418 
NATURE 
[FEBRUARY 28, 1907 
only Malay, more or less modified according to the 
national idiosyncrasies of the speaker. Moreover, 
many of the Malayan loan-words are pronounced, not 
as the Malays of the peninsula pronounce them to- 
day, but as it would seem they were pronounced 
when Malay was first written in Arabic characters; 
thus the k- still pronounced in Borneo also occurs 
in the aboriginal dialects. Besides unidentified 
elements, many constituents of both Semang and 
Sakai dialects agree with the Mon-Khmer languages, 
but whether this similarity be due to all these 
languages being essentially members of one family 
or to the direct contact of Semang and Sakai with 
Mon-Khmer peoples is uncertain, though, of course 
the two views do not necessarily exclude each other. 
. There is a most interesting chapter on tabu language 
and other special forms of speech, and the work con- 
cludes with a comparative vocabulary of the aboriginal 
dialects which is so arranged as to be particularly 
easy to use. (OG eeSy 
ELECTRIC POWER IN LONDON. 
NTIL a couple of years ago the problem of elec- 
tricity supply in London was mainly one of 
interest to engineers and investors. Its introduction 
into the realm of municipal politics, however, has 
given it a wider interest, and one that tends 
to obscure the purely scientific aspect of the 
problem. Alike in connection with water, with 
gas, and with electricity, London has suffered from 
the fact of its slow growth and of its being com- 
posed of a number of separate towns and districts; its 
very magnitude, which to-day would enable it to be 
supplied with electricity more cheaply than any other 
great city, has been the chief hindrance to its getting 
such a supply. The enormous number of authorities 
authorised to supply electricity in Greater London, 
which at the present time exceeds seventy, has resulted 
in the establishment of nearly sixty generating stations, 
many of which are of comparatively small size and 
inefficient design. The municipal authorities have 
also been confined to their own boundaries and com- 
pelled to choose uneconomical sites, and any attempts 
at combination between the various authorities which 
might have enabled them to secure some of the 
advantages of production on a larger scale have been 
prevented by the restrictive legislation under which 
they operate, legislation which was originally passed 
before the future developments of electricity pro- 
duction were appreciated, while the still more remark- 
able developmenis in the uses of electric power were 
entirely unforeseen. An attempt at concentration was 
long ago made by the London Electric Supply Cor- 
poration, which established its great station at Dept- 
ford. That it was not successful was not due to any 
unsoundness of the principle upon which it was 
based, but to the fact that it was before its time. 
Fifteen years afterwards, in 1905, a fresh proposal 
embodying the first step in the policy of concentration 
was brought forward by a private company; several 
of the existing companies at the same time brought 
forward proposals, not for complete concentration, 
but for dividing London into three areas, in each of 
which a supply would be ultimately centralised. 
The former scheme, due to its novelty and 
comprehensive nature, aroused considerable con- 
troversy. It was framed on the lines of the various 
Power Acts which Parliament has passed during the 
past five years. hat is to say, it did not deal with 
retail supply of lighting, but only authorised whole- 
sale supply of electricity and the retail supply of power 
in cases where the Board of Trade thought such 
supply should be given. Its main object was the 
NO. 1948, VOL. 75 | 
establishment of two stations, in which generation 
would take place on a scale much larger than that of 
any station in London to-day, and from which elec- 
tricity would be supplied wholesale to the various dis- 
tributing authorities by whom it would be retailed to 
the consumer. The limited right to supply the power 
consumer direct, in certain cases, was inserted by 
Parliament in order to ensure that the distributor 
should not absorb all the advantages of wholesale 
production. 
This scheme naturally aroused much opposition from 
the existing authorities, both municipal and company. 
To a large extent, however, this disappeared as the 
real nature of the Bill became known; in fact, prac- 
tically all the leading companies, and many of the 
most business-like local authorities, appreciating the 
advantages of purchasing a bulk supply in place of 
having constantly to expend further capital on extend- 
ing their own smaller generating stations, entered 
into agreements with the promoters. The manufac- 
turing interests of London also supported the scheme 
very warmly, and a deputation of leading manufac- 
turers waited upon the Board of Trade, and showed 
that if the East End could obtain power at the prices 
fixed by the Bill it would mean an annual saving of 
nearly 3,000,0001. as compared with the present 
methods of power production. <A petition, signed by 
employers of 100,000 hands, was also presented to 
Parliament in favour of the scheme. 
It was, however, strongly opposed by the London 
County Council, which, in spite of numerous modi- 
fications and safeguards, such as the sliding scale 
of price and dividend, and the purchase clause, which 
were inserted in the Bill by Parliament, contended 
that it was not in the public interest that such a 
scheme should become law. It, however, passed 
Committees of both Houses, but so late in the session 
that it failed to become law. 
In the next session of Parliament, 1906, the County 
Council itself introduced a scheme. The 1905 com- 
pany’s Bill was also re-introduced, and a new scheme 
was brought forward by the existing companies for 
linking up their systems and removing the restrictions 
upon mutual supply to which reference has already 
been made. The County Council’s scheme alone re- 
ceived a second reading, and was sent to a special 
Hybrid Committee with instructions to consider the 
whole question. 
The County Council’s scheme dealt with wholesale 
supply only; it was strongly criticised by the Council’s 
own Finance Committee, and unanimously — re- 
jected by the House of Commons Committee which 
had been instructed specially to consider it. The 
Report of that Committee recommended, however, 
that the Council should be made the controlling 
authority for electricity supply, but as regards the 
carrying out of the undertaking suggested that the 
Council should consider cooperation with private 
enterprise. 
This year the Council has brought forward a more 
comprehensive scheme, involving nothing less than a 
monopoly of electricity supply for all purposes over 
450 square miles, 330 of which are outside the county. 
Fourteen of the borough council undertakings are to 
be compulsorily acquired within five years, the thirteen 
company undertakings as their concessions lapse. 
Undertakings outside the county of London are to be 
acquired by agreement, but until it has secured this 
monopoly, and to assist in securing it, the Council 
takes powers to compete (for power supply only) with 
all these undertakings. 
From a scientific point of view the principle of con- 
centration would appear to be correct, but whether 
electricity supply has reached a state of development 
when such a big step forward as that proposed by 
