“On Sundays, as on other days, supply sufficient pure and wholesome water for the domestic use of the inhabitants within their limits.”
But the Act did not curtail the power of the companies to cut off the supply to a house if the water-rate was not paid by the landlord or owner. An opinion was expressed on this point by the Medical Officer of Health for St. Mary, Newington, in 1872:—
“I maintain that water is absolutely necessary for the health, cleanliness, and sanitary condition of every one, and that if a monopoly of its supply is granted to any company, no power of withholding it should be allowed.
“In the present and increasing crowded condition of our poorer houses the act of one person may enable a water company to refuse it to a household of ten or twelve people…. I do most strongly protest against a continuation of a power which in its exercise undermines the very foundation of sanitary improvement.”
Little, however, was done either by the Metropolitan Board of Works, the Board of Trade, or the companies to avail themselves of the optional provisions of the Act.
“Perhaps,” wrote the Medical Officer of Health for Wandsworth, “there never was an Act of Parliament so completely ignored in many districts as the one in question.”
“The companies,” wrote another Medical Officer of Health, “are too busy in looking after their trade interests to concern themselves much about the health of the people.”
And the constant supply to the people of London was postponed to the distant future.
In 1871 another subject also claimed the attention of Parliament.