View report page

116
3. As a copy of the Bill, together with an explanatory
dum, was forwarded to each Vestry and District Board, it is
not necessary here to enlarge upon its provisions. It may,
however, be stated that the principle of the Bill was simply
to vest the supply of water within the existing Metropolitan
water area in a public authority, on the basis of such
authority in the first instance acquiring the undertakings of
the Companies now supplying water, by agreement or on
arbitration terms. The Bill was intentionally drawn in
such a manner that Parliament could adapt it either to the
creation of a Special Authority representative of the whole
water area, or the constitution of the London County
Council as the Water Authority. In providing for a directly
elected authority, the Committee were not unmindful that
the Bill promoted by the Corporation of the City of London
proposed to create a Special Authority, to be elected by the
Town and County Councils and other bodies in the water
area. The question of the constitution of the Water
Authority was thus presented to Parliament in the widest
possible manner.
4. The Committee kept the City Corporation and the London
County Council, through their special committees and officers,
informed of each successive stage of their proceedings, and
with a view to diffusing information more widely as to the
objects of the Bill, held an open meeting at the County Hall,
Spring Gardens (kindly lent for the occasion by the County
Council), after the introduction of the Bill into Parliament.
The Committee were under the impression that both the
City Corporation (who were likewise promoting a Bill) and
the London County Council (who, on the 30th September,
1890, had authorised their Special Committee on Water
Supply to " enter into tentative negotiations with the Water
Companies for the purpose of ascertaining upon what terms
the Companies will be prepared to dispose of their undertakings
to the Council") earnestly desired an early settlement
of the Metropolitan water question, and that the chief
point of difference between them would be as to the
constitution of the Water Authority. It was therefore a
source of extreme regret, not unmingled with surprise, that