‘That is no fault of the existing companies. As sellers of an article, they are but too happy to get as many customers for it as possible; but poor tenants cannot, and their landlords will not, afford the expense. If the companies were to make the outlay necessary to connect the houses with their mains, they would have no legal power to recover the money so expended—nor indeed is it clear, that were they inclined to run the risk, the parties would avail themselves of it. In one instance, the Southwark and Vauxhall Company offered to construct a tank which would give continuous supply to a block of 100 small houses, at the rate of 50 gallons per diem to each—if the proprietor would pay an additional rate sufficient to yield 5 per cent. on the outlay, such additional rate not exceeding one half-penny per week for each house, but the offer was declined.’ ‘That is an extreme case of cheapness on the one side, and of stupidity on the other,’ said the barrister. ‘Other landlords will not turn on water for their tenants, because of the expense; not only of the “plant,” in the first instance, but of the after water-rent. I find, by the account rendered to the House of Commons in 1834, that the South London Company (since incorporated with the Southwark, as the “Southwark and Vauxhall,”—the very Company you mention,) charged considerably less than any other. The return shows that while they obtained only 15_s._ per 1000 hogsheads; the West Middlesex (the highest) exacted 48_s._, 6_d._ for the same quantity; consequently, had the houses of the foolish landlord who refused one half-penny per week for water, stood in northwestern instead of southern London, he would have had to pay more than treble, or a fraction above three half-pence per week.’ ‘Allowing for difference of level,’ I remarked, ‘and other interferences with the cheap delivery of water; the disparity in the charges of the different companies, and even by the same company to different customers, is unaccountable: they are guided by no principle. You have mentioned the extreme points of the scale of rates; the remaining companies charged at the time you mention, respectively per 1000 hogsheads, 17_s._, 17_s._, 2_d._, 21_s._, 28_s._, 29_s._, and 45_s._ The only companies whose charges are limited by act of parliament are the Grand Junction, the East London, the Southwark and Vauxhall, and the Lambeth. The others exact precisely what they please.’ ‘And,’ interposed Lyttleton, ‘there is no redress: the only appeal we, the taxed, have, is to our taxers, and the monopoly is so tight that—as is my case—although your next door neighbour is supplied from a cheaper company, you are not allowed to change.’ ‘The companies were obliged to combine, to save themselves from ruin and the public from extreme inconvenience,’ said our informant; ‘during the competition streets were torn up, traffic was stopped, and confusion was worse confounded in the districts where the opposition raged.’