tured is more explosive than it was originally in 1814, or not?—I should fancy just the reverse; for it is our endeavour more fully to saturate hydrogen with carbon, by which a greater illuminating power is obtained, and at the same time a less liability to explosion by a mixture with atmospheric air.

Is it not true, in chemistry, that the nearer inflammable air approaches to pure hydrogen the more it will explode? -Certainly, it only requiring one-half of its bulk of oxygen, whereas coal gas requires about double its bulk.

We have heard from Dr. Wollaston, that the mixture, to produce the slightest explosion with coal gas, must be five parts of atmospherical air to one of the gas, and to produce the highest, ten parts to one?-It is so stated, and very truly.

Adverting to the experiments recorded in the Report, page 17, in which a greater effect is produced by four parts of air to one of gas, than five parts to one, are you of opinion that the inflammable gas in that experiment could be coal gas?—The effects of it shew, that it was very greatly approaching to hydrogen, to have produced the increased effect.

Have you any doubt in stating that this experiment, in page 17, forms no criterion as to the explosive quality of coal gas?-Indeed, I should say so, from analyzing the two experiments there stated, as the one producing the greater effect must have been composed of four portions of hydrogen with one portion of carburetted hydrogen; and, what is a very extraordinary thing, it exactly to an atom takes up the quantity of oxygen said to be united with it in the atmospheric air. It would have been very

desirable to know what was the gas made use of in those experiments, and what was its specific gravity.

You have had long experience in gas works; I believe considerable experience? - For two years I have been employed upon a large scale; and for three years prior to that time upon a small scale, in the town of Derby.

If gas-works are properly constructed and properly conducted, do you think them attended with danger to the public?-Certainly not.

Mr. John Watson examined.

Came from Edinburgh. The manager of the Gas-Light Company there, about four years and a half.

You are, however, perfectly acquainted with the whole management ?—Yes, I flatter myself I am.

Were you in the employ of the Company in January 18222-I was.

I will ask you, after reading the following words from a Report laid before the Committee, "Accidents arising from this cause have actually occurred at Edinburgh, by which the pavement of the street was blown up for a considerable length;" was such a statement made to you; and if it was, was it correct?-I never heard of that statement till I saw it in that Report.

Are you able to state to the Committee whether, prior to January 1822, any explosion or accident took place at the gas-works at Edinburgh? - Certainly, no explosion whatever took place there, previous to that time.

Then no portion of the street has been blown up to your knowledge?—No.

Since January 1822, has any accident occurred?—A

slight accident in front of the Register-house, which arose from a leak in the service-pipe, which exploded, and merely lifted a little on one side a few of the stones of the building, and about one or two stones of the ballisters of a staircase opposite.

How did that take place?-By an attempt having been made to tear away part of the copper tube intended to supply a branch-lamp, in consequence of which the gas escaped; the place below was left open, and a man being sent to examine into the cause of the escape, unfortunately applied a light, and the gas having accumulated in a hollow stone base upon which the lamp stood, when the light came into contact with it, a slight explosion took place.

What was the size of that hollow base?—About fourteen or fifteen inches square.

Did it contain, in your opinion, a cubic foot?—I am not prepared to say.

Was that portion of the pipe which you have stated to have been torn away, supposed to have been taken away by thieves, or in what way?—It was supposed to be done by thieves, but it was never properly made out.

Do you consider it to have been an accident arising from any neglect on the part of the Company?-No; if there was any neglect, it was on the part of those who had the charge of the Register-house; the door should have been kept locked.

What was the mischief altogether; was any person hurt? The man that went in was very slightly injured in the face; it was but slight, for I saw it myself.

Was that the only injury done, to your knowledge, to any individual ?—Yes.

What was the damage done in the whole, what expense did the repairs come to?-I should think that the sum of ten pounds put it all right again.

Can you state that no other accident has occurred in Edinburgh ?-Nothing of any consequence, except some small explosions which may have taken place, but which were of such little consequence that they were not thought of sufficient importance to report to the Company.

Was the pavement affected by those explosions?-No. Was a stone removed, by the explosions you have mentioned, of any magnitude?-One stone, seven or eight inches square, was lifted a little on one side.

What do you mean by those accidents not being reported? Were they explosions by inflammation ?-By the gas escaping from the main pipe by leakage, and the man going into the place incautiously.

Was any part of the wall destroyed by the explosion ?— No, none whatever; what I allude to was merely from what issued out of the pipe.

Do you know of any other instance of actual explosion having taken place?-No, I do not know of any actual explosion having taken place.

Is it possible that any may have taken place without your knowing it?—I think it is very unlikely.

How many miles of pipe have you laid down in Edinburgh ?-I suppose, from fifteen to twenty miles.

I

How many lights have you been supplying during the last year?-Last year we supplied between seven and eight thousand.

(G).

EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE ON WESTMINSTER OIL-GAS BILL,

THE LONDON AND

1825.

Mr. S. M. Townsend's examination respecting the Bow Gas-Works; he was a proprietor and also collector to

the concern.

Has the concern been a profitable one?—It has not. What was your loss during the first year of your operations?-It was upwards of a hundred pounds.

Was it not £161?—Yes.*

Was that the year you declared a dividend?—Yes. Having sustained an actual loss of £161, how much per cent. did you divide as profit-Two per cent.

What did your dividend of two per cent. amount to? Four hundred pounds on the whole number of shares. What was your loss next year, as near as you can say? -It was upwards of a hundred pounds.

Did you divide any profit that year?—No, we did not. When the dividend was declared, from the error in making up the books, it was, at that moment, supposed there was a profit ?- Certainly.

. Afterwards, upon a more accurate investigation, you found you had sustained an actual loss?—It was so.

Did

you find, in the course of your proceedings, that the

* This was the year ending 1822; in the year ending 1823 the loss was £176. 10s. 1d., according to the report made to the proprietors!