The hundred pounds of coal will produce 400 feet of gas; 400 feet of gas will evolve the effect of 1,500 candles. So you see the position we are in. In consuming that coal directly by destructive distillation you can produce 1,500 candles light; by converting it into power, and then again into light by incandescence, you produce 992! Expressing this in other words, we may say that in producing the light from coal by the incandescent system you lose one-third of the power as compared with gas, by actually converting the coal into gas, and delivering it in the ordinary manner. Those are facts. It has been suggested to me that I am too liberal in my estimate of coal consumed--that those engines consume more than four or five pounds per horse power per hour; but I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt. Mr. Rothschild--If I understood you correctly, this electric light costs more than gas? Mr. Daft--_Must_ do by this system. You cannot do better, so far as our philosophy goes. But this whole system of illumination, as now practiced is a financial fallacy. Mr. Rothschild--That is what Professor Sawyer says. Mr. Daft--The same amount of energy converted into light by our arc system will produce 30,000 candles. We are perfectly willing to demonstrate that at any time. I am free to admit that the minute subdivision obtained by the Edisonian, Swan, or Fox system--they do not differ materially--is a great desideratum; but this cannot bridge the financial gulf. Mr. Lendrum--Now please state what we have accomplished.