J14 Mr. Ricardo on the Comparative Advantages [March, 



less than that. This would give them a profit of 50 per cent, 

 upon their capital. The highest return quoted, which is of the 

 Joristol Gas Works, is but 10 per cent. ; and the chartered Com-f 

 pany in London, which possesses advantages superior to any, 

 only divides eight per cent. It is difficult to account for this^ 

 but on the supposition that the making of the gas must cost 

 them much more, or that there must be some misnianagement> 

 or considerable waste. We will, however, assume that it on\f 

 costs ]0s, per 1000 cube feet. 



The profit and loss account of an oil gas establishment may be 

 calculated very easily. Ten gallons of oil will produce 1000 

 cubic feet: this may be considered the average quantity, and 

 taken from the result of various trials where oil gas is used. Oil 

 suitable for the purpose may be now procured for 20/. per ton, 

 but as the price of oil at present is very low, and may not be con- 

 sidered a fair averpge, we will take it at 25/. per ton. or about 2s» 

 per gallon. The cost then for producing 1000 cube feet of oil 

 gas will be as follows : 



£ 



10 gallons of oil at 25. per gallon 1 



1 bushel of coals 



Labour, wear and tear, and contingencies. . . 



17 



At the present price of oil, the cost would be much less. 

 Should oil advance beyond the sum at which I have averaged it, 

 it will be of course greater ; it may also be thought that i have 

 underrated the expenses of wear and tear, labour, and contin- 

 gencies ; but the estimate is founded upon the data afforded by 

 works upon a small scale, and their expences generally exceed 

 those of a larger description. Further, to meet those objections, 

 I will take the cost of 1000 cube feet at 305. : this is equivalent 

 to 3,600 cube feet of coal gas, which at IO5. per 1000 will cost 

 355. giving a balance in favour of oil gas oi' 5s. upon those pro- 

 portionate quantities. 



In enumerating the advantages of oil gas over coal, it may no| 

 be irrelevant to consider it in a national point of view, as a nur^ 

 sery for our seamen : supposing in every other respect the balance 

 of advantages to be equal, this would give the oil gas a decided 

 preference. I am aware that this advantage may be purchased 

 too dearly, and that when coal gas was first introduced, its great 

 superiority over other modes of lighting made it desirable that 

 the benefit resulting from the fisheries should in a degree be 

 relinquished, but now that other circumstances concur in mak^ 



•0 adequate increased denoand for coke, tar, Ac. the price of the gas will rise while that-of 

 the latter articles will tall, and tlie loiui sustained uyton those articles niuBt be made upiflk 

 the advanced price of the ffi&. This incunveaience would be felt as much by ihe okk 

 f(tAlt>Jci^ed.C0iq|)aiU£8.:M the new ones. 



