Mr. Gladstone said[161]:—
“The local government of London is, or, if it is not, it certainly ought to be, the crown of all our local and municipal institutions.
“The principle of unity (of London) has already been established under the pressure of necessity as a matter which could not be resisted. It has been established in the Metropolitan Board of Works…. There can be no doubt we have established a principle of unity, and that we have found it satisfactory.
“The supply of water and the supply of gas … two of the most elementary among the purposes of municipal government, have been handed over to private Corporations for the purpose of private profit because you have not chosen to create a complete municipality for the metropolis.
“And that is not all.
“The defects of the present system are admitted…. Surely if there are these great and intolerable defects they ought to be remedied by the action of some genuine popular local authority. But we have got no genuine popular local authority….
“London, large as it is, is a natural unit—united by common features, united by common approximation, by common neighbourhood, by common dangers—depending upon common supplies, having common wants and common conveniences.
“… Unity of Government in the metropolis is the only method on which we can proceed for producing municipal reform.”
The Bill was strongly opposed in Parliament, and was withdrawn at a late period of the Session, “but its introduction and discussion had done much to awaken interest and mature opinion on the question of the practicability of the government of London by a single municipality.”[162]