practicable and efficacious plan of supplying the whole of the metropolis with water!" After noticing some observations in the Report of 1821, some invidious remarks follow on the inequality of the rates, and the power of the companies "to charge as they shall think fit;" and then proposed "the repeal of the obnoxious clause in the Grand Junction Company's Act of 1826." To this brief document was also appended a tabular statement of the income and expenditure of the Water Companies from the year 1820 to 1827; the difference being headed -"nett profit,” without making any allowance for interest on the large sum, which several of them had expended in improvements during those seven years!-The omission of this important fact was calculated to convey an erroneous notion of their prosperity, and some subsequent transactions very clearly exposed the motives for this glaring and culpable fallacy. At different periods, schemes have been proposed for supplying London from the River Colne;-one appearing in 1719, at the time of the South Sea bubble ;another in 1766, a third in 1767, and one in 1789. The latter was tendered to the Chelsea Company, who de The Report has the date July 19, 1828; and about one week prior to its being made, Sir F. Burdett produced to the Committee a letter from Mr. Telford, which was an answer to a private one from himself, and stated, "I consider Mr. Mills as a very proper person to take levels, and delineate the course of any line of water-course, which may be found necessary."-Minutes of Evidence, p. 36.-In the evidence relating to the same subject, recently published by order of the House of Commons, Aug. 7, 1834, the Baronet is represented to use the following words:-"I considered Mr. Telford's name was the main thing; but my reliance was always on Mr. Mills!"—Minutes of Evidence, p. 56.—Is not there ample reason to surmise that the latter lent the honourable Baronet "a helping hand" to draw up the Report recommending Mr. Telford? clined it, although its contriver represented that the cost of effecting it would be comparatively trivial. The same project was offered to Mr. Nash, the architect, in 1813, whilst he was making arrangements for beginning the Regent's Park, and Regent Street. In 1821, it was urged upon Sir Francis Burdett; and in 1828, was also proposed to the Commissioners for inquiring into the state of the supply of water. After having thus wandered from one party to another, unhonoured by a patron, its erratic career terminated in its adoption by the Directors of the Grand Junction Water Company. The first intimation which the Proprietors of the Grand Junction Water Works received of their Directors embracing and nurturing this scheme, was at a general meeting, held on the 17th of November, 1830, when they were summoned to consider a plan for improving the Company's supply. Great, however, was the astonishment of many of them, when at the meeting they were apprised of an entirely new speculation being contemplated, consisting of a canal to convey water to London from the river Colne, at the estimated cost of 120,000l. for about thirteen miles. On the 16th of February, 1831, the Directors called another meeting of the Proprietors to inspect and consider the draft of a bill, to enable the Company to adopt and accomplish a much larger scheme, comprising the extensive object of supplying the whole of the metropolis, having nearly 190,000 tenants, and requiring daily 4,500,000 cubic feet of water, although their own concern, at that period, had only 7700 tenants, requiring merely about 500,000 cubic feet! Such a proposition so astounded and alarmed many of the proprietors, that they left the assembly, and declined to commit themselves * Minutes of Evidence, p. 97. in a project which was totally inconsistent with the original object of the Company, as well as incommensurate with their pecuniary means for its accomplishment. Notwithstanding the opposition of the proprietors, the Directors persevered, and actually attempted to realize their views, by introducing a Bill into the House of Commons for the purpose, at a much greater cost than had been first stated, the estimate being increased from 120,000l. to 200,000l. The scheme propounded to Parliament comprised the whole of Middlesex, Surrey, a part of Buckinghamshire, and also the purchasing, holding, and letting of five copper and corn mills; deepening and embanking many miles of the river Colne, to its entrance into the Thames near Staines; besides involving the contingent probability of having to make a provision for supplying the necessary water for the five locks between Staines and Teddington, during dry periods, when the quantity required would be equivalent to their daily operations for a great number of barges ! The proposed canal was to have a width of twentyseven feet, by a depth of four feet six inches, with two foot-paths, each six feet wide. Its intended course was to be across twenty-six rivers, streams, and sewers, thirty-one public roads, lanes, and foot-paths, by means of aqueducts, bridges, drains, and tunnels. One of the aqueducts was estimated to extend three times the length of Blackfriars Bridge, having likewise nearly the same height and width. Exclusive of the open part of the canal, there were to be two tunnels, each 1000 feet long, and likewise five reservoirs. Its accomplishment required from 200 to 300 acres of land, which was consequently to be cut through, or embanked and fenced; besides the many difficulties to obtain the possession of the land, from its being in sixteen parishes, having also 208 owners and 139 occupiers, as well as requiring the authority of commissioners of roads and sewers. From this outline of the plan, its probable cost cannot be readily estimated; but as the expense of making the Grand Surrey and Croydon Canal, of about the same length, was 18,000l. per mile; and moreover, as the intended aqueduct was to be more than twice the length of Waterloo Bridge, which actually cost 1,060,000l., some conception may be formed of the almost incalculable expense of executing a scheme of such magnitude. If any plan of a similar kind be adopted and realized, what must necessarily be the rate paid for water, if the proprietors of the works are to be indemnified from loss? In April, 1831, the Bill for executing the above project was referred to a Committee of the House of Commons, when Sir Francis Burdett proposed to delay the consideration of it, till he had obtained a copy of an order from the Secretary of State, to employ Mr. Telford to make a survey, with a view to a better supply of water to the metropolis. The proceedings were therefore suspended, and the motives of the honourable baronet for making this proposition have received a very striking elucidation from circumstances since disclosed, in documents published by different orders of the House of Commons. CHAPTER XXI. The object of some projectors of New Water Works for the Metropolis, to introduce a costly scheme at the national expense, by defaming existing establishments. Fallacy of the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1828. Proposed improvements by the Grand Junction and West Middlesex Companies; purchase by the latter of a large estate at Barnes Elms, to construct Reservoirs, &c. The Correspondence of Sir F. Burdett with Sir Robert Peel, about employing Mr. Telford; his Survey and Report. Outline of his Plans, and their reference to a Select Committee of the House of Commons. Remarkable declarations of Sir F. Burdett and Mr. James Mills. Examination of Messrs. Telford, Mills, and others. Remarks on their Plans and Statements, by Messrs. Anderson, Clarke, Mylne, Simpson, Wicksteed, &c. Mr. Marsland's Filter at Stockport, &c. Mr. Martin's Proposal for an Aqueduct with a Rail-road upon it. Scheme for supplying the Metropolis by means of large Wells, and their probable inefficiency. Concluding Reflections. THE two preceding chapters contain a faithful recital of facts derived from authentic public documents, and every person who calmly and attentively peruses them will not only perceive the partiality of the evidence and reports, but probably conclude that their chief purpose was to give colouring and plausibility to the introduction of an expensive scheme of Water Works, by attempting to fix odium on the existing establishments. Statements marked by verity seemed to have little regard, whilst those of a contrary character formed the basis of most unjust imputations upon the Water Companies. Though not a single instance was proved of defect, either in the quantity or quality of the water supplied by the New River, West Middlesex, and some other Companies, nevertheless their meritorious exertions to serve and satisfy the public re |