glasgow's water supply from sanitary reform in victorian britain part i

Copyright

– 209 –

GLASGOW’S WATER SUPPLY

Lewis D. B. Gordon, To the Honorable the Lord Provost, the Magistrates and Town Council, and to the Water-Rate Payers of the City of Glasgow. Th e Respectful Remon-strance of Lewis D. B. Gordon, against Th eir Adopting Mr. Bateman’s Plan for Carrying out the Loch Katrine Water Scheme (London: C. Richards, 1853), pp. 1–16.

Th e Glasgow Loch Katrine Water Scheme, Reprinted from the Glasgow Herald, Mon-day, 20 February 1854 and Friday, 24 February 1854 ([Glasgow]: [Glasgow Herald], [1854]), pp. 1–4.

While London struggled with the volume and uniformity of its water supply until well into the twentieth century, other British cities made decisive moves to secure an abundant water supply and administrative control over it as early as the 1840s and 50s. Th e Town Council of Glasgow obtained Parliamentary approval in 1855 for an ambitious scheme to buy out the two standing water companies, to municipalize service and to construct an aqueduct to carry water from the picturesque Loch Katrine into the city. When Queen Victoria offi cially opened the works in 1859, the Glasgow Herald let the (London) Times do the boast-ing, reprinting an editorial beginning, ‘If London could blush any other colour than smoke, it ought to have exhibited some signs of shame yesterday morning. It then read that at the touch of our Sovereign a provincial city four hundred miles off , wholly occupied by manufacturers, merchants, and shipbuilders, with hardly the pretence of a “West End” or an aristocracy … had received the water of several noble lakes for the supply of its inhabitants’.1 Glasgow was dominated by merchants and manufacturers; it was also a poor and increasingly unhealthy city with a mortality rate among the highest in Britain in the 1840s.2 Yet Glasgow benefi ted from an eff ective municipal government that had the fi nancial credit and strong sense of civic duty necessary for large-scale sanitary improvements.

Th e documents here, a pamphlet by the civil engineer Lewis D. B. Gordon (1815–76) and a pamphlet reprinting leaders from the Glasgow Herald, record the prehistory of the Glasgow Corporation’s entry into the water business – from 1845 until municipalization in 1855. While the documents do reveal continued disagreement about the virtues of municipal versus private owner-ship of city services, they also reveal a Town Council willing to take the risks

Copyright

210 Sanitary Reform in Victorian Britain, Volume 3

that private companies either would or could not. As Gordon explains, he had fi rst proposed Loch Katrine as a likely source of supply in 1845 under the direc-tion of the prospective Glasgow Gravitation Water Company, but the company dissolved a year later because of instability in the market and the emergence of a rival plan from the established Glasgow Waterworks Company.3 Th is latter company, which had been operating since 1806, obtained a bill in 1846 to intro-duce a new supply of water from Loch Lubnaig. If the company had gone on to execute the act, the history of Glasgow’s water supply would have unfolded very diff erently; but apparently the plan was never really feasible, and the compa-ny’s powers expired with no action taken. Meanwhile, the Gorbals Gravitation Water Company began supplying the city on the south bank of the Clyde (also in 1846).4 Several years later another company was projected for the purposes of bringing water from Loch Katrine, this time under the direction of engineers Macquorn Rankine and John Th omson. But with two companies in operation and others projected, Glasgow was still insuffi ciently supplied. Th e Glasgow Her-ald defi ned the problem – and thus one argument for municipal action – in somewhat fanciful terms: ‘Phantom Water Companies have from time to time dazzled the public; but they have vanished like the “Will o’ Wisp”’. It was in this context of continued prospects for an improved water supply coupled with inaction on the part of existing companies that the Town Council determined to take responsibility for Glasgow’s future water needs.

Although these two pamphlets register dissenting voices in the community, the Loch Katrine plan as carried out by the Glasgow Corporation is remarkable partly because it incited so little dissent. Gordon bases his ‘remonstrance’ on the contention that municipal control of public services is untested and risky, yet it is hard not to see Gordon’s dissenting pamphlet as an outgrowth of professional jealousy: the council turned to esteemed hydraulic engineer John Bateman of Manchester to lead the project, rather than to a local engineer like Gordon or Rankine. Th e Glasgow Herald in the early 1850s was a moderately Tory paper serving an industrial city, yet it fi rmly supports the reforming actions of the Coun-cil, claiming ‘the Corporation of Glasgow never went to Parliament with so good a cause … or one in which the best interests of the whole community, and espe-cially of the lower classes, were so closely bound up’. And the minority in the Town Council that, according to the Herald, opposed the plan over issues of rating in 1854 had, by the time the bill reached Parliament in 1855, withdrawn its oppo-sition. Ultimately, the success of the Glasgow Corporation’s intervention in the water supply question may be attributed to general agreement that a more abun-dant supply was needed and to the feasibility of using Loch Katrine as a source.

Copyright

211

Notes1. ‘Th e Loch Katrine Triumph – Can London Follow Our Example?’, Glasgow Herald, 9

October 1859. 2. Between 1845–9, ‘crude death rates averaged almost forty per 1,000 living inhabitants,

one of the highest in the UK’ (I. Maver, Glasgow (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000), p. 85).

3. ‘Glasgow Loch Katrine Water Company’, Glasgow Herald, 13 March 1846. 4. For Glasgow’s water supply early in the century, see A. Aird, Glimpses of Old Glasgow

(Glasgow: Aird & Coghill, 1894), pp. 138–40, Th e Glasgow Digital Library, University of Strathclyde, http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/..

Copyright

Copyright

– 213 –

Lewis D. B. Gordon, Th e Respectful Remonstrance(1853)

Having had an opportunity of making myself acquainted with the details of the movement that is now being made by the Town Council, acting under the engineering advice of Mr. J. F. Bateman,1 for the supply of the City of Glasgow with water from Loch Katrine, it occurs to me that it will not be unreasonably obtruding myself on your notice, if I call your attention to the circumstance that Mr. Bateman has proposed to involve you in an outlay of twice the amount which was ascertained, and publicly stated, by Mr. Laurence Hill,2 junr. and myself more than eight years ago, and again in 1852, by Mr. Macquorn Rankine and Mr. John Th omson,3 to be requisite for bringing the proposed / supply of 40,000,000 gallons of water daily to Glasgow from Loch Katrine.

Mr. Bateman’s Reports and Estimates are before you, and the satisfactory results of the opposition of the Town Council to the extravagant scheme of the Glasgow Waterworks Company, are publicly known.

‘Th e Parliamentary Inquiry,’ Mr. Bateman says in his second Report, ‘which has been so recently concluded, has very fully brought to light the ‘facilities and diffi culties which would attend the execution of a scheme for bringing water from Loch Katrine. Th e practicability and probable cost of constructing the necessary conduit and works have been thoroughly investigated and clearly established.’

Th e import of this paragraph of the Report is not so great as at fi rst reading it might appear to you to be. For bear in mind that the Parliamentary Inquiry only dealt with Mr. Bateman’s plan of bringing water from Loch Katrine, and therefore it was only the cost of the conduit and works proposed by Mr. Bateman that was investigated and clearly established. Th e promoters of the Glasgow and Gorbals Waterworks4 schemes were interested only in showing the Committee that Mr. Bateman’s Loch-Katrine scheme was not so good as their own, and that the cost of Mr. Bateman’s plan would be as great at least as Mr. Bateman esti-mated / it to be. Th ey used only Mr. Bateman’s data in their attacks upon the scheme. It was quite out of their parliamentary tactics to allude to the Loch-Katrine scheme of 1845, which had been ascertained to cost less than one-half of Mr. Bateman’s plan for eff ecting the same object.

Copyright


Permit me, therefore, to put before you the original Loch Katrine scheme (the history of which it is well to preserve, as Mr. Bateman has altogether omit-ted it in his reports), and some of the grounds of my assertion, that the sum of £570,000, estimated by Mr. Bateman as the expense of bringing the requisite supply of water from Loch Katrine to Glasgow, is double the amount necessary to eff ect that desirable object, in a better and more durable manner than Mr. Bateman proposes to do it.

In the course of the year 1845, Mr. Laurence Hill, jun., and myself, at con-siderable expense, discovered that Loch Katrine is the only available source of supply of pure water, in unlimited quantity, within reach of Glasgow, commer-cially speaking. On the 12th of August of that year, we addressed the following Letter.

To Alexander Hastie, ESQ., &c., &c., &c., Chairman of the Provisional Committee of the Glasgow Gravitation Water Company.

Sir,Th e subject of bringing to Glasgow an adequate supply of Pure Water has

occupied more or less / of our attention for the last three years; and we beg leave to lay before you, as Chairman of the Gravitation Water Company, a brief state-ment of the result of our investigations.

We have, with this view, examined, in considerable detail, the various sources that seemed in any way available, in the valley of the Clyde – from the Duneaton Burn in the higher districts, to the upper levels of the Cart in the lower districts. Th e result of our examination has led to the conviction, in our minds, that no such supply of pure water as is requisite, could be derived fr om any single source in that stream system; and that the combination of those that, united, would be adequate, involves expenses much beyond even the capital of £600,000, last proposed by your Company.*

We have more recently directed our attention to the sources of supply on the water-sheds of the Endrick, the Kelvin, and the Forth; and we fi nd that while the Endrick and Kelvin are insuffi cient in quantity, if taken at such levels in their course, as would supply the higher parts of the City, the Forth, even at its source, is impure, and is rendered continually more so by the infl ux of impure tributar-ies till it descends to Aberfoil, where its impurities are somewhat diluted by the waters from Loch Ard; but there even it is comparatively unfi t for household purposes, besides that its level is below what is requisite.

In the course of these latter investigations, we have ascertained the levels of various Lochs; namely, Loch Arklet, Loch Chon, Loch Katrine, Loch Ard, in reference to high-water mark of the Clyde at Glasgow Bridge, and we have ulti-mately arrived at the conclusion, that / the nearest adequate supply of pure water

* For supply and distribution.

Copyright

Gordon, To the Honorable the Lord Provost … 215

that can be brought to Glasgow by gravitation is what is aff orded by the overfl ow of Loch Katrine.

It is perhaps not altogether unnecessary that we should here briefl y give our notions of the supply that a new company ought to provide for a great and rap-idly increasing manufacturing and commercial town such as Glasgow, in order to insure such company’s continued prosperity.

Quantity and quality must, in this case, be strictly combined.Th e Quantity should be, as it were, unlimited. It should be never-failing and

unstinted. Th ere should be supplied suffi cient for the economical healthfulness and comfort of the population, and for rendering available the products of the Cloacœ, or Sewage, for those whom it may concern to collect it. Th ere should be a supply to answer any demands of public works, to feed public fountains, and wash and water the streets; and this should be available in every corner of the City, ready at every instant to be poured out by ample jets on any fi re that may occur.

As to the supply for the population, it should be absolutely ad libitum.5 Water to drink, water to wash, water wherewith to wash out every corner of their domi-cile at discretion. Th e amount of water that can be expended in this way has been variously estimated, and variously stated as the result of experience, and, putting all data together, we consider that the supply provided to Glasgow now, should not be less than 4 cubic feet, or 25 imperial gallons per day, for every individual of the population, and that population should be reckoned at double the last census, in the arrangements / of a new company. Th e supply for public works should, in like manner, be unlimited, but the extent required is diffi cult to estimate. In Glas-gow it has been reckoned that the amount that could be disposed of in this way is at least equal to one-half the proposed supply for the total inhabitants. Th e sup-ply for scouring the sewers and drains – for cleansing the streets – for supplying public fountains, whether useful or ornamental – and for the extinction of fi res, should be at least equal to two-thirds the supply for the total population

Now, Sir, we have found a source that will supply the quantity above specifi ed.Th e Quality of the water from which the above proposed supply may be

drawn, is pure and soft . It is pure not only because it is free from all mechanical impurities, but because it is nearly free from all chemical impurities, whether mineral or vegetable. It is a brilliant water, delicious to drink as any gushing spring. It would be economical for domestic use, because it is soft .

Loch Katrine is supplied from sources rising altogether in bare hills of the primitive formations, and consequently while untainted and untinged by moss, it contains a minimum of the salts of lime and magnesia, only some trace of potash and soda, and no trace of iron. From measurements made at a very low summer level of the Loch, we fi nd that a constant supply of 60 Cubic Feet Per

Copyright


Second may even then be depended upon. Th is would give 5,184,000* cubic feet per day. Allowing 4 cubic feet per day to every soul of 600,000 inhabitants, there remain 1,000,000 cubic feet for public works, and / 1,784,000 cubic feet for purposes of public cleanliness and for public fountains.

By simple and inexpensive works at the Trossachs,6 the water may be taken 4 feet lower than the present summer level of Loch Katrine, or raised 4 feet higher, thus leaving available a natural reservoir containing One Year’s Supply; – and this, it is believed, without damage to any existing interest, and without encroachment on more than a very few acres of barren land.

From the levels we have taken, it appears that Loch Katrine is 383† feet above the level of high water of Clyde.

Th e surface of a Distributing Reservoir, proposed to be erected on the lands above Port-Dundas, is 246 feet above the level of high water of the Clyde. From Loch Katrine to this Reservoir, there are, therefore, 137‡ feet available for the fall of the aqueduct. Considering that the fall of 2 11⁄100 feet per mile, gives a velocity in the channel proposed of upwards of 3 miles per hour, when leading the supply of 60 cubic feet per second, there is an ample allowance in 137‡ feet for economizing the cuttings and embankments and general dimensions of the aqueducts.

We have as yet of course taken only a general survey of the various routes that are practicable for the line of aqueduct. We are of opinion, however, that the most / eligible line will be found to run nearly in the direction marked, in the accompanying sketch map.

We have taken much pains to ascertain the probable expense of this under-taking, and the following is an abstract of our detailed estimates, made on such data as we have hitherto been able to collect: –

31 ½ Miles of Aqueduct at £5200 per mile, £163,800Reservoir at Glasgow, 65,000Distribution in pipes throughout Glasgow, 150,000Proceedings for Bill and other contingencies, 21,200

£400,000

Such is a concise view of the plan we would, through you, Sir, respectfully sub-mit to the Provisional Committee of the Gravitation Water Company, as the

* 32,400,000 gallons per day.† 364 feet above the mean level of the sea has been since ascertained, by Messrs. Rankine

and Th omson, to be the true elevation. Th e principal part of this discrepancy arises from an error in the assumed level of Loch Lomond. Loch Katrine is about 341 feet above Loch Lomond, which is 23 feet above the mean level of the sea. We calculated the eleva-tion of Local Katrine on the supposition that Loch Lomond was about 40 feet above high water in the Clyde.

‡ Corrected now to 114 feet.

Copyright


best means of carrying our their intentions. Before much more can be said on the subject, detailed surveys and levels would require to be made, and various other inquiries instituted. We are prepared to devote our time and attention to this important subject, should it be entrusted to us; and in the mean time beg to subscribe ourselves, with every sentiment of respect,

Your obedient Servants,L. GORDON & L. HILL, Jun.August 12th, 1845.

Th e consequence of the publication of the above document was, that almost immediately a provisional Committee was formed by thirty-four Gentlemen of such distinguished and independent position as had been rarely, if ever previ-ously, associated together for any commercial object in Scotland. /

Under the sanction of these gentlemen the following prospectus was issued.

GLASGOW LOCH KATRINE WATER COMPANY.Capital, £500,000, in 25,000 shares of £20 Each.

Deposit £1 per share.

Provisional Committee.7

James Oswald, Esq., M.P.William Baird, Esq., M.P.Sir James Campbell, Knt.John Bain, Esq., of Morriston.Alexander Baird, Esq., Gartsherrie.Robert Bartholomew, Esq.Alexander Dennistoun, Esq., of Golfh ill.Alexander Downie, Esq.Henry Dunlop, Esq., of Craigton.William Eccles, Jun., Esq., Merchant.John Orr Ewing, Esq., Broomly.Robert Fleming, Esq., Merchant.William Graham, Jun., Esq., Lancefi eld.James Graham, Esq., Fereneze.Robert Grahame, Jun., Esq., Glasgow.Alexander Hastie, Esq., Merchant.Th omas Hill, Esq., Langside.John Houldsworth, Esq., Cranstonhill.William Houldsworth, Esq., Belvidere.John M‘Farlane, Esq., M.D., Glasgow.Patrick M‘Naught, Esq., Cotton Spinner.

Copyright


Laurence Robertson, Esq., Banker.Mark Sprot, Esq., of Garnkirk.Robert Salmond, Esq., Banker.Donald Smith, Esq., St. Rollox.Charles J. Tennant, Esq., St. Rollox.Th omas Th omson, Esq., M.D., Professor of Chemistry.William Whyte, Esq., of Kilmardinny. /George Wilson, Esq., Dalmarnock.John Wilson, Esq., of Dundyvan.John Wilson, Esq., of Auchineden.

Engineers. – Messrs. L. Gordon & L. Hill, Jun.Solicitor. – Robert Lamond, Esq.Interim Treasurer. – Henry Rhind, Esq., Accountant.Bankers. – Royal Bank – Western Bank of Scotland – City of Glasgow Bank.

The importance of an ample supply of pure Water for the population of the City and Suburbs of Glasgow, accessible at a price within the reach of the poorest classes of society, and in far greater quantities than have been hitherto supplied, is unquestionable.

Many plans have been proposed to supply the defi ciency now so generally felt in Glasgow, but which, from one cause or another, have resulted in disap-pointment to the public in obtaining the desired object.

Th e promoters of the present Scheme, aft er mature consideration, bring it forward in the most confi dent hope that they are proposing a plan which will at once be acknowledged as complete.

Th e scheme is to bring Water by gravitation from Loch Katrine, by an aque-duct, to one or more distributing Reservoirs adjacent to the city.

Th e promoters have been gratifi ed with having the consent and full approba-tion to the undertaking by his Grace the Duke of Montrose,8 from whose side of the Loch the aqueduct will emerge, and who is owner of many miles of the land through which it will pass. Moreover, it will interfere with no private property, and it is certain to receive the cordial support of the public.

Th e plan of taking the Water from so large a natural / fountain-reservoir as Loch Katrine, does away with the necessity for artifi cial dams, at once very expensive and involving considerable risk.

Th e Water of Loch Katrine is well known to be quite soft , and of perfect purity, even in seasons of spate, being collected from a district of steep bare hills, of the primitive formations. Th ere is no admixture of moss or other deleterious substances.

Th e level of the Lake is so high above the level of the Clyde at Glasgow, that the Water may be conducted from it to the highest ground in the neigh-

Copyright


bourhood of the City. Th e main distributing Reservoir can be placed at such a level that it will command the summits of the highest houses on Garnet Hill, so that the whole population may rely on the Water being kept at a constant pressure in the pipes, enabling them, both day and night, to draw water in any quantity required. Th ere will be an effi cient supply for the various purposes rec-ommended by Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Inquiring into the Health of Towns. Amongst others, there is no case in which a fi re can occur without there being within immediate reach a supply of water suffi cient for its prompt extinc-tion, without the aid of engines.

Th e promoters of the Loch Katrine Water Company further enter fully into the views of Her Majesty’s Commissioners above-mentioned, expressed in their eighteenth recommendation, viz., – that the local administrative body be empowered to purchase the works of any new Water Companies upon certain terms, and upon a fi xed rate of interest.

In announcing this scheme, the promoters need only / further add, that the levels have already been taken, and the line of country repeatedly examined, and no serious diffi culties intervene. Estimates of cost have been made, and it appears that the whole sum required for the works of the Aqueduct and distribution will not exceed the sum of £450,000. But the Committee propose to make the Capi-tal Stock of the Company £500,000, divided into 25,000 shares of £20 each.

A Joint-Stock Company will accordingly be immediately formed, under the title of the Glasgow Loch Katrine Water Company.

A Deposit of £1 per share will be paid on the allocation of the Stock. No farther call will be made till the Parliamentary plans are deposited, and not more than £2 per Share in all will be called for till an Act of Parliament be obtained, which, as the scheme will be supported by the entire community, there can be no doubt of obtaining.

Applications for shares may be made to the Interim Treasurer, Henry Rhind, Esq., 59 St. Vincent Street; or to the Solicitor, Robert Lamond, Esq., 29 St. Vin-cent Place.

Th e shares of the proposed Joint Stock Company were eagerly taken up by the public, and preliminary arrangements were made for preparing plans for bringing the scheme before Parliament. However, premonitory symptoms of the coming commercial crisis (of 1846) began to be perceived by the experienced men whose names appear on the Provisional Committee; and in October the Glasgow Water Works Company had published the prospectus / of the ‘Loch Lubnaig’ scheme,9 which was believed by the Provisional Committee of the Loch Katrine scheme to be a bonâ fi de movement of the Company in the right direction, and consequently further proceedings towards establishing the Loch Katrine Water Company were stopped. Th e deposits on the shares were very soon returned to the subscribers without a farthing’s deduction for expenses,

Copyright


the professional men engaged having relinquished all claim for remuneration for the time and expense they had devoted to establishing the all-important point, that Glasgow Could be Supplied With Pure Water, in Unlimited Quantity, From Loch Katrine at a Very Moderate Expense.

If you have read the Report and Prospectus, above reprinted – if, as I have done, you have read and considered the evidence that was given in the House of Commons, for and against the Loch Lubnaig scheme as contrasted with the Loch Katrine scheme, permit me to ask you whether one important fact, or one essential circumstance, bearing on the question of the quality or quantity of the supply aff orded by Loch Katrine, compared with all other available sources, has been eliminated by Mr. Beteman, beyond what is contained in the Report and Prospectus above given? Your answer must, I think, be, that so far the sub-ject was exhausted in the Report of August, 1845, and in that upon which the Prospectus was founded, / drawn up not more than three or four weeks later, but aft er a more minute examination of the country, with a view to making the Parliamentary survey.

But there is a vital matter of diff erence in the Report of Mr. Bateman, and that of Mr. L. Hill and myself. Mr. Bateman’s estimate for bringing the water to a Reservoir at Milngavie,10 is £489,000. Our estimate for bringing the water to a Reservoir close to Glasgow, was £247,000. Th at is, as stated at the outset, Mr. Bateman proposes to involve you in twice the expenditure which was estimated to be necessary in 1845 – an estimate which I am prepared to support at the present time – for bringing in the same supply as is proposed to be done in his report.

Th is diff erence in the estimates is my reason for calling your attention to the subject; for, if Mr. Bateman be right I must be wrong, and Mr. Bateman’s Report impugns my accuracy. Th e enormous diff erence in the estimates is also a suf-fi cient reason, I humbly think, for your pausing, in order that you may more maturely consider how you should proceed further in carrying out Mr. Hill’s and my project for supplying Glasgow with Water. For that the sum of £570,000 is a most unnecessarily exaggerated estimate, I stake my professional reputation to be able to demonstrate.

It is not necessary for me here to account for the diff erence in the estimates of Mr. Bateman and / those who had previously studied the Lock-Katrine scheme; neither is it necessary that I should lay before you details of the practical engi-neering objections to Mr. Bateman’s plan of carrying out a scheme, in reference to which, as he could add nothing to what had been previously published of its merits and practicability by others, he should at least have given credit to the fi rst projectors of the scheme for what they had done to enable him to ‘report his opinion as to the source he would recommend being taken, in order to aff ord to the inhabitants the best and most abundant supply, by gravitation, of the pur-

Copyright


est water that can be obtained,’ in terms of the resolutions and instructions of a Committee of the Council.

Having, however, read the account of the recent discussion in the Town Council, in reference to carrying out the Loch Katrine scheme for the supply of Water to Glasgow – which, allow me to repeat, I was instrumental in making known, in all its details, to the public eight years ago – I feel called upon to pub-lish this remonstrance against your entertaining Mr. Bateman’s views of what would be a legitimate expenditure for you to undertake, and to make known to you that my view of the estimate of executing the scheme is very little changed since 1845, though I have had access to the data upon which Mr. Bateman’s esti-mates were founded, as far as these were before the Committee of the House of Commons / in June last, and although Mr. Hill and I proposed to bring the sup-ply from Loch Katrine to Glasgow in an aqueduct, and not by the intervention of 9½ miles of cast-iron pipes, constantly liable to injury from causes by which the aqueduct would not be aff ected.

I venture to add to this remonstrance a word of advice, at the risk of its being treated as is proverbial with advice not asked for.

It is by no means proved that it is good for municipal bodies to speculate in the supply of water, or other material interests of the communities, whose municipal interests they are elected to watch over and advance. Th e few instances of practical experience in the matter, which are known, are against this recently-suggested function of municipal bodies. Let, therefore, the Water-rate Payers take the matter into their own hands, and Form a Joint-Stock Company, to Bring the Supply of Water from Loch Katrine.

24 Abingdon Street, Westminster,November 3rd, 1853. /

Copyright

Copyright

– 223 –

The Glasgow Loch Katrine Water Scheme (1854)

[From the GLASGOW HERALD of Monday, February 20, 1854.]

Our readers, we believe, are pretty generally aware, that the objections to this bill on the standing orders have been repelled – that it has been read a second a time in the House of Commons on Wednesday se’nnight,1 and that consequently it is likely to be speedily considered and disposed of by the Committee of that House. At this time of day it is unnecessary to say a single word as to the desirableness of an abundant supply of pure water for Glasgow; because, while no one disputes that the present service on the north side of the Clyde (on which four-fi ft hs of the inhabitants are located) has become quite inadequate, it is as little denied that an extended supply has become peremptorily requisite for the comfort, health, well-being, and even the safety of the city. We congratulate the public, therefore, on the fact that they now enjoy a substantial prospect of obtaining that which they have so long clamantly desired, and from the want of which they have so long suff ered – a prospect so certain, indeed, that it is diffi cult to see in what manner it can be frustrated on any grounds of justice or expediency. Th e bill, however, is not to pass without opposition. A minority in the Town Council resisted the measure on various grounds; but none of these went the length of asserting that Glasgow did not urgently need an enlarged supply of pure water; and we observe that this resistance is being supplemented by the opposition embodied in the resolutions passed at certain Ward meetings, anonymously called, to consider the ‘unjust and oppressive’ Water Bill, as it is termed. If any section of the community thinks itself aggrieved, or likely to be injured, by this Bill, it is meet and proper that they should make appearance in opposition before the Committee of the House of Commons. But it is also most essential that the general public should ponder well before it lends itself to an opposition calculated to defeat the most reasonable, sensible, and just bill on this subject which has ever been brought before the citizens of Glasgow. It is well to ask this question – Th at should the Corporation Bill actually be defeated, by what other human agency are we to obtain a supply of water? Th at the opposition may involve a large expenditure of money on both sides, we admit to be likely; but that it will be eff ectual we do not fear – simply, because the Corporation of Glasgow never went to Parliament

Copyright


with so good a cause, or indeed with any one nearly so good, or one in which the best interests of the whole community, and especially of the lower classes, were so closely bound up. We well know that the immense mass of the community is cordially in favour of this bill; but still it is quite possible that the knowledge of this fact will not deter the opponents of the measure from going to Parliament, in the name of ‘We, the citizens of Glasgow.’ But what are the grounds upon which the opposition to this most essential measure are to be based? We will let the reader judge of them; for, so far as we are instructed from what has taken place in the Council or out of it, they may be embraced under the following heads: –

1. Th at the subject of the water supply has been improperly and hurriedly taken up by the Town Council, and has not been maturely considered.

2. Th at the existing water companies are to be bought up at a most extrava-gant rate, and that the cost of introducing the water and paying off the old companies has not been fi xed.

3. Th at the unlimited powers of rating taken by bill will be mercilessly exer-cised, and that the rate-payers of Glasgow will be squeezed beyond endurance.

4. Th at the ‘Public Rate’ is unjust, and another name for plunder and confi s-cation.

5. Th at the ‘Compulsory Rate’ is ditto.6. Th at the inhabitants of Gorbals are to be deprived of the privileges which

they at present enjoy through the Gorbals Gravitation Water Company.2

7. Th at the bill itself has not been suffi ciently explained to the public – that it is imperfect, and should be delayed.

We will take leave to examine this bill of indictment briefl y in detail. In the fi rst place, it is alleged that the measure has been improperly and hastily taken up by the Town Council. Now, everyman in Glasgow who has paid the slightest atten-tion to what has been going on around him, knows that for many years past there has been a universal and clamant outcry for an extended supply of water by gravi-tation. Phantom Water Companies have from time to time dazzled the public; but they have vanished like the ‘Will o’ Wisp.’ Eventually the present Glasgow Water Company obtained an act in 1846,3 for the introduction of water from Loch Lubnaig; but they found that they could not work out the Act, which, by its expiry, became inoperative. Th e Gorbals bill, for supplying the south side of the city, did pass this year, however – thanks to the energy of Mr. Gemmill4 (one of the opponents of the Corporation measure); but the Gorbals gravitation supply, while it so far relieved the demands on the Old Company, whose water is pumped out of the river, served at the same time, by contrast, to show how defi cient the service was for the main portion of the city situated on the north

Copyright

Th e Glasgow Loch Katrine Water Scheme 225

bank of the Clyde. Eventually, the opinion became general, that the only help was to be got by the Corporation itself bringing in the supply; or, in other words, that the public should supply themselves, whose representatives the Councillors are. Not to go too much into detail, we may state that the proceedings out of which the Corporation Bill, now before Parliament have sprung; originated in the Council in Oct. 1852; but this was not the fi rst time that the subject had been entertained by our municipal rulers, for upon turning to our fi les, we fi nd that Bailie Gourlay,5 who then made a motion, spoke as follows: –

‘I come at once to what was done by the Council in September, 1850. On the 5th of that month, a committee of 16 was appointed (and a fairer selec-tion could not have been made) to consider the whole question. Th eir fi rst meeting was held on the 10th, when ten of them were present, and they then unanimously agreed that the supply should be in the hands of the Magistrates, and they appointed a sub-committee to meet with the two water companies, in order to ascertain whether they were disposed to transfer their works, and for what. Well then, aft er this, betwixt meetings of committees, sub-committees, and deputations from the water companies, they had twelve diff erent confer-ences, fi nishing in October, 1851. And what did it all end in? Why, my Lord, exactly where they began. Th e last minute, dated 21st October, expresses regret that their appointment has led to no practical result, but they are still of opinion that it is most desirable an arrangement should, if possible, be made, by which the works of both companies, and the power of aff ording an improved supply of water to the whole extended city, should be transferred to, and invested in, the Magistrates and Council, as trustees on behalf of the public; and they strongly recommended that the anxious attention of the Council should be given to the subject. Now then, we are at present obeying their closing recommendation, giving the subject our anxious consideration; and founding on their experience aft er thirteen months’ negotiation, I ask you this simple question, if this infl u-ential committee, with Sir James Anderson6 at its head, failed in coming to such an arrangement as they could recommend to the Council, when the stock of the company stood in the market at £22, 15s., what earthly hope can you have in dealing with them now, when their shares are at £42?’

At this time, Bailie Gourlay, who had reason to believe that it was still pos-sible to introduce water by means of a private company, moved that the sum of £10,000 should be voted in aid of a company which was then contemplated to bring in water from Loch Katrine. Aft er full discussion, however, it was resolved again to remit the whole matter to committee, in / which arrangement the mover acquiesced, Meanwhile, the Glasgow or Old Company announced their intention of again going to parliament in the session of 1853, for an amended bill for introducing water from Loch Lubnaig. Th e committee above referred to reported this intelligence to the Council at its meeting, on 28th October, 1852;

Copyright


but while they did so they added: – ‘Th e Committee, however, think it desirable that the power of supplying water should be vested in the Magistrates and Coun-cil as a separate trust for the benefi t of the inhabitants, rather than in a private company; and the committee recommend that the Council shall authorize the requisite steps being taken for the purpose of accomplishing that object at the earliest possible period. With that view, and to enable them to judge of the best course to be followed, under all the circumstances, the committee recommend that an engineer of the greatest eminence should be consulted, and that aft er he has examined all the available sources of supply in the neighbourhood, his opinion and advice shall be requested as to the source he would recommend to be taken in order to aff ord the inhabitants the best and most abundant supply, by gravitation, of the purest water that can be obtained.’

Th is resolution was unanimously agreed to, and as consequence of it, Mr. Bateman was appointed engineer to the Corporation. It is scarcely possible that any selection could have been made with greater care, or with a more anxious and disinterested eye to the merits of the man. It so happened that a deputation was proceeding to London on public business, consisting of Bailie Gourlay for the Council, Mr. Hannan, the Dean of Guild, for the Merchants’ House, and Mr. Hugh Cogan for the Chamber of Commerce. While there, the two coun-cilors put themselves in communication with the London Parliamentary agent of the Council, who in turn applied to Sir William Cubitt,7 when this eminent engineer gave a list of three names, any one of whom might be appointed as fully competent to do the work which the Council had in hand. It was found that two of these gentlemen had already been connected more or less with the Glasgow Water Companies. Mr. Bateman, therefore, being entirely independent and neutral, so to speak, and at the same time equal in talent and experience to either of the other two, and the inquiries made regarding him being answered from various parts of the country (where he had executed important works) in the most fl attering and satisfactory manner, he was accordingly appointed by the Council, as their engineer. We may incidentally state on the authority of those who have the best means of forming a judgment, that so far as matters have gone, Mr. Bateman has fully justifi ed the choice made of him. He was proved himself to be a man of untiring industry and energy, and possessed of engineering abili-ties of the very highest order. Above all, he has impressed those who have come into contact with him, with the sentiment that he is a safe man.

Mr. Bateman made a partial survey of the territory round Glasgow in the month of January, 1853, but still suffi ciently minute to convince him that the fullest supply of the purest water was to be had from Loch Katrine and its trib-utary minor lochs. Meanwhile, in summer last, the Glasgow Water Company went into Parliament with their Loch Lubnaig Bill; and, in unanimously resolv-ing to oppose it, the municipal authorities, with equal unanimity, in the 24th

Copyright


March last, again pledged themselves to introduce a bill in the next [the present] session, ‘for vesting the power of supplying the city with water in the Magistrates and Council, for the benefi t of the inhabitants.’ A deputation, consisting of the Lord Provost, Bailie Gourlay, and Mr. Charles Gray, accordingly proceeded to London, and aft er a most deliberate investigation, succeeded in throwing out the Glasgow Water Company’s bill. Into all the reasons of this decision, we have not space to enter; but, may merely state, that one of them was, that the promoters had failed to prove that Loch Lubnaig was the best source of supply. All these details are of course well known to those who have paid attention to this ques-tion; but the whole course of procedure cannot be expected to rest in the minds of the inhabitants generally. We repeat it, therefore, that they may not have dust cast in their eyes, and that our fellow-citizens may not be impressed with the delusion that the Council is jumping into this water aff air improperly, or in an unthinking helter-skelter style. Th e plain matter of fact is, that the Corporation is at this moment fulfi lling a pledge which it solemnly and deliberately gave. It is carrying into form and actual embodiment wishes and discussions which have agitated the public mind for seven years back. It is about to bring in water, and if it fails to do so, nobody else can or will do it.

II. Th e next head of opposition is, that some extravagant and enormous price is to be paid for the existing works of the Glasgow and Gorbals water companies, when they fall to be acquired by the Corporation. Of this alleged snake in the grass a mighty deal has been made; and there are people amongst us who have not hesitated to say that the Council should bring in water irrespective of the old company, and ignoring its existence. Now, this cannot be done for two sub-stantial reasons – fi rst and least, the Committee of House of Commons stated last year to the Council Deputation that they need not come back to Parliament unless they made some arrangement with, or had some consideration for, the old Glasgow Company. Th e second and most cogent reason, is that Glasgow is just. Th e old company has done its best to supply the city for half a century; it did this amply for a long period, but the immense increase of the population has outrun its means. It has made an eff ort to extend them but the Council has tied up its hands, not by proving that Loch Lubnaig would not give a good supply, but by proving that Loch Katrine would aff ord a better. It is well known that when the Corporation brings in water by gravitation, the functions of the exist-ing company, which pumps from the Clyde, die a natural death. Th ey cannot compete with Loch Katrine under any circumstances. Are we then to extinguish some hundred thousands of pounds’ worth of property belonging to share-holders amongst ourselves, who faithfully discharged their duty to the public, until the increase of the population outran the means at their command – who have never been accused of charging extravagant profi ts, but who on the other hand have only drawn limited profi ts. It would have been better certainly that

Copyright


an arrangement could have been made in Glasgow, and the price stated in the bill. An attempt was made to eff ect this by means of a confi dential meeting held between the Lord Provost and the chairman of the Water Company, but it is not surprising that this failed, when possibly too much was asked on the one hand and too little off ered on the other. Th e value therefore falls to be settled in the only way in which a settlement is now possible, viz., by arbitration. We cannot doubt that gentlemen of integrity and ability will be chosen as arbiters, and that justice will be done to both parties. Th e Water Company has agreed in the most cordial manner to accept the Arbitration Clauses of the Bill, and accordingly they off er no opposition. Th is conduct of the shareholders in a matter in which their own pecuniary interests are so largely interested, contrasts strongly with the sinister patriotism of those who unsuccessfully attempted to strangle orders. We need not waste a word on the objection that the total cost of the scheme has not been defi ned. Th e thing is impossible. Th e sum total cannot be ascertained till the existing companies are settled with, and, for reasons stated above, this can only be done under the authority of the bill itself.

III. Th e third objection applies to the unlimited powers of rating taken by the bill, which, say the Objectors, is pretty good proof that the Council means to go the whole hog, and that something varying from 2s. to 5s. in the pound is looming in the distance. Th ose who have studied the subject most closely – and they are the wisest amongst us – are convinced that the rate to the consumer will never exceed 1s. in the pound. But the great and indeed only reason for the clause is, that the unlimited rate is taken as better security in the money mar-ket than one which is limited, and consequently the funds are got on cheaper terms. Th is had been found to be the case with every Corporation which has had cause to enter the money market for the construction of public works. Th e diff erence has always been strongly in favour of the unlimited rate or security; and such a principle applied to the property and rental of the city of Glasgow will call up the cheapest money which is to be got in the world. Let us see how it operates. Th e Corporation must borrow every shilling for these Loch Katrine works; and suppose the total cost of buying the old and making the new should be £1,200,000, the diff erence of one single per cent. would give £12,000 per annum, which, employed as a sinking fund, would aff ord to the next generation the water almost as free of charge as the air we breathe. It must be remembered that, to a great extent, the fi rst cost is the only cost; for the gravitation principle acts by its own momentum, and all that is necessary is to keep the works in repair, and pay salaries for collecting the money. Every additional thousand pounds of assessable rental will swell the revenue of the Water Trust, and cause no outlay in return, excepting that of collecting it. We admit in a moment that, in the case of a private company, or in the case of the Town Council, had the members retained their seats permanently or in the ad vitam aut culpam8 style, the proposal to grant

Copyright


unlimited powers of rating would have been not only inadmissible, but outra-geous. But this is a case in which the inhabitants who pay for the article actually supply themselves. Th e public can never be long put to the wall. We may have the misfortune to be ruled for the time by a stupid Council, or an extravagant Council, or a simple Council, but the public can get rid of them. Th e Corpora-tion may give a man £2000 a year a salary when £400 is enough, or they may pay 5 per cent. to money brokers when 4 per cent would answer the turn. Well, what of it? In November onsuing, out go a third of them, / which will likely turn the majority but if this fails, the command of the Council is eff ectually secured at the next elections. Th is can be done with the present voting list. It is to be presumed that it will not be less diffi cult to eff ect when Lord John Russell has extended the franchise. In fact, the Council will not be allowed either to blunder or plun-der without an almost immediate check. But it is preposterous to speak of the thing. Th e bill is promoted by a vast majority of intelligent Councillors, with the view of doing their best for their fellow-citizens and for themselves as citizens. Th ey know that in ordinary course but few of them will be in the Council when the fi rst jet d’eau9 from Loch Katrine is erected, Th ey can, therefore, have little interest in the matter as Councillors; but as citizens an unlimited supply of pure water is everything to them and to their posterity.

We have still other matters of objection to take up; but as this paper has run to greater length than we anticipated, we will delay the handling of the remain-ing heads till a future number.

[From the GLASGOW HERALD of Friday, February 24, 1854.]

In our last we handled the three fi rst objections, on the ground of which the bill promoted by the Corporation is opposed. We now propose to deal with the remainder.

IV. It is objected that that which is known in the bill as the ‘Public Rate,’ is unjust, and in short, a sort of left -handed system of spoliation. Th is, however, is merely a modifi ed and ameliorated, or less stringent adaptation, of a clause which appears in all the important Water Bills lately granted by Parliament. By the Glasgow bill, it provides that the owners of property shall pay a certain sum towards the expenses of the undertaking, which shall not exceed a maximum of 2d. in the pound. Th ere is no probability, however, that it will ever exceed ld. In the bills for other towns, the maximum is 3d. in the pound. Th e imposition of this rate goes on the principle that whatever benefi ts the town generally, augments the value of the property within it – that an abundant supply of pure water not only attracts people to the town as a place of residence, but keeps those in who would otherwise go out of it. It is also a most important element in the favour of the landlord that an abundant supply by gravitation, vastly lessens the risk of the

Copyright


destruction of his property by fi re; the amount of the preservative element is overwhelming, and it can be applied in a moment with immense effi cacy, with-out either engines or water butts. Another reason, although this we do not urge, is that, in an elastic population such as that of Glasgow, the landlord can easily transfer this trifl ing charge to his tenant. But it is not to be forgotten that ‘prop-erty has its duties as well as its rights;’ and the best proof that the public rate is not spoliation or confi scation, but is fair, reasonable, and appropriate, is found in the fact that the mighty majority of the house proprietors in Glasgow not only do not oppose the clause, but that they heartily acquiesce in it. It may or may not be considered sound argument to urge that many thousand pounds per annum are paid in the shape of rental to persons who permanently live far beyond the city, and who have no interest in or connexion with Glasgow, excepting through the factor, who draws in and remits their money. But surely it is not too much to ask these absentee ladies and gentlemen to contribute a single penny in the pound for the well-being of the town which enriches them – to extinguish its fi res, and fl ush the drains of its pestilent and fever-generating localities. Such a public rating clause appears in the act for the cotton metropolis of Manchester, as well as in the acts for the provincial towns of Stirling and Dumfries. Prop-erty in stone and lime in these latter towns is a poor concern as compared with its remunerative character in Glasgow; but the landlords there contrive to pay the ‘public rate’ without breaking either their backs or their hearts, or without in fact, thinking they do any more than their duty. We have said that the great majority of the house proprietors out of doors acquiesce in the bill. Th e same remark holds good as to the owners of property and public works within the Council itself. Th ose who have lent themselves most energetically to the prepara-tion and promotion of this measure, will pay much more under the ‘public rate’ than those who have denounced it as a scheme of spoliation. Th is is proof that, so far as their own pockets are concerned, these members of Council regard the bill as of a very diff erent character.

V. Th e fi ft h objection is to the eff ect, that the ‘compulsory rate,’ as it has been termed, is also unjust, oppressive, and is leavened with a strong dash of a quality akin to confi scation. Th is arbitrary title or cognomen must have been given by some one who had no love for the bill, and desired to damage it by a bad name. Th e meaning of the clause is, that owners or factors shall be held responsible for the collection of the water rates in all cases where the tenement or lodging is of less than the rent or yearly value of £10. Th e reasons for this enactment are not diffi cult to fi nd; in short, they are of a very imperious character. Th ey consist in the fact that in Glasgow there are thousands on thousands of people, in the lower ranks of life, and in various parts of the town, who have no water at all. Notoriously, they will not – we do not say they cannot – pay for it; or the expenses of collection exceed the proceeds, and consequently the Water Com-

Copyright


pany will not trust them, whereby they are deprived of this fi rst necessary of life altogether, unless they get it in driblets and in a dishonest way, which they actu-ally do. Th ere are as many people amongst us in this condition as would furnish human material for what might be termed a city any where else. From the locali-ties in which they live, they are especially of that class who need water most, both for personal decency, and for its general sanitary eff ects in their dwellings. As regards these people, there were found, in the course of a recent minute survey, numerous entries such as the following: – ‘No water in this close, which is in a fi lthy state for want of it’; or ‘Mr. – (the owner or factor) has no water in any of his closes for the use of his tenants, and they state that they have to steal it.’ It is not asserted that the Water Company is bound either in honour or charity to supply the element to those who will not pay for it, and as little will such an obli-gation be binding on the Corporation. Th e fact is that the landlord has the only machinery by which these rates can be got in. It is not disputed that the factor gets his rents; for in the case of disreputable or unguaranteed tenants, the rent is demanded in advance, weekly, monthly, or quarterly, as the case may be, and it would be no diffi cult matter to collect the pence or shillings for the one when the shillings or pounds are paid for the other. At the same time, it would be of vast benefi t to compel these people to accept unlimited supplies of water, even at the expense of limiting their means for the purchase of whisky. It is in these impure and fi lthy places that disease is generated, which permeates the whole city.

It is well known that in not a few districts in Glasgow small lodgings have been split into single rooms, for the accommodation of families, whereby the tenants escape local taxation, and a large aggregate rental is secured to the landlord; for it does not follow that a ‘miserable rickle of houses’ is not a remunerative concern to the man who owns them. In comparison with the value of the property, higher rents are got in these wretched localities, than are asked for in the Crescents; and indeed it is well known that many of these ‘rookeries’ yield at the rate of from 20 to 30 per cent. per annum. While the case of the owners of these houses need not excite our bowels of compassion when the onus of collecting the water rates is laid upon them, their tenants – or at least a vast proportion of them – stand as little in need of our charitable consideration. Th e ‘humane public’ are under a very great mistake if they suppose that deserving poverty alone throws its limbs to rest in these squalid dwellings. Th e enumerators at the census of 1851 found that in innumerable cases these places were occupied by those who avowedly live by preying on the public, as well as by lots of low-minded fellows who could earn from 20s. to 30s. per week if they would only work. Are we then to recognize any claims for exemption on the part of these people? In the case of the sober and respectable workmen, occupying houses between £5 and £10 of yearly rent, the landlord would have no diffi culty. His rent is secure already, and his water rates would not be less so. Again, in the case of real honest poverty, it is not to

Copyright


be doubted that the Water Trust would show every tenderness; but we are not to make special regulations in behalf of the deserving poor, which would be taken advantage of by every profl igate and greedy gipsy in the city.

We have reserved the most potent argument, or rather fact, under this head till the last; for in plain truth, the Corporation is compelled to adopt this £10 clause in their bill. By the ‘Water Works Clauses Act’ of 1847, it is provided that every future Water Act passed for any part of the kingdom shall contain a clause of this import, viz., that the landlord shall be responsible for the collection of the rates of tenements rented under £10. Whether we are to have water brought in by Public Trusts or Private Companies this clause must have a place in their act. But we beg to call attention to one fact, as proof that the Corporation is not disposed to ride rough-shod over the community. It is that the Council, in incorporating this clause, also take power to allow the owners of all houses not exceeding £10 of rent who shall pay the / domestic water rate, an abatement of 10 per cent. on the amount of such rate paid by them. Surely, then, an allow-ance of 10 per cent. for the expenses of collection is fair pay for the trouble. In verity, it is a rate of commission which trading and commercial men are not accustomed to toss over their shoulders.

VI. Th e sixth head of opposition is grounded on the allegation that the inhab-itants of Gorbals are to be deprived of the privileges which they at present enjoy through the Gravitation Water Company. Now, a pretty minute acquaintance with the bill enables us to say that not a single privilege regulating the supply of water on the south side of the river is abolished. On the contrary, every obliga-tion of this character is assumed by the Loch Katrine Bill. True it is, that for reasons fully stated in our last, the amount of rate chargeable to the community cannot yet be stated. Th e private Gravitation Company which supplies Gorbals is limited to a charge of 1s. in the pound, and this limitation is cherished as the palladium of the Gorbals privileges. But is there one substantial ground off ered for the assertion, so freely made, that the rates of the Loch Katrine water will be any higher? We have formerly shown that in the opinion of the most expe-rienced men amongst us, the rate to the consumer will never exceed 1s. in the pound. And let us consider, if the Corporation rates are not likely, in due course, to be less than this 5 per cent. standard, and if they will not be lessened, too, much sooner at the hands of the Corporation Water Trust than at those of the Gorbals Gravitation Company, if the latter is left in its present position. Profi t forms no part of the Loch Katrine formula. On the contrary, every shilling of surplus revenue, which an increasing population will give them, is devoted, aft er paying working expenses, to the liquidation of the debt, and the reduction of the rates. Th e Gorbals Gravitation Company, on the other hand, has been estab-lished for profi t. It charges 5 per cent., and well deserves this moderate rate of remuneration. But is the south side public simple enough to expect that they will

Copyright


ever be charged less? Have they any security that if matters remain as at present, the Gorbals Company may not by-and-by have reasons, and good reasons too, for going to Parliament for extended powers, and a higher tariff ? Th e Corpora-tion, however, dare not touch profi t. As the city extends, the rates must come down; and just let us ask what the Baronial Hall commentators would think of it, if, in the course of a dozen of years, they fi nd themselves still paying 1s. in the pound to a private company, while the Corporation is giving the rest of the municipality a purer article, and possibly more of it, for 6d. or 8d.? Such may be the case should Gorbals, unhappily for its own sake, succeed in maintaining its isolated position.

It is evident, however, that if the Corporation scheme is to eventuate in an Act of Parliament, Gorbals must form part of it. Parliament will not, for excep-tional reasons, deal with the municipal bounds of Glasgow in a piecemeal style. Th e Corporation Water Trust must have charge of all of it or of none. And where is the injury infl icted? Persons who live on the south-side of the river this year shift to the north-side in the next, and vice versa. No class of our community is thirled to any particular section of ground like the ‘villains’ in days when Gurth was the thrall of Cedric;10 or like the Russian peasants of our own times. Th e great majority of the middle and upper classes residing in Govan11 have their houses of business in the Old City; and they shift their places of residence at their personal convenience. Th e working man does exactly the same thing. He moves between north and south just as he fi nds it convenient for his work. How bitter was the confusion and dire the complaints when diff erent forms of rating prevailed for the poor in the City and Suburban parishes of which Glasgow is composed. But let us take a supposititious argument, ad misericordiam.12 Gorbals undoubtedly possesses abundance of excellent water; and it attributes its happy exemption from the virulence of cholera, both in 1848 and at the present time, to the pos-session of this blessing. Th e northside of Glasgow, in which the great masses lie, confessedly does not enjoy these advantages. And even though the water-rates were increased, are we to believe that our Gorbals fellowcitizens would refuse to share this penny or two-penny impost with their north-side neighbours rather than that the latter should enjoy blessings for which they themselves are so grate-ful? We merely put the case. We do not believe it. Such a resistance would belie all the former character of the inhabitants in that section of the city.

It is alleged in some of the printed bouncing fl y sheets which we have perused, that this is a bill for the interests of the rich at the expense of the poor. We will not waste words in demolishing this bit of clap-trap. Every one knows that the rich can get pure water, although others should want it. Th ey can dig wells to their own houses, or sweeten impure fl uid by fi lters, or they can leave the city altogether, as a place of residence, should water fail, and the prospect of a supply by gravitation be rendered desperate. Th ey can leave the city, while their business

Copyright


and profi ts will go on as usual. Th e poor man can do none of these things. But rather let us think of the colony of decent English men and women attached to the iron works in the higher parts of the city. It is the greatest object of ambi-tion in these matrons to keep clean and tidy houses; but the Company, with its present mechanical powers, cannot throw water into these elevated dwell-ings; and accordingly the poor people have to carry or pump it laboriously, for their domestic purposes, from a reservoir – a work at which they are seen toiling morning, noon, and night. Th is is the point of view from which it will be readily seen whether the water supply is most vitally a rich man or a poor man’s question.

Let the inhabitants of Gorbals think of these things. And let them consider also that they are pretty safe, notwithstanding all that is said to the contrary, so long as the largest water rate-payers amongst themselves not only do not oppose the bill, but support it. Let them be assured that they are pretty safe, so long as gentlemen who pay £60 per annum for water in Gorbals do not join in the oppo-sition, and that there is no fear of the bill turning out the excruciating aff air which it has been represented. But we suppose all this is too late. Th e Gorbals people (or we should rather say some of them) have already made a ‘pronunciamento’ against the bill, as they term these things in the South American republics. Th ey will act fi rst, and think aft erwards. Th ey have sent petitions to Parliament, ‘signed by the chairman in name of the meeting,’ and they have invited upon the public street, the holographs of all who could handle a pen; – whether they made any distinction between men and boys we know not. A few days ago, while passing along Portland Street, south side, we were canvassed by the beadle to append our signature to the petition against this ‘unjust and oppressive’ bill, which said peti-tion he had somewhere in the rear. Now, the decent man did not know whether we belonged to Gorbals, Glenorchy, or Galway.13 Nor did he care. All he wanted was names; and we have no doubt he worked earnestly and conscientiously in obtaining them. But aft er the exposure of the ‘National Petition,’ fathered by Fergus O’Connor,14 Parliament has a pretty good notion of the value of these street signatures. It will remain for the Council, however, to decide whether or not they should originate a petition in a diff erent way, and show what the sense of Glasgow and Gorbals really is.

VII. We need not extend this already lengthy paper by bestowing much space on the seventh objection, to the eff ect – Th at the bill itself has not been suffi -ciently explained to the public – that it is imperfect and should be delayed. He cannot be an inhabitant of Glasgow of more than a fortnight’s standing who is ignorant of the following facts: – 1. Th at the subject of the water supply has been a question anxiously discussed for a long series of years. 2. Th at four years have elapsed since the members of Council directly interested themselves in the ques-tion; and that they subsequently did resolve to bring in a supply for the benefi t of the inhabitants. 3. Th at an eminent engineer was appointed fi ft een months

Copyright


since to assist them in their deliberations. 4. Th at the bill was carefully prepared by a committee consisting of the most able men in the Council, including some of those by whom it is now most bitterly opposed. 5. Th at the bill was printed and largely distributed. 6. Th at all the leading clauses in the bill were published in the newspapers. 7. Th at the bill was discussed at frequent and successive meet-ings of Town Council, and altogether withstood such a heckling as never fell to the lot of any measure connected with Glasgow before. 8. Th at the essence of all these discussions was published in the newspapers – the reasons why the debates themselves were compressed being, that they were so fl agrantly voluminous that no newspaper could grapple with them ad longum.15 Now, if a bill which has passed through this ordeal does not possess some claims to both perfection and publicity, we do not know how on earth these qualifi cations are to be obtained. But strange to say, the very gentlemen who complain that the bill is crude and imperfect, and fi xes and defi nes nothing, have already discovered to a fraction that the total cost of the concern will be two millions sterling; and the rate not less than half a crown in the pound!

Th e gist of the whole matter is – Will the public support the Council in bringing in water at cost price; or will they wait for a private company which, if it comes to the rescue at all, must demand such rating clauses as will leave a divi-dend of say 7 per cent, or as much more as they can get. /

Copyright

372 Notes to pages 202–18

2. ‘Where ignorance … wise’: Th e line is not Pope’s but Th omas Gray’s from his poem ‘Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College’ (1747).

3. Mr. Tabberner: John Loude Tabberner’s pamphlet Th e Past, the Present, and the Prob-able Future Supply of Water to London (1847) promotes supplying London with water from artesian wells – a project that the author of Th oughts on Popular Subjects rejects as unfeasible.

4. Dr. Southwood Smith … Metropolis: Th is may refer to one or more of the Reports of the Metropolitan Sanitary Commission (1847–8), of which Southwood Smith was a mem-ber. For more on Smith see above, pp. 368, 369.

5. Telford … in 1849: Both men were hydraulic engineers, although James Simpson’s work was concentrated in the metropolis. Simpson (1799–1869) was engineer for both the Lambeth and Chelsea Waterworks, and in this role he developed a means for water fi l-tration, in addition to encouraging the Lambeth company to relocate its water intake location above the tidal Th ames (‘Memoirs’, Minutes of Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, 30 (1869–70), part 2, pp. 457–60). Telford served on the Royal Commission on the Supply of Water to the Metropolis in 1828 (see above p. 371, note 3).

6. jets d’eau: jet of water, i.e., fountain [French].7. El Dorado: El Dorado and California are lands abounding in gold, although the former

is of course fi ctitious.

Gordon, Th e Respectful Remonstrance1. Mr. J. F. Bateman: John Frederic La Trobe Bateman (1810–89) gained his reputation

engineering waterworks; the projects at Glasgow and Manchester (see above p. 237) were among his notable achievements (ODNB).

2. Mr. Laurence Hill: Hill (1791–1872) was a respected Glasgow lawyer, who took an interest in civic improvements: in addition to the Loch Katrine scheme he promoted with Gordon, he was active in the projection of the Glasgow Necropolis ( J. Maclehose, ‘Laurence Hill’, Memoirs and Portraits of One Hundred Glasgow Men Who Have Died during the Last Th irty Years and in Th eir Lives Did Much to Make the City What It Now Is (Glasgow: James Maclehose & Sons, 1886) Glasgow Digital Library, University of Strathclyde, http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/).

3. Mr. Macquorn … Th omson: Th e Scottish engineer and physicist MacquornRankine (1820–1872) was active in scientifi c and engineering research, teaching, and practice throughout his career. With John Th omson, his partner in the Loch Katrine scheme to which Gordon refers, he surveyed the Glasgow College grounds and developed a scheme for a submarine telegraph between Britain and Ireland (ODNB).

4. promoters … Waterworks: Th e Glasgow Corporation’s plans for taking over the water sup-ply were opposed by the two standing water companies, Glasgow and Gorbals; all three entities (companies and city) sought Parliamentary approval for their new proposals in 1852, but the (extension) schemes of the companies were rejected. For an exhaustive account, see J. Burnet, History of the Water Supply to Glasgow, fr om the Commencement of the Present Century (Glasgow: Bell & Bain, 1869).

5. ad libitum: at one’s pleasure; without restraint [Latin].6. Trossachs: the rocky, wooded area adjacent to Loch Katrine to its south.7. Provisional Committee: Th e men of the provisional committee were in the main civic

leaders who were active in the Glasgow business community. For individual biographies

Copyright

Notes to pages 218–35 373

of Baird, Campbell, Dennistoun, Dunlop, Ewing, Graham (William) and Houldsworth ( John), see J. Maclehose, Memoirs and Portraits of One Hundred Glasgow Men.

8. Duke of Montrose: James Graham, fourth Duke of Montrose, was the principal land-owner in the parish of Aberfoyle which included Loch Katrine (ODNB).

9. ‘Loch Lubnaig’ scheme: Th e old Glasgow water company proposed bringing a new water supply to the city from Loch Lubnaig, and although it received Parliamentary approval for the plan in 1846, the company never pursued it. Th e company’s actions, however, were enough to stifl e the action of Gordon’s provisional Loch Katrine company.

10. Milngavie: village north-west of Glasgow where the Corporation ultimately sited the reservoir.

Th e Glasgow Loch Katrine Water Scheme1. se’nnight: a contraction for ‘seven night’ synonymous with ‘week’ (OED).2. Gorbals Gravitation Water Company: Th e company began providing water to Gorbals,

south of the River Clyde, in 1846. Although the area was serviced by the Glasgow Water-works Company, the supply was inadequate for its growing population (Burnet, History of the Water Supply to Glasgow, p. 25).

3. act in 1846: see above note 9.4. Mr. Gemmill: Andrew Gemmill was Chief Magistrate of Gorbals at the time when Gor-

bals was seeking to provide its own water supply; subsequent to Parliamentary approval of the plan, Gemmill took a position with the new water company (Burnet, History of the Water Supply to Glasgow, p. 25–7).

5. Bailie Gourlay: James Gourlay (1804–71) served on the Town Council and from 1853–5 was instrumental in opposing the Glasgow Waterworks Company’s plans for deriving water supplies from Loch Lubnaig and in promoting the city’s plans to invest in Loch Katrine (Maclehose, ‘James Gourlay’, Memoirs and Portraits of One Hundred Glasgow Men.).

6. Sir James Anderson: James Anderson (1785–1863), who found success as a bank man-ager, served as a member of the Town Council, as a magistrate and as secretary to the Chamber of Commerce ( J. Maclehose, ‘James Andrew Anderson’, Memoirs and Portraits of One Hundred Glasgow Men.).

7. Sir William Cubitt: see above p. 370, note 1.8. ad vitam aut culpam : for life or until misdeed [Latin], applied to an offi ce that would be

held permanently except in the case of misconduct.9. jet d’eau: see above p. 372, note 6.10. days when Gurth was the thrall of Cedric: In Walter Scott’s novel Ivanhoe (1819), Gurth

is a ‘thrall’, or serf, of the wealthy landowner Cedric.11. Govan: suburban area of Glasgow west of the city centre.12. ad misericordiam: to mercy, pity [Latin], as applied to an appeal or argument (OED).13. Gorbals, Glenorchy, or Galway: refers to the area in Glasgow south of the Clyde, a remote

valley in Scotland and a city (and county) in Ireland, respectively; the only connection among the places is alliterative.

14. ‘National Petition,’ … O’Connor: Feargus O’Connor (1796?–1855), the Chartist leader, presented the third Chartist petition to the House of Commons in April 1848. Although he claimed that the petition contained over fi ve million signatures, upon examination in committee it was discovered to contain somewhere under two million signatures, many of which were clear forgeries (ODNB).

15. ad longum: at length [Latin].

glasgow's water supply from sanitary reform in victorian britain part i

Documents

glasgow digital

sir william

phantom water

glasgows water

loch lubnaig

standing water

loch katrine

hundred glasgow