View report page

53
was more destructive to articles such as leather, &c., than it is
supposed to be in London, and that in the face of this fact the
Committee were of opinion that those who contended for the
maintenance of the clauses relating to sulphur compounds other
than sulphuretted hydrogen had not sufficiently shown that their
abolition in the case of the London Companies would be detrimental
to the public, and that on the other hand all the witnesses
on behalf of the Companies had spoken with much emphasis of
the anxiety caused to the management on account of the uncertain
action of lime purifiers and the knowledge that the
slightest excess of impurity would render them liable to the odium
of Police Court proceedings, and had laid much stress upon the
nuisance to the neighbourhood which they contended was inevitable
when purification was done by means of lime, and that there
was no doubt that the nuisance which was occasioned by the use
of lime for extracting sulphur products was very serious not only
by reason of the annoyance caused to the neighbourhood but also
by the deleterious effect on the workmen employed in connection
with the process.
77. Following upon this report three Bills were introduced
into Parliament last session, one by the Gas Light and Coke,
South Metropolitan and Commercial Gas Companies, one by the
South Metropolitan Gas Company, and the other by the London
County Council. The two first-mentioned Bills went further than
the recommendations of the Gas Committee and were rejected by
the Committee of the House of Commons. The County Council's
Bill was modified and became law as the London Gas Act, 1905.
Section 5 of the Act provides for the gas supplied by the Gas
Light and Coke, the Commercial, and the South Metropolitan
Gas Companies being tested for the purpose of ascertaining the
calorific power, the purity as regards sulphur other than sulphuretted
hydrogen, and the illuminating power as ascertained by
means of the flat flame burner, but that the Companies shall not
be liable to forfeiture in respect of the testings. Upon the passing
of the London Gas Act the Wandsworth and Putney Gas
Company called the attention of the Council to the matter and
expressed the opinion that the legislation with respect to the sulphur
impurities which the Company accepted in 1900 was unnec
essary, uncalled for, and inexpedient, and they asked how far the
Council could follow the course taken by the London County
Council and dispense with the penalising for the small extra