diem at any convenient time during daylight. Moreover, the attendant need not be highly paid, as he will not have required an engineman's training, as will the attendant on an electric lighting plant. The latter, too, must be present throughout the hours when light is wanted unless a heavy expenditure has been incurred on accumulators. Furthermore, the capital outlay on generating plant will be very much less for acetylene than for electric lighting. General considerations such as these lead to the conclusion that in almost all country districts in this country a house or institution could be lighted more cheaply by means of acetylene than by electricity. In the tabular statement of comparative costs of different modes of lighting, electric lighting has been included only on the basis of a fixed cost per unit, as owing to the very varied cost of generating current by small installations in different parts of the country it would be futile to attempt to give the cost of electric lighting on any other basis, such as the prime cost of coal or coke in a particular district. Where current is supplied by a public electricity- supply undertaking, the cost per unit is known, and the comparative costs of electric light and acetylene can be arrived at with tolerable precision. It has not been thought necessary to include in the tabular statement electric arc-lamps, as they are only suitable for the lighting of large spaces, where the steadiness and uniformity of the illumination are of secondary importance. Under such conditions, it may be stated parenthetically, the electric arc-light is much less costly than acetylene lighting would be, but it is now in many places being superseded by high-pressure gas or oil incandescent lights, which are steady and generally more economical than the arc light.