View report page

88
This deficiency, however, might have been reduced by
economies resulting from the unification of management,
which would have resulted from the passing of Sir Richard
Cross's Bill.
Ten years having elapsed since Sir R. Cross's attempt to
. settle the question, and successive governments having
manifested no intention of re-opening the matter, the
Vestry petitioned the House of Commons in the month of
April to take the whole subject of the Metropolitan Water
Supply into consideration, with a view either to restricting
the powers of the Companies or transferring their undertakings
to a representative municipal body such as the
London County Council. Following up this action, the
Vestry referred the question to their Sanitary and Parliamentary
Bills Committee for consideration and report.
The Committee presented two reports in which they discussed
at some length (1) the acquisition of the existing
water undertakings, (2) the amendment of the law so as to
enable consumers to require a supply of water from the
Companies by meter, and (3) an independent supply
to be provided by the London County Council. After
pointing out objections to the adoption of either of the last
two alternatives, the Committee summed up the conclusions
at which they had arrived, as follows:—
To sum up the whole question, your Committee are of opinion:—
1. That the time has arrived when the supply of water to
London should be placed in the hands of a public
representative body, such as the London County
Council.
2. That the best means of affecting this object is for the
existing Water Undertakings to be transferred to auch
public representative body.