brated store, Bon Marché, in Paris, costs monthly 32,000 francs for the electric light, whilst with gas it was lighted for 24,000 francs per month, though much less brilliantly. The South Kensington Museum, on the contrary, shows a reduction of more than 50 per cent. by the substitution of electric light for gas.

The author complains, very justifiably, that but few calculations of expenditure from actual working have become known. The two electric light companies in Berlin have paid, respectively, dividends of 7 and 5 per cent., after all proper deductions. Still it would seem that these profits have accrued not so much from the supply of light as from the manufacture of glow lamps and from fitting up installations. The "Societá Generale di Elettricita," of Milan, has in its third year succeeded in paying a dividend of 4 per cent. In Lübeck the electric light, dispensed from a central station, has, so far, eventuated in a loss of 3 per cent. on the total capital. At Elberfeld a dividend of 4 per cent. has been paid.

The question whether the time has yet come for the general introduction of the electric light in any given town, turns, in the author's opinion, on three further questions -1. Is the development of public electric lighting come, if not to perfection, at least to such a point that there is no ground for fearing lest the arrangements adopted may soon be superseded? 2. Are there already large public installations which, if they yield no great profit, are able to cover interest on capital, its gradual repayment, and the expense of wear and tear? 3. Have towns of a medium size to fear any special disadvantage from delay.

All these questions, the author thinks, must be answered in the negative. Hence, without seeking to pronounce any authoritative decision, he counsels delay.

One advantage of electric lighting has been overlooked a central station can be much more easily guarded than can gasometers, which have often been threatened by evil-doers.

:

Electro-Metallurgy Practically Treated. By ALEXANDER WATT. Ninth edition, enlarged and revised. London Crosby Lockwood and Son, Ludgate Hill. This book (one of the Weale's series) is so well known that but little requires to be said about it. The author has rewritten the introduction, and made numerous alterations which were necessitated by recent improvements in the construction of dynamo-electric machines, and in certain processes of the art. A number of practical notes have been added, together with some useful tables.

On looking through the book, we find at page 198 a description of a form of battery which the author states he designed, and which he says may be useful to the electro-gilder. The special point in this battery consists in the use of a corrugated copper cylinder, which the inventor states will, in consequence of the large surface it exposes, give a greater quantity of current than would be the case if a plain cylinder were used. With reference to this, Mr. Watt has evidently not heard the story of King Charles and the Royal Society, as follows:-The monarch submitted for solution to the learned members the problem: Why a pail of water with a live salmon in it weighed less than the pail of water without the salmon. After a prolonged discussion, it was suggested by an intelligent member that it would be advisable to make an experiment on the subject, the result being that the continuation of the discussion was postponed sine die. Now, Mr. Watt evidently could not have made any measurements of his improved battery, otherwise he would not have made such an absurd statement on the subject as he has. As a matter of fact, however, the notion that a corrugated surface, when employed in a battery, in virtue of its area being great reduces the resistance of the battery, has been again and again brought forward, and we therefore take this opportunity of proving the absurdity of the idea.

In the fig., let A be the centre zinc rod or cylinder,

and the dotted circle an outer copper cylinder, and let the sinuous line represent a corrugated cylinder; then if we have, say, six corrugations as shown, and if we suppose the space between the circle, A, and the dotted circle to be divided into six segments, of which a, b, c, f, e, is one, it is obvious that the actual resistance between the cylinder, A, and the dotted cylinder will be one-sixth of the resistance of the segment between the surfaces, e, ƒ and a, b, c. Now, the resistance between the surfaces e, f and a, d, c, must be equal to the resistance between e, f and a, b, c, plus the resistance between a, b, c and a, d, c (the total resistance

d

A

being one-sixth of this). According to Mr. Watt, however, the resistance between e, f and a, b, c, plus the resistance between a, b, c and a, d, c, is less than the resistance between e, f and a, b, c, which, as Euclid says, is absurd. Mr. Watt and others seem to forget

that resistance is a function of length as well as surface. It matters not what form the plates have, i.e., flat or round, the same argument as the foregoing will still apply as regards corrugating the same. If we take the case where the volume enclosed by the corrugated cylinder is the same as that enclosed by the perfect cylinder, then the resistances in the two cases are nearer an equality, but still in favour of the perfect cylinder. The only argument that could be advanced in favour of corrugations is that owing to the larger extent of surface the current density may be less, and this in the case of Leclanché batteries might reduce polarisation. There is probably a fallacy in this also, however, as experiment certainly does not prove that any advantage is gained; the cause of this is, no doubt, due to the fact that although the mean density is diminished by the larger surface, the density is unequally distributed, being greater at some portions of the plate than at the others.

By

Traité Théorique et Pratique D'Electrochimie. DONATO TOMMASI. Parts 2, 3 and 4. Paris: E. Bernard & Cie., 53, Quai des Grand-Augustins. These three volumes are a continuation of the treatise which we noticed a few months ago. The amplitude with which the author is treating the subject may be gathered from the fact that the last page of the 4th part is numbered 960 (the paging commences at the 1st part and is continued throughout the parts). The work, which is to be continued, is undoubtedly the most exhaustive of the kind yet compiled, and the author deserves great credit for what must have proved a most laborious task. A good index, when the whole is completed, will be a most necessary addition.

Shop Lighting Tenders Wanted.-Messrs. Charles Baker & Co., 271 and 272, High Holborn, invite tenders for continuing the electric lighting of some of their premises, either with small separate plant fitted on the premises or from some large centre. All applications to be from principals, by letter, addressed as above. Surely this firm was formerly supplied by the Whetstone Park Station of the Pilsen-Joel Company? Why is it now necessary to ask the assistance of others?

EXECUTION BY ELECTRICITY.

THE following extracts from the New York Herald of July 12th may prove of interest to our readers :

"F. L. Pope, ex-president of the Institute of Electrical Engineers, and now in the employ of the Westinghouse Electric Company, was called as an expert before Referee Becker yesterday to show that the electrical appliances recently purchased by the State for the execution of condemned murderers are by no means certain to cause an instantaneous and painless death. His opinions differed radically in many respects from those of expert Harold P. Brown, whose testimony occupied the first three days of the reference in the habeas corpus proceedings begun on behalf of William Kemmler.

"Mr. Pope said he was familiar with almost every branch of electricity, but that he had not observed the effects of currents on living organisms to any great extent. He declared that he did not think it possible to determine the resistance of a person to be executed with much accuracy by means of the Wheatstone bridge. Inanimate objects, such as metal, could be measured with perfect accuracy by the bridge. To test the bridge, Mr. Pope endeavoured to measure his own resistance yesterday morning before going to the reference. He took hold of two metal electrodes of about half an inch in diameter, and used a solution of sulphate of zinc as moisture. Four tests with a different voltage each time gave as many different results. The first test with one volt pressure showed 6,300 ohms resistance, 10 volts reduced the resistance to 5,140 ohms, 50 volts gave 3,850 ohms, while 100 volts brought the figure down to 3,500. In determining the resistance of an inorganic substance, the result would not vary whether the voltage was 1 or 100. The chemical action of the electricity on the fluids of a living body would account for the inaccuracy of the Wheatstone bridge in such experiments.

"Mr. Pope testified that the Westinghouse dynamo, such as the State has purchased, has a maximum capacity of 1,050 volts. The voltage of the dynamo can be increased to almost any extent, but the machine is liable to burst if it is done.

"Mr. Pope thought that the electromotive force of lightning was infinitely greater than that of electricity generated by artificial means, though in volume it might be equalled. Electricians could not blow a broom to pieces, much less a church steeple. It would be impossible for them to tear a coat from a man's back, though there are many records that lightning has played such tricks.

"There is very little definite knowledge upon the effect of powerful electric shocks upon the human body, though physicians have studied the effects of weak currents. When people have been struck by lightning they have generally been knocked senseless and their skin has been badly burned. If their clothes are soaked with rain they act as partial conductors, and are perhaps sufficient to cause burns. For electrical executions moistened pads are to be placed between metal electrodes and the flesh, as the liquid forms a better connection than the metal, and facilitates the passage of the current. Mr. Pope did not feel at all sure that the subject would not be burned even with the pad between his skin and the electrodes. The heat would probably make the water boil in any event. With a Westinghouse dynamo a pint of water could be boiled in very few seconds. If the moisture dried a sufficient current would carbonise a man's body from one end to the other.

"In your opinion would a current of 1,050 volts be sufficient to kill a man?' asked ex-Congressman W. Bourke Cockran. "In my judgment,' was the reply, that would depend upon the susceptibility of the subject and upon the contact. What would kill one man might, perhaps, only slightly injure another.' "Would the atmospheric conditions make any difference?' "Only to a small extent. If it was damp the subject might make a contact with the earth, while if it was dry he would be partly insulated.'

"In reply to questions put by District-Attorney Quinby, of Erie county, Mr. Pope said that the Westinghouse Company naturally objected to having its dynamos used for electrical executions, as the effect would be to make the general public believe that they were unsafe for commercial use. He thought it would be possible to kill a man painlessly by means of the alternating current, but he did not think that death would be certain. He thought that death by electricity would be painful as a general thing, though he admitted the current was quicker than the nerves could carry sensations. Mr. Pope was of the opinion that while the Wheatstone bridge might accurately measure the resistance of a body at the time the test was made, the measurement might not hold good two minutes. Of course, he did not deny that the machines owned by the State might kill the condemned men, but he thought it possible that they might not kill. Everything would depend upon the susceptibility of the man. Nothing is definitely known of the fatal effects of the currents except through Mr. Brown's experiments on dogs, calves and horses, and it is admitted that lightning is less fatal to man than to the lower animals. He thought it very likely that the alternating current to be used was more dangerous than the continuous current. "Could you, as an expert, describe accurately a current of sufficient intensity to cause death?' asked Mr. Cockran.

"I don't know that I could name a current that would absolutely cause death in every instance,' the witness concluded.

"The reference was then adjourned until Monday morning. To-day several of the lawyers interested will visit Mr. Edison's laboratory to see the apparatus with which Expert Brown made his experiments."

[JULY 26, 1889.

THE ELECTRIC LIGHTING SCHEMES.

Bills before the Commons Select Committee.

PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMED.

(Continued from page 68.)

Mr. FREEMAN said, as he understood that some alterations had been made in the Order of the London Electric Lighting Company, he should like to have a copy of the amended Order, or he would be unable to cross-examine Lord Crawford, and should ask that the Committee might adjourn.

The CHAIRMAN: In the case of important amendments there is no doubt they ought to be before the Committee. It will be highly inconvenient to adjourn this Committee, but, of course, if counsel says he requires time to examine these amendments, then we shall be obliged to adjourn.

Mr. FREEMAN: I do not think I will, under the circumstances, take upon myself the responsibility of asking you to adjourn, considering the lateness of the session.

The CHAIRMAN: You are, Mr. Freeman, taking a course which the Committee think is very proper, and I hope you will not be put to any inconvenience.

Mr. MOULTON proceeded with his examination, and asked if there was any evidence at the Board of Trade enquiry which pointed to any special circumstances rendering it unadvisable that this parish should have electric light.

Lord CRAWFORD: There was nothing in the whole enquiry to show that St. Margaret's should be treated in a different manner to other parishes, or that the people of the district did not require the light.

Mr. POPE: I see that the Board of Trade intimated that the vestry declared their wish to retain in their own hands the power of supplying electric light in their own district. Is it your view that that is a reasonable thing for a local authority to desire?

The WITNESS: I know nothing of their desire to do so. They never stated so to me.

Does it not accord with your views that the lighting of the district might be reasonably desired to be done by the local authority ?-If the local authority show their intention to do so.

If it were a bona fide intention, it would be a reasonable contention on the part of the local authority?-Reasonable so far as they are concerned, but I think undesirable so far as the ratepayers are concerned.

And unreasonable so far, of course, as to the company going into the district?—Yes, if they are to have a monopoly.

Mr. FREEMAN: Since the matter came before the Board of Trade, you have had various interviews with the members of the London County Council?

The WITNESs :-Yes, I have seen them several times.

And they have submitted to you several points in which they consider your Provisional Order is defective?—Yes.

To the clause which states that nothing in your order shall authorise the undertakers to break up or otherwise interfere with any embankment, park, or open space for the time being vested in the Council, there has been added the word " sewer?"-Yes; we have no objection to that.

Up to the present time the counsel are in ignorance of your plans for carrying the mains over Westminster Bridge?-Except in general terms.

You have not sent in any plans ?-I am not in a position to submit plans until we obtain a Provisional Order. We have not yet been asked to send in plans.

Supposing it is physically impossible to go under some part of Westminster Bridge?—You cannot say it is physically impossible. But I do say so. Supposing then that it is a matter of great inconvenience, should you have the power to override a public body?—If a public body is to stand in the way of a great demand, I think I should be justified in asking Parliament to override it. Clause 48 regulates the price which you are entitled to charge for your supply. We are not going to seek to interfere with your price, so Mr. Moulton need not be so anxious; but have you any reason for objecting to a clause being inserted for the auditing of your accounts in the same way as under the Gas Acts ?—Yes.

Why? It is a new clause. I have not seen it until this morning. I have a prima facie objection. I consider it is inquisitorial, and the question does not affect the County Council at all.

If the charges are improper, how is that to be ascertained unless there is the opportunity of looking at the accounts? Do you seriously object to such a clanse ?-Yes, I do.

Would you be surprised to hear that this proposed clause is taken verbatim from the Gas Acts ?-It is not taken from any Act that I am aware of.

It is in the City of London Gas Act, 1868.-That is a private Act.

It is a general public Act-an Act to amend other Gas Acts, and to make provision for regulating the supply of gas to the City of London, and you will find a clause there almost verbatim the same as the one proposed. Does not that modify your view that this is a very reasonable thing to ask for?-No.

Mr. MOULTON: When the prices were revised there would be an enquiry before the Board of Trade, and of course any investigation into the accounts which was necessary the Board of Trade could then direct?-Yes.

Mr. POPE remarked that he had not yet said a word about the gas clauses in the order, as he desired that they should be considered apart. There were provisions formulated by the Board of

Trade, but they were not satisfactory to the gas companies, and he should at the proper time submit a regular series of clauses and give reasons in support of them.

The CHAIRMAN: How often do you cross the river?

The WITNESS: Three times-at Cannon Street, Blackfriars, and Charing Cross. We have no statutory powers to cross the river except what are stated in the report of Major Marindin.

The CHAIRMAN: I should like you to carefully consider the question of audit.

Having explained, in answer to Mr. Story-Maskelyne, the system of supplying the electric current from Deptford and converting it for household use, the WITNESS stated, in reply to Sir Henry Roscoe, that he had considered other means of crossing the river than by means of the bridges. At present, they had no authority to go on to the land on the north side of the river.

Sir HENRY ROSCOE What objection is there to going under the river?

The WITNESS: There would be a great risk.

Could you not sink and insulate ?-It would be a very risky thing to do, because there would be some danger from the anchors of barges.

You have considered the question ?-Oh, yes.

Mr. MOULTON pointed out that by the order, the undertakers should not be authorised to place their mains in, under, or over the River Thames, or in any way affect the powers of the Conservators. The company must take their mains above bridge. With regard to the question of the bridge, the Metropolitan Company did ask for compulsory powers.

Mr. STORY-MASKELYNE: But the bridge to which you refer is a public bridge.

Mr. FREEMAN: I shall have something to say about Waterloo Bridge, for my objection is not only to Westminster. There are structural questions arising as to both bridges, as well as the question of policy.

Mr. POPE then said that the question was, whether the committee were justified in withdrawing from the local authority the statutory power given to them. Parliament had clothed them with a certain right, and although the Board of Trade had waived their consent, he did not think, under the circumstances, the committee could support that. The question was, leaving the case as it stood, supposing they were of opinion that it would be desirable that the vestry should consent and so they ought to allow the district to be taken because it was easier, were the committee prepared, because of that, to deprive the vestry-the local authority

of that which Parliament had given them, namely, the right to veto the introduction of electric light if they chose? That was the question he must ask them to decide, and the committee could not escape from it. If they were satisfied that the vestry dissented-if they were satisfied that the Board had not disclosed sufficient reasons, they must be bound by the decision of the committee. Were they going to have the great nuisance of the streets being broken up first by one company and then by another, and was it not certain that if the power of supply was given to that company there would be a constant disturbance of the streets. The exercise of the discretion on the part of the local authority was only a reasonable one. Although it might appear a hard thing to dislocate the arrangements of the promoters, there could be no escape from the position that the proper course for a committee of Parliament to take was, that if they were not satisfied that the preliminaries necessary for the granting of a provisional order were not complied with there was no alternative but to decline to confirm the order.

The room was then cleared whilst the committee were consulting, and upon re-entering,

The CHAIRMAN said: The committee have come to their decision, and they confirm the Provisional Order, subject to conditions hereinafter to be laid down with regard to the audit of the finances of the company to the satisfaction of the County Council, as to the Westminster Bridge, and as to a reasonable supply of the demand for electrical energy. Those are the points on which the committee feel strongly.

Some little discussion having taken place as to the procedure in the other cases,

The committee adjourned for the day.

Upon the Select Committee of the House of Commons resuming their sitting on Wednesday, July 17th,

Mr. POPE, Q.C. (who represented the Vestry of St. Margaret and St. John, Westminster) observed that, in regard to the order granted to the London Electric Supply Corporation, inasmuch as the committee had decided in favour of the preamble, he would offer no further opposition until the Bill reached the House of In the meantime his clients vehemently, but silently, protested. (Laughter.)

Lords.

Mr. SAUNDERS, Q.C. (who appeared on behalf of the Westminster Electric Supply Corporation), said that in many respects the company was very similar to the London. It differed, however, in regard to capital, for it was only a modest company, created simply for the purpose of dealing with two districts with a capital of £100,000. The district they proposed to light comprised two parishes. In the parish of St. George, Hanover Square, they wished to light Hanover Street, Hanover Square, Brook Street, Upper Brook Street, George Street, Conduit Street, New Bond Street, Old Bond Street, St. James's Street, Piccadilly, Park Lane, Hamilton Place, Mount Street, Grosvenor Place, Upper Belgrave Street, Lower Belgrave Street, Buckingham Palace Road, St. George's Road, Lupus Street, Victoria Street, In the parish of St. Margaret and St. John

and Wilton Road.

one

the Evangelist, Westminster, they proposed to light Victoria Street and Broad Sanctuary. The whole of St. George's, Hanover Square, district was common to his company and the London Company, and they were unopposed. Except in one or two instances the southern district was not a rich district, for, although it included the Houses of Parliament, he did not think that would be any advantage to the company, as doubtless the House would supply their own light. Virtually the poor district of Westminster was provided for by his company, and they did not look to that part for any valuable lighting purposes. They rather looked to St. George's, Hanover Square, as being most likely to give them a good demand for the light, but they were ready to take the good with the bad, and accept the area which the Board of Trade had given them. They rather looked to the Westminster district as giving some demand for electricity as a motive power. The system proposed to be adopted by his company differed from that of the London Company. Theirs was to be a system of low tension and continuous currents, and that was of the grounds why the Board of Trade gave his company and the London powers over the same area. There was a very special reason why the Vestry ought to have given consent to his company, and that was that the company had incurred considerable expense in putting up a station for the purpose of supplying electricity to the district, and all that money would be as good as wasted if the Order was not granted. At the time of the holding of Major Marindin's enquiry £8,000 had been spent, and by this time that sum must have been increased. He would be able to prove to the committee that in a very short time that station would be in a position to supply as much electricity as would be wanted in the district. They were far advanced with their works, and besides causing a waste of money, it would be a great shame if the vestry were to be allowed to prevent them utilising the works as they proposed. The company, he would point out, was a very responsible one, the directors including Sir John Heron Maxwell, Mr. Kimber, M.P., and Mr. Hayes Fisher, M.P.; and the whole capital was guaranteed, and could be raised at any time that it was required. Consent should be given to the Order, because there was a great demand for the electricity, and they were in a position to supply the want. There would be no question between the company and the County Council as to bridges, for they did not propose to come across any bridge. The system they proposed to adopt had been in practical operation in the West End for two or three years-being practically the same system as that of the Kensington and Knightsbridge Company. To show how inconsistent the vestry was in their opposition, he mentioned that they had actually consented to the Kensington and Knightsbridge Company taking a Provisional Order in the detached portion of their parish. In conclusion, Mr. Saunders announced his intention of calling witnesses in support of his case. The CHAIRMAN: I don't think there is any necessity for calling any witnesses; at least, that is the opinion of the Committee. We know the position of the company from what you have said. Mr. SAUNDERS: If that is so, I will simply ask you to say that the preamble is approved.

Mr. POPE, Q.C.: I wish to say that my position is one of silently protesting. (Laughter.)

The CHAIRMAN: This Provisional Order is confirmed.

Mr. CLAUDE BAGGALLAY, speaking on behalf of the House-toHouse Electric Lighting Supply Company, Limited, said that as the preamble of his Order was not opposed, he did not think he need go into the case at any length. The system was the same as that already described by Mr. Pember and Mr. Saunders, when they spoke on behalf of their respective Orders. The area, as set forth in the second schedule, comprised Richmond Road, Earl's Court Road, Kensington Main Road, Warwick Road (with the exception of that part lying to the North of West Cromwell Road), Philbeach Gardens, Peny wern Road, Earl's Court Square, Colherne Road, Redcliffe Square, Fulham Road, Tregunter Road, Boltons, The Grove, Gilston Road, Priory Road, Evelyn Gardens, Evelyn Terrace, Cranley Gardens, Old Brompton Road, Queen's Gate, Onslow Gardens, Onslow Square (west side), Cromwell Road, Wetherby Road, Bramhan Gardens, Warrington Gardens, Barkstone Gardens, Collingham Road, Ashburn Place, Bina Gardens, Courtfield Gardens, Courtfield Road, Marloes Road, Lexham Gardens, West Cromwell Road, Warwick Gardens, Ladbroke Grove, Ladbroke Grove Road (as far as St. Charles Square), Uxbridge Road, Royal Crescent, Lansdowne Road, Lansdowne Crescent, Cornwall Road (from Portobello Road to Ladbroke Grove), Lancaster Road (from Portobello Road to Ladbroke Grove), Elgin Crescent, Elgin Road, Ladbroke Gardens, Archer Street, Colville Square, Powis Square, Cambridge and Oxford Gardens, Bassett Road, St. Mark's Road (north of the railway bridge), and St. Charles Square.

The CHAIRMAN then said that the preamble of the company was approved.

Mr. SAUNDERS said he had to ask the Committee to approve the preamble of the Kensington and Knightsbridge Company's Order. The district comprised a portion of two parishes. Neither of the vestries were opposed to the Order. The capital of the company was £250,000 divided into £5 shares; Mr. Crompton was the engineer and Sir Frederick Bramwell was one of the directors.

The CHAIRMAN: Have they done any work yet? Mr. SAUNDERS: Oh yes. They have got two licenses, and they have been working at the western end of Kensington High Street. Among other places the Town Hall is lighted by the system, and they have been at work two years without a failure of any kind. They are only waiting for this Order to increase the size of their generating stations so as to be in a position to give a larger supply.

Sir HENRY ROSCOE: Is it the alternating or the direct system?
Mr. SAUNDERS, Q.C.: It is the direct continuous system.
The preamble was approved.

Mr. WALLACE then addressed the Committee on behalf of the Notting Hill Electric Lighting Company. The capital of the company was, he said, £100,000, and Prof. Crookes was chairman of the board. The system to be adopted was the same as that of the Kensington and Knightsbridge Company, and they also had the same engineer-Mr. Crompton.

Mr. STORY-MASKELYNE: What pressure do you put on your wires?

Mr. WALLACE: In the streets 100 volts. If the three-wire system is used the pressure will of course be correspondingly increased. In the mains the pressure will be 200 volts. The Committee confirmed the preamble of the Order.

Mr. SIDNEY MORSE spoke next on behalf of the Chelsea Electricity Supply Company. The company, he said, intended to use the direct continuous system. The necessary capital was subscribed, and the only opposition was from the Gas Light and Coke Company and the London County Council.

The Order and the preamble were confirmed.

Mr. MORSE said he also appeared for the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company. The area of the company he said included a good deal of the parks.

The CHAIRMAN: Is the company supplying?

Mr. MORSE: No sir, it is not.

The CHAIRMAN: Does the Strand fall into this district?

Mr. MORSE replied that a considerable portion of the Strand was comprised in the area.

The CHAIRMAN remarked that the Committee wished to call Mr. Morse's attention to Major Marindin's report wherein he referred to the Chelsea Company.

Mr. MORSE said he thonght he could satisfy the Committee why Major Marindin did not recommend the Order. Prior to the enquiry his clients had made representations to the Board of Trade, and as they understood satisfied the Board as to the capital. They further understood it was not necessary for them to go into the matter in detail before Major Marindin, and consequently the Major seemed to think that on technical grounds there was reason for not granting the Order.

In answer to a question put by the CHAIRMAN, Mr. MORSE said the Electric Supply Corporation was a totally different company from the Electrical Power Storage Company, although it was composed of practically the same persons.

The CHAIRMAN said he would take it for granted that the Board of Trade would not have granted the Provisional Order unless they were satisfied on that point. The preamble of the Order would therefore be approved.

Mr. CRIPPS addressing the Committee on behalf of the Metropolitan Company's Order, said it originally comprised a MidLondon Order, a West London Order, and a South London Order. There had been some difficulties in regard to the South London Order with the local authorities, aud that Order had been withdrawn. Therefore, they only wanted the preamble for the West London and the Mid-London Orders. He believed there was no opposition to those two Orders, all the local authorities having agreed to them.

The CHAIRMAN stated that the Committee would confirm the Order.

Mr. CRIPPS said there was one other matter, and that was the Metropolitan Electric Supply Order. The preamble was unopposed.

The CHAIRMAN: I see Waterloo Bridge is comprised in the area. Mr. CRIPPS: That is so. He added that they had stations situate at convenient places for supplying the district they proposed to light.

Mr. STORY-MASKELYNE: Are any of the stations at work? Mr. CRIPPS: Yes, the one in Oxford Street and the Whitehall station has been at work for some time.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand there is no opposition.
Mr. CRIPPS: No.

The CHAIRMAN: We confirm the Order, then.

Mr. FREEMAN, Q.C. (on behalf of the London County Council), said that in consultation with his friends they had decided upon a clause being put into the Orders in reference to the accounts of the companies. The clause he wished inserted was as follows:"The accounts to be rendered by the undertakers under the 9th section of the principal Act shall be examined and audited from time to time by such competent and impartial persons as the Board of Trade shall from to time appoint."

Mr. SAUNDERS, on behalf of his clients, said they thought that a very proper clause.

The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the clause did not provide for the payment of the audit.

Mr. MOULTON thought he could make a proposal that would meet that difficulty. His clients would consent to add to the clause the words, and the undertakers shall pay the reasonable expenses of such audit as fixed by the Board of Trade."

Mr. FREEMAN considered it desirable that some words ought to appear saying how it should be paid.

Mr. MOULTON: Surely you would not require that. There would be no difficulty in that respect.

Mr. FREEMAN still objected that there was nothing to say who should pay the money and from whom it could be recovered.

:

Mr. MOULTON Surely, if you say that the companies must have the audit, the Courts are strong enough to get payment. After some further discussion the clause was agreed upon, with

the understanding that the shareholders of the company should pay the expense of the audit.

The CHAIRMAN stated that the clause would be put into each Bill separately.

Mr. FREEMAN said there was another clause that was practically agreed upon. In clause 4 of the London Company's order, they proposed to strike out the last three paragraphs of that clause, and put in these words: "No part of the undertaking shall be transferred (except as hereinafter expressly authorised), nor shall the undertakers purchase or acquire the undertaking of or a880ciate themselves with any other company or person supplying or intending to supply energy under any licence, Provisional Order, or Special Act within the administrative county of London, unless the undertakers are authorised to do so either by Provisional Order under the principal Act or by a special Act." What the County Council wished was to guard against any amalgamations taking place before the public had time to state their objections. They regarded amalgamation of two of these large companies as of as much importance as the issuing of a fresh order.

Mr. MOULTON did not see the least necessity for such a clause, as he considered provision was already made for amalgamation in the order. The Board of Trade had carefully considered the point, and they had amply safeguarded the public in the order.

Mr. FREEMAN remarked that on Tuesday Lord Crawford said he was perfectly willing to agree to such a clause, and he was therefore at a loss to know why his counsel was now opposing it. The CHAIRMAN: Does this clause proceed from the County Council P

Mr. FREEMAN: Yes.

The CHAIRMAN: Subject to any verbal alterations that may be necessary, we approve the clause.

Mr. GRAY, on behalf of the Board of Trade, opposed the clause, as he said it went practically in the teeth of section 11 of the principal Act. In that Act Parliament had appointed the Board of Trade as the authority to give consent to amalgamation.

Mr. FREEMAN said that Mr. Gray was under an entire misappre hension. The clause he had proposed relative to amalgamation had nothing whatever to do with section 11 of the principal Act. As the clause had been approved by the Committee, and accepted by the promotors, and was satisfactory to the County Council, he failed to see why the Board of Trade should object.

The CHAIRMAN reminded Mr. Freeman that they only accepted the clause subject to any modifications that might be agreed upon. Mr. GRAY said there was one other point which the Board of Trade desired him to mention, and that was how far that clause would interfere with the Board of Trade in granting licences.

The CHAIRMAN remarked that he was bound to say the Committee felt that they could not discharge the responsibilities cast upon them unless they saw that no amalgamation of any two important companies could take place unless in the fullest light of day, and with the sanction of Parliament.

Mr. GRAY stated that the Board of Trade had the power of granting licences without applying to Parliament.

Mr. STORY-MASKELYNE: But that is only for a very short period that they can grant licences.

Mr. GRAY: For a period of seven years.

Mr. FREEMAN said the clause would not in any way interfere with the Board of Trade in granting licences. It only related to the amalgamation of any two companies.

Mr. MOULTON pointed out that the effect of the clause would be to restrict any two companies temporarily associating together in case of a breakdown.

Mr. BAGGALLAY also referred to the same matter, and said that in the event of a breakdown, consequent on an explosion or any other mishap, the clause would work great harm to the public, as it would prevent one company temporarily assisting another.

After consultation, Mr. FREEMAN said he had been able to satisfy the London company with regard to the clause by inserting a provision that the clause should not prevent any temporary arrangements under which the undertakers might obtain from any other company a supply of electricity. The only proviso was that before doing so they should get the consent of the Board of Trade and of the County Council.

Mr. WALLACE, on behalf of the three companies he represented, could not agree to the clause. The clause could hardly affect the London company, for they had no other company within their area from whom they could obtain a temporary supply. Mr. BAGGALLAY also opposed the clause.

Mr. MOULTON did not see that it could be any advantage to the County Council that there should be so much delay in the matter. It seemed to him unreasonable that the companies should have to wait two years, or thereabouts, before any other company associate with them.

could

Mr. FREEMAN pointed out that the rider to the clause was inserted on the suggestion of Lord Crawford.

Mr. CRIPPS said that if it was only a question of amalgamation they would not object to having to get the consent of Parliament and the other bodies, but when it was simply a question of associating for temporary assistance they strongly objected to the waste of time and the expense involved in going before Parlia ment. It really meant that they would be crippled in their business for no reason whatever. After all, the electric lighting companies were doing their best to introduce a new industry, and, therefore, why should they be hampered with such clauses— clauses which were never insisted upon in any other trading or commercial companies? By the clause any single agreement with any other company would have to be brought before Parliament.

JULY 26, 1889.]

Mr. MOULTON stated that the clause put his company under a special disability, and he could not see any reason for it.

The CHAIRMAN, after consultation with his colleagues, said they were compelled to accept the clause practically as it stood with the rider as to temporary assistance in case of sudden emergency.

The CHAIRMAN: Then there is the question of Westminster Bridge.

Mr. MOULTON next observed that the County Council proposed to insert a clause making it unlawful for the undertakers to break up or interfere with any bridge vested in the Council, except in accordance with plans and particulars previously submitted to the Council. In case the approval of the Council was not given the point was to be arbitrated upon. The company he represented felt it was absolutely necessary that the mode of carrying the mains across the bridges should be arbitrated upon by some competent person. It would be to the interests of the undertakers to fall in with any reasonable suggestion of the County Council, but if they could not agree it was most important to the public that the matter should be arbitrated upon by some competent and impartial person. He would suggest the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers as being such a person.

Mr. CRIPPS mentioned that a similar point was raised by the company that would cross Waterloo Bridge—whether the matter should be open to arbitration or whether they should be under the absolute control of the County Council. He thought that all local authorities should be on the same footing, and the County Council ought not to be in any different position from the other local authorities. It was not right that the Council should have the absolute power of preventing them crossing Waterloo Bridge.

Mr. CRIPPS was of opinion that the special clause was quite unnecessary, because the matter was dealt with in the general provisional order, the arbitrating power being the Board of Trade. He should therefore strongly oppose it.

Mr. FREEMAN said that with regard to the bridges, the County Council were in a very peculiar position. By the Act of 1887, the then Metropolitan Board of Works were given power to free all the bridges of London which were not already freed, and they were to purchase the undertakings, which were afterwards to be transferred to them, and the roads were to be repaired by the Board, the only exception being the Embankment, which was repaired by the local authorites. Owing therefore to the peculiar position in which they stood in relation to the London bridges it would be most prejudicial and dangerous if final control in the matter were given to anyone but the County Council.

The CHAIRMAN, whilst acknowledging the great responsibility of the County Council in the matter, said the committee still thought that the companies ought to be allowed to cross the bridges, with proper safeguards.

Mr. FREEMAN added, that what the County Council wanted was the power to altogether stop the companies going across the bridges, if necessary. They were to be the judges, first of all, of whether it was practical to cross the bridges, and secondly, as to at what point, if any, they should be crossed. The Council had the very strongest feeling that if any interference was to take place with the bridges, it should be entirely under their control. At present, they had no means of judging whether it was necessary that the mains should cross the bridges, or whether by the expenditure of a little more money they could not do without laying mains over the bridges. If the Council saw that it was both practicable and reasonable that the companies should cross the bridges, they would be ready to co-operate with them in the work. The CHAIRMAN: Under what circumstances did the gas companies lay their pipes over the bridges?

Mr. FREEMAN replied that the pipes over Westminster Bridge were laid by special arrangement, and they were formed in a totally different manner to any other gas pipes in order to meet the wishes of the owner. He should ask the committee to follow the precedent that Parliament had always set in regard to bridges, viz., give the entire control of them to the owners without making any provision for arbitration. If there was to be an arbitrator, he would rather the matter be referred to Her Majesty's First Commissioner of Works.

The CHAIRMAN said the committee had considered the question, and in giving their decision he would draw attention to the decision they gave on Tuesday on the subject of crossing the bridges. While they were ready to give every possible guarantee and satisfaction to the County Council as to the method in which the bridges should be crossed, they gave it to be understood that they were to be crossed. They considered Mr. Freeman's proposal as a last resort and one which would practically give a veto to the County Council. They wished to give the very greatest latitude to the County Council in the selection of an arbitrator, but it was plain that some arbitrator would have to be appointed, whether by the Board of Trade or anyone else.

Mr. FREEMAN stated that he would accept that decision at once, and endeavour to carry it out. But if on further consideration of the matter the County Council felt that it was very important that the arbitration should not be put upon them, then he reserved his right of pursuing the matter further. But he would now propose a clause providing for the carrying out of the arbitration. They felt it most important that the arbitrator should have the whole facts and materials before him, and have an absolutely free hand in giving his decision. They therefore proposed that the following clause should be inserted:-" Provided that if within 28 days after the submission of such plans, sections, and particulars to the said Council, with notice in writing requiring them to approve the same, the said Council shall disapprove or fail to

111

approve such plans, sections, and particulars, then such plans, sections, and particulars shall be referred to an arbitrator to be appointed by Her Majesty's First Commissioner of Works, on the application of either the said Council or the undertakers. Such arbitrator shall consider and determine whether, having regard to the possibility of avoiding such method of crossing by any other practicable alternative, and to the structure and design of the bridge, and to all other circumstances of the case, any such crossing should be allowed, and, if so, shall fix and determine' on what terms and conditions, and in accordance with what plans, sections. and particulars, such crossing should be allowed; and in the event of the arbitrator allowing such crossing, then' the undertakers shall be bound to comply with and observe all the terms and conditions imposed, and the plans, sections, and particulars approved by such arbitrator."

Mr. DUNCOMBE: But, Mr. Freeman, we have decided that the bridges shall be crossed.

Mr. MOULTON said that if the words "whether, having regard to the possibility of avoiding such method of crossing by any other practicable alternative, and to the structure and design of the bridge, and to all other circumstances of the case, any such crossing should be allowed; and, if so, shall fix and determine on," and "in the event of the arbitrator allowing such crossing," were struck out, he should not object to the provision.

Mr. FREEMAN could not accept Mr. Moulton's suggestion, as that would give the arbitrators too much power.

The CHAIRMAN: We are quite willing to give the arbitrators the very fullest power as to the method of crossing, but they could not let them veto the crossing.

Mr. CRIPPS accepted the proposal of Mr. Freeman, if the words as to the power of the arbitrators to prevent them going across the bridges were struck out.

The CHAIRMAN remarked that the only question now remaining was as to who should be the arbitrator. He should like to ask Mr. Freeman why he wished to substitute the First Commissioner of Works in place of the Board of Trade.

Mr. FREEMAN replied that Westminster Bridge was under the control of the First Commissioner of Works, and therefore the County Council thought that he should be the arbitrator. Besides, in the question of crossing the bridges artistic and engineering problems would have to be faced, and therefore they would prefer the First Commissioner of Works.

Mr. GRAY: The Board of Trade see no reason why the appointment of an arbitrator should not be left to them.

The CHAIRMAN said the Committee had decided to make the arbitrator the Board of Trade.

In answer to the Chairman, Mr. FREEMAN said that he opposed the whole of the opposed clauses of the London County Council. The enquiry then adjourned.