THE "CONSUMPTION OF SMOKE." 331 



est to the gas-maker and the most unmanageable in com- 

 mon fires. We should thus have a material which, instead 

 of being so difficult to light as coke and anthracite, would 

 light more easily than crude coal, and at the same time our 

 gas would have far greater illuminating power, as it would 

 all be drawn off during the early period of distillation, when 

 it is at its richest. From a given quality of coal the dif- 

 ference would be as twenty-four candles to sixteen. The 

 ammonia which we now throw into the air, the naphtha and 

 coal-tar products, which we waste, are so valuable that 

 they would pay all the expenses at the gas-works and leave 

 a handsome profit. We should thus get gas so much better 

 that two burners would do the work now obtained from 

 three. We should get all we require for lighting purposes 

 and plenty more for heating; the intermediate profits of 

 the coal merchant would be abolished, and our solid fuel 

 of far better quality could be supplied twenty or thirty per 

 cent cheaper than at present, provided always that the gas 

 monopoly were abolished, "a consummation most devoutly 

 to be wished for." 



Mr. Moncrieff (who brought forward his scheme without 

 any company-mongering, or claims for patent rights) esti- 

 mates the saving to London at 2, 125, 000 per annum, over 

 and above the far greater saving that would result from the 

 abolition of smoke. 



In connection with this scheme I may mention a fact 

 that has not been hitherto noted, viz., that we have per- 

 force and unconsciously done a little in this direction al- 

 ready. Formerly London was supplied almost exclusively 

 with* " Wallsend" and other sea-borne coals of a highly bi"- 

 tuminous composition soft coals that fused in the grate 

 and caked together. Partly owing to exhaustion of the 

 seams, and partly to the competition of railway transit, we 

 now obtain a large proportion of hard coal from the Mid- 

 lands. This is -less smoky and less sooty, and hence the 

 Metropolitan smoke nuisance has not increased quite as 

 greatly as the population. 



But I will now conclude by repeating that whatever 

 scheme be' chosen, "smoke abatement" is to be achieved, 

 not by smoke-consumption, but by smoke-prevention. 



