into the House of Commons
by a city alderman, an interested party, and received the royal assent on the 31st of May
1826, being the last day of the session; by which bill the company obtained the sanction
of the Legislature to a new table of rates, by which, in the words of the petitioner, “ an
addition of from 50l. to 300l. per cent. may be levied upon them.” The following is a copy
of the clause:
“ Provided always, and be it further enacted, that the said Grand Junction Waterworks
Company shall be obliged, by means of any leaden or other pipe or pipes, to be provided and
laid at the costs of the persons requiring the same, to furnish a sufficient supply of water,
at a height not exceeding six feet above the flag pavement, to the house of every inhabitant
occupying a private dwelling-house in any square, place, street, or lane, where the pipes
of the said company shall be laid, for the use of his or her own family, at the following
rates per annum; that is to say, -
“Where the rent of such dwelling-house shall not exceed 201 per annum, at a rate not
exceeding 7% per cent. ;
“ And where such rent shall be above 201, and not exceeding 40l. per annum, at a rate
not exceeding 7 per cent. ;
“And where such rent shall be above 40l., and not exceeding 60l. per annum, at a rate
not exceeding 6% per cent. ;
“And where such rent shall be above 60l., and not exceeding 80ſ. per annum, at a rate
not exceeding 6 per cent. ; -
-, * II. ** And
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. 141
“ And where such rent shall be above 80l. per annum, and not exceeding 100l. per
annum, at a rate not exceeding 5% per cent. ;
“ And where such rent shall be above 100l. per annum, at a rate not exceeding
5 per cent. ; --"
“ And every such rate shall be payable according to the actual amount of the rent, where
the same can be ascertained; and where the same cannot be ascertained, according to the
actual amount or annual value upon which the assessment to the poor's rate is computed in
the parish or district where the house is situate: provided nevertheless, that the said com-
pany shall not be entitled to receive from any such inhabitant as aforesaid more than the sum
of 20l. in any one year for such supply; nor shall the said company be obliged to furnish
such supply to any such inhabitant as aforesaid for less than twelve shillings in any one year,
unless they shall think fit so to do.
“ Provided also, that in case of manufacturers, dyers, printers, bleachers, brewers, inn-
keepers, alehouse-keepers, vintners, or other persons requiring a supply of water for other
purposes than those of his or her own family consumption, or in case of persons requiring a
supply of water for hotels, public chambers, clubs, or subscription-houses, baths, fountains,
closets, water-closets (such closets or water-closets being supplied from any other cistern
than a cistern for domestic purposes, situated within six feet of the flag pavement), or
stables, or for washing carriages, or for cows or horses, or for the purposes of any trade or
business whatsoever, such supply shall be so furnished by the same company in such cases,
at such rate as shall be settled by and between the directors and such persons respectively.”
The following scale will make the intended increase still clearer:
Where the rent of a house is
£ s. d.
sé20 - – the yearly charge may be H 10 0
30 - - - - - - 2 2 0
40 – - - - * * tº- 2 16 0
50 - - - - - - 3 5 0
60 - - - - - - 3 18 0
70 - - - - - - 4 4 0
80 - - - - tºe sº 4, 16 0
90 - - - - - - 4 19 0
100 - - - - - - - 5 10 0
120 - - - - - - 6 0 0
H50 - - - - - - 7 10 0
200 - - --- * sº - 0 0 0
300 – - - - asºs - 15 0 ()
400 - " - gº sº º - 20 () ()
By looking at the above scale, the Commissioners will at once see what an enormous
increase is meditated by the company, “time and place fitting.” A tradesman residing in
Regent-street, for instance, who occupies a house, the rent of which is 200l. a year, and
who now pays three guineas a year, may be called on to pay ten pounds, independently of .
the charge for high service. Again; a poor man living on the west side of the Haymarket,
inhabiting a house of 60l. a year rent, may be compelled by this company to pay 3, 18s.
for bad water, while his neighbour, on the east side of the same street, can procure good
water from the New River Company for twenty or thirty shillings.
That such would be the consequence of this fatal monopoly was foreseen by the Committee
of the House of Commons, which sat in 1821. “ The Public,” says the Committee in their
Report, p. 8, “is at present without any protection, even against a further indefinite extension
of demand. In cases of dispute there is no tribunal but the boards of the companies them-
selves, to which individuals can appeal; there are no regulations but such as the companies
may have voluntarily imposed upon themselves, and may therefore at any time revoke, for
the continuance of the supply in its present state, or for defining the cases in which it may
be withdrawn from the householder. All these points, and others of the same nature, in-
dispensably require legislative regulation, where the subject matter is an article of the first
necessity, and the supply thereof has, from peculiar circumstances, got into such a course,
that it is not under the operation of those principles which govern supply and demand in
other cases.”
But, although the above points were considered by the Committee of 1821, “indispensably
to require legislative regulation,” nothing has, up to the present hour, been done. If the
recommendation of the Committee had been attended to, a bill, levying a heavy and a partial
tax upon more than 7,000 families, without their knowledge or consent, never could have
passed the House of Commons. It went into that house as a private bills “for confirming
certain articles of agreement,” &c., and it thereby escaped the vigilance of members, and of
the public press; but, by a clause appended to it, it is “further enacted, that this Act shall
be deemed and taken to be a public Act, and shall be judicially taken notice of as such by
all judges, justices, and others, without being especially pleaded.” s' ºr
that the attention of Parliament should, through the commissioners, be called to the mode
in which a bill, not merely levying a new tax, but “confirming the Grand Junction Company
(94.) N n . a company
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
142 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
a company in perpetuity for supplying water from the River Thames, at or near Chelsea,”
was carried so privately, is the earnest wish of the petitioners. Of the immense value of the
bill to the company some notion may be formed, from the fact that on the 8th day of June,
that is to say, just one week after it had passed into a law, a general assembly of the company
came to a resolution to raise the sum of 50,000l. by issuing a thousand new shares of 50l.
each ; “ whereof the sum of 31,500l. to be divided amongst the proprietors.”
8. The Company’s Reservoirs — Clarification — Filtration.
The Grand Junction Company—as if all their former broken engagements had created no
distrust in the public mind, have again come forward with an entirely new and truly “grand
scheme of public utility,” by which they promise to “give such a supply of pure and bright
water, at all seasons, as has never yet been equalled, or, they might say, even approached, in
ancient or modern times.”
The attention of the directors has, say they, been for three years “ sedulously directed to
the improvement of their supply.” Now, by the word “ improvement,” they do not mean
that they have gone in quest of a purer source; but that they have devised certain means of
transforming the supply taken up at the impure source, at the mouth of the aforesaid common
sewer, into water “ such as has never been equalled, or even approached, in ancient or modern
times.” f
This desired object is to be arrived at by means of reservoirs. “ The company,” say the
directors, “ now possess, at Paddington, three reservoirs of eight acres, and are about to make
three additional ones, at Chelsea, of four acres.” And, with these half-dozen reservoirs, they
contemplate to effect that by art, which has hitherto been left to the operations of nature.
The following extract from the second edition of Dr. Arnott's “Elements of Physics,”
places, I think, the matter in a striking point of view:—“The supply and distribution of water
in a large city, since the steam-engine was added to the apparatus, approaches closely to the
perfection of nature's own work, in the circulation of blood through the animal body. From
the great pumps, or a high reservoir, a few main pipes issue to the chief divisions of the town;
these send suitable branches to every street; and the branches again divide for the lanes and
alleys; while, at last, into every house a small leaden conduit arises, and, if required, carries
its precious freight into the separate apartments, and yields it to the turning of a cock.
A corresponding arrangement of drains and sewers, constructed with the greatest exactness,
in obedience to the law of level, carries the water away again, when it has answered its
purposes; and sends it to be purified in the great laboratory of the Ocean.”
But, instead of allowing their water to proceed to be “purified in the great laboratory of
the Ocean,” the Grand Junction Company propose to arrest it in its progress thither — to
force the filthy fluid from their Dolphin at Chelsea, up to their reservoirs at Paddington, there
to undergo a sort of clarification—and, after having thereby given to it the semblance of pure
water, to send it into the houses of their customers, to be used, as such, for all culinary and
domestic purposes.
That a large portion of the inhabitants of such a Metropolis should in this way be supplied
with a necessary of life, as it were at second hand, and should then be told, that it is & such
water as has never yet been equalled, or even approached, in ancient or modern times,” is,
I submit, a gross indignity. To every person who has witnessed the slow progress of
filtration, the notion of cleansing daily 36,000 hogsheads of water, which has been declared
by eminent professional men to be a filthy fluid, “ loaded with decayed vegetable matter and
other substances alike deleterious to health, and unfit for domestic purposes,” carries its own
absurdity along with it. -
The following judicious observations, on this part of the subject, I have found in a small
pamphlet published a few years ago: —
“. On the subject of depositing and filtering water it may not be unnecessary to say a few
words; because the purity and brilliancy of the water to be furnished, by depositing and
filtering, have been very much insisted on. When Mr. Dodd projected the South London
Waterworks, he fixed upon a spot at the back of the Vauxhall Road, to excavate reservoirs,
one of which was to be filled by the side through Vauxhall Creek, there to remain in a state
of rest, to settle and grow pure, and then to be pumped into a higher reservoir, there to
settle again; and then, in its utmost purity, it was to be furnished to the inhabitants.
This method of providing pure and brilliant water was adopted by the West Middlesex
Company; to which the Grand Junction Company have added filtering.
“The absurdity of expecting to procure wholesome and useful water by the means above
stated it is wonderful that none or all of the schemers in water should not have perceived.
Every waiter, cook, and Scullion knows that stale water is not adapted to drinking, boiling,
or scouring. Do we not say to a servant, if he places a decanter of water before us, which
has stood on the sideboard since yesterday, ‘ Get some fresh water 2: Does not every body
knºw that water in a state of rest becomes vapid, tasteless, and at last offensive?
Where then can be the comparison in favour of water in reservoirs, which, though it
4. may
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. 143
may have lost all impurities to the eye, is either contracting, or has contracted, those of
putrefaction ?
“Water in a state of motion is always the best water; and in rivers that water is the best
which is taken from the middle of the stream ; and particularly so in the Thames. Yet the
Grand Junction Company talk of filtering their water and they say that they raise six and
thirty thousand hogsheads a day. Now most people know what the operation and progress
of filtering water is; and therefore it is left to the judgment of those who will take the
trouble to reflect on the subject, what kind of machine this company must use for their
filtration.
“But, for argument's sake, let it be granted, that they can filter this quantity of water;
will that filtration take off the vapidity, or cure the offensiveness, or restore the spirit, of the
water 2 The answer is obvious. The circumstances attending the Grand Junction Com-
pany, however, render it necessary that they should resort to the use of reservoirs, or decline
becoming a Company.”
At the public meeting which took place at Willis's Rooms, on the 9th of April, in answer
to the assertion of a gentleman, who had formerly been a director of the company, that the
new reservoirs would give the water time to settle, and deposit the particles of filth with
which it was saturated, Dr. Paris observed, that “the gentleman appeared to be totally
ignorant of the causes of the evil, and of the nature of the remedy, or he would not have
talked of the water filtering in the reservoirs, and there depositing the particles of filth.
The impurity of the water, which so greatly injured the health of the inhabitants, arose,
not from particles of matter floating in the fluid, but from the quantities of matter which
were held in chemical solution; these could be separated by no mechanical means whatever.
He would therefore maintain, that the reservoirs of the Grand Junction Company would be
no redress whatever of the evil of which the inhabitants so justly complained. Would any
man in London be satisfied with an arrangement, by which the most filthy water, from
a spot adjoining a common sewer, was to be supplied for his beverage, on condition of its
being allowed previously to settle, and deposit such of its grosser particles as could in a few
hours be deposited by their gravity?—What was to become of the vast quantity of filth
which was held in chemical solution? No filtration could remove this species of impurity;
and the remedy spoken of, on behalf of the Grand Junction Company, was altogether
delusive.”
Such is Dr. Paris's opinion with regard to the filtration system; and such, I am prepared
to prove, is the opinion of numerous members of the profession, who maintain with him that
all this clarification and filtration — these attempts to scrub the blackamoor white — will
not restore the filthy and unsound fluid to a healthful condition. And in this conviction
they are fortified by the assurances of the proprietors of the great club-houses, coffee-houses,
hotels, baths, &c. who say that the filtered water of the Grand Junction Company will not
heep, but becomes offensive to the smell and to the taste shortly after it has been subjected
to heat.
That any Water Company which boasts of having had a “first physician to the King” for
a leading director, should at this time of day wish to make the world believe that, by
skimming off its mechanical impurities, and otherwise clarifying it, foul and putrid water
may again be made pure, bright, fresh, wholesome, and fit to be used in the manufacture of
bread, puddings, soups, caudles, and what not, is so astounding a fact, that I know not how
to treat it — *:
* “To laugh were want of goodness, want of grace;
“And to be grave exceeds all power of face.”
Their conduct is a direct imitation of that of the Professor in Swift's Grand Academy of
Lagado, “ whose employment, from his first coming into the academy, was an operation to
reduce human excrement to its original food, by separating the several parts, removing the
tincture which it receives from the gall, making the ordure exhale, and skimming off the
saliva.” Little did Swift imagine that what he pictured to his fancy, as the ne plus ultra of
human folly in 1727, would in 1827 become matter of sober history !”
It has been alleged that I have not adduced one actual instance of the poisonous qualities
of the Grand Junction Company's water, thus taken up at the mouth of a common sewer, or
* Against the conduct of the Chelsea Waterworks Company, I never heard a complaint breathed.
I therefore regret to find, that they too are making excavations, and trying to mend their supply, by
having recourse to the cleansing and clarifying system, No man who has witnessed the contiguity of
this Company's dolphin to the frightful King's Scholars Pond Sewer, which pours into the Thames the
accumulated filth of two hundred thousand inhabitants, can believe that such water can ever be rendered
fit for domestic uses. The question appears to me to be — “Which is the BEST supply that can, by
possibility, be obtained for the public P” not which is the worst that the human constitution can
bear without producing actual disease ?” The Company, at the period of their incorporation in 1723,
engaged to supply the inhabitants with “pure and wholesome water,” from the Thames at Chelsea.
Such water, in 1828, is not to be obtained in that direction : but the fault is not theirs, seeing that, in
the progress of a century, an enormous nuisance has come up to their very works. [April 1828.]
(94.) - €Weſt
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
—-4-
144 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
even hinted at it. Certainly not. I never conceived it to be necessary to withhold my
opinion of the quality of that water, until a coroner's inquest had actually sat upon the body
of a human being who had been poisoned by drinking it. I did however state that one
eminent physician had assured me that the use of this water had had a deleterious effect.
upon the health of his daughter; that another had told me that it constantly disagreed with
him, and that he had been principally induced to change his residence in order to get out of
the reach of the mischief; and that a third had sent me the following interesting extract
from Dr. J. Cheyne’s “Medical Report on Dysentery :”
“ Several years ago, when the dysentery raged violently in the old barracks at Cork, the
care of the sick was, in the absence of the regimental surgeon, intrusted to the late
Mr. Bell, surgeon of that city. At the period in question the troops were supplied with
water from the river Lee, which, in passing through the city, is rendered unfit for drinking
from the influx of the contents of sewers from the houses, and likewise is brackish from the
tide which ascends into their channels. Mr. Bell, suspecting that the water might have
caused the dysentery, upon assuming the care of the sick, had a number of water carts
engaged to bring water for the troops from a spring called the Lady's Well; at the same time
they were no longer permitted to drink the water from the river. From this simple but
judicious arrangement the dysentery very shortly disappeared among the troops.”
Although this enormous Metropolis may at the present moment be, generally speaking,
in a healthy condition, it does not therefore follow that it will always remain so. The
Grand Junction Company’s water has been declared by professional men to be “ loaded
with decayed vegetable matter, and other substances equally deleterious to health.” And
how much an unusually sultry summer, or one of those great droughts with which countries
are at times visited, may add to its unwholesomeness, are points which it would be pre-
sumptuous in me to attempt to solve.
For the above, as well as for other reasons, I did not consider it necessary to delay my
exposure until I had proof positive of a fellow-creature having been actually poisoned by the
use of this water; and I am borne out in having so done by no less a man than Dr. Mead.
“ As we before took notice concerning airs,” says the doctor, “So it may be observed of
waters, that there are some alterations of them, which, though not properly poisonous, yet
are of so great consequence in their effects that they may well deserve to be regarded.”
But, supposing for a moment the Grand Junction Company’s water not to be deleterious
to health, is there not a word to be said on the score of comfort and cleanliness 2 Is there
nothing offensive to the senses in the use of this cleansed, this “improved” water 2 Has
it not an inevitable tendency to change the habits of Englishmen — to lower our notions of
propriety—to reduce us to a filthy race? -
Cleanliness, we are told, is next to godliness. “The different nations of the world are as
much distinguished,” observes Mr. Addison, “by their cleanliness, as by their arts and
sciences: the more any country is civilized, the more they consult this virtue.” Dr. Forsyth
says, that “cleanliness is a subject, the value of which must be obvious to every mind
capable of the least reflection, whether estimated in a medical or a moral point of view.
Cleanliness in person, and in all concerned with it, is a principal duty of man. It is better
to wash twenty times a day than to allow a dirty spot to remain on the skin.”
“I recommend,” says Dr. Adair, “as a habit conducive to general health, the washing
of the whole head every morning, on first rising, with cold water. Children should be
encouraged to dip their face into a basin of cold water, keeping the mouth and eyes open,
until they require a fresh breath, and repeat this thrice every morning. This practice
strengthens the eyes and gums, preserves the teeth, and acts, in some measure, as a cold
bath, by sympathy on the whole body.”
But bold indeed must be the man, and much more bold the child, who can muster up
resolution enough to plunge his head, and dip his face, “keeping his mouth and eyes open,”
in a fluid which, though it may have had its mechanical impurities skimmed away, still holds,
we are assured, all its filthy and noxious particles in chemical Solution.
Such is the case of the petitioners, as far as the Grand Junction Company is separately
concerned. In the outset of this Memoir I promised to state to the Commissioners the way
in which my attention was directed to the subject; and this appears to me the proper place
for so doing. I am charged by the company with having “excited the public mind.”
I shall therefore, I trust, be excused for showing how my own mind was originally excited.
And here I cannot help making one observation. In the case of an ordinary tradesman —
a butcher for instance — if an individual were to step forward to show his fellow citizens, that
the article with which they were supplied was of bad quality, and sold at a high price, in
a state of putridity, the butcher would withdraw himself, as well as he could, from public
indignation, and the parties served with the unsound meat would go elsewhere in quest of
a wholesome article.
Not so in the case of monopoly There the Public are compelled to put up with the bad
article; and the individual who ventures to point out the grievance is loaded with abuse for
making the exposure, and threatened with the terrors of the law for his pains.
That
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. 145
That I therefore should escape I was not so weak as to expect. For I well remembered,
that in 1819, when a powerful stand was made, by Mr. Weale, of the Office of Woods and
Forests, against the advance of price at that time meditated, a series of scurrilous
pamphlets, from the interested pen of the “Calm. Addresser,” were circulated by the Grand
Junction Company; stigmatizing, in the most vulgar manner, the motives of that gentleman,
and of all those who had the temerity to enter the lists against monopoly.
Accordingly I have come in for my share of abuse. My motives have alike been im-
pugned. I have been called a “wicked libeller;” a “base exciter of the passions of the
public, for Sordid and selfish objects;” and, moreover, I have been threatened with a prose-
cution. Thus far the abuse of the Company has been mere matter for contempt. -
But the most extraordinary of all the charges made against me by the Grand Junction
Company remains behind. The directors allege, that in bringing forward this question
I have been guilty of “ the blackest ingratitude l’” They say, that, being upon terms of
intimacy with the late Richard Bateman Robson esq., a Director of the Company, and
being in the habit of seeing him frequently, I nevertheless concealed from him the fact that
I was engaged in writing a pamphlet, the tendency of which was to lessen the value of the
shares which he held in the concern. • * ,
To this charge the Company have, in a public advertisement, signed by their secretary,
twice called on me to reply. As the folly and the falsehood of it were alike known to all
my friends, I did not, at the time, consider it deserving of an answer: but, as that answer
has a direct tendency to strengthen — I might say to establish—the case of the petitioners,
I now give it. -
So far, then, from concealing from Mr. Robson the fact that I was writing a pamphlet,
the tendency of which was to lessen the value of his shares in the concern, it was this very
Mr. Robson who first called my attention to the conduct of the Grand Junction Company.
I well knew that the water sent by that Company into the house in which I resided was of
infamous quality; but where their “ Dolphin’ was erected, or what was meant by the
word dolphin, as applied by water-companies, I had to learn from that gentleman.
Mr. Robson was a kind-hearted and a good man, and greatly esteemed by all who knew
him. He was, for many years, a member of Parliament, but he had retired from public
life. About two years ago he called on me, for the purpose, he said, of unburthening his
mind to me, on a subject which weighed much upon it, and with the hope that he should
succeed in inducing me to make myself master of it.
He at that time detailed to me the several notorious breaches of faith, on the part of the
Company; but more especially the grand breach of faith, in promising good water and
giving bad. “We promised,” exclaimed he, with an earnestness that I shall never forget,
“ the best, and we give the worst ſ” He had, he said, induced many of his friends, and
especially the numerous tenants of his brother, Mr. Holland, the architect, in and about
Sloane-street, to leave the Company that supplied them, and to take this water; and for so
doing he told me he “ was afraid God would never forgive him.”
He afterwards brought me copies of the several engagements of the Company, the Acts
of Parliament relating to it, the report of the Committee of the House of Commons in 1821,
and all Sir Gilbert Blane's famous pamphlets for settling the Public opinion on the conduct
of the Water Companies. At his entreaty, I went repeatedly to see the Company's dolphin ;
and had samples of their water, as it came into Regent-street, taken from their pipes, and
sealed up, in his presence. I was rallied by my friends, for devoting so much of my time to
the worthy man's complaints and regrets; but I found every thing he told me to be so
correct, and all he did bore such evident marks of sincerity — I might say of death-bed
earnestness — that I became, by degrees, as earnest as Mr. Robson himself; and at last he
obtained from me a promise that I would call the attention of the Public to the subject.
Not satisfied with the visits I had already paid to the dolphin at Chelsea, he called on me,
about the end of January or beginning of February last year, and took me once more to
the spot, as he was fearful, he said, that I was not sufficiently impressed with the impos-
sibility of good water being derived from so filthy a source. At parting, he repeated his
sincere regret at having been a |...} in such a concern, and made me renew the promise I
had given to him. Two days after this visit he took to his bed; and in the month follow-
ing, he died. 6.
In bringing this question forward, I am, therefore, fulfilling a promise made to a dying
man; and, if ever relatives owed a debt of gratitude, that debt is due from the relatives of
Mr. Robson to myself; for I am sure that the promise I gave him afforded comfort to his
mind. I have nevertheless been told, by persons who once called him their “very dear
friend,” that “none but a fool or a madman would have urged me to do that which had a
tendency to depreciate the shares of a concern in which he had embarked 2,000l.” To
such persons I have replied, that it is not every man who fancies, with the emperor
Vespasian, who levied a tax on a certain article, that “the smell of gain is good, let it be
drawn from whatever source it may.”
This statement has been dragged from me by the Grand Junction Company, and they
cannot gainsay it. The documents pressed on me by Mr. Robson are all at the service of
(94.) O o the
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
146 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
the Commissioners. The witnesses who were present at our interviews in Regent-street are
ready to substantiate every tittle of it. . The invention of the charge of “black ingratitude,”
and the giving currency to it through the public papers, would, in common life, be consi-
dered highly dishonourable. And why it should not be considered alike dishonourable
when proceeding from a company, I cannot explain, except upon the axiom laid down by
Sir Gilbert Blane, in p. 55 of his memorable “Calm Address.”—“Those,” says the doctor,
“ who have any knowledge of the secret workings of the human mind, or observation of the
ways of the world, are well aware that A MAN WILL DO, IN HIS CORPORATE CAPACITY,
WHAT HE WOULD SHRINK FROM WITH SHAME AND REMORSE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL
CAPACITY.” By this axiom, the Company appear throughout to have béen guided, as by
their polar star. And when I say “the Company,” I wish to guard myself against the
preposterous artifice of those, who would represent an attack upon a company, as an attack
upon its individual members—as if no public question could be treated of without giving
personal offence.
IV.—OF THE RIVER THAMES, BETWEEN CHELSEA HOSPITAL AND
LONDON BRIDGE, -
ALLEGATION.—“ That the water taken up from the River Thames between Chelsea
“ Hospital and London Bridge, for the use of the inhabitants of the Metropolis, being
“ charged with the contents of more than 130 public common sewers, the drainings
“ from dung-hills and lay-stalls, the refuse of hospitals, slaughter-houses, colour, lead,
“ gas, and soap-works, drug-mills, and manufactories, and with all sorts of decom-
“ posed animal and vegetable substances, rendering the said water offensive and
“ destructive to health, ought no longer to be taken up by any of the companies from
“ so foul a source.” -
THE broad proposition here laid down by the Petitioners goes, as the Commissioners
will perceive, to affect two out of the five companies which supply London and West-
minster with water; as well as to affect all the companies supplying the Borough of
Southwark, and Lambeth. It should, however, always be borne in mind, that while the
Grand Junction Company have, with their eyes open, gone down to that nuisance, that
nuisance has, in the progress of time, reached up to the Chelsea Company; Chelsea,
being, at the period of its incorporation, in 1723, a mere village, at a distance of two miles
from London. -
In its actual condition, this enormous Metropolis is said to present a spectacle to which
the history of ancient and modern civilization affords no parallel. Within the limits of that
civilization there is reason to believe that so large a mass of human beings never before
congregated on so small a space of ground. New buildings rise up before us with almost
the rapidity of an oriental vision, of every form of architectural design, spreading north,
south, east, and west. In the neighbourhood of Chelsea scarcely a blade of grass has been
left growing in the extensive range between the rear of Grosvenor-place in Sloane-street;
and a mass of buildings are springing up west of Grosvenor-place, consisting of squares and
streets of the first order, and comprising houses fit to be the residences of the most wealthy.
In such a state of things, and at a time when the improvement of the Metropolis is
become so much the order of the day, it cannot, I think, but be useful to ascertain whether,
from a multiplicity of causes, certain spots or positions in the river Thames, running parallel
with the habitations of more than a million of human beings, may not have become so
changed, and the water drawn up from it so deteriorated, as to render it no longer a fit
source for the supply of a necessary of life to any considerable portion of the inhabitants.
That the water in that direction has become so deteriorated is the opinion of the peti-
tioners; and, in support of that opinion, I beg leave to lay before the Commissioners a few
facts and observations:
I. With respect to the water of the river Thames, taken up at London, two or three
popular errors appear to me to prevail. -
The ground upon which those persons proceed, who maintain that the Thames water so
taken up is the best of all possible waters, arises out of a notion, picked up from some old
book of voyages, that it possesses a certain power of self-purification, not possessed by that
of any other river. They tell us that in the course of a long voyage, it will, after a month
or two tossing about on the ocean, “work and ferment like liquor, and become fine.” And
hence it is logically concluded, that the water taken up by the Grand Junction Company,
near a common sewer, will, by making a short voyage from Chelsea to Paddington, and re-
maining a day or two stagnant in reservoirs, in like manner ferment, and become fine. That
the water of any other river, if equally loaded with filth, would purge itself in the same
manner, if subjected to the same operation, there can be no doubt. In its excessive impurity
must we look for the explanation of the above phenomenon.
Another popular error, proceeding apparently upon the old maxim, that “what will not
kill will fatten,” is very prevalent, namely, that to the rich and unctuous quality of the
Thames water, in the aforesaid direction, and not to the virtues of hops and malt, the country
7 - is
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. 14,
is indebted for its far-famed London porter. The fact, however, is, that the water of the
Thames is not used in the manufacture of this national beverage; seeing that the great
houses of Barclay, Hanbury, Calvert, &c. have, at vast expense, sunk wells of immense
depth, and have thereby obtained an abundant supply of pure and soft water.
The third error which appears to me to prevail is, that the impurities of the Thames are
all carried away and swept into the ocean, with every ebb of the tide. The fallacy of this
notion was shown at the public meeting at Willis's Rooms by Mr. Mills. That gentleman
observed, that, as an engineer, he would maintain, that it was not in the power of any
company, let its capital, its intelligence, and its disposition, be what they might, to find a
supply of pure water in the direction pointed out in the allegation. “ The contents of the
sewers, and the mass of other filth with which the river was loaded, were,” he said,
“ carried about 30 miles by every ebb tide. The same water came back by the flood; and
thus, let the supply of London be taken how it might, if it was not derived out of the reach
of this flux and reflux of filth, it would, of necessity, be impure: if the filth emptied into
the Thames at the ebb were not brought back by the flood, it was evident that we should
have salt water at London.” .
2. The following descriptions of the Thames water, as taken up at London, will, I have no
doubt, be found the true ones.
“No water carried to sea,” says Dr. Trotter, “becomes sooner putrid. When a cask is
opened after being kept a month or two, a quantity of inflammable air escapes, and the
water is so black and offensive as scarcely to be borne. Upon racking it off into large
earthern vessels, and exposing it to the air, it gradually deposits a quantity of black, slimy
mud, and becomes clear.”
Mr. Newton says, “in a still of five and twenty or thirty gallons, the first three gallons
distilled should be thrown away; because the water taken up from the Thames at London is
charged with so much septic matter, that the fluid which first runs off in distilling will not
keep many days: three or four gallons must likewise be left at the bottom of the still, on
account of the residuum of filth which they contain.”
Mr. Ralph Walker, the engineer, says, that “ the water of the river Thames is excellent
until it comes to London, where it receives, not only the filth which is discharged from the
common sewers, but also matters of a nature very pernicious to human life.”
3. If such was the foul condition of the river Thames, between Chelsea and London
Bridge, when the above descriptions were written, it must inevitably be so at the present
moment, in a greatly increased degree. Formerly it was considered necessary, for the sake of
the health of the Metropolis, to preserve the river in the greatest possible state of purity.
Orders were from time to time issued by the Corporation of London, forbidding all
persons from casting any soil or filth whatever into it, to the great annoyance and
hurt of the said river; and, so far back as the year 1535, an Act was passed, in
the reign of Henry the Eighth, in which it was enacted, “That if any person or persons do,
or procure any thing to be done, in the annoying of the stream of the river Thames, by
casting of dung or rubbish, or other things, in the said river, he shall forfeit for so offending
a hundred shillings.” But this was not considered enough : “If any person or persons, in
great rains, sweep their soilage or filth off their houses into the channels, and the same
afterwards is conveyed into the Thames, every person so offending shall forfeit, for every
such offence, one shilling and eight-pence.”
4. Within the last few years a total and entire change in this respect has taken place
in the municipal regulations of the Metropolis. That which three centuries ago was
considered an offence, to be visited with penalties, the inhabitants are now exhorted to
perform as a duty. “The drains and sewers,” says Sir Gilbert Blane, who is high authority
in these matters, “are now kept in a state of cleanness never before known. The commis-
sioners of sewers not only permit the inhabitants, but eahort them, to let all the soil and filth
drop into the drains instead of accumulating it in cess-pools, to be removed by the nightmen
as formerly, to the infinite annoyance of the senses.”
The exhortation has not been unattended to. The race of men last mentioned by
Sir Gilbert are nearly extinct, their “ occupations gone.” And, this being the case, is it in
the nature of things, if the enormous mass of pollution which was formerly taken away in
waggons, and distributed over the land as manure, is now permitted to find its way into the
Thames through the common sewers, that the water taken up near the mouth of those
common sewers can be otherwise than what professional men have declared it to be? namely,
“ a filthy fluid, loaded with decayed vegetable matter, and other substances equally dele-
terious to health and unfit for domestic purposes.”
5. Sir Gilbert Blane, in his dilatation on common sewers, observes, that “those stupen-
dous works, the Cloaca of ancient Rome, were accounted one of the wonders of the world;”
and that “ the excavations were so enormous that a waggon loaded with hay could pass
through them, and vessels sailed in them : the Cloaca Maarima being formed by Tarquinius
Superbus.” That the metropolis of Old England was not outdone in the number, and in
the size of its common sewers by the metropolis of ancient Rome, I think I shall be able
(94.) to
Mémoir of
Mr.J. Wright,
148 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
iMemoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
to show. The number of common Sewers on the north side of the river Thames, between
Chelsea and the Tower of London, will, I believe, be found to be nearly as follows. As the
Commissioners, I trust, will put the matter beyond doubt, by directing an accurate survey of
the river to be taken, I can be corrected, if I have inadvertently fallen into error:
From Chelsea to Vauxhall Bridge º - *- - • *-*. - 17
— Vauxhall Bridge to Westminster Bridge - Gº- º - 11
— Westminster Bridge to Waterloo Bridge - tº- *s - 30
— Waterloo Bridge to Blackfriars Bridge g- *º- ºs - 10
— Blackfriars Bridge to Southwark Bridge - =- Aº – 6
— Southwark Bridge to London Bridge - * º * — "I
- 8]
To which may be added:
From London Bridge to the Tower - * * gº — — 7
— the Tower to the River Lea e- º -> tºº º - 10
Southwark side of the river tº- º Eº -: *> tº- - 4 I
Total number - - - 139
to say nothing of the refuse of colour, lead, gas, soap-works, drug-mills, and manufactories
of various descriptions.
Thus are nearly 140 common sewers daily and nightly disgorging their horrid contents
into the Thames, in that very direction in which certain water-companies draw up the
supply for half the inhabitants of the Metropolis. Sir Gilbert Blane boasts of the cloaca
marima of ancient Rome, through which a waggon loaded with hay might pass. Why I
disguise the fact as we may, the whole River Thames from Chelsea to the Tower is neither
more or less than one enormous common sewer—the cloaca maxima of London—containing
the impurities of a million of human beings, and forming a mass of filth, pollution, and
putridity, in a state of constant agitation to and fro, such as never before was or could be
collected together in so small a space. This is the undisguised state of the case; and, in
a matter which concerns the public health, it would be worse than affectation not to
speak out.
6. Accounts are constantly appearing in the newspapers confirming the allegation of the
petition, and establishing beyond doubt the great impurity of the Thames water taken up
at London. The commissioners of sewers have endeavoured to prevent the refuse of the
gas-works from escaping into the river; but from the immense quantity now used, it
inevitably finds its way thither. I am assured that the refuse water discharged into the
Fleet-ditch sewer at Battle-bridge, which runs into the Thames, is equal to that of a gutter
on a rainy day; forming a perpetual stream of poisoned fluid, and depositing a green sedi-
ment upon the stones over which it passes. Not long ago it was proved upon a trial, that
a horse was actually poisoned by drinking water impregnated with the refuse of the gas-works
in the Horse-ferry Road.
Clear water, we are told, is as necessary to fishes as fresh air to man. That the fish
therefore should have deserted the spot which I have just described is only natural. Nearly
all descriptions have disappeared; and the few which remain are said to have generally a
sickly unwholesome appearance. The lesson hereby afforded us by the finny tribe is,
I submit, a striking one.
I copy the following paragraph from the “Times” newspaper of the 20th of August
last:—“ The Thames on Saturday morning was covered with a film of an oily nature,
which has proved destructive to the river-fish to a very great degree. An immense quantity
of eels and flounders are brought to Billingsgate every morning. On Saturday morning
shoals were found dead, supposed to have been killed by some deleterious drug in the water.
The Dutch eels, which are brought alive in vessels with holes in the bottoms, died imme-
diately on entering that part of the river where the oily fluid appeared.” -
That the water in the London, the West India, and other docks, is in an excessively foul
and even poisonous condition, principally from the number of vessels in them with copper
bottoms, has been stated to me by various persons; and I find the following article in the
newspapers of the 28th of August:-" An inquest was held at Poplar, before Mr. Unwin,
coroner, on the body of William Nurse, aged 14 years, son of Mr. Nurse, of Charles-street,
Westminster, who fell into the West India Export Dock. By the evidence of four wit-
nesses he was in the water only three minutes, but was quite dead when taken out; owing
to the numerous vessels with copper bottoms, causing the water to be full of copperas.
Coroner, ‘Is not the dock-water very bad?”—“It is.’ The father said that his son was
poisoned by the foul water, and strongly advised that the flood-gates should be opened at
certain times of the tide.”
It has been stated to me by several watermen, that the composition used by them for the
preservation of the bottoms of their boats, which formerly protected them for months, now
undergoes decomposition in the course of a few days. Would this decomposition take place
if the water was pure?
'7. In
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS. 149
“,
'7. In a communication which I received on the 29th of October, from Mr. Evans, an
intelligent person, who can give the Commissioners much useful information as to the state
of the river, there is this passage:—“On Monday morning last, about half an hour past
high water, I saw the foul contents of the great sewer at Blackfriars Bridge running out in
quantity sufficient to discolour the whole of the Thames water under the first arch of the
bridge, and as far as I could see towards the Southwark Bridge. I observed the same foul
appearance of the river at Broken Wharf, London Bridge, and Billingsgate.”
The Broken Wharf here spoken of is situated in Thames-street, at nearly an equal dis-
tance between the Fleet-ditch and the Walbrook great common sewers. A more filthy spot
it is scarcely possible to imagine. Yet at this spot the New River Company have erected
a steam-engine, by which, during the excessive heat of the summer, when their own good
supply falls short, they add thereto the foul water taken up at the foot of this wharf. If
that water be sent up into their reservoirs, it must injure the usual supply: if it be sent at
once into the houses of their customers, it must, I submit, have a tendency to affect the
health of the City.” I do not mean to insinuate, that even such water as this is not better
than none; but I do consider it to be a strong proof, that the supply of good water is not
commensurate with the greatly increased size of the Metropolis; and therefore it is that
I call the particular attention of the Commissioners to the fact.
8. That the poisonous refuse of the gas-works should not find its way into the Thames is
impossible. The following article appeared in the daily papers of the 28th of November :
“ Last night, between seven and eight o'clock, the inhabitants of College-street, Wood-
street, and Cowley-street, Westminster, were greatly alarmed by several violent explosions
in the sewers leading from the gas-works in Great Peter-street. One vast body of flame was
seen coming from the grating of the sewer opposite the door of the Bull's Head public-house
in Wood-street; and also a discharge of a barrow-full of mud, accompanied with ignited air,
struck a man that was coming out of the public-house with such force as to stun him, and
drove him back into the passage. The violence of the shocks extinguished several of the
gas-lights. One of the gas-lighters, who lives in Little College-street, was aroused from
his chair; and he, with other men connected with the gas-works in Great Peter-street,
commenced an investigation, to ascertain whether the explosions resulted from any de-
fects in their works. They reported that they could find nothing wrong in them, and that
the explosions were from gas collected in the great sewer, which is in a line with Great
Peter-street and Wood-street, passing the wharf of Messrs. Hatchard and Dike, into the
Thames.”
Mr. Evans has also sent me the following striking particulars:–
“ November 29.-I saw this morning, in company with Mr. Hatchard, the whole front
of the wharf covered with the blue film that was coming out of the said sewer, No. 49; and
I saw great quantities of it carried by the rising tide past Millbank into Chelsea Reach.
On my return I saw much foul water coming from gutters on each side of the Penitentiary
House-gate into the moat, and from thence into the Thames.
“ Dec. 13.—I took a walk to the Ranelagh common sewer, and found it discharging a
stream of black foul water, deep enough to float a wherry, in a channel about 25 feet wide,
and issuing to the Grand Junction Company’s Dolphin.”
The Commissioners will have the goodness to bear in mind that this last is the common
sewer which the directors tell their customers “is not a sewer at all, or only in a very
minute degree l’” Now, I do not assert that like the Cloaca Maasima of ancient Rome,
a waggon loaded with hay could pass through it, but I do believe that Sir Gilbert Blane
would find it wide enough to admit his carriage.
To return to my intelligent, and, I may add, venturous correspondent, Mr. Evans:—
“ Dec. 23.—I and my son stood in the mouth of the sewer, No. 49, about five minutes,
during which time we saw the gas bursting in the sewer three times, and each time it rose
from the mud at the bottom and floated on the surface, expanding itself the breadth of the
sewer, and showing green, blue, and yellow tints. It proceeded slowly into the Thames, a
portion of it adhering to the mud-beds on each side. The stench was so great that we were
afraid to stay more than five minutes.
“ Dec. 27. This day, at three o'clock, I saw the great common sewer at Dowgate Wharf
pouring out filth as black as ink, and with such force as to turn a skiff about ten yards out
of her course, up towards Southwark Bridge. At five o’clock I saw the large black stream
from Fleet Ditch extend beyond the second arch, and greatly impede a wherry coming
through the third arch of the bridge.
&
* On the subject of the water taken up by the New River Company at Broken Wharf, I have
received the following letter, from “The Oldest Inhabitant of Cheapside :”
“Sir, I have been much gratified by your exertions to procure a supply of wholesome water.
I have not had an opportunity of reading all the extracts from your “Memoir’ which have appeared
in ‘The Times,” and therefore cannot tell whether the New River Company comes under your
cognizance : but if not, it ought to be noticed. About last year the people in my house were
greatly annoyed by the water in daily use, from the smell of decayed fish, produced, I presume,
from the Thames water, thrown up by means of the steam-engine erected at Broken Wharf. The
stench continued six or eight weeks.” [April 1828.]
(94.) Pp - & Dec. 30.
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
150 APPENDIX f
TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
“ Dec. 30.-I and my son saw the same foul black streams at the above sewers, and with
this addition, floating gas was coming from Dorset Wharf, with the filth of the privies; and
a piece of horse's lights, about three pounds weight, came out of the Fleet Ditch sewer,
quite putrid. This I consider a proof that the filth of the slaughter-houses find their way
through the common sewers into the Thames.”
I shall close this part of the subject with the following paragraph, which has appeared in
all the daily papers: -
“ Dec. 27-Mansion-house. Yesterday the Lord Mayor issued directions to the proper
officers to inquire into the extent of a nuisance which has become so serious of late as to
excite apprehensions for the health of numbers of the inhabitants of London. It appears
that for some time past the authorities at the Tower, in consequence of the overflow of the
large ditch round that building, have been obliged to let the contents empty themselves
into the river. The governors of the Trinity House expostulated against this practice, as
calculated to raise impediments in the river to the prejudice of the navigation; but the
evacuations still took place, and they proved to be excessively offensive. In fact, the com-
mon sewers emptied themselves into the ditch from various parts of the Metropolis, so
copiously that it often became necessary to turn the contents into the Thames. The
water of the immediate neighbourhood became of course very impure, on account of the
vast accumulation of filth from that very populous part of the town. Some years ago, it
was the practice of nightmen to drive their cart-loads into the country, to be used as
manure. . This plan had been, however, in a great measure discontinued, and the nightmen
emptied their carts into the common sewers, so that the Thames was sure to receive all man-
wer qf offensive matter. This was quite enough to raise fears for the health of those who
drank of the water subject to such pollution, an objection which was certainly much greater
than the other, that of the obstruction to the navigation, although the latter was in itself
sufficient to demand investigation. The authorities at the Tower insist upon their right to
empty the ditch into the Thames, as the common sewers are emptied into their ditch
instead of the Thames direct; and they intend to persevere in this course in opposition to
the Trinity House and the Corporation.”
9. In the city of Paris there are, I believe, more than 120 public fountains; and it has
been proposed to add similar fountains to the numerous embellishments, and beneficial
improvements now going on in our own Metropolis. A communication upon this subject
has been forwarded to me, from which I extract the following passage:
“It is not a little remarkable that there should be one species of ornamental structure in
which foreign cities abound, combining both utility and beauty, of which the British islands
scarcely afford a single public specimen; I mean fountains. Eustace observes, that “it is
surprising that London should be destitute of such decorations when we consider the tor-
rents that now roll under its pavements.’ It may be said, that such structures are ill-
suited to our northern latitude, but the fountains of Paris are not the less useful or
ornamental, though its climate differs but little from our own; and who has not, in traver-
sing the Boulevards, admired the fountain of St. Martin, or has hesitated to prefer it to any
of our leaden pumps ? May I suggest this addition to the proposed improvements of the
Metropolis, especially of its western quarter 2 How beautiful would be the effect of such an
ornament on the vacant site of Carlton House, terminating the grand perspective of Regent-
street; its sparkling waters backed by the groves of St. James's Or where could a similar
structure appear to greater advantage, than in the grand area before St. Paul's, should that
cathedral be thrown open, as has been suggested 2*
It becomes, however, a matter for serious consideration, where the immense supplies of
“ sparkling water,” for any number of fountains, can be obtained, seeing that the supply
of good water required for the domestic consumption of the Metropolis is at times already so
deficient; for, as to the idea of tossing into the air columns of filth taken up during the
dog-days between Broken Wharf and the Chelsea Dolphin, that I should consider to be too
preposterous, but for the disgusting statement which I am about to make. \
10. From going for a supply of water to the mouth of a common sewer, the next step is
to resort to the sewer itself. As the former had been declared excellent for the human
stomach, it was very natural for those whom it concerned to conclude that the latter was
sufficiently good for throwing about the streets and roads of the Metropolis in sultry weather.
That certain economical purveyors for the Public have accordingly profited by the hint
will be seen by the following paragraphs, which appeared in “The Times” of the 2d and
3d of August last :
Aug. 2d. “In Whitechapel the putrid mixture of gore and excrementitious matters pro-
ceeding from the animals slaughtered there is dispersed over the surface of the streets. The
putrifying miasmata exhaled from this under the influence of a scorching sun, and waſted
down the close and narrow lanes by the sultry breezes of summer, is and must be a most
productive cause of typhus fever, and other putrid diseases. Were human imagination taxed
to compound a malaria of concentrated power, none more deadly could be imagined.”
Aug. 3d. “When we yesterday stated, that in Whitechapel the putrid mixture of gore
and excrementitious matters, proceeding from the animals slaughtered there, was dispersed
over the surface of the streets, we were not aware that the practice was delicacy compared
with one which has obtained in another part of the town. Incredible as the abomination
ºay, appear; it is nevertheless as true as it is revolting, that in the direction of the Fever and
Small Pox Hospitals there may be seen three pumps—that is to say, one at Battle-bridge,
t 5 O]]6.
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 151
one opposite to the Elephant and Castle leading to Camden Town, and one nearly opposite
to the Southampton Arms at Camden Town—which said pumps have during the late sultry
weather been at work in pumping up, for the purpose of watering the roads, the putrid
contents of the great common sewer which receives the filth of all the hospitals, gas-works,
and what not, in that quarter. The residences of several hundred respectable families have
at times been rendered scarcely habitable, in consequence of this nuisance: and some have
actually abandoned them in consequence. ‘ By this abominable practice,’ say they, in
a petition to the noble Marquess at the head of the Home Department, our health has been
injured, our lives endangered, and our property rendered less valuable.” We are confident
that a scandal of such magnitude will, as soon as it shall be known to the noble Secretary,
be instantly put a stop to. But this will not be enough. The men who have dared to
sport in this way with the lives of their fellow creatures ought to be called to a strict
account. Had a knot of devils clubbed their heads together to devise the surest mode of
& g tº b.
creating a plague in the Metropolis, they could not have hit upon a better.”
The above statement is enough to make a man shudder. I can, however, vouch for the
truth of every part of it. I have seen the pumps, and conversed with the poor creatures
employed in working them. “We are not,” said they “ the men we were: our health is
gone: we can drink like fishes, but we can eat little or nothing.”
I do not adduce these facts in the way of accusation; but I do infer from them, and I have
a right to infer from them, that if the supply of this necessary of life was as cheap and
as abundant as it ought to be, such an abomination could never have entered into the mind
of man.
11. I have now presented the Commissioners with a faint picture of the present state of
the river Thames between Chelsea and the Tower of London. It will be for them to decide
whether the supply of water to the Metropolis ought any longer to be taken up in that
direction.
For myself, after all I have seen, I am free to confess, that if their Report shall not con-
tain a recommendation, that after a certain day no water shall henceforth be allowed to be
taken up by any of the companies from this, the condemned spot, I shall consider all the
pains that I have devoted to the subject as so much labour lost.
How far the health of its inhabitants has hitherto been injured thereby it is not for me
to say. It is sufficient, for the case of the petitioners, to know, that men of high profes-
sional reputation state it to be their opinion, that the most awful effects are likely to be
produced by the continued use of it.
It should also be borne in mind, that the evil is constantly on the increase. In cases of
unhealthy seasons, the sewers, and consequently the Thames, must partake of that
unhealthiness; and thus, at the moment when the best and purest water is imperiously called
for, at that very moment will it be in the worst and most impure condition.
The Grand Junction Company, as I have already stated, were about to erect three new
reservoirs in the marshes at Chelsea. The works, however, have happily been suspended
until the result of the present Inquiry shall be known. How far it may be safe to establish
a body of standing filth on a spot which has been called “the Walcheren of Middlesex.”
appears to be matter for serious consideration. “ Great exhalations,” says, Dr. Griffiths,
« are unfriendly to the human race when they proceed from pure water only, occasioning
intermittent fevers, &c.; but when the exhaled moisture is impregnated with noxious par-
ticles communicated to it by putrid vegetable and animal matter, fevers of a more pernicious
tendency may be looked for.”
The preceding facts and observations show, I submit, how intimately the health of the
Metropolis is bound up with the present Inquiry; and that, by timely precaution, the direst
calamity that can befal a populous city may, by possibility, be averted.t *.
* The following is an extract of a letter which I have received from a member of Parliament :
“I am obliged by your publication respecting the Water Supply; the town owe much to you for
the manner in which you have brought the subject forward. The Public mind has been long sinking
into a filthy and disgusting habit of tolerating every kind of abomination that could by any means be
infused into, or brought into connection with, the water of the Metropolis. You point out, very
justly, the obscenity of pumping up the contents of the sewers to spread on the roads. There are at
Islington three or four pumps always at work in the hot weather in pumping from the sewers into
carts for this purpose, in the midst of a stench almost intolerable. Your representations and expo-
sures will, I expect, shame them into more decency.”—[April 1828.]
i Since the above passage was written, Dr. Paris has published a new edition of his “ Treatise on
Diet,” in which the necessity of the “ timely precaution” of which I speak, is thus powerfully
enforced : - -
“Water in the neighbourhood of a city may hold dissolved, as well as suspended, a considerable
portion of animal and vegetable matter: this is unquestionably the case in the water supplied from
the Thames by the Grand Junction Water Company; the discovery of the polluted source from
whence this water flows into our houses has lately filled the inhabitants with just alarm. I have
already publicly stated my opinion upon the subject, and I shall here only repeat, that unless the autho-
(94.) TitleS
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
152 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
v.–OF THE REMEDY.
ALLEGATION.—“ That it is the duty of the Legislature to deal with the Monopoly—
“ to revise the Powers intrusted to the confederated Companies, and to devise Means.
“ for placing the Supply of Water to this great Metropolis on a sure and lasting
“ foundation.” .
IT has been alleged against me that I have suggested nothing plausible in the way of remedy.
Nothing plausible ! Why the very remedy that I did suggest is at this moment in full
progress. “ That pure and wholesome water can be obtained in abundance, there is,”
I observed, “ no doubt. Let, then, the people of Westminster, in the words of Sir Francis
Burdett, “ have a meeting and prepare a petition.’ What might not be effected by a com-
mittee which should invite men of science and knowledge to step forward In whatever
way I view the subject I see hope, Spem bonam certamgue domum reporto.” Let the
inhabitants come to the resolution to have good water, and good water they will assuredly
obtain.”
A meeting of the people of Westminster has taken place — a Petition, signed by all ranks
and descriptions of persons, from the first duke in the land down to the humblest trades-
man, has been presented to Parliament; —a Commission of Inquiry has been appointed by
His Majesty; and that that Commission will invite men of science and knowledge to step
forward with plans for the removal of the evil, I have no doubt. If, therefore, I saw hope in
the outset, that hope has settled down into conviction. All that remains for me to do is to
throw out a few hints on the three points contained in the above allegation of the peti-
tioners.
That Parliament is perfectly competent to deal with the monopoly, to revise the powers
granted to the several companies, and, upon proof of bad faith with the public, to revoke
all the rights and privileges granted under Acts of Parliament, there can be no doubt. The
evils that have arisen out of this monopoly were foretold by the Earl of Lauderdale in the
year 1818.
“The object of Parliament,” said the noble Earl, “in passing the different bills for sup-
plying the Metropolis with water, with a view to competition, has been by these companies
completely defeated, and a monopoly substituted. They have combined to divide the town
between them. They have effected, by their own private arrangement, that which Parlia-
ment refused to allow them to do. The consequence of this conduct is not merely increased
price to the consumer, but bad water. While there were rival companies, there was some
security that the public would not be imposed upon; but as the matter now stands, a mono-
poly has been established. If ever there was a case proper for the deliberation of Parliament
this is one.”
« If,” said Lord Chancellor Eldon, in the House of Peers, nine years ago, “ the objects
of the Legislature, in passing the different bills for the supply of water to the Metropolis,
which must be supposed to have been that of competition, have been defeated by the dif-
ferent companies joining together to establish a monopoly, I trust your Lordships will not
separate without its being distinctly understood that it is perfectly within the competence
of Parliament to set that matter right.” - *
The attention of the House of Peers was also, at that time, called to the subject by Earl
Grosvenor, who observed, that “a coalition had taken place between the water-companies
in the Metropolis, who had divided great part of the town between them; and the conse-
quence was, that some of his tenants were compelled to take the Grand Junction water,
which was of a bad quality, discoloured, and very disagreeable to the taste.” No man living
is, in my mind, more deeply interested in the removal of this º: nuisance, and in
casting about for a supply of pure and wholesome water, than the noble Earl. *
*~,
“ Tis USE alone that Sanctifies expense,
“ And Splendour borrows all her rays from Sense.”
I have already spoken of the splendid mansions that are covering the noble Earl's princely
property in the fields of Chelsea and of Pimlico; but if the impurities of the Thames in that
direction are to be constantly running into those mansions, they will, I fear, become little
better than “ whited sepulchres, which appear beautiful outside, but are within full of all
uncleanness.”
We read also of the crescents, and the colonades, and the other handsome buildings,
that are rising on the estate belonging to the See of the Bishop of London, in the
parish of Paddington. Now, in return for the permission to erect certain buildings
rities of the land interpose to crush the monopoly, the ravages of some fatal epidemic may be fairly
anticipated. See a pamphlet entitled “The Dolphin,” or Grand Junction Nuisance, prºving that
7,000 families in Westminster and its suburbs are supplied with water in a state offensive to the
sight, disgusting to the imagination, and destructive to health. The author has displayed his case
in forcible language, but I will do him the justice to assert that there is no exaggeration in his
statement-[April 1828.] #
Oll
SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 153
on the said estate, the Grand Junction Company bound themselves to serve the tenants
of the Lord Bishop with water, at a rate ten per cent. below the average rate. But that
water, the Commissioners will observe, was promised to be the pure and wholesome water from
the Colne and the Brent, and the streams of the vale of Ruislip; and not the filthy puddle,
taken up opposite the mouth of a great common sewer, at the foot of Chelsea Hospital. The
right reverend prelate will therefore, I have reason to believe, feel it to be his duty to ste
forward, and to lend a helping hand, in a matter so closely affecting the comfort and health
of so large a portion of his lessees. •: §
Every inhabitant of this vast metropolis ought to have a rooted confidence, that the water
sent into his house is, at all times, of a pure and wholesome quality—a confidence, not so
much in the persons who sell the water, as in the government of the country—that it will
not permit any but such as is pure and wholesome to be pumped into their dwellings. Upon
this point, I entreat the attention of the Commissioners to the following extract from the
evidence, given before the Committee of the House of Commons, in 1821, by Mr. Weale, of
the office of Woods and Forests—a gentleman to whom the public are under the greatest
obligation, for the noble stand made by him at that time against this monopoly.
“The defects,” said that gentleman, “to which I allude, are involved in the fact, that the
supply is vested in the hands of trading joint-stock companies. Now, the supply of a large
city with water cannot be assimilated, I conceive, to a trade in grain or other commodities.
Water must be considered as one of the elements necessary to existence, the same as light
and air; and not merely as an article of subsistence like corn, nor of convenience like coal;
and, therefore, its artificial supply to a great city ought not to be the subject of free trade,
nor of any kind of trade. !
“The supply ought not to be limited to the ordinary wants of domestic consumption; nor
ought that consumption to be kept down by the artificial checks which a high price to be paid
for it, or any price to be paid for it, by the poor and needy, would produce; but, on the con-
trary, the supply ought to be profuse, rather than merely sufficient—and gratuitous to the
poor.
“The costs of the works required to provide the supply, and the expenses attending the
delivery of it, should be defrayed out of a local revenue, in the same manner as the expenses
of the pavements, drains, police, &c. are, raised by an equitable assessment on the property
of the district; and the management of such an establishment should be placed in the hands
of local commissioners, under the like regulations as the commissioners of sewers, and other
similar bodies.” -
That the inhabitants of the Metropolis are not safe in the hands of this monopoly, I have,
I trust, fully established. Whether the supply ought to be placed under the management of
the Government, or to be intrusted to a Special Commission of the inhabitants, will be a
matter for consideration.
That the establishment of a new company, which would bring an additional supply of
good water to the town, would be an essential benefit, there can be no doubt; but, that
the establishment of new companies (as such companies are, in general, constituted) would
remedy the evil of monopoly is highly doubtful.
One objection that has been urged, against the formation of new companies is, that the
streets would be in an impassable condition, from the constantly breaking up of the pavement.
But this evil, I beg to suggest, might be entirely avoided, if the Government of the country
would take upon itself the task of bringing the good water to the Metropolis, and of making
the proprietors of the pipes now laid down pay a certain sum for the use of it. o
That an abundant supply of pure and wholesome water can be obtained, no individual
has stepped forward to deny. I know, indeed, that men of science, and engineers of emi-
hence, are prepared to submit plans for the consideration of the Commissioners.
As nothing, therefore, but an entire falsification and overthrow of the facts that I have
adduced, and am further prepared to adduce, in proof of the badness of the water supplied
by certain of the companies, ought to induce the inhabitants to submit to the imposition;
so nothing but a declaration, signed by the most eminent engineers in the country, that
a better article can nowhere be procured, ought to deter those inhabitants from going in
quest of it.
It has been calculated, that it would require “an outlay of a million” to bring the purest
water to London, from a distance of thirteen or fourteen miles. The writer does not,
however, give the data on which he founds his calculation. I, on the contrary, have been
assured that the one-half of that sum would not be required. Be it, however, a million –
would not the overthrow of a grinding monopoly of an element of life, and the “establish-
ment,” in the words of the petitioners, “of the supply of pure and wholesome water on
a sure and lasting foundation,” be cheaply purchased at any price? We expend a million
on a Bridge to carry us over the Thames, and more than a fourth part of a million on a
Tunnel to carry us under it; but we submit to the disgrace of drinking the water of that
(94.) Q Q very
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
154, APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS ON
Memoir of
Mr. J. Wright.
very river, in a state of pollution, and hesitate to move up to a purer source : If the
Government of the country would but become the dispenser of the blessing, I confidently
state, from what I have witnessed of the feelings of the nobility, gentry, and tradesmen,
having established residences at the west end of the town, that a loan, for the accomplish-
ment of so god-like an object, would be filled up in the space of four and twenty hours.
If, however, the supply of water to the city of Westminster must be intrusted to a Joint
Stock Company, what is there in the features of the present times, when not only improve-
ment but ornament is the order of the day, to prevent its inhabitants from providing this
necessary of life for themselves? - -
If a knot of jobbers, holding their sittings in an obscure alley in London, and having no
earthly object in view but profit, could, in 1810, give birth to a junction powerful in
mischief, what might not be effected, in the way of good, by a union of the nobility, gentry,
bankers, merchants, and tradesmen of Westminster, for the purpose of establishing the
health and comfort of its inhabitants, as far as the liquid element is concerned, on a sure
and lasting foundation? For the accomplishment, of so noble an object, what expense could
be too great! what exertions too arduous !
The immense works undertaken, in various ages, by the governments of different countries,
to supply the inhabitants of large towns and cities with water, and thereby to provide for one
of the most important necessaries of life, have glways been objects of great interest.
The Romans, during more than four hundred years, were contented with the yellow turbid
water of the Tiber: but, in the fifth century from the foundation of Rome, their magistrates
brought from the adjacent mountains, at a great expense, the waters of copious springs,
and even whole rivers. Aqueducts were afterwards constructed, at an enormous charge,
and carried through rocks and mountains, and over vallies, conveying, from a distance of
sixty, and even a hundred miles, five hundred thousand hogsheads of pure water daily to
ancient Rome. What difficulties, then, can present themselves to modern science, to
bringing to the city and liberties of Westminster a fifth part of that quantity, from a
distance of ten, or even twenty miles?
Two centuries ago, previous to the discovery of the steam engine, and when the popula-
tion of this metropolis was not a fourth part so great as it is at present, bills were passed,
“ for bringing in a pure stream of running water to the north part of the city of London;”
and our own countryman, the public-spirited and noble-minded Sir Hugh Middleton,
at immense toil and expense, and in spite of innumerable hindrances, on the part of the
corporation of that city on which he was about to confer such an inestimable blessing, suc-
ceeded in uniting two streams in Hertfordshire, and in bringing them, through various soils,
for a course of forty miles, to the Metropolis.
In 1802, Buonaparte issued a decree, consisting of two lines, for bringing the water of
the Ourcq, during a course of twenty-four leagues, to Paris: “Il Sera ouvert un Canal de
dérivation de la rivière d'Ourcq, qui amenera cette rivière dans un bassin près de la Villette.”
The municipal body of Paris were afterwards authorized, by a special law, to borrow seven
millions, of francs to finish the canal. It is now on the eve of completion, and it promises
tC) afford tenfold the quantity of water to Paris proviorisly supplied. -
To look nearer home. The city of Edinburgh receives a supply of excellent water from a
distance of eight or ten miles. Under the able direction of the late Mr. Rennie, Mr. Telford,
and Mr. Jardine, and at an expense of only 175,000l., the most magnificent works of the
kind in Great Britain have been completed. The water is excellent; and the quantity to
each inhabitant is nineteen gallons per day; and not less than 280,000 gallons are daily per-
mitted to run to waste. In real utility, they rival the boasted aqueducts of ancient Rome,
and are the admiration of all scientific strangers. W.
If such mighty works, then, have been accomplished in former times, and, recently,
in the capital of a branch of the united kingdom, what is there, I again ask, in the features
of the present age, that should deter the inhabitants of the richest, largest, most populous
city in the world, the seat of a more opulent body of nobility and gentry than is to be found
in any other metropolis, from attempting, by one of those mighty efforts, which fix the
character of a country, and elevate it in the scale of nations, to remove from that city
a national disgrace /
Emperors, we are told, have founded their chief glory on the encouragement which they
had given to similar works; and the splendid and useful improvements that have been
effected in this Metropolis, under the auspices of His present Majesty, warrant the con-
clusion, that he would delight to patronize an undertaking, having for its sole object the
security of the health and the comfort of a million of his subjects.
It is generally admitted, that London, with respect to architectural improvement, has
made greater advances, since the peace, than in the entire century which preceded that
event. If so, never was moment more favourable !— never had those upon whom has
devolved the duty of watching over those improvements, and of directing the Public Taste,
- 3 - a 1/1()I'é
suPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS, 155
a more useful field opened to them ſ—never could men be addressed in language so appro- Memoir of
priate as that in which a noble patron of the useful arts was, nearly a century ago, addressed Mr. J. Wright.
by our great poet, in his inimitable epistle, on the proper objects of magnificence and expense,
and the Public Works which become a Prince 1 — -
“You too proceed make falling Arts your care,
Erect new wonders, and the old repair;
Till Kings call forth the Ideas of your mind,
(Proud to accomplish what such hands designed;)
Bid Harbours open, Public Ways extend,
Bid Temples, worthier of the God, ascend;
Bid the broad Arch the dangerous flood contain,
The mole projected break the roaring main;
Back to his bounds their subject Sea command,
AND ROLL OBEDIENT RIVERS THROUGH THE LAND.”
The Poet adds—
“These honours Peace to happy Britain brings :
These are Imperial Works, and worthy Kings.”
- J. WRIGHT,
112, Regent Street. *.
(94.}
R. E. P. O R T
FROM THE
SELECT COMMITTEE
ON
The Supply of WATER to The Metropolis.
s:
Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed,
19 July 1828.
--~~~~
567. A
REPORT - pººl ſº
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
APPENDIX tº º
R. E. P. O. R. T.
THE SELECT COMMITTEE appointed to inquire into the present
System of supplying WATER to The Metropolis, including the
Borough of Southwark, and into the Amount of the RATEs paid
by the Inhabitants, and who were instructed to include Lambeth,
Christ Church Surrey, and the adjacent Parishes in the Inquiry;
and to whom the PETITION of the Inhabitants of the Western
Parts of The Metropolis, and also the REPORT of the Commissioners
appointed by His Majesty to inquire into the State of the SUPPLY
of WATER in The Metropolis, severally presented to The House in
the present Session, were referred; and who were empowered to
report the MINUTEs of Evi DENCE taken before them : HAVE
considered the Subject to them referred, and agreed upon the
following REPORT: - . .
Th; Companies which at present supply the Metropolis, including the
A Borough of Southwark, Lambeth, Christ Church Surrey, and the
adjacent Parishes with Water, are Eight in number; The WEST MIDDLEs Ex,
GRAND JUNCTION, CHELSEA, NEW RIVER, and EAST LONDON, on the
North side of the Thames; and The SouTH LONDON, LAMBETH, and SouTH-
wakk, on the South side;—all of which derive their whole Supply directly
from the river Thames, with the exception of the NEW RIVER, which takes
Water from the River only occasionally, by a Steam Engine placed at the
Broken Wharf. - *
The Commissioners appointed by His Majesty, state in their Report, That
their attention was chiefly confined to the description, the quality and the
salubrity of the Water, and that they did not consider themselves called upon,
either to consider new and more eligible sources of supply, or to suggest plans
for the improvement of those already existing, and that they had therefore pro-
ceeded to obtain specimens of the Water taken out of the various parts of the
River upon an extensive scale, and placed them in the hands of a gentleman
eminently qualified by his extensive knowledge of chemistry, and his practical
experience, to analyze and report thereon.
The Commissioners also proceeded to examine the Engineers of the various
Water Companies, as well as the Agents of the Petitioners, who had submitted
their complaints to Parliament during the last Session, and also all those Persons
who, from local knowledge or observation, were induced to offer their Evidence
upon the subject.
The Commissioners, after observing in the following passage of Dr. Bostock's
report, “That the Water of the Thames, when free from extraneous substances,
is in a state of considerable purity, containing only a moderate quantity of
saline contents, and those of a kind which cannot be supposed to render it unfit
for domestic purposes, or to be injurious to health ; but as it approaches the
567. A 2 Metropolis
4 REPORT FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
Metropolis it becomes loaded with a quantity of filth, which renders it improper
to be employed in the preparation of food, &c.” appear to arrive at the following
conclusions:—
“It is obvious,” they say, “That water receiving so large a proportion of
foreign matters as we know find their way into the Thames, and so far impure
as to destroy fish, cannot, even when clarified by filtration, be pronounced en-
tirely free from the suspicion of general insalubrity. In reference also to this
guestion, we apprehend that there are no grounds for assuming the probability
of any improvement in the state of the water drawn from the London District of
the River.
“Taking into consideration the various circumstances to which we have
adverted, together with the details of Evidence by which they are proved and
illustrated, and also the facts derived from our own observation and experience,
we are of opinion, That the present state of the supply of Water to the Metropolis
is susceptible of and requires improvement; that many of the complaints respect-
ing the quality of the Water are well founded; and that it ought to be derived
from other sources than those now resorted to, and guarded by such restrictions
as shall at all times ensure its cleanliness and purity.”
Your Committee cannot but unanimously approve these sentiments and
opinions of the Commissioners, that the supply of Water for the Metropolis, in-
cluding the Borough of Southwark and the adjacent parishes, should be derived
from a purer source than it is at present; and in furtherance of this object, they
recommend, that Mr.Telford be instructed to proceed to the making such sur-
veys as he shall think necessary, in order to enable him to recommend a prac-
ticable and efficacious plan of supplying the whole of the Metropolis with pure
and wholesome Water.
Your Committee have further proceeded to inquire into the amount of the
Rates paid by the Inhabitants, as compared with those paid at the period when
the former Select Committee investigated this subject, and which will appear in
the Evidence annexed to their Report.
In observing upon this very important subject, Your Committee will take for
the basis of their proceedings the able Report of the Select Committee appointed
in 1821, in which, after a most full and laborious investigation into the whole
detail of the Income and Expenditure of the various Water Companies, that
Committee observe, “That the Public is at present without any protection even
against a further indefinite extension of demand. In cases of dispute, there is
no tribunal but the Boards of the Companies themselves to which individuals can
appeal; there are no regulations but such as the Companies may have volun-
tarily imposed upon themselves, and may therefore at any time revoke, for the
continuance of the supply in its present state, or for defining the cases in which
it may be withdrawn from the householder. All these points, and others of
the same nature, indispensably require legislative regulation, where the subject
matter is an article of the first necessity, and the supply has, from peculiar cir-
cumstances, got into such a course, that it is not under the operation of those
principles which govern supply and demand in other cases.”
“ The principle of the Acts under which these Companies were instituted,
was to encourage competition; and certainly in this, as in other cases, it is only
from competition, or the expectation of competition, that a perfect security can
be had for a good supply ; but your Committee are satisfied, that from the
speculiar nature of these undertakings, the principle of competition requires to
be
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 5.
be guarded by particular checks and limits in its application to them, in order
to render it effectual, without the risk of destruction to the competing parties,
and thereby, ultimately, of a serious injury to the public ;” and the Committee
proceed to remark, “ The submission of their accounts annually to Parliament
for a few years, would necessarily throw light on this part of the question.”
From the general tenor of the Report, it should also appear, that the Com-
mittee considered the Rates of 1821, which included the increase of 25 per cent
upon the rental of 1810, as sufficient to remunerate the various Companies at
that period; but an inspection of the present Returns, shows that a gradual
increase has taken place, amounting to no less than 44,000 l. per annum to
those Companies who derive their supplies from the North side of the River
Thames.
It must also be remarked, that there is no Scale of Rates existing, or any cri-
terion by which Your Committee can form a judgment upon the reasonableness
of the rates imposed;—no two Companies appear to agree in their mode of
rating; on the contrary, as the amount is unlimited, so is the proportion alto-
gether uncertain ; it is not regulated either by the quantity of water consumed,
or by the distance to which it is conveyed, but appears to be in every instance,
left solely to the agents of the different Companies, to charge as they shall
think fit.
With respect to the new Table of Rates, alleged, in the Petition of the Inha-
bitants of the Western parts of the Metropolis, to have been introduced into a
Private Bill passed in May 1826, empowering the Grand Junction Company to
levy an addition of from 50 to 300 per cent upon their customers, Your Com-
mittee have examined the Chairman of the said Company thereupon, who states,
That the said new Table of Rates, levying a partial and oppressive Tax upon the
Inhabitants of the District, was at the time introduced contrary to their wishes,
and that they are desirous that it should be repealed; Your Committee there-
fore recommend the immediate repeal of the said Clause.
In conclusion, Your Committee have only to observe, That the late period of
the Session at which they were appointed, precludes them from entering more
fully into the subject of the investigation, particularly so far as regards that most
important part of their inquiry, the Inequality of the Rates; but they trust, in
recommending the immediate employment of Mr. Telford in the object in view,
and also the repeal of the obnoxious Clause in the Grand Junction Company's
Act of 1826, they have, as far as circumstances would permit, fulfilled the
duties committed to their charge. * &
19 July 1828.
A 3
5
6
7
6 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
LIST OF WITN ESSES.
Veneris, 4° die Julii, 1828:
Peter Mark Roget, M. D. º - º º rº- - p. 7
Mr. James Mills wº- sº &º gº -- º- wº- ibid.
Lunae, 7" die Julii :
Mr. James Mills -- º sº tº tº 4- * * p. I O
Mr. James Simpson - wº- º -> - - º p. 12
Mercurii, 9 die Julią :
Mr. Henry Francis - wº- tººl sº <- * º p. 15
Robert Masters Kerrison, M. D. - - - - p. 1 7
Mr. James Mills º cº- º º º U- º p. 21
Lunac, 14 die Julii :
Mr. William Matthew Coe - sºn sº * º sº p. 24
Mr. William Tierney Clark - - - - - - p. 27
William Clay, Esq. - sº tº - &m º p. 28
Mr. William Anderson - º sº - * * - p. 33
Mr. William James - - tº- º - mºv tº ibid.
Mercurii, 16” die Juli; :
Mr. William Matthew Coe - * sº &º gº tº- p. 34
Veneris, 18° die Julii :
Mr. William Matthew Coe - º - , - - - p. 35, 37
Mr. James Gascoine Lynde tº º - wº- wº p. 37
Mr. M. K. Knight - º º &º º º º ibid.
Mr. Thomas Nelson Pickering - - tº - º p. 38
Mr. John Wright - º º wº &º º tºº ibid.
Mr. Joseph Nelthorpe º º sº º º- º ibid.
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 7
M IN U T E S OF E V I D E N C E.
A& *—— * --→º-
Veneris, 4° die Julii, 1828.
SIR FRANCIS BURDETT, BART.
IN THE CHAIR.
Peter Mark Roget, M. D. called in ; and Examined.
W W WILL you state to the Committee the state in which the inquiry was, that Peter Mark Roger,
was carried on by the Commission for inquiring into the Supply of Water M. D.
\ ~~ A
in the Metropolis, at the time when the Commission was discontinued, and what &
were the views of the Commissioners, as to the remedy that ought to be adopted? 4 July 1828.
—We have given in the Appendix to the Report, all the Evidence that we possess
on the subject; and we have stated the nature of the more extended inquiry that
we had contemplated at the commencement; and I am not aware of any further
evidence I have to give on the subject. The only document that I possess, that
I think likely to be of use to the Committee, is a map I have brought with me,
in which the different districts which the Company have agreed among themselves
to supply with water, are marked with colours; and this map, I will deliver in to
the Committee. [The Witness delivered in the same.] - {
Did not you intend to have recommended some specific plan, supposing that
your inquiry had not been cut short?—We did certainly; but without further in-
quiry, I cannot pronounce upon any plan that has been laid before us; we had not
made up our minds as to the superiority of any plan that was laid before us.
Did you mean to have recommended the taking of levels, between this and
Teddington P-We did ; with a view to ascertaining the practicability and the
expense and various other objects, which would depend upon the results of those
surveys.
Were you not of opinion upon the investigation, that the present state of things
requires a remedy ?–I certainly was of that opinion ; and we have stated it in
our Report.
And in fact, that a change is almost indispensable?—We thought so.
Mr. James Mills, called in ; and Examined.
YOU are a civil Engineer 7—I am. - \{r,
Do you produce a map of the river Thames, illustrating a plan for the con- James Hills.
veyance of water from Teddington to the Metropolis —I do. [Producing the H-->
same.] -
Will you explain this plan to the Committee?—London is at present supplied by
eight Companies; five on the north side of the Thames, and three on the south ;
the first is the West Middlesex, situate at Hammersmith; the second, is the Grand
Junction; the third, is the Chelsea; the fourth, the New River; they have an
auxiliary engine at a place called Broken Wharf, near to Blackfriars Bridge; and
the fifth is taken from near the river Lea, at a place called Bow, by the East Lon-
don. On the south side of the river, there is the Lambeth, the South London,
and the Southwark. The whole of these Companies take their water at present
567. A 4 - Out
8 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
Mr.
James Mills.
\–––’
4 July 1828.
out of the river Thames, between Hammersmith and the river Lea, except the
New River and East London.
Do you mean that the New River Company takes its water out of the Thames?
– Only so far as regards the New River auxiliary engine: I have in the Report
given an exact account of what each Company does pump ; and I have given an
account of all their pumps taken from actual survey; and it was with a view to
supply the whole of them with pure water, that this plan has been drawn. It is
quite evident, that constituted as the Thames is at present, receiving the whole of
the Sewers of London, which it returns upon the flow of the tide, every one of
those engines is more or less affected by the impurity of the water; and if it be
allowed that filtration will not purify the water, it is evident that it must be taken
out of the influx of the flow of the tide. In the first plan which I designed, it
was intended to have gone to Teddington for this supply, which is immediately
above the lock belonging to the city of London, who are Conservators of the
river; and there is a line to be taken immediately above Teddington, going through
Ham Common and through Richmond Park to the foot of Wimbledon Hill, which
is about three miles in length, and which will allow a reservoir to be made upon
the summit of that hill, to the extent of from fifty to a hundred and fifty acres.
There are also two other hills between Wimbledon Common and the Borough,
Wandsworth Common and Clapham Common, offering equal facilities for reser-
voirs. The other design was to move the lock which is now situated at Tedding-
ton to Richmond, by which the pond which now exists from Teddington to
Moulsey, of three miles, would be made into a pond of six miles. In that case,
it is evident the tide would be as completely excluded from this pond, as it is at
present from the pond above Teddington. A canal might then be cut, not above
nine miles in length, and through a country not offering a single building in the
line, extremely convenient for the purposes of execution; and reservoirs might
be made in Battersea fields to the amount of from an hundred to three hundred
acres, which would supply the whole of the Companies at present drawing out of
the Thames. It was proposed also to take from this canal a line to convey the
water under the river to a reservoir in the common fields, near Walham Green,
for the immediate supply of the West Middlesex, the Grand Junction, and the
Chelsea. There has been a design talked of, of making a reservoir at Barnes, by
one of the Companies, the West Middlesex Company, who have proposed to take
the water out of the river in such a part as at present should appear not to be ob-
jected to, and to supply themselves with pure water. It is quite evident, that if
any one of the eight Companies were permitted to avail themselves of the whole
head of water, the other seven Companies must be dependent upon them for their
supply, at any terms they chose to impose. It therefore should seem very desir-
able, if the whole of the Metropolis is to be supplied with pure water, that whoever
undertakes to supply it, should be totally disconnected with any one of the present
Companies; upon that principle it is that this plan has been made. The intention
of the plan is, to enable each of the Companies to keep their own pipes, their
own steam engines, their command of tenants, and in fact, to be instead of
original suppliers of water, distributors of water; that they should have pure
water brought to them at a certain price, and be distributors of that water to the
whole of the Metropolis, -
Would you be obliged to raise it by engine at Wimbledon Common —All
the water being of the level of Teddington Lock, if a high service is performed,
must be pumped up by an engine; the reservoirs are intended for high services.
The supply being by steam power up to Wimbledon Common, or elsewhere,
will that be high enough for the high service of London —For the borough only;
the water that comes on this side will come to their present engines, and will be
pumped in the present way up to their reservoirs, just as they do now, with this
difference, that it being pure water, it will require no time to settle. -
Can you give the Committee any information as to the probable expense of
this conveyance of water?—I have not made that sort of estimate that I could
venture to put before this Committee, because, if I were to make an estimate,
I would make an accurate one; I did state to the Commissioners, that, if they
had felt themselves authorized to have given directions, I would have made accu-
rate sections, so that an estimate should be correctly laid before them; the Com-
missioners did not feel that they had power to give such order, and therefore, as
far as I have gone, I have gone at my own expense. I have made a survey, but
I have
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 9.
I have not taken the sections so accurately as to enable me to say what the
expense will be.
For what would you undertake to make such a survey and estimate?—It would
cost at least 300 l. to finish it.
What has been the expense that has been incurred hitherto?—I should have
expected, if the Commissioners had paid me, at least 700 l. for what I have
done.
Then, in short 1,000 l. would have covered the whole 7–I stated to Mr. Peel,
that 1,000 l. would have paid for the survey and the estimate.
But you would now undertake to make the thing complete for 300 l. 7–I would
put into the hands of the Chairman a complete plan, section and estimate, for 300 l.;
but I do not relinquish my claim to what has been done; and I must be allowed,
if ever this plan should be approved, to be paid for what I have done.
Would this survey, when completed, include an estimate of the cost of water
per gallon, at which it could be delivered to the inhabitants of London 7–No,
certainly not; it would be in this way; suppose the present Companies to be in
the receipt of an income of 200,000 l. a year; suppose this plan of mine would be
executed for 350,000 l. ; if it were done by Government I should say, you ought
not to receive above five per cent, that is about 17,000 l. ; then I am of opinion, that
the Companies would cheerfully pay the 17,000 l. among them, in the propor-
tions that the Committee should find them liable to pay, provided the Government
would ensure them good water, and let them keep their pipes; because I am of
opinion, that the rate they are at present in the habit of receiving, would be quite
equal to such an extra rent.
Does it enter into your plan to make the water undergo any process of filtration,
or is it merely by deposit that it is intended to purify it?—By filtration; if the level
canal should be adopted, I propose at every mile to have a stop-gate, and that the
water should pass through a bed of filtration; instead of giving it a regular fall
I should bring it nearly level for a mile, and then I should have a perpen-
dicular fall for that mile; I should place there a sand-bed, and then it would
go into the next pond, and so on, by which means it would undergo a filtra-
tion, that would cleanse it of all earthy impurities, with respect to any gaseous
impurities, which the water is at present impregnated with; it would not be
necessary to provide for that, but as far as regards earthy impurities; I propose
to subject it to several filtrations, recurring if necessary to ulterior measures beyond
Teddington. -
Are there gas works at Richmond?—I think there are ; there are at Kingston.
Does your plan include any process of clearing the filtres of the mud that is
deposited 7–Of course, they would be cleansed, and the filtres would let in an
take out. *: * *
Would it be necessary to make the canal much wider and deeper, in case those
filtres were applied to it, than it would if there were no filtres —Certainly not, it
would be increased in width near the filtre, but the dimensions of the canal are
fixed; having ascertained what the whole supply of London requires, by taking
the maximum of what all the Companies can pump; I find, that they have a
certain area equal to the diameter of the pumps, going at a certain velocity, ac-
cording to the strokes of the engine; I then construct a canal that will bring twice
that quantity of water, because I consider that it is necessary to look forward to
the consumption of London being twice what it is ; I do not mean for drinking,
but for water-closets, and for other purposes; If the area of the present pumps
amounts to, forty-four square feet, I should make the canal more than eighty-
eight.
"What proportion of the water flowing in the Thames at Teddington would you
propose to take out of the Thames by your canal?—At the very shortest period of
the year it would be necessary to take nearly the whole of the water which at
present goes over the weir; in the average of the year for about six or seven months
I should think one-third, and in the winter months a small proportion on account
of the floods. , , -
Having recommended two plans, which would you give the preference to,
knowing that it would be a vast expense to remove the lock 7–I cannot answer.
&-
that question till the survey is completed ; a great deal will depend upon the cutting:
of this line, and a good deal upon the corresponding estimates; the Committee
are aware, that if I should find, upon the actual survey, that the one plan would
567. B be
James Mills.
*——
4 July 1828.
10 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
Mr.
James Mills.
\——
4 July 1828.
be accomplished for 300,000l. and that the other would cost six, I might be dis-
posed to recommend this, though it would not be so efficacious a plan as that. . .
Suppose you took away such a body of water as you now describe, how would
the navigation be affected as between that place and Putney 4–I should in no
instance lower the water beyond the top of the weir, so that the navigation could
not by possibility be affected. }
Would not the taking so large a supply of water impede the navigation between
that and Putney'—Never, for this reason, the water always runs over the weir;
the water in the lock is level with the weir, except that there are four or five
inches of water running over the weir, that of course is used for the navigation ;
this navigation is affected every day in the year by the tide, except in neap tides;
they reach very little above Richmond Bridge, but the spring tides go to the foot
of Teddington Lock, and generally from one foot to eighteen inches upon the cill
of the lock.
What description of ground have you between Teddington Lock and Wimble-
don Hill'—It is all quite open ground.
Is it rising or otherwise?— It is rising, it is completely out of the flood in about
fifty yards, which is about fourteen feet above high water; there would be deep
cutting required for a mile; the great advantage of that line is, that it takes it at
once out of the flood line. -
Would you find the land too valuable on the Middlesex side to put it on that
side?—The objections to that are, first the elevation of the line, and secondly it is
all covered with buildings. -
What are the dimensions you propose giving to the canal?—At least forty-five
feet top water, and four feet deep.
Would it not be possible, by carrying iron cylinders in the channel of the Thames,
to distribute high service immediately to the houses situated on the northern side
of the Thames P-Unquestionably, but then it would require a new set of pipes;
it would only give you the elevation up to the height of Wimbledon Hill.
You mean, that it would require cylinders to communicate with the origin of
the pipes at each of the different steam engines 7–Yes.
But even if those pipes were not so carried, some pipes must be laid down con-
necting your supply of water with the origin of the pipes belonging to each different
engine P-Unquestionably; or to a reservoir on each side, unless this one was
adapted for the three; my design was to have given one reservoir for the three
works. -
Supposing you were to connect the reservoir at Walham Green with that at
Wimbledon Common, by means of iron cylinders carried across the Thames, and
that you were also to raise the reservoir at Walham Green by means of high banks,
that would you not then be able to give high service to the whole of the Town,
without requiring the different Companies again to pump up the water 4–
Certainly not. -
Lunae, 7" die Julii, 1828.
Mr. James Mills, again called in ; and Examined.
WHAT is the perpendicular rise of the tide at spring tides, from low water to
high water, at Richmond Bridge —I should say from two feet six to three feet,
and at Teddington Lock, from one foot six to two feet three. -- -
Do you apprehend, that if the whole of the supply of water lying above Rich-
mond Bridge at certain times of the year were taken away, the water below the
bridge would be sufficient to maintain the navigation?—I am of opinion, that if
the whole of the supply above Richmond Lock were taken away the water for the
navigation would be quite as high as it is at present during the tides.
Would it remain open for the same number of hours between high and low
water 7—I think not. -
You are requested to answer this question without reference to any question
arising out of the alterations now going on at London Bridge –As the river is
constructed at present, supposing the water-way at London Bridge to be as it is
at present, I am of opinion, that if no water went over the lock, and the water
was kept full to the top of the wear at the New Lock, Richmond Bridge, the
efflux of the tide would be as high as it is at present, but not continue so long,
Mr.
James Mills.
—r— ~-
7 July 1828.
because
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
because the water that now flows back has nothing but the superior altitude at
London Bridge to force it up to Richmond; coming down at low water there is
only four feet fall upon an inclined plane, from Richmond Bridge to London
Bridge; going back there is a counterfall of only eighteen inches, that is, it is
eighteen inches higher at London Bridge. -
Do you know what is the difference of level between high water at London
Bridge and high water at Richmond Bridge –The average of high water at
London Bridge is fifteen feet four above bridge; then there is a fall at London
Bridge, varying from four feet seven to five feet five, so that the fall below bridge
is twenty feet.
Taking the summit at spring tides of the water below London Bridge, and the
summit of the level at high water at Richmond Bridge, also at spring tides, what
is the difference of level between these two points?—From eighteen inches to two
feet three; the inclined plane is reversed.
For how many hours is the navigation below Richmond Bridge now open,
between high water and low water?--I should say the operation of the tide at
Richmond Bridge is about an hour and a half flowing and returning. -
Is the navigation open below Richmond Bridge during low water in that part of
the river which is nearest to Richmond 2–Certainly. - -
Would the navigation be open if the whole supply of fresh water above Rich-
mond Bridge were cut off?—I think so for a few days in the summer.
During the whole period between high and low water ?—Yes, I should think
for the trade which go upon that part; I imagine there are very few vessels that
go now that draw above five feet six ; but I will bring a section to the Committee,
which will show in figures, the depth at every hundred yards for the whole eighteen
miles, at low water.
Are all the existing Companies in London enabled to supply water by high
service through the medium of their reservoirs ?–Not to the extent of their high
service. The West Middlesex are now making a reservoir at Primrose Hill, that
will when completed enable them to supply high service, I imagine, to all their
tenants. The Grand Junction had never supplied high service, I believe, till my
examination before the Commissioners, except by their pipes at Chelsea; they had
a reservoir at their works which is somewhere under a hundred feet of altitude,
and as far as that reservoir would command, which formerly received its water
from the Paddington Canal, it performed a certain high service. After I had
been examined before the Commissioners, the Grand Junction changed the service
in last May, and worked an engine which they had not worked for three or four
years before, and they have now the power of commanding high service to the
extent of their upper reservoir, but no further; without this engine, many of their
houses are higher than their reservoir, and they pumped from their engine at Chelsea.
I have seen that engine working 160 feet, whereas their highest reservoir is not
above 100 feet, therefore the difference between the 100 feet and the 160 never
went into any reservoir. The New River head have also pipes for high service at
their works at Islington. The East London do not profess to give high service,
they work under a pressure of sixty or seventy feet, but the friction of the pipes
is so great that they do not get an elevation above twenty feet.
Then supposing that your plan were adhered to, of merely giving a supply of
water to those different Companies, and leaving it to them to make use of the
powers they have at present for giving high service, it would by no means follow,
that the whole of the Town would be supplied with water at high service?—If it is
meant to supply water to the tops of the houses, certainly not ; I imagine that is
an arrangement for the Companies to make, and not for the projectors of this
new supply of water. If the Companies were to enter into an arrangement
among themselves, it would be competent to the West Middlesex to command a
high service for themselves and the Grand Junction, because if the West Middle-
sex Company were carriers of water to the Grand Junction, and took the water
up to their very high reservoir, then the Grand Junction and themselves would
both command a high service, but that would be an arrangement for the Com-
panies to make. The Grand Junction Company, in order to command a high
service to that height, must make a reservoir equal to that of the West Middlesex
Company in altitude.
According to the plan you have laid before the Committee, there must be con-
necting pipes between your reservoir and the origin of the pipes of the different
Companies —-Unquestionably.
567. B 2 What
Mr. 2. \
James Mills.
~-
7 July 1828.
J-
12 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
U
Mr.
James Mills.
– A
-> -
7 July 1828.
Mr.
James Simpson.
*——”
pressure upon the south side of the river, and the Companies upon the north side
What greater expense do you contemplate, if pipes containing water having a
pressure adequate to high service, were connected with the origin of those
pipes?—It would be attended with very great expense.
What great expense do you contemplate would arise from the connecting pipe
having water sustaining pressure adequate to high service —Our connecting pipe
would merely go from our water to where they at present pump the water; we say,
You are now pumping impure water out of the Thames; we will bring to your
engine pure water, and go on as you do at present. If therefore the Grand
Junction are required to have a higher service than they have at present, that will
be applicable to their present works, they must have a reservoir of greater altitude
than their present reservoir.
Will not the sole difference of expense be this, that instead of connecting the
pipes of the Company with water having a low pressure, you must, if high service
is to be given by you to all those Companies, connect it with the supply of water
having a high pressure ?—Certainly, as far as our reservoir would allow.
Would it not be better for your Company to give high pressure to the whole of
the water that you supply to the Companies —I am not engineer enough to
devise any plan by which we can convey to the pipes of eight different Companies
water at a high level; I have no idea of the practicability of any such measure;
our present plan is of a very simple nature, which is to give to those Companies
water precisely in the situation in which they have it at present.
If your reservoir is a reservoir of a high level, do not you give a high pressure
to the water with whatever pipes you connect it?—We only contemplate high
to keep their present establishments.
By connecting your reservoir on the south side of the river with the origin of
the pipes of the Companies on that side, you are enabled to give them a high
pressure ?—Yes.
And why should not you do that on the north side?—It would entirely destroy
their engines; we could convey, of course, to those Companies the same pressure
that we have at Wandsworth and at Wimbledon, but it would be transferring the
use of their engines to ourselves.
As the whole of that water is supplied from reservoirs on a high level on the
south side of the Thames, are not you merely throwing away the power you have,
by pouring it into a reservoir of low level, and then requiring the Companies to
pump it up again?—Every drop of high pressure water must be pumped up;
when we engage to give high pressure on the south side of the river, we know the
extent of it, and shall only pump what is necessary.
Mr. James Simpson, called in ; and Examined.
WILL you state to the Committee what has been the result of the experiment
which the Chelsea Water Works have been carrying on with a view to filter the
water of the Thames 2–The result has been, that we conceive it is perfectly
practicable to filter all the quantity of water that we require.
What was the result of a small experiment which they made some time since,
with a view to filter the water?—The surface we then employed was 1,000 feet,
and we got off 72,000 gallons in twenty-four hours; that pond is now in work.
Is the method described in the Report of the Commissioners ?—It is not.
Have you any objection to describe the method in which that filtration is
conducted?–Not at all: a small pond was formed and made water-tight, forty-
four feet square at the top, and six feet deep ; a quantity of coarse gravel was then
thrown into the bottom, and in that was inserted drains, built without any cement
in the joints; they were covered over with coarse gravel, then with finer gravel,
with coarse sand, and then with finer sand, till the gravel was two feet thick and
the sand two feet thick, and then the water was let in. . §
What was the pressure?—The pressure varies according to the state of the
material; when the material is clean, it will go off very well with four inches
head, and the head water increases as the material becomes clogged. -
For how long a time did the surface of the filter remain without being clogged
with the deposit 3–Fourteen days.
Did any difficulty arise in clearing it after that deposit had once been formed ?
-None at all; the bed was made dry, and men were sent in with common spades
and scraped off the surface. ... •
What
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 13
What was the state of the filtered water; can you describe its state by the
depth of any well to the bottom of which you were able distinctly to see?—
There is a well adjoining it, and the stones might be seen at the bottom ten
feet deep. - - - : , *
Is the large experiment of the same kind, which the Chelsea Water Works
were undertaking, yet completed ?–No, it is not. • . . . .
Have you any reason to believe, that the large experiment of the same kind will
be less successful than the small one 7–None whatever. -
What number of gallons of filtered water shall you be able to supply in a given
time, if that experiment succeeds?–We calculate upon getting off the bed 80,000
barrels of thirty-six gallons each in twenty-four hours.
What is the quantity of unfiltered water that you now supply in the course of
twenty-four hours?—The average of last week was about 1,920,000 imperial
gallons a day. -
Then the quantity of filtered water that you will be able to supply, will more than
meet the whole of your present supply of unfiltered water?—Yes. :
Should you be able to deliver the filtered water to the public at the same price as
the unfiltered water?—That is a question I have not considered much ; but it will
of course be more expensive as we have double pumping.
Do you think, that if the public require a manufactured instead of a raw material,
they ought to pay for it?—Certainly. .
Can you form any proximate estimate of what the additional price will be in the
rates as compared with the present; will it be one-fourth or one-fifth more?—I
have not gone into the estimate so as to state it exactly ; there will probably be
an increase, but I should think not more than one-tenth ; perhaps it will not amount
to that. -
Have any persons been in the habit of drinking the water you have filtered upon
a small scale?—Yes. -
Have they complained of its being insalubrious, giving them the cholic or any
other complaint P−All I can say is, that there have been more than a hundred men
working upon the ground, although they have never complained of it, they have
complained of the land spring-water being injurious.
When do you anticipate that this large experiment will be completed?— I hope
to set it to work in five weeks. -
Will the whole of the water that you then deliver to your customers, consist of
this filtered water P-Yes. -
Shall you then be able, in that case, entirely to do away with any reservoirs as
places for the depositing of mud, except so far as to render easy the distributing
the high service?—As part of the plan a small reservoir at the spot will be indis-
pensable.
The question refers to the other reservoirs; you have for instance the Green Park
reservoir, except as far as that facilitates high service, will that reservoir be un-
necessary?—Not for depositing, but for general service, and for supply in case
of fire.
Do you anticipate that there would be any difficulty in other Water Companies,
\
which are supplied from the Thames, adopting the same mode of purification, pro-
vided they had a space of ground adequate for making the filter?—No, I do not
know any thing to prevent them. -
Have you ascertained, by any experiment, whether fish are able to live in the
water you have filtered?—Yes.
Have you observed that they die in filtered water?—No ; I have fed them with
crumbs of bread, and I observed that they continued there for some time; I have
had them for three months. -
Are you aware that there are many large docks in the neighbourhood of London,
which are constantly fed with Thames water, taken out of the river near to London,
in which there are a very large number of fresh water fish 7–No, I was not aware
of that.
Did you ever visit the Commercial or any other docks during the summer season,
and observe that there were a number of elderly gentlemen amusing themselves
with fishing there with hooks and lines —I have seen gentlemen fishing there.
Should you not from that conclude, that if the Thames water is allowed to de-
posit its sediment, it is by no means poisonous or injurious to fresh-water fish 2–
i should think it is not injurious, indeed I know it is not; there is a fisherman in
567. B 3 the
Mr.
James Simpson.
—J.--—
7 July 1828.
J
14 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
\
Mr.
James Simpson,
~-
7 July 1828.
f
—
the Chelsea Company's district now who has hundreds of fish, he has a very large
place full of them, and the Company’s water is running through. - .
Is that filtered water 7—No, the water that is usually supplied to the public.
If in this pond, where the water has merely been allowed to deposit its sediment,
fresh water-fish not only live but thrive, would you not à fortiori conclude, that
the filtered water, which is so much purer, would not be injurious to fresh water
fish P-I think it would not, and from all I have seen, it is not.
Your profession is that of an engineer?—It is.
Have you any knowledge of the plan of Mr. Mills, which has been submitted to
the Committee ?—I have heard of it. -
Have you such a knowledge of the plan, that you can state, whether you think
unfiltered water could be delivered from Teddington at as cheap a rate as the fil-
tered water could be delivered at Chelsea?—I should think that plan would come
to about three times the expense at which we could deliver the filtered water.
You think, therefore, that as far as price is concerned, the consumers of water
in London would be benefited by taking the Thames water of London filtered on
the spot?—Yes; in fact if any company established works there, we could beat
them out of the market as far as price is concerned. -
If you are allowed without the interference of government, to deliver your filtered
water, have you any reason to fear a competition ?—No.
Upon what basis do you form the calculation, that Mr. Mills's plan would be
three times as expensive as the other?—I suppose that plan might cost about
200,000 l., and the filtered water not quite 70,000 l. g
Do you mean for the whole of London —No, for three companies.
Can you estimate what it would cost to supply the whole of the metropolis with
filtered water ?—It is in an unfinished state at present. *
Have you ascertained, by any nice calculation, what the expense would be of
the plan of Mr. Mills 7–No.
You are aware there are matters of chemical solution in water, that no filtration
can separate?—Yes. --
As, for example, gin and water P-Yes, but then there is taste and smell.
Do you know enough of chemistry to be able to say, that if gin or alcohol were
mixed with water, a chemist would be able to discover and separate it?—Yes.
If, therefore, there were any ingredients in Thames water, after it had been
filtered, that were injurious to health, would you not expect that an experienced
ehemist, analyzing different specimens of Thames water, would be able to discover
those noxious ingredients contained in it?—I should think, undoubtedly, he
would.
Have you looked at the analyses by Dr. Bostock, which are given in the Report
of the Commissioners?—Yes. -
Do you know enough of chemistry to be able to state, whether among all the
different specimens of Thames water which are there given, there is in any one of
those specimens any ingredient contained chemically dissolved, which is injurious
to human health –I am not sufficient of a chemist to answer that question, but,
in my opinion, there is nothing.
But in the case of the men on the Chelsea Water Works, who have been in the
habit for some time past of drinking this filtered water, no injurious effects have
been experienced to their health 7–None. -
Are you in the habit of supplying that water as a matter of favour to any of the
inhabitants in the neighbourhood?—Yes, some gentlemen that like very nice water,
send for it, and they prefer it to spring water.
When you have once commenced delivering the filtered water, which you state
in about five weeks will be quite adequate to the whole supply of your district,
shall you then cease to have any recourse to the unfiltered Thames water 4–The
plan at present is in that state, that we have reserved ground, to make another
filter-bed if we require it; so that we shall have a duplicate, and put it beyond
the probability of having any necessity to have recourse to the Thames.
As the sending unfiltered, water through the pipes would very much soil the
pipes, would you not consider it as very desirable that when once you have begun
to send the filtered water, you should not afterwards have recourse to the unfiltered
water?—Certainly.
Do you know the result of any similar experiments upon filtered water in the
* neighbourhood of Glasgow !—Yes, they have a filter-bed at the Cranston Hill
Water Works.
- -- Hs
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 15
Is that on a similar plan to that which you have adopted?—The plan which
I have adopted, is partly like that; but I consider it improved by making use of a
process which they use in the neighbourhood of Manchester, and that is by having
a lower stratum of gravel, that the water may pass freely off. -
Has the plan at Glasgow or at Manchester, to which you allude, perfectly suc-
ceeded? —The plan at Manchester is used in the calico works, and they have been
at work many years. - ... -
Supposing the water, before filtration, has a bad taste, is the process of filtration
sufficient to remove the bad taste from the water 2–We so alter the taste, that we
cannot tell it is Thames water after it has passed the filtration ; the Thames water
has a taste, according to the season, of animal or vegetable matter, and it seems
to deprive it of the whole of that, and we cannot discover it after it has passed
the bed. -
Do you know how the Thames water, after it is filtered, keeps in cisterns; whether,
when contained in leaden cisterns, it acquires in hot weather that bad taste and
smell which unfiltered Thames water acquires?—I tried some in a cistern for five
weeks, and it was good at the expiration of that time.
Can you state any thing to the Committee on the subject of the action of the
different waters in the metropolis on leaden pipes?—I have heard of a great many;
but I do not exactly recollect the circumstances now. -
Are you of opinion that the water coming through The King's Scholars Pond
Sewer, which has a free discharge into the Thames, amounting to thirty feet daily,
can be so filtered, as to be fit to drink?—I cannot state from experience, I have
never tried. -
Do you not admit, that water may be so impure, and may contain so many in-
gredients chemically dissolved, that filtration will not purify it?—Yes. -
Do you take your water from The King's Scholars Pond 7–No. - -
Does the Vauxhall Company take theirs from The King's Scholars Pond?—No.
Must not the water which flows from the King's Scholars Pond, before any
portion of it can arrive at the aperture of the suction pipe belonging to those Com-
panies, have been diluted with a very large proportion of Thames water, not so
impure ?—Yes; and as regards the Companies on the other side of the water,
I question whether The King's Scholars Sewer ever touches their suction pipes,
because you can see the pure water running down the river, and the line drawn
between them.
Whatever bad ingredient is conveyed into the water from The King's Scholars
Pond, would not that ingredient be rendered sensible in the hands of an expe-
rienced chemical analyst P-I should think there is no doubt of it.
Mercurii, 9" die Julii, 1828.
Mr. Henry Francis, called in; and Examined.
WHERE do you live?—In Dean-street, Soho.
You are a civil engineer –Yes.
Will you explain the mode you have devised of supplying London with water
by means of tanks!—It might with equal propriety be called a spring-water mine;
I have observed in the mining districts of England, that there was always an abun-
dant supply of very pure water obtained from the mines in unlimited quantities;
from hence I have taken an idea, that by means of a tank or mine, spring water of
the purest and most wholesome quality might be obtained in abundant quantity, to
supply the entire of the metropolis both north and south of the river, at com-
paratively a small expense for the amount of so great and so useful an undertaking;
because I consider that about twenty of those mines or tanks would be sufficient to
supply the entire of the metropolis both north and south; and although there
might be a difference in the expense of constructing them, it would be a local
matter, in a great measure, because where the Grand Junction Company's engine
is situate, the land I consider not to be very valuable, and all the earth that was
excavated might be deposited very near it, the same as regards the Chelsea Com-
pany and others similarly situated. s
You are then of opinion, that sufficient quantities of this spring water, by
boring, can be found to supply the Metropolis?—I am entirely of that opinion,
from having observed in the mining districts; and I think I could prove it by a
567. B 4 reference
Mr.
James Simpson.
\--—
27 July 1828.
Mr.
Henry Francis.
9 July 1828.
16 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
\.
Mr.
Henry Francis.
~~
9 July 1828.
A
reference to many hundred cases in the mining districts, where an excavation has
been made of comparatively small dimensions, in which there has been a never
failing supply of pure water; and indeed I think there are almost in the vicinity of
London cases which would amount to proof. I allude to the excavation of the
Thames Tunnel; the last time I visited it, the diameter of that shaft I was told
was about thirty feet, and the depth seventy, and when I looked at it, I think it ap-
peared to me that it would have afforded from twenty to thirty thousand barrels
per day of water, and that it would continue to do that, as I believe it has
continued to do; that notwithstanding that they were endeavouring, by every
means in their power, to keep the water out instead of facilitating the access,
and the water was of a perfectly pure and wholesome quality. I have observed
also, in the excavation of the St. Katherine's Dock, that although the excavation
has not exceeded thirty feet from the surface, that it has constantly employed as
many as three steam engines, which I should think, if kept regularly at work, each
engine has pumped from twenty to thirty thousand gallons in twenty-four hours;
the water from that is not very pure, but that I consider to be from their not going
deep enough to get to a pure spring, which I believe is always to be obtained if the
go deep enough for it; and by means of excavating one of those large tanks, I
think it might be filled with more facility than a smaller one ; pure water has been
found in the neighbourhood of Tottenham, by means of boring five or six feet
below the surface of the earth, and I believe it has continued to run for several
years without ceasing. Mr. Smart has also bored at Lambeth, very near West-
minster Bridge, and he has also obtained a supply of pure water, which I believe
continues to run ; and I consider the expense of making one of those tanks would
not be deserving of consideration to even the present Water Companies, as I pre-
sume it would not be doubted, that if an excavation was to be made in the earth
pure water would be obtained, because I think it can be proved in every well in
the Metropolis, that it is to be obtained ; the only question is, whether sufficient
quantity could be obtained by making sufficiently large tanks, and a sufficient
quantity of them. The case which comes first within my recollection, was a large
mine on the estate of Earl Dudley, at a place called Hart's Hill; I had an oppor-
tunity of observing that for several years; it is near the meridian of England, in
a very elevated situation, and appears to be rather disadvantageously situated for
affording the thing, and that for several years produced not less than 30,000 barrels
per day; how many more such cases there may be I cannot pretend to say: but
I should think, if I were to search the kingdom, I could produce the particulars
of several hundred cases that would be almost parallel. * t-
With regard to the water that you observed, both at the Tunnel and at the St.
Katherine's Docks, do you suppose that any portion of that water came in from
the river Thames (—I think the vicinity of the river might have increased it; but
the same effect would be produced in any other situation, as was the case with the
mine on Earl Dudley's estate; that was in a very elevated situation ; I should think
several hundred feet above the level of the Severn, which was the nearest river,
and fifteen or sixteen miles from it in a direct line; and I should suppose, in that
neighbourhood there are fifty or a hundred more similarly situated ; one of my
reasons for proposing this plan is, I thought, as the Grand Junction Water Com-
pany had their engine by the Thames side, and as the Chelsea Company had their
engine by the Thames side, and the South London, and many others, that the
advantage would be very great to the Companies of continuing at those sites,
because they must be worked by engines; and the expense of carting fuel to a dis-
tance in the interior would be great; and further, that a steam-engine is always
a nuisance to any neighbourhood; and I thought that the present Companies
adopting this method would, by each excavating one or more of these tanks, be
enabled to effect a supply of water to the Metropolis, of the best quality, at a com-
paratively small charge. -
Is not the supply to be obtained generally from boring, confined to particular
strata!—I have never observed that, because whenever mines have been excavated
to any depth, water in large quantities has invariably flowed. -
What is the description of water so found; is it not generally very hard water?
—If deeply enough excavated it is always pure. -
Is it hard or soft water 7–Soft water ; that which has been obtained in the
neighbourhood of Tottenham has generally been obtained from the depth of eighty
to one hundred and twenty feet from the surface; it always was in great abundance,
and as perfectly good as water can be desired to be. - :
• *. - Have
THE SUPPLY OF WATER. TO THE METROPOLIS, 17
Have you examined many of the wells that have been bored deep in the neigh-
bourhood of the Metropolis —I have read evidence which can be depended upon,
that is given by Mr. Smart; it is in the Commissioners Report, and also in the
neighbourhood of Tottenham ; I will read a memorandum which I have made
respecting the Tottenham wells:–Successful experiments have been made at Tot-
tenham, Middlesex, and in some of the Essex villages adjacent, to obtain costant
supplies of water by boring at certain depths of the earth. At Tottenham there
had been a general complaint that good water could not be procured, the wells
were only a few feet deep, the supply of water uncertain and not pure enough for
domestic use. The wells reached only to the blue clay, therefore their depth, de-
pended upon the super strata of gravel or loam ; the blue clay however has
at length been pierced through, and a never failing supply of remarkably clear and
brilliant water, particularly soft and adapted to every domestic purpose. The
depths of the wells have varied from 110 to 140 feet, and when the water was
reached in sinking some of them, it rose with such rapidity as nearly to overtake
the well-digger before his escape could be effected. In the summer of 182
a gentleman adopted a method of boring through the clay to the main spring
at his farm in Brook Lane, Page Green, Tottenham, where he obtained a copious
and constant supply of water from a depth of 120 feet, which rises eight feet
above the surface, and flowing over, forms an elegant little cascade, which has
since neither increased nor diminished; having succeeded on his own premises, he
thought that a similar experiment might be tried with equal success on the public
waste ground; this suggestion was made to the vestry, and acceded to on the part
of the parish ; the ground was bored to the depth of 105 feet, when a spring of
fine water issued forth, which rises six feet above the surface of the ground through
a tube within a cast iron pedestal, and flowing over the edge of a vase forms a bell
shape continued sheet of water, inclosing the vase as in a glass case ; the quantity
of water which comes up and is discharged is at the rate of fourteen gallons per
minute. - * y
What is the work from which you are reading 7–It is a manuscript which i
prepared, with some idea of being printed, explanatory of the plan I laid before
the Commissioners. • . . . .
Then you cannot speak practically as to the probable supply of water that could
be got from those springs?–Not from the neighbourhood of London; I only argue
by analogy, that in every other part of the kingdom it is to be obtained, and
I do not see why the neighbourhood of London should be more barren than has
been proved to be in the case of Tottenham, - #
Robert Masters Kerrison, M. D. called in ; and Examined.
THE Committee understand, that you are of opinion that the water obtained
from the Thames about London is unwholesome?—I am ; it will not be easy to
state any particular facts of disease brought on by it, further than the fact, that
water loaded with that kind of impurity of animal and vegetable matters in a state
of suspension and solution leads to diseases of the viscera, enlargement of liver,
dyspeptic complaints, disturbances and indigestion; and I should say, though I
may not point out any particular case of disease brought on by water, because few
people live upon water, that is, make use of water as a beverage unmixed with
other materials, as malt and hops or fermented liquor, yet, I believe, that a
general insalubrity must exist in water, and more or less communicate itself to all
individuals who partake of it as their general beverage, and for the preparation of
their daily food. 3.
You are perhaps aware, that a Mr. Mathews has written a book, in which he
disputes very much all that has been said about the supposed insalubrity of the
gas works and the refuse emptied into the Thames; what is the nature of the
material that passes into the river from those works —From memory, perhaps,
I could hardly give it so perfectly as I can from having made a note of it from
Professor Brande's Manual of Chemistry. Professor Brande's account of the
formation of gas used in lighting the streets, and of those matters which are
separated and pass away as the refuse, will be found in the first volume of his
Manual of Chemistry, page 439. This is the quotation :-‘‘The coal is placed in
oblong cast-iron cylinders or retorts, which are ranged in furnaces to keep them
at a red heat, and all the volatile products are conveyed by a common tube into a
condensing vessel, kept cold by immersion in water; and in which the water, tar,
567. C ammoniacal
- M T. "
Henry Francis.
9 July 1828.
R. M. Kerrison,
M. D.
-—-
is MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
R. M. Kerrison,
M., D.
\–2–’
9 July 1828.
ammoniacal and other condensible vapours are retained. The gaseous products
consist principally of carburetted hydrogen, sulphuretted hydrogen, and carbonic
oxide and acid; these are passed through a mixture of quick-lime and water in
vessels called purifiers, by which the sulphuretted hydrogen and carbonic gases
are absorbed, and the carburetted hydrogen, and hydrogen gases transmitted
sufficiently pure for use into gasometers, whence the pipes issue for the supply
of the streets, houses, &c.; the coke remaining in the retorts is of a very good
quality.” Now my comment upon that is this: The waste water then which flows
into the drains of gas works, and eventually into the Thames, consists chiefly of
sulphuretted hydrogen and ammoniacal gases dissolved in the lime-water em-
ployed to separate them, and a portion of bituminous oil or coal tar which is seen
to float on the surface of the liquor discharged from those sewers into which the
drains from gas works empty themselves. My inference is this: These substances
are certainly nauseous to the taste and smell as well as unwholesome, and form
an unfit admixture with water intended for culinary purposes.
As you object to the filtration of the water as not being a sufficient remedy,
will you state what are your reasons for that opinion?—It will render it tolerably
free from mechanical matters that are suspended in it, and certainly water in that
state, being the best that can be now obtained is very acceptable, but my objection
goes to the fact of taking water which has been mixed with objectionable things,
when it is matter of doubt whether all those objectionable things can be fairl
separated. Another reason is, that I believe that the accumulation of the refuse,
whatever it may be, of animal matters or vegetable matters arrested by the sand, or
whatever else, when exposed to the action of the sun and air would exhale an un-
wholesome vapor, which would not only affect the immediate neighbourhood, but
which ever way the wind carried it would influence a considerable tract of district;
and although I cannot go fully into the question of Doctor Mac Culloch on
Malaria, as detailed in some late numbers of The Journal of Science and the Arts,
in which the subject is more particularly treated, yet I am sure there would be an
unwholesome impregnation of the air; and I may speak as to one case which
would bear a fair parallel with it, that when the mud from the bottom of the canal
in St. James's Park was spread out, a practitioner of this neighbourhood,
Mr. Annandale, of Queen-street, had four cases which he actually traced to have
arisen from the inhalation of that vapour, and he attributed that as the cause, not
now to answer any particular purpose, but at the time ; and one of those cases
was seen by Doctor Warren, who attributed the cause of complaint to the same
source. Doctor Paris also told me, that he had a case in James-street, Bucking-
ham Gate, at the time the mud was exposed in St. James's Park, that he was sure
was a case of remittent fever produced by the effluvia from that source. º
Do you think independently of any objection that might be made to filtration, as
not being altogether a sufficient remedy with respect to the water itself, that the
districts where the filtration took place would, from the accumulation of whatever
was separated, be affected and become more unhealthy 2–I seriously believe that
that is the fact, and if you had concurring causes of a year or two of short wheat
harvest, if you had the commonalty in the state they were in twenty-five years ago,
I mean with an impoverished mode of living, added to this circumstance of bad
evaporation from a breadth of surface where those strainers or filterers should be,
that there would be hazard of an epidemic of a very dangerous character, I really
believe that that would be the hazard, and I would almost say the certain result;
we have had lately, without any assignable cause, a state for the last year of
frequent remittent and intermittent fevers that were not common; we have had
cases of ague scattered about, where it was not usual to meet with it.
Has not ague been exceedingly prevalent all over England during the last two
or three years, and that in places where, for almost a century before, it had never
been heard of?—I believe it has ; I have not been a practitioner out of London,
but I have not been inobservant of what my cotemporaries have seen, and there-
fore if you were to have a state such as that continued, and were to have super-
added to that state the exhalations from the animal and vegetable matters that
would be left in the strainers, you would be exposed to the thing I have just
endeavoured to elucidate. -
When therefore ague is so prevalent all over the country, is it not very difficult
to trace the cause of it to any specific action of mud in any particular place?—
Assuredly ; and such a state has been called by Sydenham an unwholesome con-
stitution of the atmosphere.
It
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 1 9
It is therefore very difficult to say, whether the cases of ague you spoke of were
owing to the mud of the canal in St. James's Park, or were owing to the general
constitution of the atmosphere of the season 7–My observation on that point
would be this;–the cases I referred to occurred when there was no general state
of insalubrity of the atmosphere, four or five years ago, when agues were not
prevalent; and therefore I suggest, that as they occurred in that place, the pre-
sumption is stronger of the cause being local. .
In what year, and in what month, did they occur !— I cannot answer that
question precisely ; the fact came first to my attention one day when I was with
Lord Farnborough ; he said, “What do you think of the mud spreading over
the Park near the Horse Guards : " I said, “I think it is rather a hazardous
thing;” he said, “Will it do any mischief?” I said, “I do not know, but I
should consider it unwholesome on so large a scale;” and he then mentioned,
that the Duke of Newcastle had had a large fish-pond cleared, and the mud
spread out some short time prior to that time, and that in the neighbourhood a
fever had been found to follow that occurrence. - -
Was this in the same year in which the canal in St. James's Park was cleared
out?—The case of the Duke of Newcastle's pond must have been prior to that,
because that circumstance was mentioned to me at that time.
What then was the specific action to which you attribute the ague, if it was
not the exposure of the mud in St. James's Park?—I should consider, knowing
that evaporation from vegetable matter in a decomposing state, in the marshes of
Essex and Lincolnshire, and in other places, produced something which disturbed
the healthy actions of the body into what is called ague, that it was a similar
exhalation that had occasioned it in the Park. . --
Was it therefore owing to the exposure of the mud when taken out of the canal?
—It must have been from the exposure of the mud when taken out of the canal
I presume, because there was a vegetable refuse with the mud; it was not simple
clay; I saw it at a distance, but I had no curiosity to inspect it more closely.
Did the cases of ague which occurred in St. James's-street, Westminster, occur
in the same year when the canal in St. James's Park was cleared out?—I am
positively so informed by the gentleman who attended them, and that gentleman
is Mr. Annandale, in this neighbourhood.
Can you undertake to say, that that year was not a year in which ague was
generally prevalent over England 2–I can say, that I never heard of the preva-
lence of ague, particularly over England, in that year, but whether it was four or
five years ago I cannot say ; but that the cases occurred when the canal was
cleared, is a matter of easy reference.
You have stated, that the sulphuret of lime which is conveyed from the gas
works will tend materially to render the Thames water impure ; will not the
sulphuret of lime, after a very short period, when mixed with water containing
atmospheric air, be decomposed and be precipitated 4–Probably it will up to a
certain point; but you have it enveloped with some oil and bituminous matters
from the coal and ammoniacal gas, and I am not prepared to say what decom-
position may take place between the liquid refuse of gas works flowing into a
channel, and from that channel into the Thames.
You were understood to speak of sulphuret of lime dissolving in water; will it
dissolve in water if enveloped in oily or bituminous matters?—What I have said
is an absolute quotation from a book on science, capable of reference; but I have
never mixed those ingredients, and attempted to dissolve them in water, and
therefore it will be improper in me to reply in a direct manner to such a question;
that they are nauseous there can be no doubt.
If any sulphuret of lime were contained in filtered water, would not chemical
analysis discover it?–-I should expect that sulphuret of lime in the filtering agent
would be enveloped, and to discover it exactly you must have the sand and the
material in which it is enveloped subjected to chemical test.
The question refers to filtered Thames water; will chemical analysis determine
sulphuret of lime dissolved in water, which has passed through a filter'—I have
never tried it. * •
Do you know, or do you not know, that sulphur contained in a sulphuret
dissolved in water, is one of the easiest substances to discover in the whole of
chemistry –Yes, it is easy to discover; but then you have sulphuretted hydrogen,
which is one of the most nauseous smelling gases in existence.
567. C 2 Confining
R. M. Kerrison,
M., D.
\-—--—’
9 July 1828.
20 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
R. M. Kerrison,
*\–
M. D.
~~
9 July 1828.
L/
Confining your attention at present to sulphuret of lime, if there is any sulphuret
of lime dissolved in the water, is not that a substance, as easily discovered as any
substance in chemistry?–1 cannot reply to that question. . .
Do you know what is the action of a sulphuret upon salts of lead 3–Yes, they
are turned black. - . . . . • { . . .
Do you not think that a chemist, like Dr. Bostock, if a sulphuret of any kind,
or if a sulphuretted hydrogen had been dissolved in water, would have been
competent to discover it 3–Assuredly I do ; I would not for a moment place my
opinion in competition or in opposition to anything he might say. - }
When therefore you find, in the published analysis of Doctor Bostock, that there
is no mention of a sulphuret or of sulphuretted hydrogen contained in filtered
Thames water, would you not think it reasonable to infer, that neither of those
substances existed in it !—I believe that my objection has not gone so much to
the water filtered as to the refuse matter evaporated by the influence of the sun
and air after the water has passed away; I use every day the water alluded to
for breakfast and tea, because I cannot get any other, but I should prefer water
that had not required that filtration, if I could get it. - 4.
You were understood to speak of the gas works as affecting the salubrity of
filtered Thames water?—My observation was as to its affecting the water generally,
making it nauseous, and that the refuse matter thrown out of the strainers by
evaporation and exposure to the rays of the sun, would make the air less whole-
some than it is now. I believe I did not say that water, when filtered, was
totally unfit for use; at least I could not intend to say so, because I have a pump
in my premises, and I use it because it is better for the purpose of infusing
the tea. - - s
Do you speak of the refuse of the gas works, as to be found in the mud and sedi-
ment deposited on the filter, or do you speak of the same substances as contained
among the refuse at the gas works?—I speak of the aggregate of foulness from
the gas works, mixed with the aggregate of foulness from the drainage of the town.
I do not know that I could separate the one from the other; but it is an aggregate
of substances that I should be very happy to see avoided, because I believe that
they must have some indirect influence upon the health of the town, and that the
substances which have been separated, consisting of animal and vegetable matters,
including ammoniacal gas, and whatever they drain in the gas works, would, under
the evaporation from the air and sun, render the locality less wholesome than
it is now. ,
Do you speak of the insalubrity arising merely from the sediment left after the
filtration of Thames water, at the contemplated establishments for filtering it, or
do you speak of the residue of the gas works at the gas works themselves?—
I speak of the residue that must necessarily be combined with the material
employed to filter, and I cannot separate one from the other, because whatever
insoluble matter may proceed from the gas works, that would form a portion of
the matters that would have to pass the filter. My objection as to the insalubrity
goes rather to animal matters held in suspension, which would be evaporated from
the filtering sand, or whatever material was employed, than to the unwholesomeness
of the water filtered. - -
The question does not now relate to the insalubrity of the sediment after fil-
tration; but you having spoken of the ill effects of sulphuret of lime, or sulphu-
retted hydrogen, in what situation is it that you expect to find those ingredients?
—I believe that my objection has not been to this or that particular material that
comes from the gas works. Sulphuretted hydrogen is soluble in water, and gives
out a very nauseous odour; oil, or whatever it may be, that is occasionally seen
in the river, is also disagreeable. -- - -
Then you do not speak of the insalubrity in any particular place, but you speak
generally of the insalubrity arising from the refuse of the gas works?—The refuse
of the gas works being nauseous to the smell, must render the water in the
immediate vicinity in which it is mixed less agreeable to the senses than when it
has been diffused through a broader surface, and therefore the locality of gas
works must be objectionable. - - -
Will not this refuse of the gas works equally exist, although there were no
establishments for filtering Thames water?—Yes, and it forms one of the objections
to the Thames water in its present state. - t
Would the contemplated plan of bringing water from Teddington remove this
objection to the water, arising from the refuse of gas works being mixed with it?—
s - Yes,
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 21
Yes, for it would provide you with water which has not had that refuse mixed
with it, and therefore, as far as regards the present objection to taking the water
for culinary purposes, I think it would answer our expectations. *,
You now speak not of the insalubrity of the sediment, but of the insalubrity of
the water itself?—I speak of the water in the state in which it has hitherto been
combined with the materials proceeding from the gas works, and other sources;
I am not attempting to say, that the water will not be much improved by fil-
tration; I believe it will so. - -
Is not the mud of the Thames, into which the refuse of the gas works, according
to your representation, is poured, exposed during a certain part of every day in
the year?—It is, but probably not long enough to undergo fermentation to a degree
that would cause unwholesomeness to exhale before it has been washed with other
water by the return of the tide, or the upland water flowing from above.
What reason have you to believe, that the large body of water which is affected
by the contiguity of the gas works, is not likely to be more injurious to the
general health than the exposure of a small quantity of sediment coming from
a filtering establishment?–In the one case I do not think the injury would arise
from the transit of water through the filter, but the material used in filtration must
be frequently removed; it is the evaporation from that, as from the mud of dry
ditches by the action of the sun upon it, that would produce an unwholesome
exhalation in the atmosphere. . .
In page 31 of a pamphlet you have published, you state that filtering will not
take away all objectionable matter; in the evidence you have now given, you are
understood not to speak very decidedly as to that point 3–I believe that expres-
sion is illustrated in some measure by the fact, that if there is objectionable animal
matter in the water, even after it is filtered, it will still retain its salts, and therefore
I consider that it would be desirable to obtain water free from that objection.
Therefore filtered Thames water, could never be pure water —The degree of
impurity when the mechanical substances were separated would be less objection-
able; but still it is an objection; if you cannot get all you wish, you must get
what you can ; but if you have the power of getting water without such admixture,
my position is, that it is a duty to ourselves to obtain it.
Mr. James Mills, again called in ; and Examined.
WHAT progress have you made in making a survey of the country between Ted-
dington and Battersea fields, with a view of determining, whether it is possible to
procure a supply of water from Teddington?—I have gone over the whole line upon
the land, I have pointed out the line, and measured it longitudinally; I have also
compared it with the section which lies upon the table, which is a section of the whole
of the river from Teddington to London Bridge; I have also gone over another
line, looking to what is called the high service, supposing it should be an essen-
tial part of the arrangement, that the pipes should be always kept full in case of
fire. This is a second line to the south of the first; instead of bringing the water
upon its natural level to Battersea Fields, and then allowing the different Com-
panies to elevate it by their present pumps to their present reservoirs; I have
taken this line, making the reservoirs at an elevation of above a hundred feet, so
as to keep the pipes always full on the south side of the river; the south side of
the river has no service, except when the engines are at work; I have gone over
these two lines, and consider both of them to be practicable; but it is necessary
in order to know the expense of these lines, to know what the elevation of the
land is; because the expense of the canal depends upon the quantity of cutting
that would be required ; that I have not made any progress in, and it would take
at least five or six weeks to ascertain that correctly upon both lines, so as to know
the expense of execution. r
What are the points from which it would be necessary to take those levels?—
From Teddington on the south side of the river, going through Kew Gardens;
then in nearly a straight line to Barnes Common, crossing Putney about the
middle of the town, and going straight nearly from thence to Battersea Fields;
the other beginning at Teddington, going through Richmond Park to Lord Spen-
cer's estate at Wimbledon Common, and from Wimbledon Common to Wands-
worth, and from Wandsworth to Clapham Common, and so to Town. There are
also other elevations still more to the east if requisite. - -
- wº did you begin the survey 2–I began the survey soon after the Commission
507. C 3 W 3 S
R. M. Kerrison,
. M. D.
\——’
9 July 1828.
Mr.
James Mills.
\-J–
22 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
Mr.
James Mills.
-> -
9 July 1828.
—Z
was instituted; Mr. Telford stated to me, that at the time he was requested to
undertake the survey, his health was such that he declined it ; but he said, that
having had a second application, and knowing that I had made considerable pro-
gress in it, from the previous surveys in 1823, he was induced to undertake it,
thinking that he should have my assistance as a pioneer. I then supposed that
Mr. Telford would have the power of paying me, as he had in the last three
or four years, in all the surveys I have made for the Post Office, and I made con-
siderable progress for three or four months; when Mr. Telford returned after his
illness, he inquired of Lord Lansdowne whether the Commissioners had such
powers; and Lord Lansdowne said, You must incur no expenses without further
authority from Government. - -
You were understood to say, that you commenced this survey in 1823 —That
was quite a different survey; that was a survey of the river Thames, for the
purpose of London Bridge ; but it was from that survey that this plan was first
designed by me. .. - -
After the Commission was instituted, were the instructions under which you
acted, writted instructions?—Certainly not; I went and surveyed the whole of the
Company's engines and works, in order that the Commissioners might form an
idea of the aggregate supply, and I gave that survey to the Commissioners; and
Dr. Roget said, At present we have no authority to promise any remuneration,
but probably we shall have. On that understanding I proceeded ; I did expect
that they would have that power; Government, however, thought they had mis-
understood the extent of the Commission; and Mr. Telford said, you must not go
on by our authority, for we have no power to pay you.
Did the Commissioners instruct you verbally to commence this survey?—I think
not; I should say, it was understood between Mr. Telford and myself, and I
believe in the presence of the Commissioners, that I should make the survey; but
the three Commissioners never gave me authority to do it in writing.
Neither verbally nor in writing 2—Certainly not, as Commissioners.
Did not Mr. Telford inform you, that it was entirely upon your own responsi-
bility that you did it 2–Not till a very considerable time after the Commission
was instituted; it was not till after that correspondence with Lord Landsdowne.
I do not think he anticipated there would have been any curtailment of their power
as to remuneration before that. - -
In any communication you had with Mr. Telford individually, did you under-
stand that he authorized you to commence this survey, under an assurance that you
would be reimbursed?—I could not say so much as that; I considered Mr. Telford
as having employed me much during the last four or five years; and if he told
me, as he did the other day, to go to Milford Haven to make a report on the pro-
posed new landing quay, I should not ask whether he would pay me; but I had
confidence in him that I should be paid, if the survey was approved.
How long were you occupied after the appointment of the Commissioners, upon
any survey 2–I suppose I was occupied about four months; all the time Mr.
Telford was ill, whilst he was away, I proceeded in it. I have also perhaps, impru-
dently incurred some other expenses, which I should not probably be authorized
to have done; but when the case was brought before Parliament it was upon the
petition only of Westminster; and as soon as the Commission was appointed, it
occurred to me, that this could not be undertaken as a matter relating to a single
Water Company; that Parliament never could listen to the complaints respecting
one Company only, when there were seven Companies equally bad; and I did state
to Mr. Telford, I thought it was a great pity that the whole question should not
be brought before them, particularly as to the south of London ; and I employed
gentlemen to prepare petitions, with a view to bring the whole question before His
Majesty's Government; accordingly two petitions from Lambeth and Southwark,
were sent to Lord Lansdowne, and which made the Commission of a more
extended nature. - :
Then you employed yourself in getting up petitions before you commenced the
survey'—Yes; I did that with a view of bringing a general inquiry, as to the
whole supply of London, before the Commissioners.
Were you educated as a civil engineer —I was ; for seven years I served my
time with a very celebrated surveyor, a Mr. Fairbank, of Yorkshire, I was then
Seven years an executive engineer on the Kennet and Avon Canal.
Were you ever engaged in making any surveys connected with the supply of
water to any large towns in this country – Never with respect to the mere
- º supply
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 23.
supply of water; I have been connected with many canals of very considerable
extent; the Kennet and Avon I was engaged in, with Mr. Rennie; I have made
also surveys of canals of a very extensive nature. I made one for Lord
Wharncliffe only two years ago. I have been employed the last twenty-two years
in my profession as a civil engineer; and have made surveys to the amount of
1,200 miles for the Post Office, within these three years, in which the elevation of
the hills have been taken, and the estimates made under Mr. Telford's direction.
Would it not be necessary to determine the value of the land through which
the lines pass, before any estimate could be formed of the probable expense of the
land?—Unquestionably; the land upon the low line is very much of one nature;
it is almost all common fields at present, generally uninclosed, belonging to Lord
Spencer and other gentlemen ; it is of inferior quality. I should say, if the
Government were now empowered to treat for that land, generally speaking, it
would not exceed 200 l. an acre; it is the most favourable line that can be con-
ceived for a canal, for in the first place it is nearly level, and I do not think there
is a single building of consequence in the whole nine miles. -
Is not Wimbledon Common higher than the Lock at Teddington?—The line
through Wimbledon Common is quite a distinct line. -
Is the object of taking the levels, to determine whether or not the proposed
canal can be brought with a sufficient fall to enable the water to pass naturally?—
It is to ascertain the number of cubic yards of cutting that would be required in
such a canal; if the lands were perfectly level, of the same elevation as it is near
the river, or like the lands in Lincolnshire, we should very easily calculate how
much fifty feet of cutting of five feet deep would be, but there is no part of this
line upon such a level, sometimes it rises eight or ten feet, then it may fall three
or four, and as we must have an inclination downwards the whole way for
the lower line, the cutting will be increased all the way till we come to the
Reservoir. 3.
Is it not clear, that on the line you now speak of there is a sufficient fall to
enable the canal to be cut –When the land is excavated we shall get a sufficient
fall, but the cutting will vary from six feet probably to eighteen.
Then the object of the survey is to enable you to determine the expense of that
cutting 2—Yes. * -
It is not to ascertain whether there is a sufficient fall !—There is no doubt that
we can obtain that by excavation.
Would it not be necessary to determine the value of the land, and the value
that a jury would set upon it?—We always in those estimates give a liberal price
for the land; the experience I have had would enable me to state what a jury
would give for the land. I should say, speaking generally, that I do not believe
it would average above 300 l. an acre. I do not know what the Crown land
would be, but all the other land would be about from two to three hundred pounds
2.Il 3. CT63. . - 6. -
Would the lower line include any Crown land 2–There is a piece outside of
Kew Gardens that belongs to the Crown, but it is a mere field.
Upon the first line you have been speaking of, it is not necessary to take any levels,
except for the purpose of determining the extent of the estimate 2–Just so, to
ascertain what the cutting is. \
With respect to the second line, what is the object of taking the levels?—It is
necessary to determine the elevation of the highest reservoirs, to ascertain whether
the expense of pipes from the reservoirs would be more than commensurate to the
expense of a canal. - .
There is of course no doubt that Wimbledon Common is higher than Ted-
dington P-I should think more than 100 feet.
And therefore whatever water reached Wimbledon Common must be forced up
by forcing engines?—Yes.
And what you propose is, to ascertain the expense at which the water could be
so forced up to Wimbledon Common —Yes. -
For the purpose of enabling a Company afterwards to determine whether it was
a good speculation ?—With a view either of enabling a Company to determine
whether they would cut one of those lines, or for the purpose of enabling the
eight Water Companies now existing to determine, whether they should cut the
canal among themselves, and supply themselves, I believe the eight Companies
would be very glad, if they found an inclination on the part of Government to
encourage them, to do the thing themselves, in order to supply themselves, but it is
567. C 4 for
\
Mr.
James Mills.
—J.-
9 July 1828.
J
24 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
Mr. for Government well to consider, after seeing what their rates and powers are, whe-
| James * , ther it would not be better to have a new Company to supply the present Com-
--~~ panies, and to let them be merely the distributors; but I propose, either to have
9 July 1828. a new Company, or to let the present eight Companies do it, if the Government
should ultimately decline it. -
—T- →
- Luna, 14" die Julii, 1828.
Mr. W. M. Coe, called in ; and Examined.
Mr. IN a Return given in by you to the Committee that sat in 1821, it appears that
W. M. Coe. at the Michaelmas collection of 1816, you supplied but 2,784 houses; and at the
Y-T’ time you gave in the Return for the Michaelmas collection of 1819, it appeared
14 July 1828. that you supplied 7,180 dwelling-houses!—Yes. - .
Did that increase of supply arise from your partitioning the whole of the Town
to the northward of the Thames amongst five Companies?—It did. - r
Every other Company withdrew from supplying water in any part of the district
allotted by that agreement to the other Companies —They did.
It appears, that in 1816, you supplied but thirty-one houses that exceeded 10 l.
a year, and in 1819 it appears that they were increased to 210 houses of a rental
of above 1 ol. ; did that arise from your increasing the rates ?—At Michaelmas
1819 it was occasioned by an increased rate. - º
By what scale did you increase that rate —Five-and-twenty per cent upon the
general rates charged by the New River and Chelsea Companies in 1810.
Do you mean to say twenty-five per cent on the rates paid to your prede-
cessors?—Yes, in 1810. - * * * : -
Did you in no instance increase that rate 2–Yes, for high service. -
Did you, in no instance, for low service increase the rate —No ; there were
some houses that were raised more; others, not so much ; others, not at all.
Did you take the gross rates, and then charge the increased rate on those whom
you pleased, and omit those whom you did not please to charge?—We surveyed
the houses, and equalized the rates; we found a great number which were charged
much less than others, although about the same sized houses, and receiving nearly
the same supply; the consequence of which was, that in equalizing the rates, some
were not raised at all, others a little, and others considerably above the twenty-five
per cent; that is very fully explained in the evidence I gave before the Committee
in 1821.
What was the highest per centage you raised upon the former rates?—It is diffi-
cult for me to say ; but I could refer to the books, and ascertain that. I do not
feel able to state it from memory. - :
A Member of the Committee (Mr. Holmes) who paid 4!. previously, after that
was charged seven guineas P-It made no difference to the Company whether they
obtained twenty-five per cent from every individual, or twenty-five per cent on the
whole by the equalized rates; the amount to the Company was no more than
twenty-five per cent upon the general rates. It was proved to the Committee in
1821, that the charge upon the whole was twenty-five per cent increase, and it was
so reported by that Committee. -
You mean to say, you did not altogether, upon the gross, take above twenty-five
er cent more than you did before?—I do ; that we have not increased the rates
more than that for the ordinary service. - -
Have you a recollection what the amount of your gross income was in 1816?–
No, unless it was returned to the Committee in 1821 ; I can furnish it if it is
desired. -- - - º,
It appears, that though you increased very greatly the number of houses, there
were not nearly so many at the low rate 7–We withdrew from a part of the town
where there were many houses at a low rate ; if we obtained in exchange house
at a higher rate, that would make the difference. . . . ..
If you acted upon the clause in the Act of 1826, fixing the rate, what difference
would that make in your income?—It would make a great difference; but it is a
clause upon which I do not see how the Company can act; the rent of a house is
no criterion of the consumption of water, and the consumption in a great measure
regulates the price. ' - - r
Could not you take away the water, unless the persons consented to give that
rate?—We could, certainly. - - . - .
Then
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 25
Then a person must go without the water, unless he consented to pay that rate?—
Certainly ; but prudence would dictate to the Company not to raise the rates to
such a degree as to render the public dissatisfied; we had the power of raising
the rates to any amount previous to the Act of 1826 being passed, as at that time
we were unlimited ; the fear of competition, however, will, I am confident, always
be a protection to the public against exorbitant rates.
Then you would have no objection to having that clause repealed !—We should
have no objection to being placed in the situation in which we were before;
I think I may venture to say, on the part of the Company, that we should have no
objection to be placed in the same situation in which we were before that Act
passed; the Committee can have satisfactory evidence, that that clause was not in
our bill when it was introduced into the House; the clause emanated from the
Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords; Lord Shaftesbury ordered it to
be inserted ; we had no reason to wish for its introduction into the bill ; the soli-
citor for the bill and the parliamentary agent, can both prove this to have been
the case. - - -
Prior to your having a separate district in 1819, was not the per centage upon
your capital very low?—We had no dividend at all prior to 1819, and there was
no probability of our ever making one, while the competition continued. , sº *
What is your dividend now?—Three pounds a year per share upon some of
the shares, and two pounds upon others. * * ,
That is six per cent?–It is three pounds a year upon 4,500 shares, and two
pounds a year on 1,000 shares. -
What is the value of the share?—Fifty pound shares. :
What bonus was added, when you raised the additional capital 7–Seven pound
upon every fifty pounds share; the sum thus allotted had been reserved from the
rental of the Company, and expended upon the works. -
So that now, the dividend is about six per cent upon the money laid out?—Yes.
The Committee should understand, that there was no probability, during the com-
petition, of our ever making a dividend ; persons had water at whatever prices
they pleased ; and, on a division of the town, and our undertaking to supply a
particular district, we found many persons having a supply of water, but paying
nothing at all to any Company, the Companies not being in communication with
each other during the competition, could not be aware of this circumstance; when
the collector of one Company called for the water rate, the person 'applied to
would say, that he was supplied by the other Company whose pipes were in the
Street. Š
Could not the Companies discover that they were making the supply to those
individuals?—The individuals having changed from one Company to another,
perhaps two or three times in a year, occasioned that confusion, that it appeared
impossible for the Companies, without opening the ground, to find out by whom
they were supplied.
Has there been any increase made on the rates since 18197—None, whatever;
the total increase upon the Company's rental from Michaelmas 1820 to Lady-day
1828, seven years and a half, has been 3,579/. 6s. 2d.; the increase for the high
service, included in that sum, for the seven years and a half, 1,851 l. 1 s. 6d.
leaving the charge for the increase for ordinary and extra services, 1,728/.4s. 8d.;
and if that sum be divided by the houses, which have increased in number between
six and seven hundred in the same period, it will be evident, from that, that there
has been no increase beyond the twenty-five per cent, for the amount for each
house will be found to be about our usual average. -
Would you find any difficulty in making out an account from the Michaelmas
collection of 1827, of the number of houses under I Ol., and the number of houses
under 20 l., and so on ?—No, there would be no difficulty; that might be obtained;
but according to the order of the Committee, that account is required for every
year since 1820; if we should have to go through our rental of 7,800 houses
seven or eight times, which would be a laborious operation and occupy a consi-
derable time; I could furnish it for one year, which I think would answer all the
purpose for which it can be required. - &
Have you had any communication with the West Middlesex Water Company,
about taking water from them from Barnes Elms?—The communication we have had
from the West Middlesex Company, was, as I understood, that they had purchased
an estate at Barnes Elms, of the Hammersmith Bridge Company, and they proposed
567. D that
Mr.
#7. M. Coe.
S–––’
14 July 1828.
26 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
Mr.
W.• M. Coe.
14 July 1828.
that a reservoir should be made upon that land, for the purpose of supplying any
Water Companies who might choose to take their supply from those reservoirs.
Are you enabled to state, from any opinion of the Directors, that they would be
inclined, if that water was better than their own, to take from that reservoir 7–
I think they would. . X-
Was there any legal agreement between the Companies as to division of districts
in 1819 P--There was an agreement of that kind between the New River and the
East London Water Companies, but there has been no similar agreement between
the Companies at this end of the town. -
You allow, that it is a moral obligation, that you would consider it a dishonourable
act to supply water in the West Middlesex district or the Chelsea?—Yes, certainly;
but I believe the New River Company have more than once declared, that if any
of the Companies increased their rates unnecessarily, or with a view to obtain
enormous profits, they would drive their pipes into the district of the Company so
increasing the rates. With regard to the return made on the Company's capital,
I do not think the town have any cause to complain of enormous profits at present,
and I think that the Water Companies will not increase their rates, so as induce
other Companies to enter into competition.
It appears that there is a great difference between the rates of the different Com-
panies; what is the reason of that?—Judging by the rates of the houses, the New
River Company appear to furnish their supply of water on less terms than any
other Company; a vast sum of money was expended upon that concern by Sir
Hugh Middleton and others, upon which no interest whatever, or at least but
a trifling interest, has been paid to the present day, forming, I believe, no part of
the capital upon which they divide their profits; they can I should imagine, in con-
sequence, supply water at a much cheaper rate than we who have not become
possessed of our works upon such advantageous terms. r
You think that the first who laid out their money lost their capital 7–Yes, there
is no doubt of that ; it must, however, be observed, that the quantity of water we
supply, being more in proportion than is supplied to the houses in other districts,
we do not obtain so high a price for our water as other Companies do, that is to
say, comparing the whole quantity of water we pump with the whole amount of
our rental, we deliver water at a less price than other Companies; in point of
fact we do not get a farthing per barrel.
What is a barrel ?–36 imperial gallons, it is necessary also to state, that when
persons complain that they pay a high water-rate for the supply of their houses,
they will not take the trouble to distinguish the high service from the low service;
the high service is completely optional ; if persons will have the water required for
the upper stories of their houses pumped up by means of their own force pumps,
we charge nothing for the water so used ; I make this observation, because when
persons say that they are increased a hundred or two hundred per cent upon their
old rate, they do not consider that a part of the charge is for high service, and
from which they can relieve themselves, if they do not require the Company to
pump a portion of their supply to the upper parts of their houses,
And of the number of houses you do not supply above one-fifth with the high
service?—The number is 2,041 out of 7,809. -
What is the average of your bad debts, what per centage —I have averaged
them all at two and a half per cent. -
Does not that include empty houses?—Yes, empty houses and bad debts, but
I do not think that two and a half per cent will cover the loss.
Then there is no supply in those houses of course 2–There is sometimes a great
waste of water in empty houses; if a house is completely shut up we make no
charge.
#. you no means of cutting off the supply?—Not without opening the
ground and cutting off the pipe; it is impossible to take off the supply from one
house without taking the ferule off the leaden service pipe of the Company's iron
pipe; if there is a complaint of a want of supply to any one house, we know that
if the water is supplied to other houses, the cause of complaint must arise from
some defect in the pipe of that particular house; if the supply is deficient in all the
houses, then it is owing to some stoppage in our own pipes, a circumstance of very
rare occurrence. .e.
Is the New River Company the only Company that supplies water cheaper than
the Grand Junction Company ?—There was a general rise of the rates upon those
of 1810, but there is a different mode of charging the high service; their mode,
. . * -- - I believe,
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. az
I believe, is by taking half the ordinary rate; we make a distinction, according
to the height to which the water is forced, and I believe the West Middlesex do
the same. * , - - •.
Are there any instances in which payment has been refused, and the water has
been consequently withdrawn?—There are a few instances; there is a house in
Albemarle-street which was taken off in 1821, in consequence of the inhabitant
refusing to pay the increased rate; he has a pump on his premises, and does not
require our supply. With regard to the price of water, I have before observed,
that we get less for our water than the other Companies. The supply required in
our district is very great, there being so many coach-houses and stables and large
establishments. It may appear upon the evidence that we get six per cent; we
certainly do not get that on our capital; we do not get five per cent on the capital
that has been expended for the establishment of the undertaking.
You get six per cent upon a 50 l. share –Yes, but that arises in a great measure
from our arrangements with the Canal Companies; a certain sum of money has
been expended by them for land, and works transferred to us, the cost of which
does not form a part of the capital raised by us, but of which the public have the
benefit. - -
That did not come out of your pocket?—True, but any persons establishing a
work of the kind would have to expend the same amount in the construction of
the works, as has been expended by us and the Canal Companies.
You get six per cent upon your capital?—-Yes.
Then the seven pounds was given as a bonus which was from your savings? --Yes.
You have added 7 l. to each 50 l. share 2–Yes. --
The individual paid nothing for it?—Not for the 7 l.
Mr.
W. M. Coe.
\ J
~~
14 July 1828.
Therefore the person who paid 100 l. has 1141. Stock, on which he receives six
per cent?—Six per cent on a part, and four per cent on another part.
He receives four per cent on the 14!. and six per cent on the rest?—Yes.
Why does he receive only four per cent on the 141.7–Because we have not
sufficient surplus, after paying our current annual expenses, to pay six per cent
upon that also as well as the rest; the loss of interest for the time we were without
any dividend, it will be observed, is much more than the amount laid out by the
Regent's Canal and the Grand Junction Canal Companies.
Mr. William Tierney Clark, called in; and Examined.
YOU are Engineer to the West Middlesex Water Works Company?—I am.
From what part of the Thames do the West Middlesex Company at present
take their supply of water?—Between Hammersmith and Chiswick.
Above the Mall at Hammersmith !—Considerably above the Lower Mall at
Hammersmith, about nine miles from London Bridge,
Have not your Company lately purchased a large tract of ground at Barnes
Elms?—We have purchased some property there.
To what extent 7–There is altogether between four and five hundred acres.
For what purpose do you propose adapting it?—To place the Company in that
situation, that, should they be compelled by Parliament to take their water from
other sources than at present, they should have the means of so doing.
That is on the south side of the river?—Yes. -
Where do you propose to take that water up?—We propose taking it up as near
Barnes Terrace as we can, or higher, if found necessary; but I have no doubt,
if taken at Barnes, it will answer all the purposes required. -
How many miles does the tide rise above the place where you propose taking
in that water?—The tide flows up to Teddington; the distance from that to Ted-
dington I do not exactly know ; I should think six or seven miles, but I am not
certain without reference to the map.
If you take your water from that part of the Thames, will you not be subject
to taking in the same impurities that are now complained of; would not the flow
of tide take them up?–No, I think none of the impurities will go so high.
Can you speak to the extent of that?—No, I cannot, for we never had any
complaint made of the quality of our water, and it was not necessary therefore that
we should go into those experiments.
Are not there gas works at Brentford —Yes, but the impurities from the gas
works do not go into the river; they evaporate the whole of the residuum, and I
believe that is generally the case with the gas companies. I believe it has been
567. HD 2 ascertained
Mr.
W. Tierney Clark.
‘--~
28 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
W. Tierney Clark.
\ . J
Mr.
—J.-
14 July 1828.
William Clay,
\–
Esq.
~~
ascertained by Dr. Bostock, that the water taken at Hammersmith is as good as
that taken at Teddington. - -
Would you be enabled, from reservoirs, or your great tanks at Barnes, to supply
both the Grand Junction and the West Middlesex 7–I look upon it we should
have the power of supplying the Grand Junction, the Chelsea and ourselves;
that we could supply the whole from the capability we have, with some additions;
we have two 70 horse engines, and one of 105 horse power.
At what time do you take up your water from the river?—We take it up at all
hours.' -
At what time would you take it out of the bed of the river ?–Probably at half
or quarter ebb ; but we should so construct our works as to take it in at any state of
the tide; we should take at that state which we should find to be the best.
At what period of the tide was the water taken up which Dr. Bostock declares
to be the purest of all?—I do not know, for it was not taken by me.
You propose taking it up still higher than you do at present?—Yes; that is our
intention, provided the Parliament or the public require it.
Could you take it up much higher, and effect the same object you have of its
flowing into the reservoir at Barnes!—Yes; we could take it up as high as Rich-
mond if it was felt to be desirable; we could even go further up, but I think it
would be an useless expense to go higher than Barnes. I think Dr. Bostock's
evidence is quite conclusive upon that point. •
William Clay, Esq. called in; and Examined.
YOU are Chairman of the Grand Junction Water Works Company ?—I am.
You expressed a wish to state some circumstances to the Committee; have the
goodness to inform them what they are 4–The first point to which I wish to call
the attention of the Committee is the bill of 1826; I am anxious to place on record
the circumstances connected with the application for that bill on the part of the
Water Company. I will first state the reason for which that bill was applied for, as
I believe that a very general impression has been created, that the real object of
that bill, under whatever title disguised, was to procure a clause enabling us to
increase our rates; the motive of the Company's application to Parliament is con-
tained in this opinion of counsel which was taken in the year 1824, by which it will
appear, that from the inaccuracy with which the various Acts by which the Company
derives its powers had been framed, many points of vital importance to the Com-
pany were left in complete uncertainty. It seemed doubtful, whether we had
a legal title to our land at Paddington; we were a Company by one Act for fifty
years, and we were a Company by another Act in perpetuity ; we could accept
a conveyance of land from the Regent's Canal Company, whilst we could not
accept a conveyance from the Grand Junction Canal Company, with sundry other
disabilities and doubts as to the meaning of parliamentary enactments, with which
I need not trouble the Committee. Mr. Serjeant Bosanquet and Mr. Richmond,
after expressing their opinion upon the various points submitted to them, conclude
by saying, “We are decidedly of opinion, that a new Act of Parliament should
“ be applied for, with a view to putting the existing relation and purposes of the
“Company on an intelligible and definite footing.” Upon this opinion an Act was
applied for in the session of 1825, it was first applied for through the House of
Lords; that the necessary preparations were not completed until late in the session;
it was taken in an estate bill, the Company being advised that it was necessary to
do so. After an expense of two or three hundred pounds, we found that as it re-
enacted the clauses of former Acts of Parliament, as to laying pipes, levying rates,
and so forth, it must begin in the Commons. t
Was the clause empowering you to take a per-centage for the water equal to the
rent paid in the bill brought in in the year 1825 –It was not.
Was it in the bill brought in by you in the year 1826?—It was not.
Why was the clause introduced, and by whom 7–It was introduced by the
express desire and direction of the chairman of the Committees of the House of
Lords. - -
[The Witness delivered in the following Letter, which was read.]
Sir, - Morden Lodge, July 1828.
Mr. Coe informs me that my attendance was required on Friday last at the Committee of
the House of Commons, on the supply of Water to the Metropolis, for the purpose of being
examined relative to the clause in the Grand Junction Water Works Act of 1826, limiting
the
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 29
the rates of that Company. I was the parliamentary agent concerned for that Act, and
well remember, that the said clause was added to the bill in the Committee of the House of
Commons, by the express direction of the chairman of Committees in the House of Lords.
I am sorry I was prevented stating this fact personally to the Committee, being detained
here in consequence of a fall from my horse.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your most obedient humble servant,
Rd. Jones.
P. S.—A similar clause will be found in the Manchester $.
and Stockport Acts, which passed four or five
years ago.
William Clay, Esq.
I have also brought with me the bill as it originated with us, the printed bill both
of 1825 and 1826, and I have also with me the Votes of the House of Commons,
from which the Committee will perceive it is always named as the Grand Junction
Water Works Bill. The notice required to be put up on the door of the sessions
house were given in the previous autumn, agreeably to the Standing Orders of the
House; we were anxious to secure getting through Parliament during the session;
we were in the House as early as we could be, and it occupied the whole session,
for there were some intricate negociations with the Regent's Canal Company, the
Grand Junction Canal Company, and the Trustees of the Bishop's Estate at Pad-
dington; it was three months in the House of Commons, and was always described
in the Votes of the House as the Grand Junction Water Works Bill.
What was the title of the first Bill?—“A Bill to amend an Act of his late
Majesty's reign, for confirming certain Articles of Agreement between the Com-
pany of Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal and certain Persons, for supplying
with Water the Inhabitants of Paddington, and Places adjacent, in the county of
Middlesex; and also an Act of his late Majesty's reign, to amend certain Acts
relating to the Grand Junction Canal, the Grand Junction Water Works, and the
Regent's Canal, in order to effect an exchange of Water for the better supply of
the Regent's Canal Navigation, and the Grand Junction Water Works, and for
altering the Powers vested in the Grand Junction Water Works Company, and
for other purposes relating thereto;” I believe that is precisely the same as the
first Act obtained by the Company. I wish most distinctly to state, that our
objects in going in were solely of a private nature, and that the instructions
(I speak as Chairman of the Company with a perfect knowledge of this
fact) of the Court of Directors of the Grand Junction Water Works Com-
pany were to our Secretary, to our Solicitor, Mr. Kinderley, of the house of
Graham, Kinderley and Domville, and to Mr. Richmond, the Barrister, by whom
the bill was drawn, to avoid every thing which could be construed into a new
power, as affecting the public. They were told, “This Act is only to rectify
“ errors which must be rectified, or we cease to be a Company, but insert no
“ clause at which any person can take umbrage, take no new powers as affecting
“ the public.” I wish to state this in the most unreserved way, and am ready
to answer every question suggested by such statement on my part.
Would any inconvenience result to you from repealing that clause?—Not the
least in the world, as in the first instance we did not desire its insertion; we should
have no objection to its repeal.
It has never been acted upon 7–Never; we should never have acted with that
clause in the Act otherwise than we should have acted without; we have ex-
pended without any return very large sums in what (it may be from an error in
judgment) we supposed would produce an improvement to our supply; if how-
ever we had gone on to expend much larger sums upon our works, we might,
when prepared to deliver filtered water taken from Barnes, or other places, have
sent round amongst our tenants a statement of the sums we had laid out, and put
it to them, whether a small increase would not be reasonable; but I beg leave to
say, we should have done that equally either with or without that clause ; in fact,
it is viewed by the Company as a perfectly dead letter; it is objectionable in
several ways; in the first place, it proposes a scale according to rents, which
would be a very inadequate criterion of the remuneration to which the Company
are entitled for water supplied, for there are many houses of tradesmen, for instance,
which are highly rented on account of their situation, but which take much less
water than private houses of smaller rent, because not situated in public thorough-
fares. We should object, and I think the other Water Companies would object to a
567. D 3 clause
William Clay,
Esq.
14 July 1828.
30 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
William Clay,
Esq.
\–—’
14. July 1828.
clause tying us down to our present rates, for this reason: The present rates may
be a fair remuneration for the quantity of water supplied, but we find that the use
of water never goes back; in amount, there is four times the quantity of water
supplied to our district which there used to be before 1810; the enjoyments required
by the community in this respect are always progressive ; then to say, that we are
to be fixed for ever upon a scale which does not now pay five per cent upon the
money laid out, without a corresponding limitation of the quantity to be supplied,
would we conceive be unjust, and such a limitation would be highly inexpedient;
we have no wish however for that clause, and I wish it had never been put in.
What were the reasons given for forcing that clause upon you?—I had not the
honour of an interview with Lord Shaftesbury, but I understand that he thought
no Company should be unlimited; but that he stated at the same time, that he did
not wish to tie the Companies too closely down; but I am myself most distinctly
of opinion, that the dread of public disapprobation, and the certainty of compe-
tition, will hold over every Company as it always has over ours, a sufficient check;
if the honourable members were present at any of our Courts, and were to hear
how anxious we are to avoid giving any offence, and how slowly and reluctantly
we avail ourselves of our legal powers to enforce payment of our just demands,
of demands not even disputed on the score of price, they would see that there is
no cause to fear.
When you speak of competition, what do you refer to under the present
system 7–Only that if we were to raise our rates to make it worth while for
another Company to start, we are sure that one would start immediately; and on
the subject of competition I would beg to say, in answer to an observation that
fell from an honourable Member of the Committee, that the supply must be made
from one particular Company. That competition cannot be applied in any other
mode. If by way of illustration, a district containing ten thousand houses is
supplied by a Company with a capital of 500,000 l., perfectly adequate to that
supply, the only mode by which constant competition can exist in that district is
to establish another Company, with a capital of 500,000 l., with pipes laid down
and able to afford a similar supply; then there is a perfect competition, and the
inhabitants may shift from one to the other, but then there will be a capital of a
million instead of 500,000 l. for the supply of the district, in which it must be
remembered, that the number of consumers cannot be increased ; and can it be
supposed for a moment, that any legislative interference can make these Com-
panies go on for ever, only taking each of them two and a half per cent, or one
per cent or none, for that would probably be the case, their capital when by
coalition they would be quite sure they could get some return upon their capital.
The loss therefore incurred by this double expenditure of capital would fall ulti-
mately upon the public, as upon a division of the district each Company must
double the rates to obtain the same return as the one Company originally enjoyed.
Competition is, in my opinion, perfectly impossible to be applied in perpetuity,
the supply of a city by Water Companies, further than as I have already stated.
Reasoning upon these very same grounds, do you really believe there is any
consideration of the danger of your being supplanted by another Company, which
can operate as a principle of competition ?–It operates in this way, that if the
rates were raised, if for instance, instead of the Companies getting their present
return, it would be made clear that they were getting ten or fifteen per cent, the
scenes of 1810 would be acted over and over again, and new Companies would
infallibly come into competition. -
Do you think it was the great profits arising from the New River Company that
induced the other Companies to start?—I believe there was a misconception upon
the subject, but that belief had got abroad from the enormous rise in the price
of third shares.
What could raise the price of their shares but their profits 7–They have other
property, and additional capital has from time to time been expended on their
works. In the case of the Gas Companies, the Legislature has recognized the
principle of a division of districts; the same principle would apply for the same
reason to Water Companies.
You are aware that there is a distinct competition against gas ; there are both
oil and candles?—There are both pump and rain water in competition with our
Supply. - .
What criterion do you take for the assessment of the rates ?—We have never
- - varied
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 31
varied in a single instance from the first rise which was stated to the Committee in
1821. -
By what rule were your rates originally assessed ?–The road had been pointed
out by the old Companies, and the new Companies adopted the same principle.
What was the principle? You have stated, that the rent is not a fair criterion;
what is 7–There is a large portion of the district with a certain increase in the
rates charged in 1810; then supposing, as is constantly happening, there is a new
house or a new line of street, or if there is a better house raised on the site of
an old one, the Company have always to refer to the proportion to the district
that is already supplied, so that the district they already supply forms the basis
of the calculation for the new part. & - 3.
You have already stated, that the amount of rent paid is not the true criterion of
the consumption of water, or the rate to be levied in consequence, as between
house and house; how is the rate apportioned, supposing a street with an hundred
houses in it built, in which the houses were subject to very different amounts of
rent, and of which the tenants consumed a very different quantity of water, what
rule would you take?—What we already supply forms the basis of the calculation
for the new houses. - ~ *
Have you any means of ascertaining the quantity of water each house uses?—
No, except by looking at the size of the cisterns; but a person may use a cistern
out, or he may not; there were certain rates charged by the old Company, upon
which the gross increase of rates was made, therefore we have nothing to do with
the principle upon which that stands.
Your principle has been twenty-five per cent upon the rate whatever it was:
—Yes. *
You do not know what the old principle was 7–No; upon the old district we
do not know on what principle they rated, we only advanced a certain sum. On
any new line of street we have the basis of calculation in the district we now
Sel'Ve. - - - - -
Do you charge for the quantity of water supplied ?–We should send our
secretary and engineer to look at the houses, to judge of the quantity to be
probably supplied, and rate them accordingly. -
Supposing that one house took twice as much more as another, you would not
rate them alike 3–No, we endeavour to rate them according to the quantity of
water they require. -
The quantity of water cannot be a regulation for you in every instance, one
person is only six months in town, whereas his next door neighbour is in town
with his establishment the whole year !—Yes, but each may use it during the
whole year; we cannot enter into the quantity that each does use in particular
seasons of the year. With reference to the Tide Tables which have been pro-
duced, they were formed by our Company. Instructions were given to form them,
from the belief that a great deal of misconception prevailed as to the height to
* * ... e. g gº †e ©s S -
which the impurities of London rise; a great deal of impurity is found at Ted-
dington; it does not follow that it has come up from London; the results are
curious and interesting, they bear upon the present inquiry; those Tables, with
the permission of the Committee, I will direct to be copied, and sent in. *
Upon what principle were the Tables formed, by analysis of the water 2–No,
by actual experiment; the analysis of Doctor Bostock is, an analysis of the water
taken at particular parts of the river; if the object of the Committee is, that water
should be taken above the influence of the London and Westminster drainage, our
experiments go to that precise point up to the West Middlesex Works; not one
drop of water that has ever been as low down the Thames as Vauxhall Bridge,
ever returns; it is true, that the river Thames receives the drainage of London,
and it is also true, that the river Thames flows by Hammersmith; but it is not the
same Thames; not one drop of water that has been ever so low as Vauxhall Bridge,
returns back to the point from which the West Middlesex Water Company take
their supply at Hammersmith.
Will the Paper you propose sending to the Committee, prove that fact?—Yes,
certainly, beyond a possibility of doubt.
Did you take the analysis of water at each of the points of the flow of the tide?
—We had an analysis made before the Commission sat, at various points, by
Dr. Pearson and Mr. Phillips; but we had not an analysis made as connected with
those experiments; but the point I take to be certain is, that the water at Barnes
is the pure current of the Thames, an identical with the water that flows by
567, * & D 4 - Teddington,
William Clay,
Esq.
~~
14 July 1828.
32 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
William Clay,
Esq.
\
~~ ~~
14 July 1828.
_J
Teddington, except inasmuch as it receives the drainage of the intervening
villages. &
Do you mean to say, that at all times of the tide the water that returns is the
same as at Teddington 2–No, I do not mean to say that precisely, for this
reason; that though the water which has been so low as Vauxhall Bridge never
reaches Hammersmith, the water that has been at Putney does. Therefore, speak-
ing theoretically, it is not quite so pure as at Teddington; because it has received
the drainage of the village of Putney; but as to all practical purposes for any
thing that can be discovered by taste, by sight, by smell or by chemical analysis,
the water at Barnes is identical with the water at Teddington; there is this to be
taken into the account, the pollution of the river at London is very materially
caused by the Water Companies themselves; it is in London alone that a great
volume of water is daily poured through every house, and falls by means of the
sewers into the Thames, sweeping with it those impurities which formerly were
otherwise disposed of; if you get to a point to which the drainage of London
never reaches, the drainage of the villages where there are no Water Companies,
amounts to nothing.
Is there anything else you wish to state 2—It has been asked, whether we mean
to take our water from Barnes. I am anxious to state the reasons which have
induced us to contemplate so doing; we have been for several years going on with
experiments for the improvement of the supply, feeling that our duty to the public
coincided with our own interest in making our supply unexceptionably good ; on
that principle we have acted throughout our own plan, as having ascertained the
facts I have alluded to, respecting the tides in the Thames, to have taken our own
supply at Chelsea, at such a period of ebb as to have allowed the whole of the
drainage water of London to have flowed back past our Works; and for that we
should have had ample time, as those Tables will show ; but when we found that
the West Middlesex offered us very great facilities for taking our supply from the
neighbourhood of Barnes, we felt that although by taking it higher up, we might
not in reality have better water than we could take during the ebb at Chelsea, yet
that the public would probably be better satisfied of its purity, and that we owed
great deference to the public feeling upon this point, and we therefore determined
to close with the offer of the West Middlesex Company, and henceforward derive
our supply from Barnes. In taking it from Barnes, we feel that we ought to be
completely above any suspicion that our supply is mixed with one drop of the
London drainage; I have nothing to add, but that the Company wish most anx-
iously to give the fullest information on every point connected with their supply,
or the rates they charge. Violent attacks have been made upon the Company in
publications widely disseminated, and serious charges brought forward against
them in petitions to both Houses of Parliament; and I call upon the parties by
whom those attacks have been made, and those charges brought forward, to sub-
- stantiate their allegations by proof; we are now before a tribunal where the truth
must be elicited; we are ready to meet them, and to answer every accusation which
has been brought against the Company. f
Improvements have been made 7–Yes, they were began two years before the
attacks were made upon the Company. -
From an opinion that the present supply ought not to satisfy the public P-Yes,
we thought it was susceptible of improvement, and we ourselves commenced it,
and should have gone on until we had done every thing which we considered
necessary.
But the Dolphin was not removed until after the Report from the Commissioners?
—It is not removed now ; I do most heartily wish, that every person who said
before the Commission that they had bad water, would come down with a bottle
of the water now supplied, taken under their own inspection and that of an officer
of the Company, for I am quite sure that the Committee would be surprized at the
appearance of it.
That would not show that the water was not at the time of the Commission in
the state you speak of 7–It is precisely now in the state in which it was then.
How do you account for this, in the case of a Member of the Committee
who was supplied for twelve years by the New River Company, that the large
cistern at the top of the kitchen was cleaned out but twice in that time, and
that since he has been supplied by the Grand Junction Company, it has been cleared
found a constant necessity for cleaning out cisterns; it was with that very object
out two or three times a year?—Until the system of reservoirs was adopted, we
We
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 33.
we made reservoirs; but I have been told, that the deposit of the New River water
for a very long space of time (a hundred years) was taking the proportion accord-
ing to the period during which they had respectively been forming, very similar in
quantity to that found in our reservoirs at Paddington.
You have stated incidentally, that the profits of the Grand Junction Company
do not amount to five per cent, whereas the secretary stated, that it is was six per
cent upon the shares?—That discrepancy arises in this way; the answer of the
secretary was on the amount of shares upon the sum paid by the shareholders of
the Company; my answer was upon the amount actually laid out on the works; but
there were sums laid out on the works that were not advanced by the shareholders,
because, in consequence of certain negociations and arrangements with the two
canal Companies, sums of money were expended by them for the Grand Junction
Company, therefore it is that the proprietors of the Grand Junction Water Works
Company receive a greater interest on the outlay. -
You do not mean that the proprietors of the Grand Junction Water Company
do not receive more than six per cent?–No, on the contrary, I think they receive
rather more on the money they have advanced. -
They receive six per cent upon the original 50 l. shares, and a bonus of 7 l. added,
on which they receive four per cent?–Yes, but when it is stated, that the share-
holders of the Grand Junction Water Works Company derive six or seven per cent,
the number of years should also be mentioned during which they were without any
interest whatever. In any great work, the interest of money for the time durin
which the parties undertaking it might remain without any return, is a fair addition
to the capital laid out. In the St. Katherine's Docks, the last great work under-
taken by a joint stock Company, it is so calculated, that a certain interest upon the
shares of that Company has been deducted from the capital which has been raised;
if an interest account were made out, it would appear upon that calculation our
shareholders do not receive five per cent upon their outlay, and our Company
is the brilliant star of Water Companies in point of profit; it makes the best return
of any of them. .
Mr. William Anderson, called in; and Examined.
AT what time did you, as engineer to the Grand Junction Water Company, re-
ceive instructions from your employers to make a new reservoir 7–I received in-
structions in the early part of 1825.
How soon after you received those instructions did you proceed to carry them
into execution ?—The works were commenced in May 1825.
When was that new reservoir completed 7–It was completed in the summer of
1826. .
At what time did you then begin to deliver water from it to your customers?–It
became necessary, in order to make use of the reservoir, that a new line of pipes
should be laid to supply that reservoir, the consequence of which was, that before
the pipes could be cast that were ordered in 1826, and the prohibition by Act of
Parliament of laying any pipes later than December, the pipes were not completed
to supply that reservoir until the 25th May 1827, and the difficulty of receiving
the pipes in time, and being prevented by the Metropolis Paving Act laying any
pipes between December and March, we were not enabled to complete the works
so as to give all our supply from the reservoirs, until the 25th May 1827.
What first suggested to you the idea of making those reservoirs?—The impurity
of the water. - . - - *
Had you had any complaints 7–Yes, there were complaints. .
(Mr. Clay.) If the Thames water is taken as high as Teddington it would be
excessively thick; in the winter every Company should have some means of
filtration or deposit. -
(To Mr. Anderson.) Is not the water at Teddington, particularly in high floods,
in a very foul state 2–From the information I received from some fishermen at
Teddington, it is in a very foul state. .
- Mr. William James, called in ; and Examined.
WHAT are you ?—I am a filtering machine-maker.
Where do you live ––At Nº. 33, Knightsbridge.
What means have you of knowing any thing of the state of the water at Ted-
dington –I have been in the habit of trying experiments with the Thames water
for twenty years, and for about nine or ten years I was very much puzzled to
567. E. discover,
William Clay,
Esq.
\— —’
14 July 1828,
Mr.
lſ'illiam Anderson.
\ ~/
~-
Mr,
William James.
\–
_/
34 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
Mr.
William James.
\––’
14 July 1828.
Mr.
IV. M. Coe.
\-——
discover, why the water was so much worse at one part of the year than at other
times; I at length discovered, that the times it was so very bad were the times
of floods when the land water comes down the country; and I went as high as
Richmond, to ascertain those facts at times of floods, and found the water which
I took near Richmond Bridge to be worse than that taken up at Chelsea on the
same days.
Was the water then much thicker 7—Thicker, and it would not settle; it would
remain for about three weeks, and would not deposit the sediment, whereas the
water taken up at London, when the land-water does not mix with it, will settle
in about twelve hours to be tolerably clear.
Have you tried any of the water lower down than Chelsea with your filtering
machines 3–The water taken up by the different Companies I am in the constant
habit of filtering; I have not had it taken myself from the Thames at any par-
ticular point.
Have you since the establishment of gas-works discovered more impurity in the
water, or that there was a greater residuum, or of a different kind, from what you
had prior to the establishment of the gas works —None whatever. For the last
twenty years I have been continually trying experiments as regards filtration, and
I do not find the least difference in the water; generally speaking, the difference
is at different seasons of the year; there is a very great difference in that
respect.
Are you in the habit of examining carefully the residuum left in the filtering
machines 7–No, not chemically.
After filtration, do you observe any difference in the water taken from Ted-
dington and different places between Teddington and London Bridge —None
whatever.
It appears to be the same water after filtration taken from any part of the
river ?—Yes.
What kind of sediment is it, of what description?—I have never had it
analyzed.
What substances do you find 7–It appears nearly like mud.
Mercurii, 16” die Julii, 1828.
Mr. William M. Coe, again called in ; and Examined.
WHEN you were last examined you stated, that the increase of the rates on the
average, did not exceed twenty-five per cent beyond the rates paid in 1810?
—I did.
Do you take that from having in your possession the rates paid by the tenants
to the former Companies, and do you mean that their gross receipts in 1810 are
not exceeded by you more than twenty-five per cent in 1828?—Yes, the rates
are as they were in 1821. A vast number of houses have been taken down in our
district and rebuilt. We can produce the rates in 1810, and the charge made
upon them in 1818, when the increase took place, and we say no increase has
taken place upon those rates since. !
Could you furnish the Committee with an account of the income in detail
received, when you took charge of the district you have now 7–Yes, I think
I could.
Then you mean to say you lessened the rates in many instances?—Yes. .
Did you lessen the rates in more instances than you increased them 4–I cannot
undertake to say that we lessened them in more instances than we increased
them; but we could have no motive for charging one person more than we con-
sidered a fair price for his house, when our intention was to increase the rates
only twenty-five per cent upon the whole.
[The Witness delivered in the following Paper, which was read:]
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. ss

REDUCED RATP, Rare PRESENT W. *: Coe.
in consequence of - \ ~– J
Competition. in 1810. RATE.
* — “ - 16 July 1828.
Grafton Street: e £. s. d. £. s. d £. d
1. • º- -- 3 3 6 6. – 6 6 — 8 8 —
2. - - - || 2 2 8 – — 8 — — 6 6 --
3. - º tº- - * * 6 — — 1 2 - – 1 O IO –
4. - º * 2 2 6 — — 8 — — 8 8 -
5. - º rº- 3 3 5 5 - 6 — — 7 7 —
6. - - - || - - - 6 — — 7 – — 9 9 –
7. - * º 2 2 5 – — 7 — — 8 8 –
8. -> º º * º tags 5 *- — 5 * *g 7 7 *
9. | - ... ºs <--> * * : *s 5 – — 4 - 4 - 7 7 —
10. Holmes - - - - 5 – — 5 - - 7 7 —
I 1. • tº , gº - - º 4. - — 5 – — 7 7 —
12. - wº tº - - - 4 – ~ 5 - - 2 2 Orme.
13. - - - 3 3 4 - - 5 - - 7 7 –
14. - tº º * * * 4 - - 5* -- — 6 6 -.
15. º º º wº * wº 2 * * 2 IO *ssº 3 3 sº
16. - = - 3. – — 3 : — – 6 t 6 tºp
17. - es - 2 8 -- 6 - - 4 4 -
18. - gº * . 3 3 5 5 — 5 – — 5 5 -
19. - * * - - - 4 - - 6 — — 5 5 -
2 (). wº * mº 3 3 4 - — 5 – ~ 5 5 -
2 I . . - º º *- º Eºs 4. *- * 5 • -*s 5 5 *s
22. - - - 2 2 4 - - .5 — — 5 § –
23. - - - 2 2 4. – — 5 - — 5 5 -
24. - - - ) - - - 4 - — 5 – — 6 6 –
4) 136 – — 16o 13 —
25 per Cent 34 - -
£. 170 - -
IT will be observed, that 25 per cent on the rate of 1810 would produce 17ol, ; whereas the rates
charged by the Company in this street amount only to 16ol. 13s. - - -
Veneris, 18 die Julii, 1828.
[ The Chairman delivered in the following Letters from Mr. Telford, Mr. Chapman 18 July 1828
- and Mr. Rennie, and the same were read:] º \- y 1828. J
~~
- Baronet, Chairman. + -
'Sir, Chester, 13th July 1828.
ON my arrival here this day day from Scotland, I have found your note, as Chairman of
a Committee of the House of Commons, dated the 7th instant. . In reply I beg leave to
state it as my opinion, that the navigation of the river Thames would be materially affected
by abstracting the whole of the water, excepting lockage water, by a dam at Richmond
bridge; but am of opinion, that as much water as is now supplied from the river by the
several water companies, may be taken off at or near the same place without sensibly affecting
the navigation.
LETTERS from Mr. Telford, Mr. Chapman, and Mr. Rennie, to Sir Francis Burdett,
- I have the honour to remain, Sir,
| Sir Francis Burdett, Bart. Your very humble servant,
Chairman of the Water Committee. - Tho. Telford. .
2
567. * * * * * E
36 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
18 July 1828. Sir, H - - Chester, 13th July 1828.
IN reply to your separate note, I beg leave to state, that I consider Mr. Mills a very
proper person to take levels and delineate the course of any line or watercourse which may
be found necessary; but whether the line he has proposed is the most advisable, or whether
any preferable can be devised, I cannot take upon myself to say, unless I am authorized to
examine the country through which the various modes (which have been proposed) would
pass, and had trial levels taken, both as regards them, and also some ideas which have
occurred to me.
The subject is too complicated and important to be hastily decided upon. .
I have the honour to remain, Sir,
Sir Francis Burdett, Bart. Your very humble servant,
Chairman of the Water Cnmmittee, Tho. Telford.
Sir, - -
I HAVE received from you, as Chairman of the Select Committee (of the House of
Commons) on the supply of Water for the Metropolis, their order to lay before them an
Answer to the following Question, viz.
“Supposing the whole of the water of the Thames, except what is necessary for
“ lockage, to be abstracted by a dam at Richmond Bridge, would the navigation below
“ the bridge, either in regard to the depth of water, or the number of hours during
“ which the navigation would remain open, be materially affected ?”
In obedience to this order I have the honour to transmit the following answer, in
which my opinion is decisive, because I conceive it capable of being supported by
incontrovertible facts, and by principles that are self evident. -
All rivers have the magnitude of their beds commensurate with the quantity and velocity
of water passing down them in a given time; therefore, “if by a dam at Richmond Bridge,
“ the whole of the water of the Thames were abstracted, except what was necessary for
“ lockage,” the section of the bed of the river would be diminished both in width and depth
of water, the latter more particularly, and consequently the number of hours in which the
navigation would remain open would also be affected. -
The New River supplies a large portion of the water requisite for the city of London, and
any further quantity for that purpose, abstracted from the Thames beyond the utmost flow of
the tide, would, on such a river as the Thames, have only a trivial effect, not equivalent to
the advantages derivable from it.
The objection lies to the obstruction of the flow of the tide, although it should only take
place in high tides; because navigable channels are cleared out by such tides combined with land
water. The truth of this assertion may be verified in various instances, and is completely
so on the river Medway, where with a design to improve the navigation, a lock and dam
ºf across the river were constructed below the flow of spring tides, with a view to enable the
barges to navigate in all tides: the result was, that below the dam, the channelgrew shoaler;
and the same motive induced the erection of a second dam with similar effect, not only
there, but more or less throughout the course of the river downwards.
A similar cause would produce a like effect on the Thames.
What height high spring tides rise at Richmond Bridge, above low water, I have no
document at hand to inform me, but I will assume it to be 2 feet, and that it flows 24 miles
higher; consequently the efflux of a mass of water 2% miles in length, of the width of the
river Thames, and of one foot depth, would be prevented from passing down the river on
every such tide; and be abstracted from the motive force of keeping open a deep channel.
The query extends to the abstracting of the whole water of the river Thames; the effect of
which, wherever the dam might be, would obviously be the reduction of the capacity of the
channel, because tidal water, when unaided by that of the land, must through any given
section of the river pass in similar quantities both ways, and generally with similar velocities,
therefore, by its own alluvion, it necessarily shortens and contracts its channel. As the
abstraction of the whole of the river can only be an assumption, I shall reason from a large
portion of its water flowing down, in which case it diminishes the velocity of the rising tide,
and accelerates that of the ebb, therefore the latter is enabled to maintain a channel, and it
does this in a greater ratio than the simple disparity of the quantities of water each way,
because an increased volume of water passing down any given form and declivity of channel,
meets with less retardation from its friction over the bottom and sides of its bed, from their
linear extent, bearing a reduced proportion to the vertical section of the passing stream.
The piers and sterlings of the old bridge at London, penn'd up the water more than
six feet at low tide; and at high water reduced the flow above bridge the height of two feet,
which, in a Report on the structure of London Bridge, I estimated to amount, in every high
tide, to the obstruction of the flux and reflux of 200,000,000 of cubic feet of water; therefore
when these piers and sterlings are wholly removed, as they shortly must be, the increased
volume of water passing up and down the river, will enlarge and deepen the channel of the
Thames, in a certain degree, from its mouth to the extent of its flow ; and the increase of
depth, up to its present extent, will give greater fall and velocity to land floods, which
consequently will deepen the channel still further up the river, and of course increase the extent
of the flow of the tide; the obvious inference from which is, that no dam should be constructed
across the Thames even so low as Teddington.
Newcastle, July 10th, 1828. William Chapman.
Sir Francis Burdett, Bart. Chairman of the Select Committee
on the Supply of Water to the Metropolis.
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 3;
Sir, * - - London, 17th July 1828.
IN consequence of an Order from the Select Committee of the House of Commons, on
the Supply of Water to the Metropolis, which has been transmitted to me, requiring an
answer to the following question; -
“Supposing the whole of the water of the Thames, except what is necessary for
“ lockage, to be abstracted by a dam at Richmond Bridge, would the navigation below
“ the bridge, either in regard to the depth of water, or the number of hours during which
& 6 . ºtion would remain open, between high and low water, be materially
“ affected 7”
I beg to observe, that the tendency of such a measure as constructing a dam at Richmond
Bridge, and thus preventing the free flux and reflux of the tide, and abstracting the greater
portion of the water from its present channel, and by which it is kept open, would be to
injure that channel, and consequently materially to affect the navigation below, but to what
extent I am not prepared to state without the necessary documents.
, I beg to apologize that absence from London has prevented me from sending an earlier
reply. •
I am, Sir, your most humble servant,
* Sir Francis Burdett, Bart. John Rennie.
Chairman of the Select Committee of the House of Commons,
- for the Supply of Water to the Metropolis,
&c. &c. &c.
wr-
Mr. William M. Coe, again called in ; and Examined.
WHAT was the gross income and expenditure of the Grand Junction Water
Company for the last year?—The gross amount of the water rates of the Company
for the half-year ending Lady-day 1828, was 12,053 l. 18. This sum being
doubled, and the amount to be received for street watering (596 l. 3's.) being
added thereto, will make the gross annual rental of the Company 24,702 l. 5 s.
The actual current expenses incurred, exclusive of law charges, in the year ending
31st of March 1828, was 10,0561. 17s. 4d.
Mr. James Gascoine Lynde, called in ; and Examined.
WHAT was the gross income of the Chelsea Water Company for the year
1827 ?–18,589 l. 16s. I d. --
What was the expenditure of the Company for the same period —The current
expense for the year was 12,532 l. 28, 9.d.; that is exclusive of what we are laying
out upon the filter-bed. - --- - -
... Does it include law charges?—Yes, but we had no law charges of any conse-
quence in that year. -
Do you pay any rent for the reservoirs you have in St. James's Park?—No, it
is a grant from the Crown, without any rent reserved.
Has your Company any plan for going to purer sources for your water?—
We are going to filter the water.
But you have no plan for going to purer sources for it!—No, not to my know-
ledge, at present.
Where do you take it from at present?—At Chelsea.
In the grant of those reservoirs, were not you bound in return for it to supply
St. James's Palace and Kensington Palace?—We were certainly bound to do so,
at such rates as the Lords of the Treasury shall think reasonable to appoint; and
we have done so, and we have received a reasonable compensation for so doing.
* Do you charge as much for supplying Kensington Palace and St. James's
Palace as you do any where else?--The rent charged for the supply of Kensington
Palace has been fixed and allowed by the Lords of the Treasury.
f
&
Mr. M. K. Knight, called in ; and Examined.
WHAT was the gross income of the West Middlesex Water Works Company
for the last year –I have not got the precise sum, but in round numbers it was
37,oool. ; a few hundreds more or less.
What was the expenditure for that year?—The current annual expenses were
13,000l., a few hundreds more or less; that is exclusive of capital for new
works.
567. & E 3
18 July 1828.
Mr
W. M. Coe.
\- –)
~f
Mr.
J. G. Lynde.
\- - 2
-Jº-
MP.
M. K. Knight.
J
38 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
Mr. Thomas Nelson Pickering, called in ; and Examined.
Mr. * CAN you state the gross income of the East London Water Works Company.
T. N. Pickering. for the last year?—It was 41,854 l. 13s. 2d.
S-----. What was the gross expenditure for the same year?—
18 July 1828. -
-
Permanent º º º º - A. 16,103 – 11
Non-permanent º - º º 30,275 5 4
4,46,378 6 3
Mr. John Wright, called in; and Examined.
Mr. DID you publish a pamphlet called The Dolphinº-I did.
John Wright. Are you concerned in any of the Water Companies?—No, none of them, in
in any respect. r -
Can you give the Committee any information, with respect to a mode of a better
supply of water 7—No, I cannot. - 1 gº - -
Mr. Joseph Nelthorpe, called in; and Examined.
Mr. YOU are Secretary to the Lambeth Water Works Company ?—I am.
Joseph Neºpe, will you state the gross income of the Company in the year 1827?–12,370 l.
S---— What was the gross expenditure for the same period?—About 9,500 l. -
Can you state what the gross income and expenditure were in 1820?—In 1820
the receipts were 9,335 l. and the expenses were 8,582 l. - l
LIST OF APPENDIX.
N” 1.—West Middlesex Waterworks:—Returns to Orders of the Select Committee on the Supply
of Water to the Metropolis, dated 4th July 1828 º gº - - -- p. 39
Nº. 2.-Grand Junction Waterworks:—Returns to Orders from the Committee, together with
Accounts, Experiments and Tables - as es • * * * * p. 42
N° 3.—Chelsea Waterworks:—Answers to Questions from the Committee, together with anº.
Explanatory Paper - * ºn - - - - - - - - p. 48
N° 4.—New River Company:—Answers to Questions from the Committee; together with Ac-
counts of the Company's Dividends; of the Houses and other Buildings supplied; Gross
Income and Dividends, and Gross Income and Expenditure - - - p. 50
N°5.—East London Waterworks:—Answers to Questions from the Committee; together with
Scale of Rates; Sums paid in Dividends; Gross Income of the Company, and Letter
from the Engineer to the Chairman - - - - - - - - p. 55
Nº. 6.—South London Waterworks:—Answers to Questions from the Committee; together with
Accounts of the Income of the Company; Number of their Tenants; Number and
Description of Shares; Hours worked and Coals consumed by the Engines; Gross
Proceeds and Expenditure * * * * * * * * * p. 60
N° 7.—Lambeth Waterworks:-Answers to Questions from the Committee; and Account showing
the Number and Description of Shares into which the Capital Joint Stock of the Com-
pany is divided - & sº ep cº • - up • º cº p. 64
N° 8.—Southwark Waterworks:—Answers to Questions from the Committee - gº p. 65
Nº 9–comparative RETURNS of 1820 with 1827;-vi.
1. West Middlesex. 5. New River.
2. Grand Junction. 6. South London.
3. Chelsea. r 7. Lambeth.
4, East London.
8. Southwark.
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 39
; : " .. , § 1 - * ----- : *- : . . . . . 4.- : * *
Appendix, N. 1. - - Appendix, N° 1.
* , , rTºp. - - West Middlesex
west MIDDLESEx water WORKS. - Water Works.
RETURNS to Orders of the Select Committee on the Supply of WATER to the --~~~~
Metropolis; dated 4th July 1828, .
Question 1.—WHEN was the Company established ?
Answer.—In 1806, by Act 46 Geo. 3. c. 119.
Question 2–How many applications have been subsequently made to Parliament, and
:what Acts have been obtained in consequence? -
" ; , Two : namely, 50 Geo. 3, c. 132, and 53 Geo.3, c. 36.
Question 3—What is the amount of capital employed, and how has it been invested?

The capital actually paid by the Proprietors of the West Mid-\} f. s. d.
dlesex Company, amounted in 1817. (Wide Appendix to º 340,566 69
port of Select Committee of 1821, p. 232), - - - to -
Capital raised in 1826, for an additional engine, mains, º 7,000 — e-
ºr . . . . . .”. . . .] 379
a
Money Capital - - - - £. 378,466 69
2. Simple interest, from 1807 to 31st March ‘. . .
1819 added, no dividends having been paid to
that year. (See Appendix to Report of 1821, [.
+ p. 232.) - - dº - - - - --.
. Simple interest on Capital of £.454,438,
from 1819 to 1828; the dividends' paid to 1O 1 6
Proprietors not amounting to 5 per cent un- 499 v
£. s. d.
113,872 6 —
}
}
Stil that year - - gº * # => gº - * 16878, 7 6
£. 542,248 143
*=-
Question 4-What sum has been actually expended to the present time, for engines,
reservoirs, and pipes 3 -
- About - - , -, - - - - - £.368,867 – --
And there remains due for the new works,
about tºº &_º ess - - § 5,700 - —
£.374,567 – –
Question 5—What dividends have been paid to the shareholders? -
From 1806 to 1819 gº • * dº - - Nil.
1819 - - - - - - - £. 1 15 – per share
1820 - gº - - - - – o – — –
- 2 " * * =sº
- 1821 - *º gº sº *º - - 2 — — ---
1822 - - - - - - - 2 5 – –
1823 - sº dº gº dº. - - , 2 lo – –
1824 – dº º º $º gº sº 2 1 O – *
1825 - ** - - – tºº, - 2 12 6 *
1826 - * sº tº * ſº 2 15 — ſº
1827 - - - - - - - 2 17 6 —
1828 - gº tºº. & º tº tº £º 3 - - *** *
Question
wº-
* This sum has been expended in Parliamentary and Law Charges; in the purchase of land, for
the construction of the works at Hammersmith, Kensington, and London; in the erection of
engine buildings and reservoirs; in the purchase of engines, machinery, and pipes; and in current
expenses, till sufficient water rental was obtained to cover them. - - -
t These amounts of interest, with the dividends, merely make common interest on the capital.
567. E 4
40 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE ON
Appendix, N° 1. Question 6.—The quantity in imperial gallons pumped per day, and to what height?
At this time, when there is an extra quantity required for watering streets, gar-
West Middlesex dens, &c. there are pumped about three millions imperial gallons per day, partly at
Water Works. the height of 122 feet above low-water mark at Hammersmith, and partly at the
\ ~~~ J higher level of 159 feet. *
Question 7.—The greatest quantity that the engines can pump?
The power of the West Middlesex Company’s engines is applied to raise the water
to its customers, at an extraordinary elevation and distance; the power of the
engines are thereby limited.
The two 70-horse engines, working 24 hours per day each, would deliver about
3% millions of imperial gallons of water into the Kensington basin, being an eleva-
tion of 122 feet above low water; but pumping into the Barrow, or Little Primrose-
Hill reservoir, (an elevation of 188 feet above low water,) they would deliver
13 million of imperial gallons per day. - - -
The 105 horse engine, working 24 hours per day, would deliver about 2% millions
of imperial gallons into the Kensington basin, being an elevation of about 122 feet
above low water; but pumping inro the Barrow-Hill basin, an elevation of 188 feet
above low water, it would deliver 13 million of imperial gallons per day.
It is proper to observe, that the greatest part of the district of the West Mid-
dlesex Company is supplied from the Kensington basin, and therefore much below
that level; and that the Barrow-Hill reservoir is above all the houses they supply;
and that an improved service, which the Company expect so accomplish when the
present works in progress are finished, will greatly augment the number of gallons
before stated. The Company have also to observe, that a small pump now attached
to the 105 horse engine, enables them to deliver water to a much greater elevation
* than the Barrow-Hill basin; and also, that at an average elevation of 60 feet, their
three engines would deliver 13 millions of imperial gallons; but, on the other hand,
out of 24 hours per day, some time should be allowed for repairs.
The West Middlesex Company here beg to add, that being aware of the advan-
tages which they possessed, from the local situation of their engines, (nine miles
above Blackfriars Bridge, and out of the reach of the reflux of the drainage from
the London sewers,) and also from having lately, at the cost of near 4,000 l. con-
siderably increased the power of their works, had, previous to the publication of the
Report of the Commissioners, prepared a plan for a very extensive supply of water
to the Metropolis; which plan embraced a two-fold object; viz.
First. That if the water of the West Middlesex Company, in its present state,
should be approved by the Commissioners, and the water derived from the imme-
diate neighbourhood of London be disapproved, the West Middlesex might
undertake to furnish several of the Companies, who derived their supply from the
objectionable source, with a sufficient quantity of water for the immediate supply
of their tenants. -
Secondly. That should the Commissioners be of opinion, and should Govern-
ment consequently recommend a supply to the public of bright and pure water at
all seasons of the year, (which river water, in its natural state, never can be,) the
West Middlesex Company might be enabled to give such a supply, at a much
less additional expense and in a much less time, than it could be furnished by any
existing Company, or by any new Company.
The West Middlesex Company therefore respectfully submit, that before any new
or expensive plan be adopted by the Committee, that their officers may be examined
with respect to their plan, as they are confident it will be found practically efficient
and speedy, in accordance with the works of the existing Companies, and much less
expensive to the Public.
That the supply now given by the West Middlesex Company is deemed satis-
factory by those who receive it, the Company beg to refer to the Evidence contained
in the Appendix to the Report of the Commissioners, p. 41, 42 & 43; and that the
water is bright, pure and salubrious, they refer to the Report of Dr. Bostock,
Appendix, p. 77. In speaking of the samples of water, delivered to him by the
Commissioners for analysis, Dr. Bostock (p. 79) describes N°61, taken at the source
of the West Middlesex Works, as “the purest of all the specimens; bright, clear,
“ without taste or smell, but having a few fibres floating in it;” and in his Table
(p. 82.) the whole of the samples of the West Middlesex water are thus placed; viz.

LOW WATER, HALF FLOOD. HIGH WATER. HALF EBB.
*
“Nº 61.-Purest of “Nº 63. – Nearly “ Nº. 31. – Less than “Nº 65.—Nearly
all the Speci- as pure as the average of ex- in the same :
mens.” Nº. 61.” traneous matter, state as N*
but rather more 63.”
than N*61 & 63.”
And
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. - 41
And Dr. Bostock adds, in the next paragraph, “Nº 69–72, taken from Teddington Appendix, N° 1.
“ and Richmond, were very similar to N° 61 or 63,” clearly showing the inutility of
the great outlay of capital which would be required to obtain water from the Thames West Middlesex
at either of those places. - - Water Works.
In the detail of the analysis of N°61, given by Dr. Bostock (p. 81), the purity and . . /
salubrity of the water now supplied by the West Middlesex Company is, it is sub-
mitted, placed beyond the possibility of doubt; for, in the evaporation of ten
, thousand grains of water, Dr. Bostock did not find quite two grains of solid con-
tents; and the constituent parts of even these two grains were perfectly innoxious.
The West Middlesex Company, therefore, respectfully submit to the Select Com-
mittee, that the water always supplied to them has been, and is quite satisfactory
to the public ; but they, nevertheless, desire it to be generally known and under-
stood, that they have purchased the Barns Elms estate, directly opposite to their
engines, for the purpose of forming an extensive lock or head of water; and that
they are ready, should the public require it, to deliver bright and pure water, at all
seasons of the year, on being fairly remunerated for the expense of procuring it.
Question 8.—What is the number of houses which pay for high service?
About 2,400 houses-pay for high service ; there are, besides, about 3,000 which
- require the high service pressure to supply the ordinary service.
Question 9—What are the rates paid at present for high service?
The charge varies according to the size of house and nature of the supply; but
all are regulated by the following scale; viz. –
For every cistern or receptacle on the ground or parlour floor, into which water
is delivered higher than six feet six inches from the level of the street - -
from º £º * . * tº * - - - 15s... to 30 S. per annum extra.
First floor – - - º - -> - 20 S. to 50s. -me -
On or above the second, or bed-room floor - 40s. to 60s. -*.
15s. per annum being considered the minimum, and 60s, the maximum for high
service; but no supply given under six feet six inches from the level of the street is
deemed high service.
Question 10.—What number of houses receive low service?
The total number of houses supplied by the West Middlesex Company is between
14,000 and 15,000; but about 11,500 receive low pressure service.
Question 11.—What are the rates paid for low service? - - - *...
The rates vary according to the situation and size of house; the average for low
service is about 45s. per house. In this average, however, the large consumers,
such as brewers, distillers, steam engines, barracks, manufactories, and trade, as well
as other extraordinary cases are included, which, if deducted, would considerably
reduce the average per house of the private supplies, but the rental for high service
is not included. . . . . - -
Question 12.—What increase of rates has been made since the first establishment?
Only the increase made in 1819, which was the subject of inquiry by the Select
Committee of 1821. - -
Question 13.—What further increase can take place, if the Company avail themselves of
the full extent of the provisions in the Act 2 - -
The West Middlesex Company are not limited by their Acts of Parliament to any
specific amount of rate; but it is submitted, the apprehension of competition will
always operate to prevent excessive charges; and the published lists of the prices of
shares and dividends, will serve to excite or respress speculation. That this has so
operated, on the West Middlesex Company, see Answer to Question 3, and to the
preceding Question. * ‘. - -.
Question 14:—What agreements have been entered into with any other water companies,
for obtaining the sole supply of any district, and the dates thereof.”
None. There is, however, an understanding that they should confine their supply
to the district tinted yellow on the plan, delivered herewith ; but they are not
enabled by their Acts to serve certain districts, defined in the 35th sec. of 46 Geo.3,
c. 119, and in the 18th sec. of 50 Geo. 3, c. 132 ; and are, indeed, subject to a
penalty if they do so. -- .
- . By Order of the Board of Directors, 3.
Berners-street, 14th July 1828. M. K. Knight, Secretary,
567. - F
42 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE ON
Appendix, N° 2. Appendix, N° 2.
Grand Junction GRAND JUNCTION WATER WORKS.
Water Works. -
RETURN to an Order from the Select Committee of the House of Commons;
- dated 4th July 1828.
1,–When was the Company established?
The Company's first Act 51st Geo. 3, c 169, was obtained in June 1811, but the
works were commenced in 1810.
have been obtained in consequence 2
Three : in 1816, 56th Geo. 3, c. 4; in 1819, 59th Geo. 3, c. 111; and in 1826,
7th Geo. 4, c. 140. -*
2–How many applications have been subsequently made to Parliament, and what Acts
3–What is the amount of the capital employed, and how has it been invested 3
Raised on the first formation of the Company tº - £. 150,000
Raised under the Act of 1816 - 4- º sº - - 37,500
Raised in 1826 - º * - - -*. º - - 50,000
Total º - £. 237,500
Mem.—Of this last sum of £. 50,000, £.31,500 had from time to time been
reserved out of the income of the Company, and expended on the Works, and
£. 18,500 was subscribed by the Proprietors.
Capital as above º- - - eºs sº - - - £. 237,500 – —
Value of land at Paddington, furnished by the Grand Junction
Canal Company (including the land for the new reservoir formed
in 1825,) and occupied for reservoirs, engine-house, &c. - - 27,000 — —
Expended by the Regent's Canal Company for the Grand Junction
Water Works Company, under the agreement of May 1819 – 48,169 – 3
£. 312,669 – 3
This sum is exclusive of the sum of £. 49,827. 18. expended by the Grand Junction
Canal Company, for and on account of the Grand Junction Water Works Company, and
which is not included in the above statement of capital, inasmuch as it was not raised
by the Grand Junction Water Works Company, and was not expended on works now
used for the supply of the Company’s tenants.
The mode in which these sums were invested, will be seen in the reply to the
following query.
4.—What sum has been actually expended to the present time, for engines, reservoirs,
and pipes 7 e
For the engine houses and engines - wº wº- * - £. 46,282 13 8
For reservoirs - - - - 46,209 19 7
Mem.—In this sum is included £. 4,391. 10. 4. paid towards
forming the Ruislip reservoir, not now used by the Water
Works Company.
For pipes - sess sºns sº * *s tº * - - 172,507 11 8
w 265,000 4 11 –sº
Land at Paddington and Chelsea - - tºº - - - 33,800 – —
* Parliamentary and law charges, engineering and surveying, and
lead and plumbers work, to 1819 * -> tº ºp - 11,424 17 8
—us
£. 310,225 2 7
5—What dividends have been paid to the shareholders?
No dividends were paid to the proprietors from 1810 to 1819.
In 1819 º gº - - £. I 5 – per share.
º 182O - º º Aº - — 12 6 —
º 1821 Wºr tº tºº *gº tº-º 2 I O – *
r 1822 º - - tº- - 2 1 O — *-
1823 - ºw tºp º- - 2 I O — *
1824 * º º ºs- - 2 15 — *º-
1825 º * 㺠g- g- 3 — — *
1826 sºn tºº *e - - 3 – — -*.
1827 *º º º tº- * 3 — — *
-* tºº tº- - 1 1 O – *s
1828 (; year)
(§ y The
+–
wºm-
* Since that time there has been some further outlay under these heads of disbursements.
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 43
6.—The quantity in imperial gallons pumped per day, and to what height 2
- 2,800,000 imperial gallons daily, about 3ds of which are pumped from go to 110
feet; and the remaining $d from 110 to 150 feet. No part of the Company’s supply
is pumped direct from the Thames into the houses of their tenants. The whole
(since the completion of the new works, commenced in 1825, and finished in
May 1827) is first deposited in the reservoirs at Paddington.
7.—The greatest quantity that the engines can pump 2 -
- About double the quantity stated in the preceding answer; say, 5,600,000 imperial
gallons; but it would not be prudent to work the engines to the extent of their
power.
8.—What is the number of houses which pay for high service?
2,041 houses.
9.—What are the rates paid at present for high service 2 -
£.3,532. 11. The high service is optional with the inhabitants receiving it; if
they pump the water into the high service cisterns, no charge is made for the water
so used, in addition to the rate for low service.
lo.--What number of houses receive low service 3
7,809 houses.
11.--What are the rates paid for low service 2
£. 20,573. 11.
The gross amount of the water rates of the Company, for the half £. s. d.
year ending Lady-day 1828, was - tº- - --- º - || 12,053 1 –
2
Gross annual rental - wº *= - * sº º fººt - | 24,106 2 –
Street watering - tº - aº - º º wº • - 596 3 –
. © & 24,702 5 —
Actual current expenses incurred, exclusive of law
charges, in the year ending 31st March 1828 - £. 10,056 17 4
Deduct for empty houses and bad debts, say 2 #
per cent - + º -> gº -> emº - 617 11 —
w 10,674 8 4
Net income of the Company, without making any reserve for con- .
tingencies and renewal of works - - * * - £. 14,027 16 8
It will be observed therefore, that the present net income does not yield 5 per cent
upon the capital employed, and taking the quantity of water supplied by the Grand
Junction Water Works Company, and the rental received for the same, the present
charge is rather less than } d. per barrel of 36 gallons, both for high and low service.
12.—What increase of rates has been made since the first establishment 2
In the year 1818, which was previous to the last inquiry by a Committee of the
House of Commons into the water rates charged, an increase of 25 per cent had
been made upon the general rates charged by the New River and Chelsea Water
Companies in 1810; since that period, no increase has taken place.
13.−What further increase can take place, if the Company avail themselves of the full
extent of the provisions in the Act 2
Previous to the passing of the Company's last Act, the increase that could have
been made was unlimited ; by the last Act, the Company has been limited to a certain
per-centage, varying according to the rent of houses, as may be seen by the scale of
rates in the Act; but the Company being unacquainted with those rents, they cannot
say precisely to what extent the rates might be increased, had they any intention of
acting upon that scale.
14.—What agreements have been entered into with any other Water Companies, for
obtaining the sole supply of any district, and the dates thereof.”
The answer to this query is the same as was given to a like question from the
Committee of Inquiry in 1821; and is as follows: there are no deeds, contracts,
undertakings or other instruments in writing, touching the supply of any part of
the Metropolis with water, made and entered into by and between or on behalf
of the Grand Junction Water Works Company, or any other public Water Company,
to which should be added, that the understanding for restricting the supplies of the
New River, Chelsea, West Middlesex and Grand Junction Water Companies, within
certain limits, was merely verbal; every Company is at liberty to serve water in the
district supplied by the Grand Junction Water Works Company, if they shall deem
it expedient.
15–Is the present mode of supply that which was first resorted to ?
No ; the Company when first established supplied water from the Grand Junction
Canal.
F 2 16.-State
5
6
7
Appendix, N° 2.
Grand Junction
Water Works.
44 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE ON
Appendix, N° 2. 16.-State why it was changed ?.
— t 1st. To enable the Company to obtain an unlimited supply of water, as they were
Grand Junction limited in the quantity to be taken from the Grand Junction Canal.
Water work. 2dly. From a desire on the part of the Company to comply with a wish expressed
S- by the greater portion of their tenants who had been supplied with Thames water,
to be served with water from the river Thames.
17.-What sum was expended on the first plan 2
By the Grand Junction Water Works Company sº mº £. 237,500 — —
By the Grand Junction Canal Company - º -- Eºf - 76,827 18 –
£.314,327 18 –
18-What was the expense of the new arrangements 2
e
£. 48,169. o. 3. This expense was incurred by the Regent's Canal Company.
14 July 1828. - W. M. Coe, Secy.
AN ACCOUNT of the GRoss INcom E of the Grand Junction Water Works Company
in each year, from 1820 to the present time, similar to the Account delivered to the
former Select Committee of 1821, and numbered 9 in Page 241 of the Appendix
to the Report. * *
–w-
IN COME IN COME
derived from Water INCOME derived from other
YEARS. supplied for derived from Sources; viz. TOTALS.
d tic SeS, * •º Interest on -
pº. .. Street watering Exch. Ei. &c.
£. S. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. S. d.
1821 - - 24,737 15 6 381 18 — 303 I 8 25,422 15 2
1822 - - 23,116 19 — 574 13 6 209 – — 23,900 12 6
1823 - - 21,450 4 6 603 3 — 166 1 1 8 22,219 19 2
1824 - - 21,758 11 6 581 14 6 324 5 6 22,664. 11 6
1825 - - 21,934 – 3 574. 7 – 473 l 1 Q 22,981 19 —
1826 - - 23,215 6 1 634 7 — 47O 14 10 24,32O 7 | 1
1827 - - 23,069 5 2 | 536 3 – 16 5 — 23,615 13 2
£. 159,282 2 – | 3,880 6 — 1,963 10 5 165,125 18 5
16 July 1828. W. M. Coe, Secy.
AN ACCOUNT of the Number of Dw ELLING Hous Es and other BUILDINGs, and
their RATEs, supplied by the Grand Junction Water Works Company in the Year
1828, similar to the Account delivered to the Select Committee of 1821, and num-
bered 7 in Page 240 of the Appendix.
N° of Houses.
13 – under - I O S.
127 -- ºmº- º 1 O S. - and under - 2O S.
91.5 - * sº 2O S. wº- -* - 30 S.
2,589 - ** º 30 S. cº - - , 40 S.
1,063 - *- tº-º: 4O S. - * º 50S,
625 - isºmº- tº 50 S. º - - 60s.
513 - * ass 60 s. - -* * 70s.
296 - -* lºg 70s. - wº-ºº-ººp - 80 s.
380 * *-*- sº 80 s. * -4 – 90 s.
138 - sºme- º 90 S. - * - 1 OO.S.
253 - ºsmº. – 1 OO S. - * - 1 1 O.S.
72 * * - 1 1 O S. t- -* - 12 O S.
I 57 - teams-4 - 12O S. - * - 130 s.
48 - ºss-se – 130 s. - -- - 140 s.
152 * ësº-ºw - 140 s. - * - 150 s.
38 --> Pºssºs - 150 s. - -* - 160s.
113 - * - 160 s. - -- - 170s.
15 º * - 170 s. - -- - 180 s.
74 rº- Jººssmº- - 180 s. * - - 190 s.
13 - * - 190 s. - - – 2 OO S,
215 - * - 200 s. and upwards.
7,809
The rates for high services are included in the above, which was also the case in the
Return made in 1821. .
W. M. Coe, Secretary.
18th July 1828.
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 45
A STATEMENT, describing the Streets, Parishes and Places in which the 7,809
Hous Es are situated, which the Grand Junction Water Works Company supply with
Water.
PARK LANE on the west, Piccadilly on the south, as far as Arlington Street, including
the line of houses from thence on the side next the Green Park to Cleveland Row, returning
from thence taking the north side of Pall Mall as far as the Haymarket, in a line to Great
Windmill Street, including both sides of that street; Little Windmill Street in the same
manner; Cambridge Street and Poland Street, to Oxford Street, returning along Oxford
Appendix, N° 2.
Grand Junction
\—
Street West, taking the south side of that street as far as Mary-le-bone Lane, continuing
along Mary-le-bone Lane to Edward Street, and returning westward along Edward Street,
Portman Square, and Upper Seymour Street, as far as Cumberland Place, but serving no
houses in that line but the cross streets from Oxford Street, leading to the same line from
Cumberland Street northward, including both sides, and returning westward along George
‘Street to Seymour Place, and continuing northward, including both sides of Seymour Place
to Crawford Street, and returning westward along Crawford Street and John Street into the
Edgeware Road, but neither in those two lines of streets are the houses served by the Grand
Junction Company, but only the cross streets leading up the same ; the line returns from
John Street, taking the whole of the parish of Paddington to the west of the Edgeware
Road, and returning along the Uxbridge Road to Park Lane, is the whole boundary.
14th July 1828. - W. M. Coe, Secretary.
EXPERIMENTS made by the Secretary and Engineer of the Grand Junction Water
Works Company, to ascertain the Current of the flood and ebb tides of the River
Thames at spring and neap tides, with a view to decide in what degree the Thames
at Chelsea is affected by the Drainage Water of London.
Monday, 4th February 1828-A potatoe was attached by a cord about two feet long to
an apple, and put into the River Thames, to ascertain the current of the river at the flood
tide; the potatoe sinking to the length of the cord in a perpendicular line, was kept sus-
pended by the apple. This is usually considered the best mode of ascertaining the velocity
of the upper and under current.
Hr. Min.
They were put into the river at the flood about 100 feet from the
shore, opposite the King's Scholars Pond Sewer, at sixteen 8
minutes before two o'clock, P. M. and arrived at the Grand
Junction Company’s Dolphin in - * * sº wº º
And from thence to the farm house in Mr. Hoare's Park, about
midway between Putney and Hammersmith Bridges, where *} 2 48
tide ceased to flow gº sº * sº s== tºº wº *
3 56
*mºnºmºrrºrsmars
On Friday, 8th February 1828,--to ascertain the current of the ebb tide by the same
means, the apple and potatoe were put into the river opposite the farm house, where the tide
ceased to flow, on the 4th instant, at a quarter past ten o’clock, A. M. and arrived at the
Grand Junction Company's Dolphin in two hours and forty-eight minutes.
Memorandum.—IT is to be observed, that the above experiment is the least favourable
that could have been made, as regards the Company's drawing their supply from Chelsea;
to ascertain to what extent the Thames at Chelsea is affected by the drainage of London the
trial should have commenced at London Bridge at low water, and to render the experiment
complete, it should be made as well from London Bridge as from Vauxhall, at both spring
and meap tides.
The ebb at Chelsea is from seven to eight hours.
W. M. Coe, Secretary,
18th July 1828. oe, Secretary
567. F 3
Water Works.
—'
46
APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE ON
LONDON BRIDGE :
/* _^– -N
SPRING TIDE, NEAP TIDE,
14th February 1828. 21st February 1828.
Miles. Fur. Hrs. Min, Hrs. Min. Hrs. Min. Hrs. Min.
Departed from London Bridge at gº sº ºt º 9 40 * * * 2 30 tº-
Arrived at Southwark Bridge - - - ; – 2 9 55 - 15 2 45 – 15
— Blackfriars Bridge - - - — 4 I O I 2 – 17 3 5 – 20
— Waterloo Bridge tº- gº tº – 5 1 O 35 — 23 3 28 — 23
– Westminster Bridge - - - - 5 11 – 28 3 54 – 26
— Vauxhall Bridge - º - º 1 — 1 1 38 ~ 35 4. 25 – 31
— Dolphin of Grand Junction Water
W. ... • º sº sº ..] I I 12 22 tº- 44. 5 sº- *g 35
— Battersea Bridge - - - | – 7 12 50 – 28 5 28 – 28
— Point Pleasant, Wandsworth tº- 1 4. l 45 – 55 6 33 I 5
Distance above London Bridge, reached]] g 4. Time ºpiº Time º º l
- - &º aSCellCillig Wii nding wit
by the Flood both Spring and Neap -ſ Spring #.” 4 5 N. # * ſ 4 3
Miles. Fur.
Average velocity at Spring Tide, in one hour - - - 1 44;
— - - at Neap Tide - - d” - - - - 1 4%
VAUXHALL BRIDGE :
gr - -º- —º-
SPRING TIDE, NEAP TIDE,
4th February 1828. 22d February 1828.
Miles. Fur. Hrs. Min. Hrs. Min. Hrs. Min. Hrs. Min.
Departed from Vauxhall Bridge - º * I a <- 1 40 wºn tº ºr 3 45 -
Arrived at Dººr Grand Junction wº 1 1 2 52 1 12 4. 55 1 1 O
— Battersea Bridge tº wº tº - 7 3 23 – 31 5 29 - 34.
— 2d house beyond Meadow above)|
Point Pleasant, Wandsworth, 2 6 * * - wºme was dº 7 45 2 16
where the Flood stopped at Neap
4 6
— Putney Bridge - º- sº tº *- 4 38 1 15 —- -
— Craven House, about 1 mile beyond | -
Putney Bridge tº ºne j I — 5 40 1 2 *gº -º
Distance above Vauxhall Bridge, **) - 6 — º: :* 4. – ſº -
by the Flood at Spring - - - Spring Tide - J. Neap Tide - - 4.
Mile. Fur.
Average velocity at Spring Tide - - - 1 4 in one hour.
— - - at Neap Tide - - - 1 1 # in one hour.

THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 47
These Velocities of the Ebb were not taken so precisely at Spring and Neap as to permit them Appendix, N° 2.
being so designated, but it is believed they present the same results. Grand Junction
— Water Works.
S–––.
Miles. Fur. Hrs. Min. Hrs. Min. .,- - -
Departed from Distillery at Wandsworth about 1+\| _ _ _ 1 4-5 º
mile above Battersea Bridge - sº * . e=
Arrived at Battersea Bridge sº * * * * 1 4. 3 3 I 18
º e * * ** d 7 * *
Dolphin of Grand Junction Water wº * 7 3 33 – 30
Company gº * gº gº -_
2 3 tº * tº I 48
Mile, Fur.
Average velocity - - - 1 2 3 in one hour.
Miles. Fur. Hrs. Min. Hrs. Min.
Departed from Craven House, about 1 mile abovel . . . sº
Putney Bridge tºº ſº *g *gs jº -ſ 9 45
Arrived at Putney Bridge - º sº ; : - 1 * 1 O 45 I *
— Battersea Bridge º * * -º sº 3 * 1 2 34 || 1 49
— Grand Junction Water Works Com-
y J g *ºm 7 1. 3 tº 29
pany's Dolphin * gº sº gº
4. 7 tº see & 3 18
Mile. Fur.
Average velocity - - - 1 3 ºr in one hour. -
18 July 1828. W. M. Coe, Secy.
FROM the foregoing tables it would appear, that whilst in starting from Vauxhall Bridge
there is a considerable difference between the mean velocity of spring and neap tides, and
consequently a considerable difference in the distance which the flood at those periods res-
pectively ascends, from London Bridge to the flood tide is precisely similar in both those
particulars. - w
It is evident that this cannot be the usual course of the tides ; indeed as the tides in
the Thames are affected by many extraneous and incidental causes, such as particular winds,
either assisting or retarding the influx of tide from the sea on the one hand, and a greater
or less quantity of landwater on the other, there must be perpetual variations of greater or less
amount in the strength both of spring and meap tides.
The following important results seem however sufficiently ascertained : 1st. That the flood
tide at spring does not ascend more than about six miles and a half from London Bridge,
and six miles from Vauxhall Bridge, it consequently flows beyond the Company's Dolphin
at Chelsea only two miles three furlongs in the former, and four miles seven furlongs in the
latter case. -
2dly.—That after one hour and forty-eight minutes of ebb, the whole of the water that
had been as low as the upper side of London Bridge, had returned past the Company’s
Dolphin, and after three hours and eighteen minutes, the whole of the water that had been as
low as the upper side of Vauxhall Bridge (that is above the highest sewer of London,) had also
returned.
3dly.—That as the length of the ebb at the Company’s works at Chelsea is seven hours
and forty-two minutes, there must be six hours of every ebb during which the water can by
no possibility have been affected by any drainage below London Bridge, and four hours and
a half during which it could not have been affected by any London drainage whatever.
4thly.—It also seems clear, that the drainage of London does not affect the middle of the
stream during the ebb, the sample of water taken at London Bridge being as bright as it
could have been if taken at Richmond, and it is therefore probable, that for a long period of
the flood the center of the river remains unaffected by drainage water.
It is at all events clear, that the time necessary for the flood from London and Vauxhall
Bridges respectively to arrive at Chelsea, must be added to the above stated portions of
the ebb; the time therefore in every twelve hours during which the water at Chelsea is
unaffected by London drainage would stand thus:
If reckoned from London Bridge— -
Hrs. Mins.
The flood reached the Company’s works in - gº ºn - - 2 42
Hrs. Mins.
returned in -º-, sº gº ºrsº - 1 48
deducted from the length of ebb at Chelsea - 7 42
- *-ºººº-ºº-ººººººººººº. 5 54
Hours - - - 8 36
567. F 4
48 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE ON
Appendix, N. 2. . . . . - If reckoned from Vauxhall. Bridge– -- -
Grand Junction The flood - hed the Co work Hrs. Mins.
- - O * - t ’s * - - º - º -tº- º
Water Works. e Ilood reached the Uompany's works in Hrs. Mins. 1 12
\–– –/ . returned in sº - * - - 3 18
deducted from the length of ebb at Chelsea – 7 42
• . . . -- * 4 24
Hours - - - 5 36
Mem.—in starting from Vauxhall Bridge, the highest point to which the spring tide
ascended was opposite Craven House, about three quarters of a mile beyond Putney
Bridge, which is two miles and a half below the point at which it is proposed to take in
the water upon the plan of the West Middlesex and Grand Junction Water Companies.
18 July 1828. - - W. M. Coe, Sec.
Appendix, N° 3. Appendix, No 3.
Chelsea - CHELSEA water works.
Water Works. vrri - v - -
\ J ANSWERS to the QUESTIONs proposed to the Chelsea Water Works Company, by order
~~-- of the Select Committee on the Supply of Water to the Metropolis, 4th July 1828.
1.—When was the Company established ? -
In the year 1723. 8 Geo. 1, cap. 26, and a charter dated 8th March, 9th Geo. 1.
How many applications have been subsequently made to Parliament, and what Acts have
been obtained in consequence 2
Writ of Privy Seal, 7 Geo. 2, 49 Geo. 3, c. 157.
What is the amount of the capital, and how has it been invested ?
Capital raised by subscription 70,000 l. ; authorized by charter and writ of privy
seal, of which sum 60,000 l. was expended previously to the year 1735, in reservoirs,
cuts, water wheels and pipes; and the remaining 10,000 l. subscribed for this year,
will be invested in a filter bed and reservoir. - -
4.—What sum has been actually expended to the present time, for engines, reservoirs and
pipes 2. - - - - .
- F-cºaca ------- * ~ * , --~~~~ * £. S. d.
-- º to 735 in reservous, cuts, wate whº, 60,000 — —
Since that period out of income upon steam engines - - - 59,906 3 3
Reservoirs - sº- - *- - * wº- - - * 5, 196 3 8
Pipes - -sº tº- - * - sº * sº wº sº 108,635 12 9
£. 233,737 19 8
Exclusive of Labour and Repairs.
5.—What dividends have been paid to the Shareholders ?
From 1723 to 1737 º - Nothing.
1737 to 1741 - * º £. 1,600 per annum.
1741 to 1753 º- - tºº Nothing —
1753 to 1770 - - - £. 1,200 —
1770 to 1796 - - º 1,600 •-esº-
1797 ſº * *- M- 1,800 *-
1798 to 1808 - - sº 2,OOO *-
1808 to 1823 * - * 2,400 —.
1823 to 1828 * - * 2,800 *--
not quite 13 per cent on the sum expended for engines, reservoirs and pipes, and
4 per cent on the first capital of £. 70,000, £. 60,000 of which was expended
- previously to the year 1735. - - w
6.—The quantity in imperial gallons pumped per day, and to what height?
- 1,920,000 imperial gallons in the average quantity now pumped per diem.
From 50 to 128 feet. - •
7.—The greatest quantity that the engines can pump 2
4,640,000 imperial gallons per diem.
8.—What is the number of houses which pay for high service.
982 houses have high service. -
9.—What are the rates paid at present for high service 3 - º
No charge has at any time been made by this Company for high service.
1 o—What
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 49
io.—What number of houses receive low service. • ‘
12,316 private dwellings, and 93 public buildings, which include the 982 that have
high service.
11.-What are the rates paid for low service 2
From three shillings and sixpence per house to fifteen pounds per house per
annum; and the average I l. 6s. 7d. per annum. -
12.-What increase of rates has been made since the first establishment 7
40 per cent.
13–What further increase can take place, if the Company avail themselves of the full
extent of the provisions in the Act 7
No limitation.
14.—What agreements have been entered into with any other Water Company, for obtain-
ing the sole supply of any district, and the rates thereof.”
- No agreement; but in the year 1817 the district arrangement between the Com-
panies was entered into. -
15–What additional charge to the customers (if any) would be requisite to pay for the
supply of the filtered Thames water?
Ten per cent upon the present rates would pay the Company five per cent upon
the outlay.
Office of Chelsea Water Works, .
16, Great Queen Street, Westminster, J. G. Lynde, Secretary.
14th July 1828. 'ſ -
- Office of Chelsea Water Works,
No. 16, Great Queen-street, Westminster, 7th July 1828.
THE Court of Directors of the Chelsea Water Works Company, beg respectfully to
represent to Sir Francis Burdett, Bart., as Chairman of the Select Committee appointed to
inquire into the present system of supplying Water to the Metropolis, and into the amount
of Rates paid by the Inhabitants, that the Chelsea Water Works Company are deeply
interested in the investigation of the subject now under the consideration of the Committee,
both as it affects the character of their establishment and the property embarked in it, and
that they are most anxious to be allowed to appear before the Committee upon grounds
deeply affecting the public interests, in relation to the supply of water to the Metropolis
as well as their private interests; but however anxious the Court of Directors may be to
have the opportunity of appearing before the Committee, they feel that they have no right
to ask to occupy th , time of the Committee, and they are therefore only anxious to put
the Committee in possession of the means of judging of the two points to which they
suppose the attention of the Committee will ultimately be directed, namely, the amount, of
the existing rates, and the effect which may be produced upon those rates by the intro-
duction of any such general plan of conveying water to the Metropolis, for the supply of the
different Companies, as has been alluded to, and in some measure made the subject of
discussion. -
That the Court of Directors are prepared to show, that such a plan must be productive
of great public inconvenience, by an ultimate increase of rates, not only without any ade-
quate advantage, but at the hazard of great injury to the public without any benefit what-
ever, which may not be obtained by more efficient and less expensive means.
That the Court of Directors have new and extensive works now in progress, for filtering
the water supplied to their tenants, by which process it will be rendered perfectly pure, and
wholly free from objection, and which therefore will preclude all possible chance of future
complaint, and are desirous of having the opportunity of examining and investigating the
plans which may be produced in relation to the project for affording such general supply; in
the fullest confidence that they can show the fallacy of such project, and that it must
ultimately of necessity increase the rates now paid for water, and that they can procure
water equally unexceptionable, and at much less expense, and more advantageously there-
fore, both to the public and themselves. •
That if the Companies are to be made dependant upon such supply, and to pay for the
same out of the existing rates, it becomes most important to ascertain the nature of the
subsisting rates, and the remuneration which they now afford, and the effect of compelling
the Companies to take water from any other new establishment upon certain payments for
the same, which will necessarily depend upon the practicability of affording any general
supply for the amount at which a similar supply can be obtained by the Company by its
own exertion, and which question will involve the consideration of the physical practicability
of the proposed project, and the expense and rates of charge to the Companies taking such
supplv. -
%. complaints are now made, that a monopoly exists through the intervention of the
manner in which the different parts of the Metropolis are supplied, and the Court of Direc-
tors are satisfied that these complaints must unavoidably be greatly increased by the encou-
ragement of any project, which must from its nature establish a complete monopoly in one
body, against the evils of which, both with respect to certainty and nature of supply, and
amount of rates, no regulation or restriction could guard either the Public or the Companies.
567. G That
Appendix, N° 3.
Chelsea
Water Works.
\--—
50 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE ON
Appendix, N° 3. That the Court of Directors could greatly extend and enforce the effect of those observa-
-— tions by numerous details, but they are desirous of confining themselves at present solely to
Chelsea the point of showing, that this subject, and the numerous questions affecting the interests of
Water Works, the Public, and of those who have embarked large property in the establishment, cannot be
`--— fully investigated, unless the Company be allowed to be present by their counsel, agents,
and witnesses, in the investigation of the subject submitted to the Select Committee.
The Court of Directors consider that they need not suggest the numerous instances in
which private parties having local, personal and pecuniary interests, have been allowed to
appear before Select Committees in relation to various branches of trade and occupation, and
companies; and they feel confident, that no case has occurred, noteven excepting that of the
investigation of the case of the West India Dock Company before the Committee upon Foreign
Trade, in which the properties embarked in public undertakings more imperatively required,
from the nature, extent, and complication of the subject, the protection which they in this
case humbly solicit, as it must be obvious, that if they are to be imperatively required to
take water from any other establishment than their own, the very existence of the property
which they have embarked may be put to hazard, unless they be permitted to be parties to
the discussion which may arise in the consideration of such a project.
The Court of Directors therefore entreat, that they may be permitted to appear before the
Committee by their counsel, agents, and witnesses.
By order of the Court of Directors,
Sir Francis Burdett, Bart. J. G. Lynde, Secretary.
Appendix, N° 4. - - Appendix, N° 4.
New River NEW RIVER COMPANY.
comp any. — THE New River Company's ANSw ERs to QUESTIONs of The Honourable the Select
-\_- Committee of the House of Commons, on the Supply of Water to the Metropolis.
Answer to the 1st Question.
The New River Company originated in two Acts of Parliament, 3 James 1st, cap. 17,
and 4th James 1st, cap. 12, giving power to the Corporation of the City of London, to
bring a stream of water from Chadwell and Amwell Springs in Hertfordshire to
London. The Corporation made over their powers under these Acts to Sir Hugh
Myddelton, by an Act of Common Council, dated 28th March 1610, carried into
effect by an indenture bearing date 28th March 1612. After the work was finished,
Sir Hugh Myddelton, and other persons whom he had associated with himself in the
course of it, were incorporated by a Charter of James 1st, bearing date 21st June, in
the 17th year of his reign.
Answer to the 2d Question.
The principal Acts relating to the New River Company, since the Charter, are the
12th Geo. 2d, cap. , and the 3d Geo. 4th, cap. . The first of these Acts having for
its general object the improvement of the Navigation of the River Lea, is also
intituled, “An Act for enabling the Governor and Company of the New River, the
better to supply the Cities of London and Westminster and the Liberties thereof, with
good and wholesome Water;” and after reciting, inter alia, that the New River Com-
pany had for many years then past received a considerable supply of water from the
River Lea, and that disputes had arisen between the Corporation of Hertford, the
inhabitants of Ware, and the New River Company, it contains several provisions for
ascertaining and rendering constant that supply from the River Lea. The second is
intituled, “An Act for the Removal of the Water Works at London Bridge.” It
recites, inter alia, that for the purpose of effecting that removal, and of procuring a con-
tinuation of a supply of water to the inhabitants of the places which at that time were
supplied by the London Bridge Water Works, the Corporation of London, the pro-
prietors of the London Bridge Water Works, and the New River Company, were
desirous of making an arrangement whereby all the works of the London Bridge
Company should be made over to the New River Company, who should be empowered
at the same time to raise water from the Thames, if they thought fit; and that the
Company should, in part compensation, secure to the London Bridge proprietors
certain annuities, the City further paying them the sum of ten thousand pounds. In
the former of these two Acts (the 12th Geo. 2d.) it is probable, though not known (as no
records of that time are in possession of the Company), that the New River Company
were jointly promoters of the Act with the parties named in it. The latter Act was
altogether promoted by the City of London; the New River Company, at their invita-
tion, came into an arrangement upon the conditions specified in the Act, for supplying
the place of the London Bridge Water Works, if the bridge should be removed.
. No application has ever been made to Parliament by the New River Company, for
any further general powers than they conceive themselves to have derived from the
Acts of James the First and the Charter.
Answer to the 3d Question. e
The capital of the New River Company is invested, first, in the aqueduct called the
New River, and the accessary works formed for bringing the water to London; second,
* [A
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 51
in lands and houses all originally purchased, with a view to some purposes of the water Appendix, N° 4.
work, which many of them in the changes of above two hundred years have ceased to 3.
answer; third, in steam engines, water wheels, pipes, and other machinery, for the New River
distribution of the water. The Company are not able to state the amount of the two Company.
first portions of this capital, otherwise than by valuation, all documents relating to
far the greater part of them having been lost by lapse of time, or destroyed by a fire in - . -
the year 1769. The first and second portions of this capital are valued by the Com- 6.() d/ (?-00 a
pany at six hundred thousand pounds. The third portion of the said amount, cost of w
steam engines, water wheels, pipes and other machinery, to the present time, is as ~
nearly as can be ascertained from the Company’s books, four hundred and thirty-eight A/ 3. 3. 2.9 ×
thousand seven hundred and twenty-five pounds. * , , o, ø 223-s:
tº /o 29,725 s
Answer to the 4th Question.
Presumed to be sufficiently answered in the third.
Answer to the 5th Question. .
. A list of the dividends from the year 1769 (being the oldest date at which the
Company have any authentic account of them) to the present time is annexed. The
property is divided into seventy-two shares, and the dividend is on each share.
Answer to the 6th Question. - .
The quantity in imperial gallons pumped by the New River Company at the New
River Head, to a height of about sixty feet above that level, making a total height of
144 feet above the level of the Thames, is 1,730,000 per diem; this, however, by no
means indicates the whole quantity delivered by the New River, by far the greater
part being discharged from the Head, at eighty-four feet above the level of the Thames,
without pumping. The total quantity delivered by the Company, is generally
estimated to be 214,000 hogsheads per day. Besides the above quantity, supplied
from the New River Head, the Company have occasionally resorted to pumping from
their Engine at Broken Wharf, under the powers conditioned for by them in the Act
of Geo. 4th. This resource, however, has been confined to the cases, with a view to
which the Company stipulated that this liberty should be given to them, that is, in
cases of extreme drought, or of temporary obstruction by frost. In the course of last
year, this engine worked only 176 hours, raising 35,100,000 imperial gallons, being
less than the hundredth part of the whole supply.
Answer to the 7th Question. - -
The two engines at the New River Head could raise for a high supply about
8,820,000 imperial gallons per day. -
Answer to the 8th Question.
The number of houses having the high supply, is 1,943.
Answer to the 9th Question.
The rates paid for high service, are fifty per cent above the rates paid for low.
Sel VI Cé.
Answer to the 1 oth Question.
The total number of houses supplied, is 66,559, and deducting the 1,943 before
alluded to, there remains 64,616.
Answer to the 11th Question.
The rates paid for low service vary according to the size of the house. The classes
of rates most prevalent throughout the Company’s district, are as follow :-
£. s. d.
For Houses of 2 Rooms - * * * — 1 O —
-º-º-º-º: 3 * sº vs. gº * - 1 5 *-ºs
* 4. *s-ºl sº wº *sº * } * *-*
- 6 *sº tºº sº * sº 1 4 –
** 8 *-sº mºr assº sº º 1 I O —
* 1 O --- gº tºº º *s 1 16 — to 2 /.
and houses of a superior description, in squares or large streets, range from the above
rates to about four guineas; the few rates above or below this scale, may be con-
sidered as exceptions.
Answer to the 12th Question. - * -
The New River Company have no means of answering this question precisely.
The first instance in their knowledge of an increase, was in the years 1804 and 1805,
in the course of which the rates were raised about 20 per cent.
About the year 1811, on the introduction of the New Water Companies, the rates
began to be depressed ; and this depression went on increasing until some time in
the year 1817, when it was put a stop to, by the arrangement which took place be-
tween the Companies. - s
It was not, however, till the year 1823, that the New River Company restored
their rates to the amount at which they had stood in 1810, (the year before the con-
test), and they then laid down the above general rate for high service, which had
never been furnished before the introduction of iron pipes, and consequently was
567. G 2 In Ot
52. APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE ON
Appendix, N°4.
New River
Company.
\- – A
not included in the rates referred to in the year 1810. The Company at the time o
their restoring the rates, issued a printed paper to every householder affected by the
alteration; a copy of which they beg leave to annex, as it explains the principle
* º reasons on which they acted, and the rule by which they have ever since
ſa, O1C16Ol.
Answer to the 13th Question.
There are no provisions as to rates affecting the New River Company, in the Acts
of Parliament or Charter above alluded to.
Answer to the 14th Question.
An agreement was entered into with the East London Company, by deed under
date of 9th November 1815, by which each Company restricted itself from serving
beyond certain limits. The substance of this deed will be found in the Appendix C.
to the Evidence before the House of Commons, in 1821. Some time in the year
1817, the New River Company, the West Middledex, Grand Junction, and Chelsea
Companies, withdrew within certain lines; no stipulation was entered into in this
arrangement against any of the Companies returning to the service of the district
which they had abandoned. The parties relying that neither would be willing, at
a fresh expense of capital, to replace themselves in a situation in which they had
all been nearly ruined.
Frederick Inglis, Clerk.
New River Office, 11th July 1828. * *
NOTICE referred to in the Answer to the 12th Question of the Select Committee.
4 New River Office, March 1, 1823.
The New River Company have hitherto abstained from raising their rates, from the
ruinous depression to which they had been forced to submit during the late contest in those
districts where it chiefly prevailed.
They have done so, in order to give full time for settling the question between the Public
and the other Water Companies, upon the rise of rates by those Companies, amounting to
about 25 per cent beyond the rates of 1810.
It is now nearly two years since that question was examined and reported upon by a
Committee of the House of Commons, The Evidence and Report are before the Public;
no further interference of Parliament has taken place; and the various attempts which have
been made to impeach the new rates in courts of justice, have uniformly failed.
The New River Company are satisfied, from an intimate knowledge of the subject, that
those rates do not afford more than a very moderate return to the Companies, and that
they are warranted by an improvement more than proportionate to the general supply of the
town.
Under these circumstances, they would have felt perfectly justified in adopting the same
rate of increase which has been so generally acquiesced in, but they have conceived hopes
that, from the peculiar advantages of their mode of supply, they shall be able to abstain in
favour of the public from any rise beyond the rates of 1810 for ordinary service, trusting
for a part of their remuneration to an increasing demand for water generally, and especially
for high service, which, as a luxury introduced since the period referred to, is of course
a subject of separate charge.
They have adopted the rates of 1810 as their general rule; where it has been found that
the charge on any house, &c. at that time exceeded or fell short of the general rate on
houses of the same description in the same strect, or those immediately adjoining, an abate-
ment or addition has been made accordingly, with a view to uniformity in the same neigh-
bourhood”. - - -
Houses, &c. rebuilt, or materially altered since 1810, are charged at the same rate with
houses of the same description in º immediate neighbourhood.
For high service, an additional charge of one-half is made.
For service on the main (which can only be allowed by the Company in peculiar cases),
a double charge.
It is of course at the option of the parties to discontinue these services, and thereby to
put an end to such extra charge.
The charge on your premises, made up on the above principle, will be as under, from
Midsummer next :— $
£. s. d.
Charge of 1810 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[Addition * * * * * * * * * * *
- on the grounds above *
ldeductionſ sº assº sº sºme sºme tº sº, sº sº, sº tº
High service, if continued - - - - - - - - - - -
Charge from Midsummer 1823 - -
(By order of the Board of Directors)
‘S, I. P. Rowe, Sec.
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 53
THE NEW RIVER COMPANY'S DIVIDENDS.
/- *_*. N
YEARS. DIVIDENDS, YEARS. DIVIDENDS,
£. s, d.
1770 - - - 2.55 13 11 1799 - - - 457 12 6 #
1771 - - cº 256 3 9 18o0 - * tº 463 12 1 #
1772 - - º 232 6 5 § 1801 - tº º 471 9 – #
1773 - tº- º 297 16 11 # 1802 - * º 451 4 4 +
1774 - tº- º 308 5 6; 1803 - - sº 445 6 2 #
1775 - -> º 316 6 10 # 1804 - -e º 396 19 9 #
1776 - tºº wº 284 17 2 # 1805 - º gº 486 – – #
1777 - gº & 311 16 8 # 1806 - cº tºº 450 2 10 ;
1778 - * º 325 2 8 # 1807 - *- ſº 440 13 2
1779 - º, º 322 17 2 1808 - º º 472 – 11 #
1780 - * º 316 15 2 1809 - * º 472 5 8 #
1781 - &- tº 343 5 10 # 1810 - tº- * 465 – 6 #
1782 - tº- * 339 1 3 # 1811 - º º 282 12 9 #
1783 – tº. - 350 19 10 # 1812 - *s º 220 13 2 #
1784 - - º 363 6 5 # 1813 - - gº 113 18 7 #
1785 - - - 390 4 6 1814 - - - 23 2 7 #
1786 - tº. Jº 390 13 94 1815 - º tº 60 2 1 1 #
1787 - tº- gº 384 17 10 # 1816 - ſº †- 85 – —
1788 - - º 405 18 3 1817 - -> *- 120 2 6 #
1789 - - - 409 17 5 # 1818 - - - 159 4 9 #
1790 - tº sº 400 Q 9 1819 - º º 199 I O 1 1 #
1791 – º º 41 1 17 – # 1820 - sº * 266. 3 8
1792 - - - º 426 5 10 1821 – gº tºy 341 19 1 #
1793 – 4- tº 44.1 12 10 1822 - * tº- 402 5 2 #
1794 - - - 431 5 8 1823 - - - 447 17 1 #
1795 - (º * 425 14 3 # 1824 - sº tº 489 – 2 #
1796 - - - 446 – 3 # 1825 - - - 501 13 7 #
1797 - - º 470 12 8 1826 - *- up 490 12 10 #
1798 - - gº 450 14 1 # 1827 - tº- sº 516 11 11
New River Office, 11 July 1828. Fred” Inglis, Clerk.
AN ACCOUNT of the Houses and other BUILDINGs, supplied by the New River
Company, for Years 1821 to 1827. -
1821. 1822.
r ~~ ~ || – —TN— -\
Walks or Districts. Tenants. Houses. Walks or Districts. Tenants. Houses.
Cornhill - -- º 4,903 5,894 Cornhill - gº tº- 4,916 5,908
Finsbury - - º 4,22O . 6,854. Finsbury - tºº * 4,280 6,971
Islington - tº- º 5,699 7,070 Islington - tº t- 5,983 7,498
Clerkenwell - ſº 2,188 3,215 Clerkenwell wº - 2,224. 3,270
Aldersgate tº- *- 3,606 6,099 Aldersgate tºº -> 3,583 6,102
Fleet Street º- iºn 4,619 5,52O Fleet Street º * 4,640 5,2551
Holborn - ſº tº 4,076 5,997 Holborn - & - 4, 162 6,063
Bloomsbury - gº 2,647 2,885 Bloomsbury - º 2,660 2,928
St. Giles - ſº º 3, 139 3,474 St. Giles - º - 3,222 3,561
St. Martin's º * 5,095 5, 149 St. Martin's º * 5,119 5, 173
On the Banks of River 139 144. On the Banks of River 142 146
Total - - 40,331 52,301 Total - - 40,931 53,171
567. G 3
Appendix, N° 4.
New River.
Company.
54
APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE ON
k.
Appendix, N." 4.
New River
Company.
~~-
—' -
Account of Houses and Buildings supplied by the New River Company, &c.—continued.
1823. 1824.
~- —n - Y
Walks or Districts. Tenants. Houses. Walks or Districts. Tenants. Houses.
Aldgate - - - 5,038 5,968 || Aldgate - - - 3,715 5,848
Cornhill - tºº sº 4,916 5,908 Cornhill - •º. tºº 4,606 5, 127
Finsbury - º tºº 4,336 7,100 Finsbury - $º º 4,544 7,836
Islington - * * 6,408 7,985 Islington - tºº ſº 7,200 8,683
Clerkenwell tºº iº 2,255 3,31 O Clerkenwell tº wº 3,624 5,136
Aldersgate sº tº-º 3,590 6,144 Aldersgate tº º 3,53O 6,412
Fleet Street wº * 4,666 5,576 Fleet Street * * *º 4,823 5,588
Holborn - • * $º 4,226 6,140 Holborn - º gºs 4,730 6,300.
Bloomsbury sº tºº 2,684 2,952 Bloomsbury - gº 2,701 2,969
St. Giles - $º gº 3,299 3,662 St. Giles - º tº 3,411 3,775
St. Martin's wº sº 5,136 5, 190 St. Martin's - tºº 5,157 5,21 1
On the Banks of River 14.1 147 On the Banks of River 14-3 148
Total - - 46,695 60,082 Total - - 48, 184 63,033
1825. 1826.
ſ -\ || r —
Walks or l)istricts. Tenants. Houses. Walks or Districts. Tenants. Houses.
Aldgate - tº tºp 3,743 5,880 || Aldgate - g wº 3,752 5,882
Cornhill – tºº * 4,620 5,124 ' || Cornhill - tºº º 4,636 5, 140
Finsbury - sº - 4,715 8,082 Finsbury - sº ſº 4,905 8,365
Islington - º * 7,634. 9, 183 Islington - º tº 7,736 9,812
Clerkenweil gº º 3,651 5,164 Clerkenwell sºs Qº 3,650 5,185
Aldersgate gº º 3,576 6,418 Aldersgate tº * 3,589 6,445
Fleet Street - - 4,834 5,600 Fleet Street - tº 4,802 5,563
Holborn - tº * 4,818 6,390 Holborn - gº & Tº 4,899 6,494
Bloomsbury gº tº 3,092 3,388 Bloomsbury º 4- 3, 119 3,417
St. Giles - tº tº 4,257 4,718 St. Giles - $3 * 4,392 4,854
St. Martin's - tºs 4,675 4,729 || St. Martin's wº * 4,670 4,724
On the Banks of River 123 1 31 On the Banks of River 129 1 34.
Total * --> 49,738 64,807 Total - - || 50,279 66,01 s
1827.
ſ - \
Walks or Districts. Tenants. Houses.
Aldgate - - - 3,656 5,445
Cornhill - --> gº -4,647 5, 142
Finsbury - * & sº 4,985 8,489
Islington - - sº 8, 197 10,366
Clerkenwell tº ſº 3,549 5,217
Aldersgate ºf g- 3,593 6,449
Fleet Street - tº e 4,807 5,571
Holborn - * * 4,971 6,571
Bloomsbury &=º * 3, 164 3,462
St. Giles - tº- Gº 4,527 4,989
St. Martin's •ºj tºº 4,651 4,705 New River Offi
On the Banks of River || 150 153 18 º
Total - - 50,897 66,559 Fred" Inglis, Clerk.
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. * 55
AN ACCOUNT, showing the G Ross IN com E and Div IDEN Ds of the New River Company,
from the Year 1821 to 1827, inclusive.
WATER, RENT & RENTS
- Watering Roads -
* for - Received for Lands GROSS INCOME. I)IVIDENDS.
Dwelling Houses, &c. or Streets. and Houses.
YEARS —-4.
\–N2–2 -
#. S. d. £. s, d. ‘’ £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d.
1821 64,921 1 O 382 7 10 3,376 12 11 68,68o 3 7 341 19 1 #
1822 66,562 9 9 562 I 1 1 3,640 1 10 70,765 2 8 402 5 2 #
1823 77,461 10 5 500 7 6 4,142 8 9 82,104 6 8 447 17 1 #
1824 85,431 18 4 707 1 4 4,01O 14. 4. 90,149 14 - 489 – 2 #
1825 87,047 5 9 7oo 12 – 4,491 16 9 92,239 14 6 5O1 13 7 #
1826 88,058 13 8 788 9 4 5,036 11 3 93,883 14 490 12 10 #
1827 88,891 8 9 1, 1 O3 9 7 5,662 17 6 95,657 15 10 516 11 11
New River Office, Fred” Inglis,
18 July 1828. Clerk.
THE GRoss Income and Expenditure of the New River Company, &
* for the Year 1827. Appendix, N° 4.
Income - º gº * sº - £. 95,657 15 lo New River
Expenditure - E * * sº º 59,204 13 3 Company.
New River Office, Fred. Inglis, \. _/
18th July 1828. Clerk.
The above statement of Income is made up precisely on the same principle as the return
made in 1821.
And the above is the actual Expenditure, deducting therefrom those items which are
mere matters of transfer.
Appendix, N° 5.
- Appendix, N° 5.
EAST LONDON WATER WORKS.
East London
ANSWERS to QUESTIONs from the Committee. Water Works.
Ordered,—That the Company of Proprietors of the East London Water Works, do \–—
forthwith lay before this Committee Answers to the following Questions:—
Question 1.--When was the Company established ?
Answer.--In the year 1807. By an Act of 47th Geo. 3d, c. 72.
2.—How many applications have been subsequently made to Parliament, and what Acts
have been obtained in consequence 3 -- .
One only in 1808, when the Act of 48th Geo. 3d, c. 8, was granted.
3.—What is the amount of the capital employed, and how has it been invested ?
By the Act of 47th Geo. 3d. - sº – £. 100,000
48th dº º &- gº ** 280,000
£.380,000
4.—What sum has been actually expended to the present time, for engines, reservoirs,
and pipes 7
Amount raised under the foregoing Acts - $º.
£.375,158 2 2
Expended beyond that amount to Christmas 1827,
138,045 15 34
Total expended - gº * £. 513,203 17 5}
Of which £. 130,000 was invested in the purchase of the Shadwell and West Ham
Works, under the authority of the Act of 48th Geo. 3d, and the remainder in the
establishment of the East London Water Works, and the extension and improvement
of the Shadwell and West Ham Water Works, including engines, reservoirs and
pipes.
567. G 4 5.—What
56 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE ON
Appendix, No 5. 5.—What dividends have been paid to the shareholders ?
•-tº- £. 200,300, as per account left herewith, and which on the capital raised is about 23
East London per cent annually on the average, and on the whole expenditure £.513,203 17s 5% d.
Water Works. would be on the average about £. 1 17 s. 2; d. per cent per annum.
6.--The quantity in imperial gallons pumped per day, and to what height 2
r The quantity of water raised per diem is 6,512,292 imperial gallons, to the average
height of 75 feet, under a pressure of 120 feet at the works.
7.—The greatest quantity that the engines can pump 2
The greatest quantity that the engines now at work can conveniently raise is
8,232,516 gallons; but when the new engine is in use, (which will be about
Michaelmas), 3,061,260 gallons per diem additional can be conveniently pumped,
making in the whole 1 1,293,776 gallons per day, or 79,681,875 hogsheads per
a ſlill IIIl,
8—What is the number of houses that pay for high service 3
9.—What are the rates paid at present for high service 3
10,–What number of houses received low service.
The number of houses supplied by the Company is about 42,000, including many
large consumers of water. No distinction is made between high and low service.
11.-What are the rates paid for low service 3 -
See the Company's scale of rates left herewith, which is the same as was presented
to the Committee in 1821. - -
12.--What increase has been made since the first establishment?
In the year 1818 a general equalization and advance upon the rates took place,
amounting in the whole to about 24% per cent.
13.−What further increase can take place, if the Company avail them of the full extent of
the provisions in the Act
There are no provisions in the Company's Acts as to the rates, and the Directors
act upon the scale referred to in the Answer to N° 11.
14.—What agreements have been entered into with other Companies, for obtaining the
sole supply of any district, and the dates thereof.” -
In the year 1815, the Company entered into an arrangement with the New River
Company, whereby they mutually withdrew a portion of their supply, authorizing
either to resume in case of neglect or refusal on the part of the other. By this
arrangement no exclusive right was obtained; the London Bridge and the Lea
Bridge Water Works being then in existence, and the latter still continuing to
supply. *
And in 1822, a portion of the tenants previously supplied by the London Bridge
Water Works were under the provisions of the Act of 3d Geo. 4th, for the removal
of London Bridge, agreed to be supplied by this Company, and for which this
Company pays and is to pay for the term of 260 years, an annuity of £. 160 to the
New River Company. *
N. B-The answers given on the subject of the accounts of the Company are up to
Christmas 1827; the Company's balance sheet to Midsummer last not having
been made up. But the Committee can be furnished with the same hereafter, if
necessary.
By order of the Court of Directors,
* , wi - - Tho' Nelson Pickering
East London Water Works Office, \ º i."º's......
St. Helen's Place, 7th July 1828. } Chief Clerk & Secretary.
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 57
SCALE of RATEs of the Company of Proprietors of the East London WaterWorks;
also, a List of Trades subject to extra Charge for consumption of Water.
Kitchens and wash-houses rated as rooms. & º Lºndon
Houses of the smallest description, and others supplied by common cock or tank. water Works,
A ppendix, N° 5.
© & \—Q-
If cabins or single rooms, 5s. per annum each -
2 rooms - 8s. - *===º - to be farmed or contracted
3 dº small 12s. - * tºº for, full or empty.
3 d” large 15s. - — -
Houses of two small rooms, los. per annum each
two large d” 12s. - gººmsºmº
three small d” 14s. – *º- generally farmed.
w three large d” 16s. - **** gº Y
Houses of four rooms, in first rate Houses of four rooms, in second rate
situations: situations : . -
If small - º - - 22 S. If small - - gº - 2 O S.
farmed - tºº tºº - 20 S. . . farmed dº - - 18s.
large rooms - - - 24s. large rooms - tº – 22 S.
farmed - wº * * * - 22 S, farmed - ſº – 20 S.
Houses of five rooms, in first rate Houses of five rooms, in second rate
situations: situations:
If small - sº dº - 25 S. If small - dºg, º - 23 S.
farmed $º tºº - 23 S. farmed *º sº - 2 1 S,
- large rooms - gº - 27 s. large rooms - sº - 25 S.
farmed $º sº - 258. farmed º tºº - 23 S.
Houses of six rooms, in first rate Houses of six rooms, in second rate
situations : - situations: ** **
If small - gº tºº - . 28s. If small - - - - - - 26s.
farmed tº º – 26s. farmed gº * tº - 24s.
large rooms - tºº - 30s. large rooms - * – 28s.
farmed Cº. gº – 28s. t farmed gº gº – 26s.
THouses of seven rooms, in first rate Houses of seven rooms, in second rate
situations: * , situations:
If paid by the occupier - 33s. If paid by the occupier – 30s.
farmed - - - 31 S. farmed – “º • 28s.
Houses of eight rooms, in first rate Houses of eight rooms, in second rate
situations: situations:
If paid by the occupier - 38s. If small - gº tº - 32 s.
- - - farmed sº - - 30s.
large - tºº wº - 34 S.
farmed - - - 32 s.
Houses of ten rooms, two to three guineas per annum.
And for every room above ten, 5s. per room. *-
g tº Watering-houses, extra according to
Public Houses: £. s. d. consumption: - º S. d.
First rate - gº - 4 — — First rate wº - - 6 — —
Second ditto gº - 3 — — Second ditto - tº-º - 4 – —
Third ditto sº - 2 1 O – || | Third ditto — - - 3 – —
Fourth ditto dº - 2 – - Fourth ditto - spºt - 2 — —
Sugar Houses: - £. s. d.
If one pan - - - - - - - - 7 7 - per annum.
two pans - - - - - - 12 12 — dº
three and four pans - - - 5 5 – per pan, per annum.
five, six and seven pans - - 4 14 6 d” - - dº
eight and upwards - - - 4 4 — d” - - d.”
Houses with stables, gardens, &c. according to consumption.
Butchers and bakers, £.25 per cent extra.
Manufacturers and large consumers of water, on special agreement, according to
consumption.
Subject in all cases to alterations upon appeal to the Court of Directors,
according to situation, consumption, and other circumstances.
A LIST of the TRADEs which are considered as subject to an extra Charge in respect
of their consumption of Water.
Baker, basket-maker, brewer, butcher, chemist, cow-keeper, currier, colour manu-
factory, distiller, dyer, fellmonger, fishmonger, gardner, gas works, large laundry,
livery stables, orchill manufactory, potatoe dealer and washer, public house, ditto
watering-house, scowerer, soap boiler, slaughter-house, sugar-house, steam engines,
tripe boiler, and others requiring a supply of water beyond the ordinary supply to
private houses.
East London Water Works Office, l Tho' Nelson Pickering,
7th July 1828. ſ Ch. Clk. & Secy,
567. H
58 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE ON
Appendix, N° 5.
AN ACCOUNT of the Sums paid in DIVIDENDs to the Proprietors of the East London
Water Works, from the first Establishment thereof to the latest period to which the
same can be made up ; specifying the Dates and Rates of such Dividends, and
East London
Water Works.
whether the same were paid, discharged of the Property Tax.
I)ATES. RATES. CAPITAL. DIVIT) ENDS.
£. s. £. s. d.
1809 : 10th January - 1 per Cent on 190,000 – 1,900 - -
1 oth July - - 2 d° tºº 190,000 — 3,800 –
1810 : 1 oth January - 92 do gº 237,500 – 4,750 - -
10th July - - 2 d” - 237,500 – 4,750 – –
1811 : 10th January - 2 # d" tºy 320,000 — 8,000 — —
1 oth July - - 2 # dº tºs 320,000 — 8,000 — —
1812: 10th January - 1 d" --> 380,000 – 3,8oo — —
10th July - - 1 d" tºº 380,000 – 3,800 – –
1813: 10th January - No dividend. -* -*
10th July - - Do -* *
1814: 10th January - De * ---
1 oth July - - D° -sº —
1815: 10th January - 1 per Cent on 380,000 — 3,800 – —
10th July - - 1. d” º tº Do 3,800 –
1816: 10th January - I do tºp - D9 3,800 – —
10th July -> tº I do ºp - D° 3,800 — —
1817: 10th January - 1 # dº º º Do 4,750 - -
loth July - - 1 + do º * Do 4,750 - -
1818: 10th January - 1 # d" - - D9 5,700 –
- 10th July - - 1 # (i9 º º Do 5,700 –
1819 : 10th January - 1 # dº -> Do 6,650 — —
10th July - - 1 # d” &E º D° 6,650 –
1820: 1 oth February 1 # d" ę - Do 6,650 —
10th August - No dividend. -*. tºms
1821 : 1 oth February D* º- tº-º
- 10th July - - Do --- *
1822: 10th January - Do *. &ºmº
10th July - - 1 per Cent on 380,000 – 3,800 –
1823: 1 oth January - 1. do * º Do 5,700 –
1 oth July - - 2 d” *s º De 7,600 --sº
1824: 10th January - 2 y dº º - Do 9,500 —
10th July - - 2 # d” &º º Do 9,500 –
1825: 10th January - 2 # dº tºº tº- Do 1 O,45O –
10th July - - 2 # d" º t-k Do 10,450 —
1826; 10th January - 2 # do - - tºº Do 10,450 -
2d October - 2 # do sº ſº Do 9,500 –
1827; 2d April - - 2 # do & tºº Do 9,500 –
2d October - 2 # dº º º D" 9,500 –
1828 2d April - - - 2 # d" - - - - D9 gºs 9,500 - -
£. 200,300 – —

Tho' Nelson Pickering,
East London Water Works Office,
Chief Clerk & Secretary.
7th July 1828.
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 59
GROSS INCOME of the Company for the Year 1820, as per Return made to the
- * . . . Committee in 1821. - - . . "
£. S. d. -
Rents tº vº º gº - 30,203 14 7 f. s. d.
Arrears - wº wº gº - 3,147 3 7
33,350 18 2
Gross Expenditure : s
Permanent gº § sº - 13,003 16 8
Non permanent - - - - 4,848 14 5
— 17,852 11 1
Gross Income of the Company for the year 1827:
Rents $º gº gº * - 38,851 6 10
Arrears &=} wº tº •ºg • 2,203 7 4
~ —--— 41,054 13 2
Gross Expenditure:
Permanent wº º wº - 16,103 – 11
Non permanent - * = r tº - 30,275 5 4 -
46,378 6 3
East London Water Works Office, Thos. Nelson Pickering,
Saint Helen's Place, 18th July 1828. - Chief Clerk Secretary.
To the Honourable the Select Committee on the Supply of Water to the Metropolis.
Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen,
I was ordered by the Directors of the East London Water Works, to take an opportunity
of explaining to the Committee, that their works are supplied with water from the river Lea
and not from the river Thames. Severe indisposition has prevented me from attending the
Committee, but understanding that the honourable Chairman has expressed the willingness
of the Committee to receive any statement in writing on the subject of the supply, and to
notice the same in the Appendix to their Report, I beg leave to thank the Committee for
their indulgence, and to state for their information, that the East London Water Works are
situate at Öid Ford, on the banks of the river Lea, upwards of three miles from the river
Thames. - .
At the time of low water, the level of the surface of the river Thames is about thirteen feet
lower than that of the river Lea at the Water Works. The perpendicular rise of the tide in
the Thames, at the mouth of the Lea, is eighteen feet, whilst at the works the rise is only
five feet, the consequence of which is, that the water of the river Lea is pent back by the
rising of the tide in the Thames for about four hours before it begins to flow up at the
works; the whole quantity of river Lea water, passing the Water Works, in four hours
accumulates and forms a body between the water of the Thames and the Water Works.
The water runs down at the rate of about two miles per hour, but does not return at the
average rate of one mile per hour, and it scarcely ever flows up three hours; it therefore
follows, if the Thames water reaches the works, there must be as much water flow back in
three hours, at the rate of one mile per hour, as runs down in four hours at the rate of two
miles per hour, consequently the reservoirs are filled by the water of the river Lea, and the
river Lea only; and this is confirmed by the result of the actual experiments which I have
made, so far as my state of health has enabled me to prosecute them.
Inasmuch as the return of the water of the river Lea is materially influenced by the mills
and locks between the Water Works and the River Thames, it is possible, that at very high
tides, a small portion of the Thames water may flow as high as the Water Works, but this
must be at the very end of the tide previous to which the reservoirs will have received their
full supply.
East London Water Works, Jas. Steevens,
Old Ford, Middlesex, 21st July 1828. Engineer,
º
567. - H
Appendix, N° 5.
East London
Water Works.
\——
60 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE ON
Appendix, N° 5.
** Pºdºn AN ACCOUNT, showing the Number of Dwelling Houses and other Buildings
Water Works. i
supplied with Water by the Company of Proprietors, in each Year from 1820 to
Christmas 1827, specifying the several Classes of Rates charged thereon.
HOUSES, GROSS CHARGE.
1 & 2 1 :
- 8 - .. £. s. d.
1,053 Trade and Manufactures - º E- tºº sº º - 5,144. 15 —
45 Public Buildings º º tº tº º tºº - - 397 12 —
t Private Houses, of which 12,393 are at or under the yearly 31,161 15 3
32,586 { rate of 14.s. per house - - - - - - - > * ~ *
33,684 p £. 36,704 2 3
I S22 :
1,074 Trade and Manufactures - …º. tº- tº- - - tºº 5,228 17 –
45 Public Buildings - º tºº -> $º º sm " as 397 12 —
33,633 Private Houses, of which 12,650 are at or under 14.s. per house 32,567 6 1 o
Watering Roads - tºº º º º tº - - 3O — —
34,752 £. 38,223 15 1C
1823:
1,093 Trade and Manufactures - º - tº- --> " " | 5,335 2 –
46 Public Buildings - * º tº- sº ems - tº- 406 – —
35,975 Private Houses, of which 12,900 are at or under 14s. per house 34,614 12 1
37,114 | £. 39,755 14
1824 : -
1,111 Trade and Manufactures - º Rºs sº º º * 5,330 - —
46 Public Buildings (- º tº - • - - º 406 – —
37,400 Private Houses, of which 13,268 are at or under 14s, per house 35,933 5 9
38,557 * || 41,669 5 9
1,142 Trade and Manufactures - tº-> • • • º º 5,466 2 º
55. Public Buildings *- tº- ę - sº 4- tº- 41 O 8 —
38,589 Private Houses, of which 13,485 are at or under 14.s. per house 37,167 17 7
Watering Roads º º º º sº tº - º-> IOO. — —
39,786 | * | 43,144 7 7
r 1826 :
1,147 - Trade and Manufactures - sº - º -> t- º 5,459 14 -
"º ſºlic hiding." . . . . . . . . . *; ; I
40,241 Private Houses, of which 13,703 are at or under 14.s. per house 38,490 12 4
* Watering Roads * * * ~ * ~ * * 150 - -
41,445 - £. 44,511 16 4
... -------. . . . - . 1827 :
1,164. Trade and Manufactures - tº º º º º tºº 5,579 2 –
58. Public Buildings tº 4- tº -Yº tºº * * - || 414 10 –
40,985 Private Houses, of which 13,825 are at or under 14s, per house 39,246 5 2
Watering Roads - º gº - tº * - gº 203, 2 3
42,2O7 * | 45,442 19 5
N. B.-This Return is in conformity with that delivered to the Committee in 1821.
The Company's Books are not kept so as to furnish the Answers to the present Inquiry, in
the classifications required.
East London Water Works ~, Tho' Nelson Pickering
St. Helen's Place, Chief Clerk & Secy.
28 July 1828.

THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 61
Appendix, Nº. 6.
SOUTH LONDON WATER WORKS.
ANSWERS to QUESTIONs from the Committee.
South London Water Works, Vauxhall,
- July 9, 1828.
IN compliance with the Order of “the Select Committee of the House of Commons, on
the subject of the Supply of Water to the Metropolis,” dated the 4th July 1828, the
Directors have ordered the following Answers to the Questions sent, to be laid before the
Committee; viz.
To Question 1.
Answer: The Company was established by Act of Parliament, dated the 12th July
1805–(45 Geo.3 c. 119.)
To Question 2.
An application was made to Parliament a few years after the Incorporation of the
Company, praying that a Clause in the Act of Incorporation, restraining the Com-
pany under heavy penalties, from supplying certain districts therein mentioned,
might be repealed; but in this application the Company was not successful.
Another application to Parliament was made in 1813, and thereupon an Act was
passed to enable the Company to raise the sum of £.80,000, in addition to the monies
raised under the 45th Geo. 3. This Act was passed the 22d June 1813–(53 Geo. 3.
c. 155.)
To Question 3. -
The capital of the Company is £. 95,000; which sum, together with the sum of
£. 7,000. borrowed by the Company in March 1823, of the Commissioners for the loan
of Exchequer Bills, have been expended in the constructing of reservoirs and water-
courses, in the erecting of engines and buildings, and in the purchase and laying
down of water pipes.
To Question 4.
The sums expended have been as follow; viz.
For engines and engine houses - - £. 14,429 3 6
For reservoirs - ſº * wº £º 13,900 1 2 3
For pipes - gº º dº * tº 48,209 19
and the whole sum expended upon the works, to the 31st March 1828, has been
£. 184,394. 2. 7.
To Question 5. .
Two dividends only of 3 per cent per annum each, have been paid to the shareholders,
the last half-yearly payment of which was made in April 1827; since which time, the
dividend has been discontinued for want of funds.
To Question 6. -
Upon an avarage throughout the year, about 1,000,000 gallons (of 282 cub. in.)
are daily supplied, at different heights. The greatest height to which the Company
supply water is 65 feet from the level of the Thames. -
To Question 7.
The engines of the Company can pump up about 250,000 gallons (282 cub. in.
each) per hour. *
To Questions 8, 9, 10 & 1 i.
The Company have no separate accounts of high and low service. The number of
houses supplied by the Company is about 10,000, for which houses rates to the
amount of £. 7,840. 6. 10, were last year paid, being an average of about 15s. per
annum per house, including in the calculation the rates paid by fellmongers, tanners,
and manufacturers.
To Question 12. -
A few years after the establishment of the works, the annual average rate was cal-
culated to be about £. 1. per house; the average annual rate per house is now as stated
in the foregoing answer.
To Question 13. - +
The Company are not restricted by the Act of Incorporation, to any particular
scale of rates.
To Question 14.
No agreements have been entered into with any other Water Company for obtaining
the sole supply of any district. This Company is, (as was before stated) restricted
by a clause in the Act of Incorporation from entering the most populous parts of the
districts supplied by the Lambeth and Southwark Water Works, whilst the former
of these two Companies, have pipes and supply houses within 200 yards of the reser-
voirs and works of this Company.
By order of the Board of Directors,
J. W. Peppercorne, Secretary.
567. H 3
Appendix, N°6.
South London
Water Works.
62 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE ON
Appendix, N° 6.
\
South London
Water Works.
-e-
L/
To the Select Committee on the Supply of WATER to the METRoPolis.
Gentlemen, South London Water Works, July 18th, 1828.
IN compliance with your order of the 14th instant, I beg to lay before you, 1st. An Account
of the income of this Company, from its establishment to the 31st March of this year.
2dly.—An Account of the number of the tenants of this Company, from the establish-
ment of the works to the present time; but as no separate accounts have been kept of
distinct classes of tenants, nor of the parishes in which the same are situated, it would not
be possible to lay before your Committee, a correct account thus arranged. The Company,
supply water in the parishes of Lambeth, Newington, Camberwell, and part of the parish
of Bermondsey; but the Company are restricted, under a penalty of 10 l. per annum per
house, payable to the Lambeth Water Works Company, from supplying any houses with
water within the angle of which the River Thames is the base, and which extends from
above Lambeth Palace to below Blackfriars Bridge, and from each of those points to
Newington church; comprising a circumference of little short of six miles, and a population
of about 60,000 persons. -
3dly.—An account, showing the number and description of shares, and the nominal
value of such shares, in this Company. ..
4thly.—An account of hours worked, and coals consumed by the engines of the South
London Water Works, from June 1827 to June 1828.
- And remain, Gentlemen, -
Your most obedient and humble Servant,
J. W. Peppercorne, SecY.
ACCOUNT of TENANTs of the South London Water Works.
2– ~~ TN
No No
1808 Tenants supplied - 207 1819 Tenants supplied - 4,500
1809 Es Do º 52.5 1820 tº- Do tº 4,860
181 o gºe Do ſº 1,028 1821 º Do tºº 5,260
1811 gºa Do º 1,456 1822 º Do º 5,700
1812 tº Do sº 2, 119 1823 tº Do º 6,400
1813 gº Do ſº 2,445 1824 º Do tº 7,200
1814 pe Do º 2,824 1825 º Do tº 7,850
1815 Do º 3, 1 OO 1826 * Do tº 8,575
1816 º Do º 3,500 1827 gº Do * . 9,500
1817 - Do & 3,776 1828 gº Do º 10,244.
1818 g ºt Do º 4,100
J. W. Peppercorne, Secretary.
ACCOUNT of the SHAREs of the South London Water Works.
Nine hundred and fifty Shares of £. 100 each; one hundred and fifty
of which Shares were raised at £.go each, and the eight hundred at
£. 100 each - - making - - £. 95,000 Capital Joint Stock.
The nominal price of the Shares of the South London Water Works is now
(July 16, 1828) f.88 per Share.
J. W. Peppercorne, Secy.
ACCOUNT of Hours worked, and CoALs consumed by the Engines of the
South London Water Works; June 1, 1827, to June 1, 1828.
...~~
ſ - - \
1827 : Bushel. Hrs. min.
June º tºp Coals consumed - 1,301 Hours worked - 209 25
July - £º º * 9. tº- 1,215. º *- age º 229 45
August - tºº º º * * 1,025 - º ge tº- 2O5 15
September gº tº º: º wº- 1,074 º tº-1 º * 157 4O
October - tº * t- wº º 799 - * sº wº 157 15
November º tº - ºrº º 721 - tº gº pº 141 10
December º & sa tº * 693 - º & º 135 5
1828 :
January - *- & ºw tº m- 673 tº- cº tºº * 148 30
February - º º - - º 840 - sº- º age 155 IO
March - *g º º tº º 1,121 - * sº tºº 192 30
April - º º º º * 1,131 - tºº sº º; 196 5
May a- sº age º sº tº- 1,326 tº sº. gº º- 2 1 0 15
ToTAL - - || 1 1,919 TOTAL - - 2,138 5
J. W. Peppercorne, Secy.
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
63
ACCOUNT of the IN COME of the South
London Water Works.
June
June
June
June
June
June
June
June
March
March
March
March
March
March
March
March
March
March
March
March
March
March
March
March
March
March
to
to
to
*
to
to
to
1809
º
181 o
...)
18ul
1812 J
1812
...]
1818
...}
1814
1815 ſ
1815)
1816 J
1816)
1817 ſ
1817
1818
isiºn
1819 |
1819)
1820ſ
issol
1821 ſ
1821
1822
Collections and Rents -
Rents and Water Rates
Water Rates and Rents
Water Rates and Rents
Ground Rents and Water Rates
hº
Arrears of Land and Water Rents
Land and Ground Rent
Water Rents - *_
Arrears of Land and Water Rents
Land and Ground Rents
Water Rents, of 1814 -
D° - - of 1815 -
Arrears of Land and Water Rents
Land and Ground Rents
Water Rents, 1814 -
D° - - 1815 -
D° - - 1816 -
D" - - 1817 -
Water Rents, 1815 -
D° - - 1816 -
D° - - 1817 -
Ground Rents -
Land and Ground Rents
Premium for Lease of
Gardens - -
Water Rents, 1814 -
D° - - 1815 -
D” - - 1816 -
D° - - 1817 -
D* - - 1818 -
D° - - 1819 -
Land and Ground Rents
Water Rents, 1817 -
D° - - 1818 -
D° - - 1819 -
D° - - 182O -
Ground Rents sold
Water Rents, 1817 -
D° - - 1818 -
Do - 1819 -
D° - - 1820 -
D° - - 1821 -
Ground Rents -
Water Rents, 1819
D° - - 1820
D° - - 1821
B-e
.
wºººº
º
Cumberland
º
:..
H
£. s. d.
574 11 6
87 16 3
2,095 8 3
38 17 3
157 6 1 o
400 4 6
2,189 8 6
21 19 —
377 2 8
74 15 -
643 2 4
2,923 7 10
2 2 –
28 16 1 o
280 1 1 O
3,176 2 2
258 10 –
4.i.5 I -
1,300 — —
i 12 -
9 19 —
321 19 2
3,636 8 4.
4, 18 6
465 4 9
5 19 6
244 16 —
3,989 10 7
2 12 6
1985 12' 6
2 2 –
30 18 lo
218 8 9
4,214 3 5
7 12 —
199 10 6
5 T 2 –
275 6 9
4,428 15 4
369
1, 147
1,792
2,170
2,757 -
2,785
1 1
9
11 7
1 5 I O
4,042 8 10
3,743 10 1 0
5,691
4,708
18 –
3 4
*º**
6,408
17 6
4,909 4 7
(continued.)
Appendix, N°6.
South London
Water Works.
64 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE ON
Appendix, N° 6. Account of the Income of the South London Water Works—continued.
South London

Water Works.
www. S J March – 1822 £. s. d. f s, d
to * Ground Rents - tºp sº {-º tº º 286 5 6
March - 1823J Water Rents, 1819 - *g sº tº 1 12 —
D° - - 1820 - º • &= 3 13 O
D° - - 1821 - gºs gº tºg 153 6 6
D9 - - 1822 - tº º gº - 4,833 6 1
5,278. 3 10
March - 1823 --- -
to Ground Rents - Eº wº- *sº º 4O2 11 —
March - 1824 J Water Rents, 1821 - tº wº u tº 12 1 6 -
D° - - 1822 - º º & º 185 12 3
D° - - 1823 - - - - - - || 5,576 1 4 3 . .
8 6,176. 19 —
March - 1824
to l Ground Rents - tº wº sº º 331 19 4.
March - 1825 ſ Water Rents, 1821 - tº - * 2. 2 –
D* - - 1823 - gº sº iſ tº 321 1 10
D° - - 1824 - iº jº - || 5,695 I -
D° - - 1822 - - gº wº 28 19 6 |
March 825 hl -- 6,379 3 8
al‘CH - I
£O l Water Rents, 1823 - º sº tº 5 16 6
March - 1826 J D° - - 1824 - tº º tºº 437 5 1
D° - - 1825 - tº = - 6,281 7 9
Ground Rents - fº wº s gº 271 13 8
March - 1826 --- 6,996 3 –
al"Cſí -
to l Ground Rents - tº gº º 161 19 10
March - 1827 J Water Rents, 1825 - - - - || 288 18 5
D° - - 1826 - iº º - || 7,244 i O IO | -
March 1827 •. . - . . 7,695 9 1
CI] = -
to l Old Stores - sº gº gº º º 47 7 6.
March - 1828 ſ Ground Rents - º * º * 133 3 10
Water Rents, 1826 - ſº \º , sº 272 4 5
D° - - 1827 - - - - 7,840 6 10
*. 8,293 9 7
J. W. Peppercorne, SecY.
Sir, - South London Water Works, July 19, 1828.
I BEG to hand you, for the use of the Committee on the Supply of Water to the
Metropolis, the Account, as required by the order of the said Committee; viz.

Gross Proceeds of the South London Water Works, for, £. ‘. d
1820 gº gº * ~ * ... se tºº º ſº -J' 4,473 5
Sale of Ground Rents - = ~ * ... * ... ess * * tº 1,935 12 6
* * > * - - 6,408 17 6
Expenditure - - - - - sº tº El º 6,452 2 1
Gross Proceeds, &c. for 1827 - - - - - || 8,293 2 7
£. s. d. —-
Expenditure (excluding dividend) - }182 {{º}} 13 7
Dividends paid - - - 7(4.7 ± 1.
. * $2. - 9,568 13 7
And remain, Sir, .
Your most obedient and humble servant,
To Sir Francis Burdett, Bart, * - J. W. Peppercorne, Socy
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 65
- Appendix, N° 7. Appendix, Nº.7.
- Lambeth
LAMBETH WATER WORKS. Water Works.
\ A
"sºr
ANSWERS to Qu EstroNs from the Committee.
Ordered,—That the Company of Proprietors of the Lambeth Water Works do forthwith
lay before this Committee, Answers to the following Questions;–4th July 1828.
Question 1st.—When was the Company established ? -
The Act incorporating the Company, passed in 1785; it is intituled, “An Act for
“supplying the Inhabitants of the parish of Lambeth and parts adjacent, in the county
“ of Surrey, with Water;” and by that Act the Company is restricted from laying down
pipes for the conveyance of water, in any of the then paved streets of the parishes
of St. George and St. Saviour's, Southwark.
2d.—How many applications have been subsequently made to Parliament, and what
Acts have been obtained in consequence?
This Company has made no application for, nor has it obtained any further Act of
Parliament; but, perhaps, it is proper to state, that when application was made to
Parliament by the Company of Proprietors of the South London Water Works for
an Act to incorporate that Company, the legislature having regard to the restrictions
imposed upon the Lambeth Company by the Act of 1785, and to the fact that the
Lambeth Company had incurred a very large outlay upon their works, without having
then derived any adequate remuneration therefrom, deemed it reasonable to introduce
a clause into the Actincorporating the South London WaterWorks Company, whereby
the proprietors thereof were restricted from laying or driving any pipes, trunks or other
works, and from supplying with water any of the inhabitants residing in any of the
streets or places forming the line or boundary therein parlicularly described.
3d.—What is the amount of the capital employed, and how has it been invested ?
The total expenditure for the establishment, maintenance and carrying on of this
Company, has been - º *sº * º • - *º- £. 187,504 8 5
From which the current and contingent expenses being). 2O *
deducted, amounting to - gº - - - J 57,420 3 -
It leaves the sum of wº tº. sº wº <º - £. 130,084 5 5
as the amount of capital which has been actually expended; and the whole of which
has been invested in the establishment of this Company’s works; and the Company
have in the Public Funds, 1,000 l. New 4 per Cents.
The costs of which was - gº * sº tº º sº £. 1,002 6 6
And cash balance gº * * - -, s= } tºg 32O 6 2
4th.-What sum has actually been expended to the present time, for engines, reservoirs
and pipes 3
* £. 130,084. 5. 5.
5th–What dividends have been paid to the shareholders ?—
The sums paid to the proprietors for dividends from the first establishment of the
Works to Christmas last, amount in the whole to £. 43,840. But the Committee will,
perhaps, permit the proprietors to state that out of the 44 years, during which this
Company has existed, the dividend to the shareholders has at various periods of time
amounting in the whole to 16 years, been altogether suspended; and the whole in-
come of the Company during those years was laid out upon the Works.
6th.-The quantity in imperial gallons pumped per day, and to what height :
The quantity of water actually pumped per day, is 1,480,500 imperial gallons;
under a pressure at the engine, equal to a column of water sixty feet high.
7th.--The greatest quantity that the engines can pump 2 -
The greatest quantity per day, of 24 hours, is 5,821,200 imperial gallons.
8th.—What is the number of houses which pay for high service 3.
This Company has never made any additional charge for high service.
9th.-What are the rates paid at present for high service 3
None.—Wide N° 8.
10th.-What number of houses receive low service 2 *
The whole number of houses supplied by the Company is 15,854, and no
difference in point of charge is made between high and low service.
The Company also supply 138 manufactories and public buildings.
11th, What are the rates paid for low service?
•, The average rate of charge is 18s, per houss.
567. I ~ 12th, What
66 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE ON
Appendix, N° 7. 12th.-What increase of rates has been made since the first establishment 7
No general increase of rates has been made. There are many streets, the in-
Lambeth habitants of which now pay the rate they did upwards of 40 years ago.
Water Works. -
\ } 13th.-What further increase can take place if the Company avail themselves of the full
. extent of the provisions in the Act 7
The Act of Parliament by which this Company was established does not contain
any clause relating to the rates which the Company were to charge.
14th-What agreements have been entered into with any other Water Companies for
obtaining the sole supply of any district, and the date thereof.” . - -
This Company has neither entered into, nor ever contemplated entering into any
such agreements.
(Additional.) -
Ordered, 14th July 1828,-That there be laid before this Committee, An ACCOUNT,
showing the number and description of Shares into which the Capital Joint Stock of the
Lambeth Water Works Company is divided; and the nominal value of such shares.

Number ,” - Nominal Value ------, ------- -
of I).ESCRIPTION. ...ejj Amount subscribed
SHARES. r per Share. per Share.
£. £.
32 Created by Act of Parliament 25 Geo. 3. 300 - 185
c. 89.
ExPLAN ATION :
Though the sum of £. 185 per share only was actually received on the above shares in
the first instance, the whole returns of the Company having been required for carrying
on the works, and for the current expenses for sixteen years, without any dividend to the
Proprietors, the invested capital of the Company has been increased to its present value;
and the nominal value of the shares to be about £. 3,000.
Appendix, N° 8. Appendix, N° 8.
Southwark SOUTHWARK WATER WORKS.
Water Works.
\ | ANSWER to the QUESTIONs transmitted by the Honourable the House of Commons,
to Mr. Rosseter of the Southwark Water Works.
Answer to Question 1.
The district now supplied with water by the Southwark Water Works, was formerly
supplied by the Old Borough Water Works and the London Bridge Water Works.
The Old Borough Water Works were established about 70 years ago, by a company
of proprietors, and became the property of the present proprietor John Edwards,
esquire, about the year 1820. The London Bridge Water Works were established
so long ago as the year 1581. In the year 1822 an Act passed, compelling the
removal from the Thames of the wheels and machinery at London Bridge, by which
the supply of water from those works was given, and thereupon it became necessary
to effect the supply by steam power. The two districts were very small, and the
service was altogether given through wood pipes, and in many streets there were
four rows of wooden pipes. After the removal of the water wheels, the prudence of
uniting the two works became obvious, as well with respect to the public and the
individuals interested in the works, as to avoid the expenditure of very large sums of
money in the erection of steam engines for each works, in the substitution of iron
for wood pipes, in the working of two engines at a time instead of one, and in
maintaining two establishments, which would have occasioned so heavy an outlay as
to leave not the least hope of any return from the small districts supplied. In order
to effect the supply of water upon the best terms, the two works were consolidated
under the name of the “Southwark Water Works,” and became as they now are, the
property of John Edwards, esquire.
Answer to Question 2.
None, except an Act passed in the third year of His present Majesty, intituled,
“An Act for removing the Water Works at London Bridge.”
Answer to Question 3 and 4.
• Upwards of £. 70,000, which has from time to time been invested in the construc-
tion of works necessary to effect the supply of water.
Answer
THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. 67
Answer to Question 5. \ Appendix, N° 8.
The Old Borough Water Works did not pay one per cent on the capital expended,
and the London Bridge Water Works never paid more than 3 per cent. Southwark
Water Works.
Answer to Question 6. \ ——
1,572,400 imperial gallons are pumped every day to the height of 56 feet.
Answer to Question 7. . --
4,193,280 imperial gallons can be pumped by the engines in 24 hours.
Answer to Question 8. - .
More than 800 houses receive high service, but only 9 in the district are charged
for it. They are charged under particular circumstances; the total amount paid for
such high service is £. 12 19. 6. per annum.
Answer to Question 9. - -
The 800 houses which receive high service, from 18 to 42 feet, pay on an average
26s, each per annum.
Answer to Question 10.
About 6,900 houses.
Answer to Question 11.
The average 15s. per house.
There are also distilleries, breweries, tanners, hatters, and numerous other manu-
factories supplied from the works, the payments for which form no part of the
above averages. -
Answer to Question 12.
In the year 1823, in consequence of a very large outlay occasioned by the re-
moval of the London Bridge Works, in building engines and other works to effect
the supply, an appeal was made to the tenants for an average advance of 5 per cent
on the rates which they paid for houses, and it was readily acceded to.
Answer to Question 13. -
There are no Parliamentary provisions authorizing a further increase.
Answer to Question 14.
None, except as appears from the foregoing statement.
68
APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE, &c.
Appendix, N° 9.
—eº-
COMPARATIVE RETURNS OF 1820 WITH 1827.
AVERAGE GROSS GROSS
YEARS. HOUSES. RATE NET PROFIT.
ANNUAL INCOME. EXPENDITURE. -
per House.
S. £. S. d. £. s. d. £ S. d
WEST MIDIDH.ESEX:
182O 10,350 47 24,252 6 10 9,000 — — 15,252 6 10
1827 14,500 51 37,000 - - 13,000 — — 24,000 — —
GRAND JUNCTION :
1820 7,180 57 20,153 1 1 7 8,916 6 — 11,237 5 7
1827 7,809 61 24,702 5 – 10,674 8 4. 14,027 16 8
CHELSEA :
182O 8,631 35 15,150 7 11 12,255 1 1 – 2,894. 16 11
1827 12,409 30 18,589 16 1 12,532 2 9 6,057 13 4
EAST I.ONDON :
1820 32,071 22 35,358 14 9 16,336 1 – 19,022 13 There was also a
- © non-permanent expen-
1827 42,000 21 45,442 1.9 5 14,050 6 3 31,39° 13 * diture in lºa.
ing to £. 23,217. 18. 2.
NEW RIVER: -
1820 52,082 25 67,275 2 4 || 48,109 18 4 || 19,165 4 -
1827 66,600 28 95,657 15 10 59,204 13 3 36,453 2 7
SOUTH LONDON :
1820 5,200 18 4,708 3 4 --> -*s incomplete.
1827 10,000 16 8,293 2 7 7,991 13 7 301 9 –
HAMBETH :
182O 2 1,487 16 9,335 – — 8,552 – — 783 — —
1827 15,987 16 12,370 – — 9,500 – — 2,873 * *
SOUTHWARK :
1820 -*- -- *== -ºp *ºrº Returns incomplete.
1827 6,900 - º t-ºº: wº-sº
TOTAL NORTH OF THE THAMES.
2–
(; ROSS GR ()SS
YEARS. | HOUSES. ANNUAL INCOME. ExppNDITURE. * *9".
£. s. d. £. S. d. £. S. d.
1820 1 10,314 162,190 3 5 94,617 16 4 67,572 7 I
1827 143,318 221,392 16 4 109,461 Io 7 1 11,931 5 9
TOTAL SOUTH OF THE THAMES.
Returns not complete.

METROPOLIS WATER SUPPLY.
R E P o R T
Of Thomas Telford, Civil Engineer, February 1834, on the Means of
supplying the METRoPolis with PURE WATE R.
REPORT - - - - - - - - - - - - p.
APPENDIX - - - - - - - - - - - - p. 9
PLANS:
1. Plan and Section of a Line of Aqueduct, from the River Verulam, above
Watford, to Primrose Hill.
2. Plan and Section of a Line of Aqueduct, from the River Wandle at Beddington,
to Clapham Common.
3. Map of the New River from its Source, near the Town of Ware, to London,
and part of the River Lea.
10.
º
Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed,
26 March 1834. tº
2 REPORT OF MR. TELFORD ON
R E P O R T
Of Thomas Telford, Civil Engineer, February 1834, on the Means of
supplying the METROPolis with PURE WATER. ©
TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS OF
HIS MAJESTY'S TREASURY.
HºNº. received directions from the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's
Treasury to report upon the means of supplying the Metropolis with Pure
Water, I immediately proceeded in the investigation of this important object, and
after extensive and repeated surveys, and much consideration, beg leave to make
the following Report:-
The Water of the river Thames being strongly objected to by the inhabitants of
this great city, and also condemned in the Report of the Commissioners of Water
Inquiry [See Report, 21 April 1828, p. 11 *], in consequence of the impurities
with which it is contaminated; I therefore perambulated the district on each side
of the valley of the Thames, and examined the streams which fall into that river
in the vicinity of London.
In the result I found an abundance of pure, transparent water, within the distance
of 16 miles on the North, amply sufficient for the supply of three of the present
Water Companies on that side of the Thames; and within 10 miles on the South,
I found as ample a supply for the three Waterwork Companies on the South side
of the River, at a sufficient elevation for both high and low services, without having
recourse to filtration, or indeed to pumping, except for a small portion of the
high services.
The circumstances of the two Companies supplied with water from the valley
of the river Lea, require to be spoken of separately. What relates to the Compa-
nies which supply water to the North-western parts of the Metropolis shall first be
discussed : these are, the West Middlesex, the Grand Junction, and the Chelsea
Companies.
From information obtained by the Commissioners of Inquiry in 1828, the daily
supply of water, on an average throughout the year, afforded by each Company,
was as follows:
The Grand Junction ſº gº - 2,800,000 gallons.
West Middlesex wº wº º 2,250,000 –
Chelsea wº $º sº $º 1,760,000 –
In all - - - 6,810,000 gallons, or
- C
1,089,600 cubic feet per day, equal to 78,819 gallons, or (nearly) 13 cubic feet
per second.
At the town of Uxbridge, the whole of the river which passes that place is called
the Colne, with which a considerable stream, called the Chesham, forms a junction
at Rickmansworth : proceeding upwards, between Rickmansworth and Watford,
the westerly branch occupies the Berkhampstead Valley, and the eastern branch,
called the Verulam, a transparent stream, occupies the St. Alban’s Valley; and
about half-way between St. Alban's and Watford, the Colne joins the Verulam ;
but, unless after heavy rains, the Colne is an insignificant stream, and at such times
very
* “Taking into consideration the various circumstances to which we have now adverted, together
with the details of evidence by which they were proved and illustrated, and also the facts derived from
our own observation and experience, we are of opinion, that the present state of the supply of water to
the Metropolis is susceptible of, and requires improvement; that many of the complaints respecting the
supply of water are well founded, and that it ought to be derived from other sources than those now
resorted to, and guarded by such restrictions as shall at all times ensure its cleanliness and purity.”
METROPOLIS WATER SUPPLY. 3.
very muddy, wherefore it is intended to exclude the Colne from furnishing any part
of the supply of water to the metropolis. .*
At Watford Mill in the autumn of 1833, being the driest season, as regards the
supply of rivers, experienced during the last half-century, the Verulam River pro-
duced upwards of 30 cubic feet of water per second; being more than double the
quantity supplied by the three Companies in the year 1828, namely, 13 cubic feet
per second, as before stated.
In the Berkhampstead Valley the river Gade, at Hunton Bridge (three miles
north of Watford), in the same dry season produced 42 cubic feet per second; but
to connect the Gade with the Verulam would cost 50,000l., a heavy expense,
which, however, is a small objection compared to the turbid state of the Gade
water, produced by its connection with the Grand Junction Canal, and the more
decided cause for rejecting it altogether, from its being infected by the deleterious
substances used at the paper-mills: so that there being abundance of clear water
produced by the Verulam alone, at a sufficiently high elevation, I propose to avoid
these annoyances altogether.
Immediately above the commencement of the intended London Aqueduct, about
two miles above Watford, the valley of the river Verulam affords a commodious
situation for extensive reservoirs of water, and for allowing it to settle, if such
should hereafter be deemed requisite.
From this place a covered aqueduct may be made to descend with a uniform
inclination of 18 inches per mile to Primrose Hill, terminating in a set of extensive
receiving and distributing reservoirs, at the height of 146 feet above high-water,
Trinity datum standard, in the river Thames; from these reservoirs each of the
three before-mentioned Companies may be supplied separately, and in such propor-
tion as shall be determined. -
In order to deliver the water into the reservoirs near Primrose Hill, in the same
state of purity as it leaves the Verulam River, it is proposed to conduct it through
a covered aqueduct, at such a depth under the surface of the ground as to be
secure from the effect of frost, from any mixture of surface water, and from
external injury by cattle or otherwise; and to preclude the unavoidable interrup-
tions occasioned by cleansing the waterway and effecting repairs, this aqueduct’
will be constructed with a double watercourse, separated by a footpath throughout
its whole length. # (e.}
South of the valley occupied by the Colne and Verulam, fºre is a narrow ridge
of land, through which the aqueduct must pass by means of tunnelling ; but as
this ridge consists of a mass of chalk, no difficulty is to be apprehended in this
operation.
I have thus given the outline of the plan I recommend, by which three of the
Companies on the north side of the river Thames may obtain a plentiful supply of
pure water. It has already been mentioned, that in 1828 these three Water Com-
panies distributed about 13 cubic feet of water per second, on an average, through-
out the year; but as the maximum demand of the summer months is stated to be
25 per cent. more than the average throughout the year, the maximum rate of
supply by these three Companies, in 1828, appears to have been 163 cubic feet per
second ; in the five years since that period, the quantity distributed is said to have
been increased 25 per cent, partly from the increase of population and partly owing
to the larger demands of the inhabitants: thus I shall assume the maximum rate
of demand in 1833 to be 20 cubic feet per second.
To provide for this and any future increase of water expenditure, I propose to
obtain 30 cubic feet of water per Second from the river Verulam, which is 10 cubic
feet more than the maximum demand in the middle of summer. And if at any
future period even a greater quantity should be required, reservoirs may be made
for retaining the superfluous water of the Verulam, to ensure a proportionate supply;
wherefore I propose that the London aqueduct should be made sufficiently large
to convey an extra quantity; and that the whole of the water yielded by the river
Verulam be secured for supplying the Metropolis with water, should it ever be
required. *
SOUTH SIDE OF THE THAMES.
THE daily supply afforded by the three Companies on the South side of the river
Thames, on an average throughout the year, according to evidence produced to
the Commissioners in 1828, was as follows:–
| 76. A 2 * The
4 REPORT OF MIR. TELFORD ON .
dº
*g
The Lambeth Company - 1,244,000 gallons.
South London - • * tº 1,000,000 —
Southwark Waterworks 720,000 –
2,964,000 gallons.
This is equal to 474,240 cubic feet daily, or at the rate of 53 cubic feet per
second.
Thus the three Companies distributed in 1828 not quite six cubic feet of water
per second, all derived immediately from the river Thames.
The supply on this side of the river being under the same circumstances as that
on the North side, already described, and requiring similar additions for the sum-
mer supply and for general increase during the five years elapsed since that time,
the present maximum supply in the summer months may be assumed at 8 cubic
feet per second ; to provide for this and any future increased demands, I propose
to secure 13 cubic feet per second.
The best means of obtaining an ample supply of pure transparent water for these
three Companies, is by taking it from the river Wandle at a sufficiently high
elevation, which is found on the Croydon branch of that river, at the east end of
Beddington Park, 90 feet above high-water in the river Thames. From this place
an aqueduct may be carried in nearly a direct line to Clapham Common, and there
terminate in a requisite number of reservoirs at a height of 82 feet above high-water
in the river Thames, which, except Brixton Hill (supplied by the Lambeth Com-
pany), exceeds the present heights of delivery by the several Companies, which are
as follows:— .
Lambeth - gº * = 42 feet.
South London sº • 65 —
Southwark - º sº 56 –
The proposed reservoirs on Clapham Common will therefore ensure a sufficient
elevation.
* The main branch of the river Wandle takes its rise in a singularly copious spring
in the vicinity of Croydon, and after pursuing a westerly course for about three
miles, is joined by thºarshalton branch, which likewise derives its origin from
several plentiful springs in that neighbourhood.
The water of this river possesses at all times an uncommon degree of purity,
regaining its transparency after the heaviest rains in the course of a few hours.
The quantity of water flowing down the Carshalton branch of the river Wandle
in the extraordinary dry season of 1833, was at the rate of 13 cubic feet per
second ; the quantity discharged by the Croydon branch at the same time, was at
the rate of 17 cubic feet per second. From this last I propose to take 13 cubic
feet per second, being 4 cubic feet per second beyond the present maximum
demand in the middle of summer. -
From the Clapham reservoirs all the three Companies may be supplied sepa-
rately, and in such proportion as shall be afterwards decided, at 82 feet elevation
above high-water mark, Trinity standard. The new houses on Brixton Hill
would be supplied with pure water by 82 feet less expense of pumping than what
is at present required for this purpose.
In all the works of the six before-mentioned Companies, on both sides of the
Thames, some expense must be incurred in extending and adapting their mains
for the reception of pure water. The quantity and method of appropriating the
supply, so as to satisfy the demands of all parties, being regulated if such manner
as shall, upon conferring with the engineers of the different Companies, be deemed
most advisable.
EXPENSE AND REMUNERATION.
HAVING shown by what means the Metropolis may be amply supplied with pure
water by six of the present Water Companies”, without disturbing their present
works, at an expense of about 1,177,840 l. 16 s, 5 d., including the construction of
reservoirs, covered aqueducts, and connecting mains, also making compensa-
tion for water taken from mills (by substituting steam power in lieu thereof), and
- - º the
-y
* See Appendix (A.)
METROPOLIS WATER SUPPLY. 5
the value of land and damages, I conceive that I have performed the duty imposed
upon me by the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury; that is, “In
what manner the Metropolis can be supplied with Pure Water.” The manner in
which any advance on the part of the public is to be repaid, being a matter of
finance, I leave to be determined by others, and shall only annex a copy of what
was recommended by the Directors of the Grand Junction Waterworks Company",
viz. they suggest that the “only course that could be pursued to avoid a ruinous
waste of capital, and a consequent loss to the public, is, that the Commissioners
should be directed to ascertain the best mode of obtaining the Supply required; that
Government should advance the sum requisite to bring the water to the spot, from
whence the Companies could receive it into their several works, upon the security
of their respective incomes, as has been done in other public undertakings; that
the outlay should be under the supervision of some parliamentary authority, and
that the increase of rates to be charged by each Company.should be no more than
the proportion of interest they should respectively pay to Government.”
This seems a fair and judicious proposal; and as a constant annual outlay for
pumping and filtration will be saved to the Water Companies, this sum, and any
other that can be saved, would be appropriated towards payment of the interest
on the Government expenditure for the new works. By this arrangement only a
moderate addition to the present rates will be necessary ; and it is presumed that
the inhabitants would willingly agree to this new rate being established, thus
insuring to themselves a plentiful supply of pure water.
In order that the necessary works may be performed in a satisfactory manner,
and that the water may be correctly supplied, in quantity and quality, to each
Company, a Parliamentary Commission (as recommended by the Grand Junction
Company) should be appointed to manage the whole.
It may be of use to remark, that the course of these aſſueducts, on both sides
of the river, interferes with no private dwelling or public establishment of any kind;
and the same observation is applicable to all the reservoirs proposed in this Report;
and as the aqueduct will also be under the surface of the ground for the greater
part of the distance, the chance of derangement, after being completed in..a perfect
manner, is not to be anticipated. s
It should also be stated, that all the changes recommended in this Report may
be accomplished without interfering with any of the present establishments. When
the new works are completed, and the water ready for delivery, the different
Companies will have only to shut off communications with the river, and open the
pure water supplies; and this is an important advantage, considering the incessant
dºmand for one of the necessaries of life, which admits not of interruption during a
single day or hour. *
Until the public have by experience acquired a perfect confidence in the quan-
tity, quality, and regularity of the pure water supply, the communication with the
river ought to be preserved, but not used unless necessity for doing so should
OCCUII".
THE NEW RIVER,
IT seems unnecessary to go into a history of this magnificent work, from which
the Metropolis derives so great a portion of its supply of pure water, it being well
known to have been accomplished by Sir Hugh Myddleton in the reign of
James the First, after encountering many difficulties, and not without his royal
assistance. I shall, therefore, confine my observations to its present state.
The river Lea is the drain of a valley in the great chalk ridge which intersects
the county of Hertford. This is a considerable stream adjacent to the town of
Hertford, and in its progress towards the Thames, by Waltham Abbey, its waters
are much augmented by a junction with its tributary streams, the Ash and Stort,
which fall into the main river some distance below the town of Ware.
In the valley of the Lea, and in the neighbourhood of Ware, two singularly
copious springs issue from the foot 6f the Chalk Hills. The upper, and greater, is
named the Chadwell Spring ; the other, which is below the town of Ware, the
Amwell. The quantity and transparency of these springs were the inducements
for taking the water from this place for the supply of the Metropolis; more espe-
cially
. * See Report, 11 March 1530, p. 3.
176. A 3
6 REPORT OF MIR. TELFORD ON
cially as the position was found sufficiently high to enable the projectors to carry
the water along a very circuitous artificial aqueduct of 37 miles in length to the
suburb of Islington, where it terminates at the height of 84 feet above the river
Thames, whence it is distributed over a large district; and having been maintained
with great care and expense has afforded an ample supply of water to the
inhabitants. |
But during two centuries the population of the Metropolis has greatly increased,
and along the whole length of the aqueduct villages and splendid mansions have
arisen, so that the consumption of water has also greatly increased, wherefore by
several Acts of Parliament authority has been granted for drawing an additional
quantity from the river Lea. - -
In the distribution of the water produced in the valley of the river Lea, three
objects require attention : -
1st. The supply of a great portion of the Metropolis with pure water.
2d. The navigation of the river Lea between the town of Hertford and the
Thames. -
3d. The water-power of the mills upon the river Lea, including the Government
mills at Watham Abbey.
An ample supply for the Metropolis ought certainly to be secured in the first
instance, because the two other objects may, if absolutely necessary, be otherwise
provided for; moreover, upon investigating the subject, I am convinced that by
judicious arrangement all these three purposes may be combined and accomplished.
The appropriation of the water of the Lea has, during the last century, been
the subject of much litigation, and the most eminent engineers, viz. Sir Christopher
Wren, Desaguiliers, Smeaton and Rennie have been employed; and, lastly, the
supply of water and the comparative levels have been carefully ascertained under
my direction.
Upon consideration of the entire subject, I am of opinion that the law, as it now
exists, ought not to be disturbed.
I also understand that since the year 1828 conferences have taken place, and the
outline of a scheme suggested, which, with such modification as existing circum-
stances require, would be satisfactory to all parties concerned; and this, I hope, will
be completed without delay.
The quantity of water delivered to the inhabitants of London and its vicinity by
the New River Company, as stated to the Commissioners of Water Inquiry in
1828, was at the rate of 24 cubic feet per second, and this being required to supply
the usual consumption of the inhabitants, must be carefully preserved.
The entire quantity of water flowing down the river Lea in November 1863
(after supplying the New River), as measured at the King's Wear, above Waltham
Abbey powder-mills, was found to be 1 1 0 cubic feet per second. As this was at
the end of an unusually dry season, there will always be an ample supply for navi-
gation and mill-power, as I do not recommend that any water be taken from the
river below the town of Ware until after it has passed the Government establish-
ment at Waltham Abbey.
By the contemplated arrangement a division of the water would be adjusted,
litigation prevented, and the metropolis supply, to a known extent, secured., But
to meet the continually increasing demands of the inhabitants, and to compensate
the loss of the Amwell spring (which has abandoned the New River, and now
finds its way into the Lea), it is necessary to enable the Company to provide a still
greater quantity of water, and also to preserve it in greater purity; but to ac-
complish this further parliamentary authority is required.
1st. In order to obtain an additional quantity of pure water, without interfering
with the contemplated arrangements, the Company should be required to pump
water from the river Lea some miles below the Government works at Waltham
Abbey, towards which purpose they have purchased Tottenham Mill and 30 acres
of land adjacent, and constructed reservoirs to the extent of 30 acres of water
adjoining the New River, at Newington, and adjacent to the site of Tottenham
Mills; and there being also an old branch of the river Lea at present not in use,
it should be transferred to the New River Company, who thereupon should be
required to embank and enlarge it, to not less than 20 acres, and convert it into
a settling reservoir, upon which the pumping engines should be placed.
In regard to the power of the engines to be constructed and employed, in order
to guard against the effects of long-continued frosts, or unusual droughts, or being
under the necessity of pumping from the river Thames, at Broken Wharf, the
engin
METROPOLIS WATER SUPPLY. 7
engines should be capable of raising two thirds ºf whole supply. This additional
quantity being thrown directly into the reservoirs at Newington, would have the
advantage of being in the vicinity of the city, and create no further expense of
conduit or other conveyance. -
If the water is taken off at Tottenham, all the mills upon the river above that
place, including the Royal Gunpowder Mills at Waltham Abbey, would still
possess the entire water of the river, and if a quantity equal to two thirds of what
is supplied to the Metropolis by the New River (viz. 16 cubic feet per second) were
drawn off by the engines at Tottenham, 94 cubic feet per second would still remain
for the use of the mills below. ‘y
To guard against any injury that might arise to the navigation of the river Lea,
in consequence of the powers herein recommended to be given to the New River
Company, that Company should be required to rebuild the Lock at Tottenham
Mill in a perfect manner, and keep it in repair; also to pay a fair and reasonable
sum to the trustees of the River Lea Navigation, to be expended in deepening the
river Lea where found necessary.
2d. The quantity of water requisite in aid of the New River being thus ad-
justed, it becomes of importance to preserve that stream from impurities while
passing along a circuitous course of 37 miles in length. I was, at first sight, dis-
posed to recommend its being made more direct, by cutting off great bends,
embanking vallies, &c.; but on Survey, finding it of quite sufficient dimensions to
convey all the water that the Company had a right to take, also that the stream itself
is, in effect, a very extensive reservoir, and that much expense would attend the
proposed alterations, I consider it more advisable to adopt other means of im-
provement.
Where the New River commences at the Chadwell Spring the water is generally
pure and transparent; but in passing 37 miles of a populous vicinity without pro-
tection, it is unavoidably exposed to various impurities; the surface water from
the uplands, sewages from the villages, cattle treading down the edges of the
river banks, all combining to produce discoloration of the water, which is still more
increased by the operations necesssary to restore the banks, and near the Metro-
polis by numerous persons bathing and creating other nuisances. The Company
should, therefore, be empowered and required to collect the water and Sewage
from the uplands and villages, and convey it under the New River to proper water-
courses; and they should also be required to fence each side of the river in a pro-
per manner So as to prevent the evils above-mentioned, preserving a space between
the fence and water, of at least six feet in breadth, for the passage of workmen,
making reasonable compensation to the proprietors of the adjoining lands.
The Company should also have the power of summary punishment of tres-
passers, on conviction before magistrates; and the land-owners and occupiers
should be prevented from digging deep ditches at the bottom of the slopes, thereby
weakening and endangering the banks. •.
.3d. In regard to defraying the expense of the improvements here proposed, it
appears that since the year 1828, the Company have completed some very consi-
derable works, such as the Newington Reservoirs, of 38 acres, defraying the
expense from their annual income; and I understand by their letter to the Trea-
sury of July 1831, that they are able and willing to continue the improvements in
the same manner, if parliamentary powers were granted them.
4th. To insure the improvements being properly executed, and the water duly
distributed, the before-mentioned Parliamentary Commissioners should be empow-
ered to examine into and decide any differences which may arise among the
parties interested in the supply and purity of the water, which would prevent
disputes, such as have already been productive of expensive litigation without
Gatisfactory result.
"I'HE EAST LONDON.
THE East London Waterworks Company supply a very large and increasing
district, being the North-eastern portion of the Metropolis. The Waterworks are
situated at Old Ford, in the river Lea, just above Bow Bridge, and consist of a
powerful apparatus of steam-engines and pumps, of the aggregate force of about
three hundred horses, for raising and distributing water.
The water has hitherto been brought from the river Lea at high water, into a
A 4 large
8 REPORT OF MR. TELFORD ON
large settling reservoir on the north side thereof, from whence it passes by pipes
under the same river into smaller reservoirs, from which the pumps are supplied.
From this arrangement it is evident, that although the water taken from the
reservoirs and distributed is in fact from the river Lea, yet it is the water of the
Lea subjected to the contamination of the district through which it passes in and
below the neighbourhood of Bow, and to the constant agitation of the tides in
driving upwards towards the Waterworks during the flood-tides; thus rendering it
no better, as far as regards matter held in suspension, than the water of the Thames
taken up in its passage through the Metropolis. .
After the Commissioners of Inquiry into the quantity and quality of water
supplied to the Metropolis had made their Report in 1828, the East London
Waterworks Company took immediate steps to improve their water both in
quantity and quality, by obtaining powers under an Act of Parliament, in the year
1829 Lio Geo. 4, cap. Local and Personal], to take water from the river Lea at or
near Lea Bridge Mills, above the influence of the tide, and to convey it from thence
to the Works at Old Ford, by means of a new aqueduct (insulated from all other
water), into settling reservoirs upwards of eighteen acres in extent, from which it
passes into reservoirs, out of which the pumps are supplied as before stated.
These Works are now on the eve of completion, and will be in action in the
month of June of the present year, within the time allowed by the Act of
Parliament. *
In the prosecution of these improvements, the East London Waterworks Com-
pany have expended upwards of 50,000 l., without having the power of imposing
additional rates or charges on their customers; the maximum charges of house-
keepers or private consumers being fixed by the Act.
Having assured myself, by a personal survey of the Waterworks at Old Ford,
and by an inspection of the new aqueduct and reservoirs now near completion,
for taking water from the river Lea at the tail of the Lea Bridge Mills, that the
above statements are correct; in which survey and inspection every facility was
afforded by the Directors of the Company, th furnishing information, and in the
production of all documents deemed by me necessary for the investigation of the
subject, I have no hesitation in stating, that, as far as the East London Water-
works are concerned, the improvements necessary for ensuring a better supply of
pure water to their district have been anticipated by that Company.
The only point upon which any question might arise is rather of a prospective
nature, inasmuch as it relates to the sewage of the district on the west side of the
river Lea, between Tottenham Mills and Lea Bridge Mills, which sewage is now
discharged into the Lea; but should a greater number of buildings, or a town,
grow up on that side of the river, it wºuld then be advisable to carry the sewage
of that district clear of the portion of the river above named, either by conveying
it under the river at one or more points, or by connecting it with the Hackney
sewage, which goes into the tideway of the river Lea below Old Ford Lock. But
this is a part of the subject which might with propriety come under the control of
a general commission for the conservation of the water supplied to the Metropolis.
Regarding the quantity of water now used, or likely to be required by this Com-
pany, there is no doubt the river Lea possesses an abundance. |
By the returns made to the Commissioners of Inquiry in 1828, it appears that
the quantity then distributed by this Company was 11 cubic feet per second in the
aggregate; and making the due allowances for the extra quantity used in the
warmest weather at 25 per cent. increase, adding moreover 25 per cent. for increase
since that time, the amount would now be about 16 cubic feet per second, and
allowing another 25 per cent, for future demands, it gives a total of 20 cubic feet
per second, as the greatest probable quantity required by this Company. -
Now, it appears that the river Lea (as above stated in the Report on the New
River) produces, in the times of shortest water, a surplus quantity of 94 cubic feet
per second, after deducting what might probably be wanted by the New River
Company in times of drought; and as the quantity required for the East London
Company is not taken off until after passing through Lea Bridge Mills, and sup-
plying all the wants of the navigation, there will still remain the above surplus of
94 cubic feet per second, for supplying the probable maximum demand of 20 cubic
feet per second required by the East London Company.
Thomas Telford.
London, 17 February 1834.
METROPOLIS WATER SUPPLY. 9
Appendix (A.)
NORTH SIDE OF THE RIVER THAMES.
ESTIMATE of the ExPEN’s E of Constructing a Line of Aqueduct and other Works
requisite for conveying Water from the River Verulam (from Bushey Mill near Watford)
to a Reservoir on Primrose Hill, for supplying with Pure Water Three of the Northern
Districts of the Metropolis; including Purchase of Land and Compensation to Mill-
OWI) eſs.
. T a £. s. d.
Small reservoir and works for regulating and drawing the supply from
the river Verulam, and diverting the course of the river Colne - - || 1 1,500 – —
Earthwork in cutting, embanking and tunnelling on the line of aqueduct
from the river Verulam to Primrose Hill gº - £. 53,240 10 6
Add 10 per cent. for contingencies - s tº gº 5,324 l -
- * 58,564. 11 6
Iron pipes for conveying the water across the two
vallies of the river Brent - tº e * = *_º - 24,280 – —
Two small bridges for ditto - - gº tº gº 1,400 – —
25,680 – –
Add 10 per cent. for contingencies - {º ſº tº 2,568 — —
28,248 – —
Brickwork in aqueduct, with a double watercourse, separated by a foot-
path, from the reservoir of the river Verulam to the reservoir on Prim-
rose Hill, being a distance (including the length of the above iron
pipes) of 15 miles 490 yards - = } *º- $º - £. 325,005 – —
Concreted lime and gravel in foundation of aqueduct - 13,937 4 —
Culverts for land water - gº gº wº g- tºº 729 6 —
339,671 10
Add 10 per cent. for contingencies - * - tº - 33,967 3
373,638 13 –
Forming reservoirs at Primrose Hill, including the necessary works for
dividing the supply of water to the respective Water Companies or
Districts gº sº $º º gº gº tº tºº tºº tº a - 20,000
Main pipes to connect the reservoirs at Primrose Hill with the present .
mains of the Grand Junction, West Middlesex and Chelsea Water-
works Companies sº gºe wº gº º gº tºº & * = . tºº 57,500 – —
,451 6
Land on the line of aqueduct - sº wº tº- sº º tºº tº *::::::: 4 sº-
Compensation to mill-owners for water taken from all the mills between
Bushey Mill and the river Thames - - - - - - - 224,314 7 —
- ToTAL - - - £. 785,965 11 6
SOUTH SIDE OF THE RIVER THAMES.
ESTIMATE of the ExPEN SE of Constructing a Line of Aqueduct and other Works
requisite for conveying Water from the River Wandle at Beddington Park to a Reservoir
on Clapham Common, for supplying with Pure Water the Districts on the South side of
the Thames; including Purchase of Land and Compensation to Mill-owners.

º
Machinery for regulating the quantity of water taken from the river
Wandle, including a wear across the river, sluices, &c. - * -º tºº 2,000 — —
Earthwork in cutting and embanking on the line of aqueduct from the
small reservoir near Beddington Park to the reservoir on Clapham
Common - º tº as gº gº tºº gº - £. 16,488 5 —
Add 10 per cent, for contingencies - ſº * tº 1,648 16 6
£. S. d.
18,137 1 6
Brickwork in aqueduct, with a double watercourse separated by a foot-
path, from the small reservoir near Beddington Park to Clapham Com-
mon (being 6 miles and 20 yards in length) - - £. 141,942 10 –
Concreted lime and gravel in foundations of aqueduct 6,821 16
Culverts for land water - º gº º wº gº 948 I 2 –
149,712 18 –
Add 10 per cent. for contingencies - - - - 14,971 4
ºste
164,684 2
176, p
1 O '. APPENDIX TO REPORT OF M R. TELFORD
e o £. s. d
Forming reservoirs on Clapham Common, including the necessary works
for dividing the supply of water to the respective Water Companies or
Districts tº- - - - - - e- - £. 10,660 4 4
Add 10 per cent, for contingencies - - - - 1,066 – 5
tº c. - e 11,726
Main pipes to connect the reservoirs on Clapham Common with the > / 4 9
present mains of the Lambeth, South London and Southwark Water-
works Companies respectively - tº ºn - - - - - 40,432 – —
o 236, 8
Land on the line of aqueduct - -*. - wº- - - - - *::::: tº-e 3
Compensation to the mill-owners for water taken from all the mills
from Beddington Park to the river Thames - - - - - 150,095 16 8
ToTAL - - - £. 391,875 4 11
Total for Three of the North ERN Districts of the Metropolis - 785,965 11 6
Ditto for the Districts on the South side of THE Rive R THAMEs 391,875 4 11
GRAND TotAL - - - £. 1,177,840 16 5
Appendix (B.)
No. 1.
Copy of LETTER from Dr. Bostock to Mr. Telford, with Analysis of Water.
Sir, Upper Bedford Place, 28 Nov. 1833.
I BEG to inform you that I have examined the two specimens of water, marked B (from
the river Wandle) and C (from the river Verulam or Colne), which you placed in my
hands. I proceeded on the same plan as in the former examinations; and, by way of com-
parison, I made a corresponding set of experiments on the water of the New River.
The water marked B, I found, both in its sensible properties and in its chemical rela-
tions, to be of considerable purity. It was perfectly transparent, without colour, taste, or
odour, of low specific gravity, and containing only a moderate quantity of saline matter in
solution. Its solid contents did not appear to be more than in the proportion of 1.5 grain
in 10,000 grams of the water, being somewhat more than the solid contents of No. 1 of
the former specimens, but not more than the average of the whole of them, while it is less
than that of the New River. A small quantity of carbonic acid was discharged from it by
boiling, but no perceptible quantity of earthy matter was deposited from it by this process.
By the application of the appropriate tests, it was found to contain lime, soda, muriatic
acid, carbonic acid, a minute quantity of sulphuric acid, and a trace of magnesia. The
quantity of lime was about one grain in the 10,000, being nearly the same quantity as
in the New River water, while the muriatic acid is considerably less in quantity.
The water marked C is, in most respects, inferior to B. It was transparent, without
colour or odour, but it had a very slight musty flavour, (perhaps depending upon the cork,)
and it contained a few floating particles, to which minute air bubbles were attached; they
appeared to consist of vegetable fibres. It did not affect the test papers until after it had
been boiled, when it indicated the presence of a small quantity of an uncombined alkali or
alkaline earth; it likewise deposited a minute film of white particles. The amount of its
solid content was somewhat greater than that of B, being nearly two grains in the 10,000,
almost precisely the same with that of the Thames at Richmond. It contained more lime
and muriatic acid than B, and in addition it exhibited a trace of potash. It contained
rather more lime than the New River, but rather less muriatic acid: it must therefore be
consided not quite so applicable to domestic purposes. But although it appears from the
above examination that B has a decided preference over C, yet it is necessary to observe,
that C is equal or even superior in purity to many waters that are employed for the supply
of cities, and could not be considered as objectionable for this purpose.
I beg to add, that as on former occasions, I have given a general statement only of my
results, without detailing the exact processes by which I arrived at them, but that I shall
be happy to afford you any more specific information, if you conceive it to be necessary.
I remain, &c. &c.
(signed) J. Bostock.
ON METROPOLIS WATER SUPPLY. 1 i
No. 2.
Copy of LETTER from Mr. Mitchell to Mr. Telford, respecting the Water of the River
Q Verulam. .
Sir, Watford, 28 January 1834.
IN answer to your inquiry, the river water of this place is used by the inhabitants living
near for brewing, washing, cooking, making tea, and other domestic purposes.
(signed) John Mitchell.
No. 3.
Copy of LETTER from Mr. Barnard, of Watford, to Mr. Telford, respecting the Water of
the River Verulam.
Sir, Essex Arms, Watford, 27 January 1834.
I HAD the honour to receive your favour yesterday, and should have answered by return
of post, if I had got the necessary information. -
I understand upon inquiry that the river water is used by more than a fourth of the
inhabitants of this town for domestic perposes, for washing, making tea, brewing, &c. &c.,
and is considered good wholesome water. I can answer for the fine quality of the trout
and eels that come out of it.
I am, &c. &c.
(signed) Francis Barnard.
{}
No. 4. -
Copy of LETTER from Mr. Dalton, of Watford Mill, to Mr. Telford, respecting the Water
of the River Verulam.
Sir, Watford Mill, 26 January 1834.
IN reply to yours of yesterday's date, respecting the quality of the water in our river;
it is used by more than a third of the people in the town for all purposes, and would, in
all probability, be more extensively used, were it not that the upper part of the town is
well supplied by other means.
& I am, Sir, &c. &c.
(signed) C. Dalton.
No. 5.
Copy of LETTER from Mr. Charles Lambert to Mr. Telford, respecting the Water of the
River Wandle.
Sir, Beddington Mills, 13 Feb. 1834.
IN reply to yours of the 8th February 1834, I consider the water of the river Wandle
is well adapted for general domestic uses: l employ it in my own family for brewing, wash-
ing, and all culinary purposes, it being very clear, except for a few hours after very heavy
rains. In my mill-dam, I can discern an object the size of a sixpence under a depth of five
or six feet.
(signed) Charles Lambert.
No. 6. &
Copy of LETTER from Mr. P. Dove to Mr. Telford, respecting the River Wandle.
Sir, Waddon Mills (near Croydon), 13 Feb. 1834.
It is my opinion that the water of the river Wandle is of the purest quality for all
domestic uses. * ,
(signed) P. Dove.
No. 7.
Copy of LETTER from Mr. Rickman to Mr. Telford.
Dear Sir, House of Commons, 7 Feb. 1834.
I Promised that Mr. Postlethwaite (of our Journal Office) should try experiments at
Harting in aid of your Metropolis Water Inquiry; and the result of my application to him
is more satisfactory than any formal experiment, as you will perceive from the following
detail.
The family supply of water is from three several sources at pleasure; from a well of
some depth, from a tank of rain water, and lastly, from a small stream which issues from
under the South Down chalk-ridge of Sussex, at the distance of a mile, and supplies a
mill-pond one-third of a mile distant from Mr. Postlethwaite's house. I
176. I}
12 APPENDIX TO REPORT ON METROPOLIS WATER SUPPLY.
In my opinion, the most important part of your inquiry relates to tea-making, this
foreign plant now furnishing the beverage of all classes, and the use of hard water makin
a great difference in the strength of the infusion, thus taking money from the pocket of the
consumer of the tea, not without also injuring the flavour on his palate. For this purpose
of tea-making, and for personal use, a servant is daily dispatched to the mill, dipping for
water below it, which water therefore has always been exposed to the influence of the
atmosphere while in the mill-pond, where it deposits a small quantity of chalky matter.
The water of the well is used for brewing, and the rain-water (elsewhere so much prized)
merely serves for the common purposes of the wash-house, saving the trouble of drawing
water from the well.
You will be pleased to learn from this detail, that water from a well-known chalky source
(not dissimilar from that of your North and South streams of intended supply,) is habitually
preferred to rain water, although the distance of the mill-pond imposes a daily task on the
servants, and the rain water pump is at hand in the wash-house.
Always yours faithfully,
(signed) John Rickman.
Orig. 3fºx ºf: - - MF.T.H. () POLIS WATER St Hºl’I.Y. . | -
A/ead/raone Farrºt ;:s)
- ~
--- - º -
*/ º: -
--- * - = º
--~~~ S -
%. - s in
-TV, - s | ||.
% - --- º
º,..., Sºſſº"/m, SSN- = º Scale of One Mile
%tº §§ %N/ſº º - s's Wilſº
º "ſºº" zºº'ſ Nº. = - S liº - - - - - - -
- Nº - --- --- º % - § º S. -- l 2. º + -- -> - a 2. ---
- - - - - *** - 2%. SS ~ - -
Holsdon Gréen " * … "...º.º. § --- §
- -- % - -- - º
"ºn - º, ºzº
- º ºº, º ... º. s/
º º ºl. -- - º ºw º º - Sz,
- % Nº º º Sº,
º ºs º S/ EEEEEEEE
ºt - º
-- - -
- “.. sº
C |-
º - º
º - º, - º - -
- º in- º -
£: P, ". . . . . . - ---
- º, -- - -- - ---ºr,
º u-º-º-º-º- www.uºsº. º º
º º tºº º - -- Nº" ->
SSs "ſº - §§ - %
--- --- - - - - - -
lºss --- -- º \! I lºvº, º - -
--> º Rºž - º &\º , s - # º %-
SN %Nº"º "? ~ 35 º
A Z Z212 / A 6' 2" ºš - ~s º
62 - --> - * --> ~. 22
- -- --- -> --~~~~
AV º: *~ ºs - - %º
-> *~ - 2.7/10%
º: * * -
- º ---
º %tº
- - º -- º --
º
grºwe Park
--> - ---
-º- ºw º:
- - - -
º Belmount. %
º
%
-
º
º
º
º
#º -
% ºs
*% Xs
-->
- -
º
-
3.
#
s
s
*: - , , , - º - º º,
º - § º º * - #. \s -> º
- - - - - - º - - º'-
º º % º º
§§ º
> - º
Şsſ 4 Kingsbury Green -
º º
------ -
- ºlº,
~ -
º
s
-
§ºth "º. - ---
-
Nº.
%
º
Sº
s
(;s
s
- eº- -
!º-
Sºs
S.
-
§
º º - º
-II- - º º º º
% W. t º%
Mºſſº * -
ſº *:
Córzzze º, ºs--- º * r * * * > - - - - -
*7. - Aºm Nº. ºntº ºš |FITHROH'O LIS WA"I'F, H S UP PLY.
º | º º - - - - =#
- Nº||\\ -: -
--- º s
* ... ſº § § - || º: º - *
º ſº º- sº * * º º, - #. sº - ºs -- A */A/V 4 Ayzo AYA, CZ’Z.OW
Primrosé {H - \ º #. No %iº - *
sº - gº " * of a 1 11 NF, or A () UF, DU C T from the
§ \ º:
º/a/. Zºzz w % - - ---
" º w ( º - A2/VA/º VAWA2///.4// wºove // A 7/70/2/)
to
Camden T -- -
rncien lowri # ºpezºza A/P///?0,5/2 ////, / .
º º s
º Elstree is For the SUPPLY of the DIS TH ICT S on the
\ , , , - # º - - North side of the River Tharnes .
Kentish Tow 2 * * vzzzzzzzzzzzzz - "/
& * sº Z//, /7”/º/, /9.3% º/, // CZZ//0.
>=s. ~~ s º K -
100 Feet s Longitudinal Section of Aqueduct delineated in the above Plan . s s s s § §§ s §
l - - - - S- S-
*** - - § s º 5 s § SS § § s § s § §§ º § {
* : *- § §§: s § § § ſº § -S sº N S § { § § §§ s § -
* * * * , s §: s § § §§ S. § s s § sº / s is is
90 - -- E - s - S- - \s s º - º -
80 * 3 º § § S. S. S. º § - s º § s ‘S S. S s º - S
70 3. - Y S. s ‘S § 3. § º . § § S § º § & -S sº L^ § § s s s 3 &
ºn N § N Š S. S. º N
| * = § §§ is: § S. 5 S º S. s S § $ § S - st s s E
| § Š. i. S . s 's º 's * S s § º i. i S s s i s_ Tunnel 5940 Yards si s i ; : S
~0 - - - w - s w - - N. - -
Wazer Jarzęce of Azzazzez on Zeavtzºg the A' Vera Zazn. º ă. # º - _- \ S Q § - - - § £ s” ” - § s § *S s § S - -S 2 *
Zeveſ of Zºozoºed. Aſ exervoir /*6zeez above Azº/ wº - º - - --~~
º
.. -
...
15 Miles 14 Miles 13 Miles 12 Miles 11 Miles 10 Miles 9 Miles 8 Miles 7 Miles 6 Miles 5 Miles 4. Miles 3 Miles 2 Miles 1 Mile
-------
y Arrow.fmºth 7, ºthº.
176. Orzerazz 4, Z/, //zza, o, ø, ºr a 6e Aºzºzº, 26*/arch 1934.
ſºrrºw ºf Alz, Z. & Aſozºzzº & Jeza, Zºrºazº.

























































































































































































































Orio ºf: Ginx if-
ME, THOPOLIS WATF.R SUPPLY. 2.
|-
- -
Sº, Mans V Z \\ 2” Tºss – T.
- Jºocą, ſº £ºſº | \ ^ -- A z. z. z. e. r.s 2
ºsº ſº | 2 A- / A’z e / al.; M.F.TROPOLIS WATER SUPPLY.
º zºº, sº ºf a R / º H. /
- \ w
… ..". --- - - * - - ---. . .
\º- jaz orz ºf * a v = *
Cºrºntº. º: - Fºe FWorkhouse
- ----- - - I - - - - - º
-- " - ---------
A / WAAC WAAVD L E 4+ B EDD/ATG 7'OAT
to
A/A Y 4 yp 15 E. C. TV.O.V.
of a LINF, or. A Q UF, DU CTFrom the
CLAPHAM COMMOM.
For the SUPPLY of the DISTRICT S on the
South side of the River Thames.
ºutcºm-
Z.2%
Zazzaz, ZZ */2/h. 24.54 * º
----- /;
... Pr º %2%
- - - - ". - - .
º - --- - ----- -1-
I - - - - - - - - , '".
tº Iſ - -------- - - - -
º - --- - - -
-------------- - -
-- - - º ---
- - - -- -
- - ---
-- - -- -
- --- ... // Workinouse /*
/ - 'S' ſ/... L. /...
! º ---
------ - - - - - - - - - - -
ºf ... /* sº -- N Mº Aozºa. 2 -
º - * - / " ...? -> - ſ - ZXS3. Nº =2-
SQ2 ZºS - ry 2x ºff. ... -- º & XZ97 **2. - (SE
- - - º - --- v- - º - - - -
2TN *N 2 … ºf ººº- - … -
º NP- º, º ż
------- - -
*Y" M'Arz/tº…” 2 --- \º/ …Y Z’ Warte Azzºz.,
- w ------
- N &
ww."
“ ” 4
"/\!/ſº
Wºźº
- %.º.
Brºck \2 a. %\
Yara, ".
--
º
§,
wn, Nº. ..., Streatham º -
* ------- -º-, *- \º º
S s *º *
Sºº -
* Jozzz/ || Lazrthez/. Lº
- L-Ns
~- * Mini
2 -
º wº
3% º ºn,”
º - º º º
Mºº-
44. º º º
-- mºssº
º
---
/
%
//%
*
%
H.
/ -
-
%
-
-
%
º
2 r w º
º
-
lºſſºw
- -
2.
Z/orrºzorº Heath
sº
º
º
* +
Scale of One Mile
Tulse Hill
&
delinea (ed ºn the ak ove Plan .
Sººn Ž
%
- Longitudinal Section of of Aque oluct
C
l
%
Sº
2 *
wºs
is
-
% º
§ Jerezzºhºrt Cozzzzzzon Clapham Common - - % / -
%
§ /
- - º _-Ts - - Zeyeſ or A. War, wie is az Aerºzºzozz % º
R ote ºce of orozorea. ſ/ W. ſ º
- / %
T-TF
Eic-
-
-
-
-
-
tº--
|
-
-
Rarer ºr on (Zºozn
+d jo ed 70 Chazzar - common &0/2c2.9tzvahar
LMile 2 Miles 3 Miles 4. Miles 5 Miles 6 Miles |*****
- Zºzº, ZJazzzzzz.
.* Arrow.fmº/t. Zººtag.
176 . Ordered & Zºº ///are ºwa & be // wººd, 26%arch /9.7%
Jºan º' ſ aſ º A/www.rº/Joº Azzºzero

















































































































*D
ME, TROPOLIS WATF, R SUPPLY. • D.
Q-
*- º
- ºš-
MAP
of the
N F. W. R. I. V. F. H.
%rom was Jotºrce near the
70 WAV of WA/º/, Zºo / O MD 0 \,,
R e.g. e. n. * *
Pa r /e
N
º
§
and part of the
Lower
-> º-
- - -
- - -
--- - -
---. - - - QN
- º º -
- - º cº- N-
: - º
- º ſ - -
ſº \ Iſ SR
- - - - -
º Nº, . - -
- - -
º - º \ y H R I
z º - - - - H I A.
Hø//owa º º! | N - - - F l -
- Vº º N. _L/A-\ t
- _r- Y. - - - º
º \ /~ ſ Scale of Miles. ºuttſ-)ºwn.
. | - - -
- - -
- I W £º's 7 & 2 + 3 & 4 Q l 2 Miles Q
º - º º º -
- - - | - I-L-L N
- - - º l - - N \ |
- º º º
*-w º
Lºw It. -*. º
- º | ºver º -
/.2//o/, /7 * F24.9/.334
| ſ!
Lº *s
º
Žeſ, M
**
Worml ey
º *'''', Zez, *... -- - º #
\ºº- sº----~~~~ ~~~~~ (… \ſº V /f. - " /locº ºn 1 S-sº Azzº Wear
+ , , --- S- Zºº, //waza Miſſ. \, º º: º-S - T the bºrºzºa of ºne º
Chingford - Yºº " % =\ T- %ugº \\ Sºº *... ordnancewater Power º
- L |-- S-4/ºzz - = y. -\ -- º
- - ea, \ -
- |- ºr Jº - ** -
* *. ſº24,01"…? - - - - -- *. 2. º º º *2. - : N W
S º - **. rº" * ( arºa Lock § N-2
Wºº. º * — `s
Eº % ºf - N W = º
w *Q. City_A: -
*'.º§º" - . !
Stanstead
No TE .
ZŽe Zºrzcz º.º.e.' #y 7%. Mew Azyaz & ompºy tº codowed Æed, ºzo, Li
--- 1)" --------— Aaº Zenecſon WaterWorks Comº d'Aºſe ||
7/e course of the Men faver to ºxazzz's/ea. by a Red Zºne thus H-
- 94, roºrººz/, /dz/.07.
176. Orºzeº, Z/, //owe or ºveow ººzºº & 6%/º/, 73.3% -
Jazzarazzº Zazzº Awarzrºyorº Arizzers.





























































&&
¿
ºp.& § ¶ ¡ ¿
ſae
} };º.ſae: “… ***…*ſ.?）（ *）（.*?）（$|№. 2， .ſg）* … ►*... , ， ， ）， ***ſeſ
-:, ’:’，º șºſeae：§,! ¿§-| , ، ، ، ،¿¿.*%? ¿（...）; ſaeº
* * * （ †， sae,****…*;ae №.， pº ºſ; &….* --~--~~~. ：-（¿??¿ $¢ £ © ® ° § → · §-،
~∞ſ.ſae|×，-& &' .?º№,： * :3， .