"Without water life cannot be sustained, cleanliness cannot be maintained, sanitary measures are at a standstill, drains become blocked, offensive and deleterious gases are retained or driven back into the dwellings, disease is caused and fostered, and public as well as private injury caused in all directions." The Act of 1852 had failed to secure for the inhabitants the advantage which they ought to have long since enjoyed, of a well-regulated supply of water in their houses for domestic purposes. A Select Committee of the House of Commons recommended that every company should afford a constant supply of water to each house,[120] so that the water might be drawn direct and fresh from the company's pipes at all times during the twenty-four hours, and free from the pollution so often acquired in dirty receptacles. And a Royal Commission, appointed in 1867, after an elaborate inquiry,[121] declared that earnest and prompt efforts ought to be made to introduce the constant service system to the furthest extent possible in the metropolis. The Report of the Royal Commission is memorable for the very strong expression of opinion that the water supply of the metropolis should be consolidated under public control. The duty of supplying the inhabitants of a city with water had from a very early period been regarded as a peculiarly municipal function, and the supersession of the municipalities by joint stock companies was a comparatively modern innovation. Thus far, however, Parliament was not disposed to go. But (by the Metropolis Water Act, 1871) Parliament--contenting itself mostly with "mights"--directed that any company might propose to give a constant supply of water, or the Metropolitan Board of Works might apply to a company for it; failing both of which, and under certain conditions, the Board of Trade might require a constant supply to be provided. Also every company should-- "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."