"In inspecting the courts and alleys of the 'City,'" he wrote, "one constantly sees butts, for the reception of water, either public or in the open yards of houses, or sometimes in their cellars; and these butts, dirty, mouldering, and coverless; receiving soot and all other impurities from the air; absorbing stench from the adjacent cesspool; inviting filth from insects, vermin, sparrows, cats, and children; their contents often augmented through a rain-water pipe by the washings of the roof, and every hour becoming fustier and more offensive. Nothing can be less like what water should be than the fluid obtained under such circumstances." It is interesting to observe that the evils of the system of water supply by private companies were, even in the "City," so manifest that Dr. Simon expressed his opinion that the only satisfactory solution of the difficulty in connection therewith was the acquisition by the public authority of the control of the supply, and he urged the adoption of the principle of what is now denounced by some people as "municipal trading." In every practical sense the sale of water in London was a monopoly. "The individual customer," wrote Dr. Simon, "who is dissatisfied with his bargain can go to no other market; and however legitimate may be his claim to be supplied with this prime necessary of life at its cheapest rate, in the most efficient manner, and of the best possible quality, your Honourable Court (the Commissioners of Sewers) hitherto possesses no power to enforce it." In the Public Health Act of 1848 the principle had been recognised by Parliament so far as towns in the country were concerned--local Boards of Health being authorised to provide their district with such a supply of water as might be proper or sufficient, or to contract for such a supply. He urged that the City should obtain a similar power. "All the advantages which could possibly be gained by competition, together with many benefits which no competition could ensure, would thus be realised to the population under your charge." But that solution of the difficulty was more than half a century in advance of its accomplishment so far as either the "City" or "greater London" was concerned. As to the atmosphere in the "City," there seems to have been no limit to the pollutions thereof, all of which were injurious to the health of the public. Numerous noxious and offensive trades were carried on in the most crowded places. Directly and indirectly, slaughtering of animals in the "City" was prejudicial to the health of the population, and exercised a most injurious influence upon the district. The number of slaughter-houses registered and tolerated in the "City" in 1848 amounted to 138, and of these, in 58 cases, the slaughtering was carried out in the vaults and cellars.[40]