THIRD DIALOGUE

Between (Mr. P.) CHARLES PEARSON, ESQ., and (G. C.) a GAS CONSUMER of the City. April 11th, 1850.

G. C. Well, Mr. P., it is some time since I met you; how do Gas matters go on-is it true that you have arranged to have a Testimonial?

Mr. P. This is my popular mode of putting it. The subject is somewhat flat, and it is desirable to give a little excitement, &c.; the testimonial, and the dinner, and the laying the first stone of the works, they all attract, and doubtless will help our Shares.

G. C. Oh, your shares are not yet taken, then; I fancied that all the Shares not taken by the Consumers, had been taken by Capitalists, and that calls to my mindIs it true that Messrs. Peto and Betts have given up their Shares? How could they do that if, as we were told, they had entered into a contract to erect our works, and to lay down all the pipes, &c., and as we understood in fact, they had agreed to do every thing for us?

Mr. P. That was only our popular way of putting it. They had contracted, but it was only conditional; and they availed themselves of the conditions.

G. C. That is strange; in these times, when contractors are seeking employment everywhere, and no works can be found. Did they think it a bad contract? but even if they did, still I presume the Shares they took were not conditional-by-the-bye, I perceived they were not registered among the Shareholders. Did they ever sign the Deed of Incorporation?

Mr. P. No, that was not necessary.

G. C. Not necessary for what--to bind them, do you mean?

Mr. P. Why, you see, it was only wanted for Parliamentary purposes, and therefore we got them to sign the Parliamentary contract.

G. C. And not the Deed of Incorporation. Surely that was sailing near the wind, was it not? Then they were not bound to take their Shares,-and who, then, has taken them?-Indeed I should enquire who took the Shares not registered? I understood you to say, at one of the public meetings, that all the Shares had been taken, and therefore, after reading that lively little thing, "Who's Who?" I took the liberty of inspecting the return made by the Company under the Joint Stock Registration Act, 31st January, 1850, and I found that there were only 8940 Shares taken, of which 2450 were in the names of Mr. Croll and his partner, Mr. Bovill. Can you explain this to me, and who took those remaining?

Mr. P. Most easily. You will readily perceive that it was of importance to get out the Shares in an undertaking of this great public utility, and therefore all the Shares that were not taken by Consumers, were taken: but you would not understand my popular mode of stating it, so I need not trouble you further.

G. C. Then, they were all taken, and yet that is curious, for I understand the Chairman has, at various public Boards, offered Shares to the members. Do you think he wants to get rid of his own? The question of Shares, however, I presume, is not of importance.

Mr. P. Not in the least; if you can only get the contractor to do all the work, and provide the pipes and materials.

G. C. I fully expected we should have had more Gas Consumers among the Shareholders. I perceive there are about 600. You have not, I fear, used your

7

either that the distribution of the Gas out of the City would be profitable to the Company at 4s. per 1000 cubic feet, or that the testimony given before the Committee of the House of Commons is false as to the price in the City being dependent upon the amount of the supply in the limited district. If you now advocate the supply of Whitechapel and Stepney, I presume you have changed your opinion?

Mr. P. No, I must refer you to my opinions publicly expressed; if they appear to be irreconcilable, why you must attribute it to my popular way of putting them.

G. C. When I found I got my Gas at 4s. I thought you would have put an end to your Company, as I remembered you very strongly deprecated the breaking up of the streets, if the price were reduced to 4s. per 1000 cubic feet. Have you had occasion to change your mind on this point? I never quite understood how it was that you did not get the Report of the Surveyor to the Court of Sewers on this point; for doubtless your position as City Solicitor enabled you to know it to be favorable to your views. I mean your present views, for the Court of Sewers have given your Report their cold shoulder sadly, as to so much of it as related to the breaking up of the pavements. They may, however, have understood your popular way of putting it, which I confess I did not. Does the Surveyor agree with your opinion as expressed in your Report, or with that now entertained by you!

Mr. P. I am quite aware of his opinion, but it is not prudent to talk about it until we get the evidence before the Committee, lest the old Companies get hold of it.

G. C. When do you go into Committee-and do you really expect the Company will succeed?

Mr. P. We wait the appointment of the Committee, which does not depend upon us. We feel quite confi