With regard to electric lighting it is somewhat difficult to lay down a fair basis of comparison, owing to the wide variations in the cost of current, and in the efficiency of lamps, and to the undoubted hygienic and aesthetic claims of electric lighting to precedence. But in towns in this country where there is a public electricity supply, electric lighting will be used rather than acetylene for the same reasons that it is preferred to coal-gas. Cost is only a secondary consideration in such cases, and where coal-gas is reasonably cheap, and nevertheless gives place to electric lighting, acetylene clearly cannot hope to supplant the latter. [Footnote: Where, however, as is frequently the case with small public electricity-supply works, the voltage of the supply varies greatly, the fluctuations in the light of the lamps, and the frequent destruction of fuses and lamps, are such manifest inconveniences that acetylene is in fact now being generally preferred to electric lighting in such circumstances.] But where current cannot be had from an electricity-supply undertaking, and it is a question, in the event of electric lighting being adopted, of generating current by driving a dynamo, either by means of a gas-engine supplied from public gas-mains, by means of a special boiler installation, or by means of an oil-engine or of a power gas-plant and gas-engine, the claims of acetylene to preference are very strong. An important factor in the estimation of the relative advantages of electricity and acetylene in such cases is the cost of labour in looking after the generating plant. Where a gas-engine supplied from public gas-mains is used for driving the dynamo, electric lighting can be had at a relatively small expenditure for attendance on the generating plant. But the cost of the gas consumed will be high, and actually light could be obtained directly from the gas by means of incandescent mantles at far loss cost than by consuming the gas in a motor for the indirect production of light by means of electric current. Therefore electric lighting, if adopted under these conditions, must be preferred to gas lighting from considerations which are deemed to outweigh those of a much higher cost, and acetylene does not present so great advantages over coal-gas as to affect the choice of electric lighting. But in the cases where there is no public gas-supply, and current must be generated from coal or coke or oil consumed on the spot, the cost of the skilled labour required to look after either a boiler, steam-engine and dynamo, or a power gas-plant and gas-engine or oil- engine and dynamo, will be so heavy that unless the capacity of the installation is very great, acetylene will almost certainly prove a cheaper and more convenient method of obtaining light. The attention required by an acetylene installation, such as a country house of upwards of thirty rooms would want, is limited to one or two hours' labour per