The Sun.
London, England, 1867-09-20 00:00:00

fund of the general amalgamated society. Could
not say what the strike at the Assize Court cost,
but thought it would be nothing like £3,000. The
general society had general laws, which they were
bound by and could not go beyond. In his expe-
rience of 22 years this society had never paid a
farthing for anything of the kind relative to this

inquiry.
The Court adjourned about 4 o'clock.

Court of Common Council.

Yesterday a Court of Common Council was held
at Guildhall ; the Lord Mayor in the chair.

REPORTS.

The CITY REMEMBRANCER reported that the Con-
tagious Diseases Bill, the Metropolitan Streets Act,

and the County Courts Act Amendment Bill had
all received the Royal assent. It was then ordered
that a copy of the Metropolitan Streets Act, as

obtained from the Queen's printers, should be sent

to each member of the court.

THE GAS QUESTION.
The TOWN CLERK (Mr. Woodthorpe) read a
Lengthened report from the Special Gas Committee,
in which they entered into the whole of the gas

question, referring to the proceedings in Parliament,
the conduct of the Government, and the action
taken by the various gas companies in relation to the

price and illuminating power of the gas. Adopting
the report of the special committee of the House of
Commons, the committee reported as follows :

"It is their decided opinion that, either by way of
regulation, or by way of an independent supply, the
consumer is entitled to a far more efficient control

than he at present enjoys with respect to the supply
of gas to the metropolis. The difficulty with which
the committee have had to contend will be found to

apply to every general Bill which may be introduced
without the concurrence of the companies for the

regulation of their present monopoly. But it will
always be in the power of Parliament to prescribe
terms of regulations as each company comes be-
fora it to apply for new powers, and the necessity
for new powers bas usually brought the companies
to Parliament at no long intervals of time. The

Committee, however, do not think it would be just
to the consumer to leave him to the casualties of

this mode of remedy, and recommend that if the
companies decline to submit to general regulations
such as Parliament may consider reasonable,
measures should be taken for the introduc-

tion of a new supply in independent hands.
It is evident from the nature of the case
that the possibility of introducing competition
in respect of gas is qualified by circumstances which
restrain it within even narrower limits than those
which apply to other large incorporated undertak-
ings. The difficulty of finding room for mains and
service pipes in the already crowded line of the
streets, the public inconvenience of frequently
disturbing the pavement, the objections usually
entertained by the inhabitants of populous dis-
tricts to the introduction of new gasworks, &c.,
all are obstacles in addition to those which are con-
nected with the raising of the capital required for
so great an undertaking as that of supplying with
gas any large portion of the metropolis. It seems
to the committee, therefore, that the consumer can-
not rely upon the probable introduction of new
companies in competition with the powerful
organisation whose existence has been confirmed
by the Act of 1860, and that if the consent of the
companies to an amendment of that Act cannot be
obtained, the proper remedy will be for Parliament
to concede to the city of London, the Metropolitan

Board of Works, or other local authorities of the
respective districts, the power of supplying those
districts in the manner in which the Corporation of
Manchester supplies that city and the surrounding
neighbourhood. If it shall be urged on the part of
the companies that it would be hard to compel them
to compete with the public authority, the sufficient
answer, in the judgment of the committee, will be
that they have brought the competition upon them-
selves by rejecting reasonable terms, and that it
would be unjust to the consumer that he should
continue subject to monopoly, and not be provided
with the safeguard of effective regulation. The
committee consider that the main cause of the
failure of legislation which has thus taken place in
the present year has been the absence of any bills
authorising the establishment of an independent
supply of gas in the hands of the local authorities.
They recommend that unless terms satisfactory to
the consumer can be arranged with the companies
the Board of Trade should abstain from the intro-
duction of any other measure like the Metropolis
Gas Bill of 1867." The Parliamentary Committee
considered that unless the gas companies were pre-
pared during the recess to consent to an arrange-
ment as to terms, as suggested by the committee,
every facility should be afforded to the local autho-
rities of the metropolis in the session of 1868 for the
introduction of an independent supply. The Special
Gas Committee then recommended that they should
have authority to act upon this opinion of the Com-
mittee of the House of Commons, and to take such
steps as they might deem necessary effectively to
prosecute in the ensuing session a bill to confer on
the corporation the power of supplying the city of
London with gas.
Mr. BONTEMS, the chairman of the Special Gas
Committee, in a speech of great length, moved the
adoption of the report. At two of the meetings of
the gas companies, he said, the corporation had been
accused of a desire for gain and popularity in pur-
suing their present course, but to that charge he
would not deign to reply. To say nothing of the
health and property of the public, which had been
injured by impure gas, he believed it would be a
moderate assertion on his part to say that at least
the sum of £2,800,000 had been taken injudiciously
by the gas companies within the last few years from
the pockets of the consumers. But how did he make
that out? In the first place the companies took off
6d. a thousand from the price of gas. That
amounted to £200,000 a year, and there was no
reason why that 6d. should ever have been put on.
Therefore, during the five years that it had been
imposed there was £1,000,000 taken from the con-
sumers. Then, the committee of the House of Com-
mons were of opinion that the price might still fur-
ther be reduced by 3d. per 1,000 ft., and that reduc-
tion, accompanied with the reduced cost of making
16-candle gas, would come to £160,000 a year. In
this way, extending these and other reductions over
a series of five or seven years, he came to the con-
clusion that the excess of charge to the consumers
to which he had alluded was more than fully borne
out by fact. The corporation had hitherto been
called upon to expend something like £7,000 to pro-
mote this gas inquiry in Parliament. It was pro-
bable that this year
had been charged by the coquired. Why should they be called upon to expend
a further amount? Simply, upon the ground that
theth e gas
magnitude companies
o f
£5,000 additional would be re-
further expenditure was necessary. He regretted its
necessity for several reasons, chiefly for the sake of
companies,
ppraonaie:,of
t o preserve again.
tthheem
ps er lovpe
es
r. t y liVmhpeenr
lhl
ee
dl ohoyk et
hd e as
et
to £lOO,OOO,
account. Hitherto,
Parliamentary £600,000,
he
confessedinvolvinga capital
nthat
dh at ofr
eh!co
feltlil e 6 e,
tOr
eeodgo
r,
thatOe
tOO
on andtheirte
i ar
expenses since 1857 had amounted
panics upon the
which he had sosomees
allowed to be imposed
were trying whether nine of them should not be im-
reason unfortunately,t
o believe
wouldo those heavy
nev
ePrabr
e-
liamentary expensrn-
molated in order
consumers, but that was a burden
'tlh' hee r
ec omma
ipnai sf
on
uo
rw.
ng
They knew they had been condemned by two Parlia-
mentary Committees—in
the first instance delicately,
but in the second boldly, declaring that not only
must the price be
reduced, but that the magnifying
power must be increased. The
Government had
brought in a bill to rectify
tion had withdrawn
that of the Govern their own bill and supported
Innt, and there had been 336
petitions, signed by ve ,000 gas consumers, presented
from the city. The
real reason why the Bill of last
Session was rejected was because the companies
wanted still to retain the power in
their own
hands of making
up their back dividends out of
present profits. e
believed that the rejection of
that bill was unwise. So thought many of the lead-
ing journals. If the
gas companies would not yield
to the reasonable demands of
the consumers an in-
dependent supply should be obtained. He called on
the corporation as they bad rut tbr.ix hand to the