ELECTRIC GAS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume IV, Issue 160, 28 January 1854, Page 9

ELECTRIC GAS.

(From the Literary Gazette.) We have this week to announce one of the most astounding- discoveries that has heen made known for some time past, the conversion of water l>y a simple magneto-electric process of decomposition into a non-explosive illuminating gas !Itis to supersede the use of coal-gas for lighting-, eating, and cooking, and of coal fuel for locomotives and steamboats ; and a company is, we hear, being- formed with the intention of literally setting the Thames on fire. Whether the water-supply of London will be svillieient for the manufacture of our present supply of

gas in the metropolis, eighteen millions of cubic feet daily, we cannot undertake to say. Mr. Prestwich, of London clay notoriety, will doubtless come to the rescue, and we m;iy learn from him whether, by more boring, the public will be able to go on without smoke. "By the present discovery," says the prospectus of this incipient company, " water can be converted into gas at an almost nominal cost." About sixpence per 1,000 cubic feet is, we believe, the estimate. " And it is impossible," says truly the same authority, " to enter i.ito any accurate calculation as to the amount of profits." No manufacturing premises or extensive works are required. The process, it ii said, may be performed in a magneto-electric machine, of comparatively small size, and every country mansion or town residence, shop or factory, steam-engine or cooking" apparatus, locomotive or steam-boat, may have its own portable gasometer. "In a sanatory point of view," says the prospectus, " the electric gas will be the means of rendering the atmosphere of the metropolis as free from soot and smoke as any city in the world !" and its advantages in a political sense are important indeed, for our war-steamers, having the means of generating steam without smoke, will, it is said, " be able to conceal their movements and projected operations from the knowledge of the enemy!" As in the case of all great inventions in embryo, the preliminary experiments have only been made as /yet on a small scale; but the printed results are accompanied with a certificate of its ' extraordinary' character, and ' perfect applicability,' by no less an authority than Dr. Leeson, F.R.S., and we ought not therefore to entertain any doubt of its genuineness. At the invitation of the interim managing director, Mr. Shepherd, we have made an examination of this ' invention' for ourselves. An ingeniously constructed magneto-electric machine of large size, is employed in effecting, to all appearance, the decomposition of a fluid contained in a number of bottles. The gas escaping from these is passed through some hydro-carbon compound to give it illuminating power; and it is collected in a gasometer and burnt at once in an ordinary Leslie gas-burner. It is said to be oxygen and hydrogen derived from the decomposition of water, with their explosive property destroyed! These gasses, it may be well to explain, as liberated from water, exist in proportions forming a mixture which is violently explosive on the application of a spark; yet here is a gas burning quietly from an ordinary burner, and giving out a flame of the same illuminating power as common gas. The gist of the invention is this. Some preparation — here is the secret—costing twopence to 1000 cubic feet of ga«, is used, which, being held in solution in the water, is said to destroy the explosive property of the liberated gases. Now the gases from water should exist in proportion of 88,9 of oxygen, and 11,1 of hydrogen ; but an analysis of this gas by My. Holmes, Panopticon professor [of chemistry, was shown to us, giving oxygen about 12, and hydrogen about S2. It is clear, therefore, that water is not decomposed ; and the only inference we can draw from this is, that the electric gas is derived aimply from the preparation added to the water. The Panopticon professor has made one discovery which will greatly delight Professor Schonbein, the discoverer of ozone. He has determined its existence in this eleciric gas qualitatively, (we trust he will publish his process,) and shown that the gasses are non-explo-sive because ozone is present in them. 2s Tow, ozone has never been detected but by the smell, and this new revelation of its properties will doubtless set Schonbein, Fremy, Becqueral, Faraday, and others, upon a fresh enquiry, in connection with the Panopticon chair of chemistry. We do not mean to express any doubt, be it understood, of the power of the magnetoelectric machine to decompose an ammoniacal salt, or some such compound equally rich in hydrogen. All we contend for is, that there is no decomposition of water. The water companies need not despair of fluid, and the Thames may glide on in peace.

The French have been applying1 for Napoleon's will, deposited at Doctors' Commons. Now we should have thought that the French had had more than enough lately of the will of one Napoleon not to have wished for another : but perhaps this craving of the French for the wills of other persons may he accounted for by the fact of their having so very little will of their owiu— Punch.

(Continued from sth page.) Ordinance bears date Nov. 10, 1846, the Fencing Ordinance Oct. 2, 1847. But on [the 28th August, 1846, an act of the English Parliament was passed, known as the Charter of 1846, (and which could not have been received in the colony until the beginning of 1547,) which recites the power given to the Governor and Council. In this Act there is this very important clause —a repetition be it observed of authority which previous Governors possessed. " And be it enacted, That it shall be competent for an} r such Assembly so to be constituted and established within the Islands-of New Zealand, and they are hereby ' authorized and empowered (save as is hereinafter escepted) to make and enact laws, statutes, and ordinances for the peace, order, and good "government of such parts of the said islands as shall be within the limits of any separate province for which any such Assembly shall be so constituted and established as aforesaid, such laws not being repugnant to the laivs of the United Kingdom, or to the laws of the General As-. sembiy hereinafter mentioned." Every one can call to mind innumerable instances of notices to trespassers upon unfenced lands in England— whether cultivated, or uncultivated, and we know that to maintain damages for trespass, it is not essential that the land should be fenced, indeed there .are no laws at home more stringent than those which have reference to this subject. Protection under these laws is one. of those important rights which the people of England hold most dear. If this be so, then. I am at a loss to understand how the Governor and Council of this province could be justified in the maintenance of the clause in the Cattle Trespass Ordinance, which seems to concede the whole quest-ion by a side wind, but which ne.ith.er defines the nature of a substantial fence, nor asserts a compulsory necessity for it. If we are to receive this clause in the Ordinance as law, rendering j a substantial fence necessary before we can maintain damages in this colony, does it not at once occur to you that we have an instance in- which colonial law is at direct variance with the English ? and that here is an Ordinance which at once attempts to* overrule Parliamentary authority ? There is, however, another point of view from which we may look at this question. The occupier of a'run, which is necessarily unfenced, has a right of damages against those who drive cattle upon it, and he can obtain, and has, I believe, recently obtained, compensation, after having given notice in writing to the trespasser to desist from his offence. Now we all know that the tenant of a run pays 20s. for every 100 acres he rents. Why then should he be entitled to this amount of protection, and the renter of 100 acres, who is cultivating the soil, and probably paying from £20 to £25 for iiis occupation, be compelled to fence, or be subjected, if unfenced, to the enormous loss entailed upon him by the reckless trespass of cattle'upon his crops: The question, however, forces itself upon one's mind what is a substantial fence, and who are to be the judges of it ? Common sense and the Ordinance say, the local magistrates, but in the absence of any definition, thi-s is left to the caprice of the individual presiding; with one it may be a 4ft. dit'.-h and hank, with another a 6ft.. while With another it may be a mere post and rail. Surely enough has been said to shew the vast importance of the subject, as well as ti!« »-:> at. necessity existing for a careful consideration of it at the coming assembling together of the Provincial Counc;l — a consideration which I doubt not it will obtain at i\\a earliest niomenl. Yours very respectful! >•, A PILCKDI OF THE PLuKS.

To the Editor of the Lytielton Times. Sir,—The question of cattle trespass lias been freely argued in your columns. The last writer, I think, seems to know more about the actual law of the case than any of the others. But I must differ from him on one point. While I allow that the English law protects a man who holds land unoccupied and unfenced from trespass of i any kind, yet I can conceive cases in which a modification of that law would be only justice. ' The Land and Cattle Owner' says that' there are many of the English laws which cannot properly apply to the colonies,, and such are just the ones which require to be seperseded by colonial legislation.' These words are quoted and ridiculed by tb.3 Pilgrim. For my part I can see nothing to object to in this proposition. I can conceive many Jaws which are useful in the old country that ' would be objectionable here. And I will take this law of trespass to illustrate mj position. If pushed to extremity it would be a death-blow to the sheep and cattle farming of the Australasian colonies. Supposing that my neighbour has a sheep run of, say 20.000 acres, and supposing that I owe that neighbour a grudge ; I go and buy a 50-acre section in the very centre of his run, and leave it there unfenced and unoccupied. I then set a watch upon his nocks and prosecute him for every sheep that puts a foot on my land, thus making it necessary for him to desert that part of his run, or else to employ a larger number of shepherds. Indeed, if I wished it, I could push the annoyance so far as to drive him away altogether. Now, Sir, this may be law, but it is anything but justice. I maintainin spite of the ridicule of the ' Pilgrim of the Plains' that it would be not unly expedient but just that the sheep-owner in.a new- country should not be wantonly disturbed by a purchaser who .had no hona fide intention of occupying his land. At first sight, the case I have supposed might appear exaggerated. One very similar, however, came before the Bench of Magistrates at Christchurch the other day. As well as I can gather the facts of the case are as follows :—The rented .'from Government about 1000 .acres of land near his own farm, as outstray for seven or eight cows and calves; about a .tenth or twelfth part of the number it was capable of carrying. The plaintiff lately rented a 100----acre section alongside of this land, but had never fenced'it or made any use of it; there was nothing tbrvdistinguish.it from the run held by his neignijpuiy So that it was not astonishing if the 1 cows overstepped the boundary line now and then which a man could not discern. The plaintiff, however, thinks he can make a good thing of this, and sacks to recover the value of the natural grass which the cows have eaten in the course of the night. The Magistiates gave judgment for the plaintiff, with costs, at the same time statingthattheamountof damages was fixed by the plaintiff, and that it was not their business to interfere 1 It is a very modest Bench, indeed : and it is useful that it should look on when differences are arranged by others. That the Magistrates were right in point of law in giving judgment for the plaintiff I do not deny ; but that they should leave the amount of damages to be settled by the plaintiff, is almost incredible. The only check upon the abuse of a law that works at times injuriously is, that a Jury or a Bench of Magistrates may in a frivolous and vexatious suit, such as this, give nominal damages, and make the plaintiff pay the costs. The best comment on this decision of the Bench is, that th • plaintiff, as I understand, has sent notice to the defendant that he will hereafter make a fixed charge a head per night on. cattle trespassing on his land, mention-.

ing some ridiculously exorbitant sum. I n fact he has been taught by the Magistrates that he may make laws to suit himself. It is to be hoped that all the Magistrates of Christchurch do not agree in this interpretation of their duties. I hear that a meeting is called to consider the case. The defendant has been obliged to throw up the laud he held on lease, and to send away the cows he kept on it. I think this is a case very like my first hypothesis. We do want a good Trespass Ordinance. The common law of England with respect to trespass was framed for a very different state of land tenancy and of society: the old New Zealand Ordinance is so unintelligible, that the Magistrates are unable to make use of it. It is all very well to say that the Land Owner has a right to do what he likes with his own, and that he should be absolutely protected. By all means let him be protected against actual damage ; but in a country where there are other large interests all around him, let him not have a power of merely vexatious annoyance, which I have shewn could be made use of for the ruin of his neighbour. To the lengthened correspondence which ♦ has appeared in your columns upon this subject, I should not have added this letter, if I did not think the subject one of paramount importance to all classes, and therefore one which should be thoroughly discussed. I remain, Sir, Y">av obedient servant, A Readee.