5o8 



NA TURE 



{April I, 1886 



tend to purchase your electric light undertaking, at the 

 price of the materials, under the 27th clause of Mr. Cham- 

 berlain's Act ! " 



In fact, the local authority is by that Act put into the 

 position of the big bully who tosses halfpence with the 

 little boy, and makes him agree to " heads I win, tails you 

 lose/' 



The Act provides that local authorities may themselves 

 supply electricity for lighting purposes, and perhaps it may 

 be said this was a real facility (a facility in the Ogilvie 

 dictionary sense, and not in the Chamberlain dictionary 

 sense). But has it been ? Up to the end of last year 

 it is believed not a single application had been made 

 by any local authority to the Local Government Board 

 in respect of a provisional order under this Act. The 

 reason is clear. The local authority (and properly 

 enough) does not wish to risk the ratepayers' money in 

 that which may prove an unsuccessful adventure, and it 

 says, " We'll wait until some company comes and does 

 it — does all the pioneering, all the educating of the 

 people to take a new source of light, runs every risk ; 

 and then if it turns out a failure, we shall have lost 

 nothing ; if it turns out a success, we'll acquire the right 

 to make the profits for ourselves at the mere value of the 

 then material," this being a value so small compared with 

 the capital embarked that the revenue which would have 

 paid only 5 per cent, on the capita! invested will pay 

 10 per cent, upon the sum for wliich under Mr. Chamber- 

 lain's Bill the local authority will be entitled to acquire 

 (we do not say " steal") the undertaking. 



The Act, therefore, has proved not to " facilitate," in 

 the ordinary sense of the word, the extension of electric 

 lighting by local authorities ; and is it surprising that 

 (great as is the need of investment for capital with the 

 hope of remuneration) it has been impossible to obtain 

 money for private enterprise to develop electrical lighting 

 by distribution from a central source with Mr. Chamber- 

 lain's 27th section staring the capitalist in the face ? 



When the Bill was in Committee, the maximum period 

 allowed for enjoyment was not as long as twenty-one 

 years, and the hardship upon investors having to give up 

 their property at the end of the period was pointed out. 

 The objectors were answered in this way, " Oh ! you can 

 charge such a price for your electricity that you will be 

 able to get back your capital in the time allowed and 

 earn a good dividend too." To this it was and is ob- 

 jected, that the great difficulty in spreading the business 

 of electric lighting would be the competition with gas, 

 and the low price to which it has been reduced by 

 reason of private management and the sliding scale (of 

 which more hereafter) ; coupled with the fact that the 

 expense of supplying houses with gas-fittings had been 

 incurred while a new outlay would be needed to furnish 

 it with electrical fittings ; so that it was impossible to hope 

 for any custom at all if a high price were to be charged, 

 which would prevent the chance of getting back capital 

 by increasing the rate. It was also pointed out that an) 

 fixed period of purchase upon the terms of payment 

 mentioned was prohibitory of practical working. 



Suppose, for example, that /;5o,ooo had been embarked 

 in lighting a district, and that ten years having elapsed, 

 the demand for electric lighting in the district was such 

 as to need an increase of plant and mains, involving the 



expenditure of another ^50,000. It is obvious that with 

 only ten years' enjoyment remaining, no one would be 

 insane enough to advance a shilling of this further 

 capital ; and this must be true, however extended the 

 period of enjoyment might be, so long as the sum to 

 be paid on acquisition is merely the value of the " then 

 materials." 



It may be asked, how came such an Act to be passed in 

 the face of all these obvious objections? The answer is 

 twofold. One, the growing and most mischievous tendency 

 to make governing bodies into traders ; the other, the fear 

 of what might happen from having already made governing 

 bodies, such as those of Birmingham, into traders. Local 

 authorities had been stimulated to become the proprietors 

 of gas undertakings, to risk the money of their ratepayers 

 in a trade, in a highly artificial matter such as gas 

 illumination. Under these circumstances, no matter at 

 what sacrifice of the true principles of political economy, 

 no matter what principles of ordinary fair dealing were 

 abandoned, lighting by electricity must be so " facilitated " 

 that it should never compete with local authority gas- 

 works. No doubt it will be the same if local authorities 

 ever make the plunge and adopt electric lighting ; and if 

 hereafter some one were to invent a practicable mode of 

 storing up daylight and delivering it out at night (lumin- 

 ous paint to wit), then the Chamberlain of the day would 

 obtain an Act to "facilitate" its use, which would be as 

 efficacious as has been the " facilitating " Electric Lighting 

 Act of 1882. 



During the four years since that Act was passed, the 

 public have become more and more alive to the merits ot 

 incandescent electrical lighting. Steamships, clubs, hotels. 

 Inns of Court, and the mansions of the wealthy, are being 

 lighted by separate installations, with a result in health, 

 cleanliness, and convenience that must be experienced in 

 order to be fully appreciated. This is all very well for the 

 rich, but why are the poor, the tradesmen, or even the 

 moderately well-off, to be debarred from the benefits of 

 electric lighting ? Why is the dressmaker's workroom or 

 the shopkeeper's shop still to be lit by an illuminant which 

 not only consumes the air, but gives out products of com- 

 bustion intolerably heated, and charged with ingredients 

 prejudicial to health, prejudicial to cleanliness, and 

 destructive to books, paintings, and furniture ? 



In New York, where electricity has not been "facili- 

 tated," incandescent lighting has, during the last three 

 years, been provided to all who cared to take it (and they 

 are a very large number) who reside within a certain 

 distance from a central distributing station. Why is that 

 not to be allowed here ? Why, in the present depressed 

 state of trade, are not capitalists permitted to invest their 

 capital upon the fair terms which have been allowed to 

 every other industry, and thus give employment to thou- 

 sands of operatives who are now out of work ? Why are 

 we to continue to use the gas from a ton of coal as an 

 illuminant to obtain the light of 30,000 candles for one 

 hour when the selfsame gas, driving an engine to produce 

 electricity for electric lighting, would give us 50,000 candles 

 for the same time. We are told we are to be debarred 

 because of the fear of creating a monopoly, the truth 

 being that this evil is permitted in order to maintain 

 the monopoly which local authorities in certain towns 

 have already got, and that must not be disturbed ; while 



