started the American' trade. Fourthly, the care and attention necessary to prepare foreign meat for the English market will, in many cases, render it more acceptable to housewives and managers of large establishments than fresh-killed meat. Fifthly, any trade, whether of home or foreign origin, that has to be conducted under police supervision, can only suffer and wither.' Earl Fortescue moved the following resolution: That this meeting recognises the fact that the high price of meat is in a great measure due to contagious cattle-disease transmitted by live stock imports, and is of opinion that the importation of live animals for slaughter should be totally prohibited.' For the sake of a proportionately small advantage he did not think it worth while to jeopardise the ten millions of stock, the 34 millions of sheep, and the five or six millions of swine in the United Kingdom. He did not wish to prohibit the importation of meat, but he desired that it should be brought over in a safe and humane state. Whilst the prohibition of the importation of live animals existed the price of meat was low, and it had only been raised by the prevalence of disease. Mr. Levy seconded the motion, which was followed by an animated discussion, in which considerable opposition was manifested. Mr. Link, the importer of American meat, denied that the American meat was not of the best quality, and argued that beef at the present time would have been from 2d. to 3d. per pound dearer had it not been for the American supplies. The resolution was ultimately adopted.

HABITUAL DRUNKARDS.

A MEETING, convened by the Society for Promoting Legislation for the Control and Cure of Habitual Drunkards, was held at 11 Chandos Street, Cavendish Square on the 11th inst. Mr. Hutchinson, F.R.C.S., in the chair. The chairman explained the object of the meeting to be the consideration of the question of habitual drunkenness, and the practicability of checking the evil by legislation. Mr. Alford then read a paper, which started with the assumption that habitual drunkenness must be treated as a diseased state of mind and body, rather than as a vice. The law was powerless against such a state of things, and secret drunkenness was to be found in every class of society. Seventy thousand persons died annually from the effects of strong drink, and the metropolitan coroners stated that 75 per cent. of the inquests they conducted were the result of drunkenness. Still drunkenness, although productive of so much crime, could not in all cases be called a vice. Strong drink affected different persons differently, but the habitual drunkard was often of delicate nervous temperament, and suffered from a deficiency of vital power. The reader proceeded to discuss the question as a strictly medical one, and pointed out the effects of drink on different temperaments, concluding with suggesting as the most hopeful remedies wholesome food, healthy habitations, nnocent relaxation, and discouragement of drinking ustoms by the influential classes of society. For xisting dipsomaniacs there was no remedy, but ompelled and protracted abstinence from their abitual enemy. The experiment of inebriate instions was at present under trial, and, although e was no compulsion, had already produced good lts. Dr. Holthouse stated that of the patients had received into his institution, 6 had been pletely cured, 10 proved incurable, 4 were

partially cured, 2 were still under treatment, and I had died. The loss sustained by the nation through drunkenness was estimated to amount to 270 millions sterling a year. A discussion followed the reading of Mr. Alford's paper, in the course of which considerable divergence of opinion was exhibited as to the expediency of supporting Dr. Cameron's Bill, the provisions of which were explained at some length by Dr. Cameron himself,

Parliamentary Proceedings.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
(Thursday, May 10.)

THE GOTHENBURG SYSTEM.

SIR H. SELWIN-IBBETSON, in reply to Sir R. Anstruther, said that in a letter from Mr. Erskine to Lord Derby, repeating the report of the committee of the municipality at Stockholm that intemperance (at Gothenburg), with all its bad consequences, had not diminished,' the words should have been 'at Stockholm.' He had also received a letter from Mr. Erskine, pointing out that while his previous letter seemed to imply a steady increase in the consumption and profits from 1866 to 1875, an important fact had been omitted, that the company only gradually came into possession of the trade, and that in the previous years private establishments whose returns were not included had sold very largely. He would reprint the former paper with the corrections made, and also the correspondence.

Mr. Sclater-Booth.-By the 91st and following sections of the Public Health Act, 1875, a summary remedy is provided supplementary to the proceedings against a nuisance which may be instituted at Common Law or in Equity, but although the disjunctive word 'or' is used in the section-viz., 'a nuisance or injurious to health '— the Court have held that looking to the whole scope of the Sanitary Acts, some injury to health must in all cases be proved. It was proposed by the hon. gentleman when the Public Health Act of 1875 was passing through Parliament to make the disjunctive proposition stronger by prefixing the word 'either,' to 'nuisance,' so that the sentence would have run, either a nuisance or injurious opinion that the same construction as before would, neverto health,' etc.; but the highest legal authorities were of theless, be adopted by the Courts. I am glad to say that the whole subject of noxious trades and vapours is now under the consideration of a Royal Commission, who will probably report within the present Session of Parliament.

REGISTRATION OF CANAL BOATS.

to provide for the registration and regulation of canal boats LEAVE was given to Mr. Sclater-Booth to bring in a bill used as dwellings.

(Friday, May 11.)

CERTIFICATES OF DEATHS.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply to Mr. W. Johnston, stated that he was not aware that under any circumstances a registrar of births and deaths was justified in refusing to give a certified copy of an entry in the register under his care, at a cost not exceeding Is. to the applicant, when such certificate was required for the purpose of enabling a

CEMETERY.

Labo Reports.

LODGERS AND SMALL-POX.

AN application has been made to Mr. Bridge at the Hammersmith Police Court for an order to eject a lodger. Mr. Bridge said he had received a letter stating that the man's daughter was suffering from small-pox. The landlord said she had had small-pox, but the parents took no means to have medical assistance. He (the landlord) went to the vestry, who sent an officer and caused the girl to be removed. Mr. Bridge thought the lodger should be allowed to wait fourteen days, as he might have the disease about him. The law allowed twenty-one days in certain cases, but he should withhold the order for fourteen days.-In another case an officer said, on going to eject the tenant, he found the children suffering from small-pox. The landlady said the children were running about the house, the family consisting of seven persons, all sleeping in one Mr. Bridge said it would be dangerous to put the order in force at once. He recommended her to apply to the sanitary officer.

room.

STORAGE OF PETROLEUM.

G. A. GILLETT, of 39, Marsham Street, colourman, was summoned for having a larger quantity of petroleum on his premises than that allowed by law. Defendant pleaded guilty, but stated that he had four other shops in London, and the licences bore different dates, and this was an oversight in not renewing the licence. He left this sort of thing in the hands of the manager. Mr. Fry said it had occurred before, and the object of the Board was to let it be generally known that this was a serious offence that could not be lightly treated. The defendant was not like man who had only one shop; he had many. The penalty was a very heavy one, viz., 20l. a day. However, as the defendant had pleaded guilty, there was no desire to press for a heavy penalty. Mr. Fry said the spirit was called benzoline, and gave off an inflammable vapour at the ordinary temperature, much below 100° Fahr., which was the ordinary test. It was highly necessary that the public should be protected from danger. Mr. Benson fined him 20s, and costs.

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS (RATING) BILL.

A CURIOUS difficulty arose last year, in the course of some proceedings which were pending between the counties of Surrey and Middlesex, with respect to Walton Bridge, a portion of which was situate in either county. The objection taken was that the Lord Chief Justice and the other judges of assize, being inhabitants of Middlesex, were interested in the case, and unable to try it. The objection was fatal to the further progress of the proceedings, therefore, effectual means have been taken in the above measure to prevent the recurrence of similar mishaps. The bill is a short one. The first clause provides that no judge shall be incapable of acting in his judicial office in any proceeding, whether commenced before or after the commencement of the Act, by reason of his being as one of several ratepayers, or as one of any other class of persons, liable in common with the others to contribute to or to be benefited by any rate, which may be increased, diminished, or in any way affected by such proceeding. The second clause has reference to past acts and matters; and declares that they shall not be invalidated because they have been done or executed by a judge liable to contribute to or be benefited by the rate affected by the decision.

V.-C. BACON has had before him the case of Earl Cowley v. Byas a quia timet motion for an injunction to restrain the defendant from converting part of Leyton Park into a cemetery. Some ten years since the necessary authority was obtained from the Home Office to convert part of Leyton Park into a cemetery. Proposals have been made for forming a cemetery to be taken over by a company, but they had fallen through. Earl Cowley owns a dwelling-house adjacent to the park, and as such owner has a statutory right to object to interments within 100 yards of his house. He required the defendant not to make a cemetery. This the defendant refused to do, but offered that if a cemetery should be formed no part of it within 100 yards of the plaintiff's house should be used for actual burial, but should merely form an ornamental part of such cemetery. His lordship granted an injunction.

MILK ADULTERATION.-A NEW POINT.

W. WELLER, a farmer of Berwick, Sussex, was summoned for selling adulterated milk. The milk was delivered at Penge Station. A telegram was sent to the defendant that it would be sealed up and divided into three parts, but he did not attend. The analyst certified that it contained 16 per cent. water. The defence was that it had not been adulterated. A point arose on the words of the Act, then and there divided,' and nothing was said in the telegram on that subject. Mr. Chance thought there would be some difficulty in the case on the objection. Mr. Ricketts mentioned a similar case in which Mr. Cooke, the magistrate, declined to convict. It was quite clear that the Act could not be complied with. Mr. Chance said it was absurd as it stood, and the statute did not provide for such cases. He thought the summons should be dismissed, but, as it was an important question, before dismissing the summons he would consider the point.

BOYS IN BRICKFIELDS.

AT the Hove Police Court, J. Holls, brickmaker, of Portslade, was summoned for employing boys at an age forbidden. Mr. Redgrave, sub-inspector of factories, said he had paid visits to defendant's brickfields and saw the lads at work. The new Act required that every child should attend school three hours a day, and the inspector found that none of the children employed by Mr. Holls had made up their full attendance. There was another summons against defendant for unlawfully failing to obtain and provide a certificate of the school attendance of one of the lads in question, and there were also other summonses against him, but these were withdrawn. A fine of 31. and costs was imposed in each case.

Samuel Akehurst, the father, was summoned for allow ing one to work and for not causing the other to go to school. He pleaded guilty, and was fined 7s. 6d., including costs.

BREAD ADULTERATED WITH ALUM.

C. NORRIS, baker, of 164, Hoxton Street, Shoreditch, and W. Braisher, his manager, appeared to summonses under the Adulteration Act. There had been complaints of the quality of the bread sold at the shop, and on March 24 an inspector visited the shop, purchased a 2lb. loaf, and then informed the shopkeeper that it would be analysed. This was done by Dr. Stevenson, of Guy's Hospital, whose certificate showed that the bread was adulterated with alum to the extent of 20 grains per 2lb. loaf. Such adulteration was, in Dr. Stevenson's opinion, injurious to health. Alum, it was said, was put into bread to give the flour a whiter appearance, being mostly used with flour of an inferior quality. The defendant Norris said he knew nothing of it, as he left it all to his man. The defendant Braisher said he made the bread, and if alum was in it, it must have been in the flour before he received it. Mr. Hannay told Norris that the onus of

DISEASED MEAT AT LEWES.

AT the County Hall, an application was made by the inspector of nuisances, for an order to destroy the carcase of a pig. The inspector said he went into Mr. Peters' slaughter-house on Wednesday and saw a pig cut up in joints in the usual way. It was very red and flabby, having the appearance as though it had only partially had the blood drawn from it. The medical officer of health said he saw the meat. It was unsound, unwholesome, and quite unfit for food. He condemned it at once. Mr. Jones contended that, although the meat was unfit for food, there was no intention on the part of his client to offer it for sale as human food. G. Peters said he did not see the pig when he bought it, and when it was shown to him on Wednesday morning by his man, Obed Hallett, he at once decided that it was unfit for food. He gave instructions to his man to cut the fat off, and boil the lean to make wash for the hogs. He was away from home all day, and was surprised that his orders had not been carried out. Mr. Whitfeld said he had no hesitation in condemning the pig, and ordered it to be destroyed.

SMOKE FROM A REFRESHMENT-HOUSE.

MR. BATCHELOR, proprietor of dining-rooms at No. 3, Piccadilly Place, was summoned for having furnaces constructed not to consume their own smoke. Mr. Sandison, C.E., Government inspector, stated that he examined the defendant's furnaces, and found they were constructed so as not to consume their own smoke. He pointed out to the defendant's son-in-law the bad state of the furnaces, and on visiting the premises that morning he found that alterations had been made in one, but not in the other. The defendant said he did not consider that two of the furnaces were furnaces at all. They were only stoves, used for broiling steaks and chops. Mr. Sandison said they were certainly furnaces, and when he visited the place they were not being used for broiling but stewing. had been fitted by a man who did not understand what was required. Police-constable Morgan proved seeing black smoke issuing from the defendant's chimney on different days in April. Mr. Newton advised the defendant to take a little more pains in looking after his servants; he would have to pay a fine of 205., and 17. 8s. 3d.

costs.

IS AMERICAN BEEF EXEMPT FROM MARKET DUES?

They

SHERIFF BELL has decided a case of some interest in connection with the sale of American beef. For some time past several fleshers have been selling American beef at Falkirk, and the Commissioners of Police proceeded to charge dues for the meat, as if it had been slaughtered in the slaughter-houses, under a clause of the Lindsay Police Act, which provides that such dues can be exacted where their payment is evaded by animals being slaughtered beyond two miles from the burgh. The fleshers resisted payment, and, in order to try the question, an action was instituted against Hugh Perceval. Mr. Gibson, for the pursuers, held that the clause of the Act clearly inferred liability on the part of all who imported such meat for sale or consumption in the burgh; while Mr. Wilson, for the defender held that the clause of the Act founded upon merely applied to cases where there was an intention to evade payment of the dues by slaughtering animals outside the burgh, instead of taking them to the slaughter-houses, and that as there was no such evasion in this case there was no liability. The Sheriff dismissed the action, holding that the Act did not refer to American meat.

ADULTERATED OATMEAL. AT the Dudley Police-court, T. Darby, grocer, of Old Hill, and S. Coley, grocer, of Cradley Heath, were charged with selling adulterated oatmeal. Mr. Jones, county analyst, returned certificates which stated that the oatmeal purchased from Darby contained 20 per cent. of barley and barley-meal, while that from Coley was adulterated with 24 per cent. of similar ingredients. Defendants urged that they had purchased the oatmeal from different persons, from whom they received verbal warranties. The bench said it was annoying to defendants to have to come before magistrates for selling goods adulterated when they had every reason to believe that they were pure, the sellers having warranted them as such. In future they would advise defendants to obtain written warranties from the sellers, in order that legal proceedings might be taken against them if the oatmeal were found to be otherwise than as represented. It was highly impor tant that the article sold as oatmeal should be pure, because it was used especially for invalids and children. Defendants would each have to pay a fine of 40s. and costs.

1872. Simpson v. Wells.-Obstruction of highway.Statute Sessions for hiring servants.-Distinguished from markets and fairs.-There is no good custom to set up refreshment stalls at such sessions notwithstanding a user of more than 50 years, and that the sessions had been held before 5 Eliz. c. 4.-Nor is there sufficient appearance of bona fide claim of right by custom so as to oust the jurisdiction of Justices in case of obstruction. (41 L.J., M.C. 105; L.R., 7 Q.B., 214; 26 L.T., 163.)

understanding upon the subject, I beg to offer the following remarks. It was not my intention to intrude into the arena where, since the publication of the challenge, so many gladiators have fought, but the perusal of the short report in your last issue but one of the Sewage Conference, from which I gather that there are still those who believe in Mr. Banner's monopoly, has decided me to address at least a few words from the barrier of the lists.

The question to decide is, whether Mr. Banner, or anyone else, is entitled to enforce patent rights for the admission of air into the drain or soil-pipe, and for its withdrawal at the roof-top by some air-lifting medium. Mr. Banner's patent is dated July 2, 1875, and, as he still advertises his claims, it may be taken for granted that he still believes himself justified. During the course of the correspondence, however, Mr. Dobson, a sanitary authority of Glasgow (in your issues of January 27 and February 23), declares that the system of air-inlets and assisted withdrawal was practised by him in 1872. Mr. Buchan, whose papers have edified us, I am sure, for many years, also avers, in his letters to you, Sir, of January 27, February 23, March 2, and April 6 and 27, that he, in April, 1875, treated the drain of a Glasgow residence in the same way, with inlet and coerced outlet. Mr. Potts, the inventor of the most useful Edinburgh trap (March 30 and April 20), also repudiates Mr. Banner's claims, and this conclusion is also arrived at by Mr. Evans (in your issue of February 3), and by Mr. Waring, an American author known to all students of sanitation.

The chief encounter in the literary jousts has hitherto been between Mr. Banner and Mr. Buchan, and the incidents connected therewith are really very interesting. Both claim to make use of air inlets and cowls and their several patents are dated within a few months, Mr. Buchan having a precedence of seventy days. Both do not, however, claim the inlet as a patent right, but Mr. Banner only. To assist the reader I give the following rough sketches.

Fig. I shows Mr. Buchan's general arrangement, but on a very small scale, and those who wish to see it in detail can do so by referring to your issue of February 23 of this year. It is perfectly clear, however, even here, that in both small diagrams Mr. Buchan takes air in at his patent trap and discharges it by a revolving cowl at the top. The taller diagram, No. 2, roughly shows Mr. Banner's system,

and the reader has only to imagine that an inlet of air is led from the outside of the house in the soil-pipe at the top of the trap in basement, and also a grating inlet in the house drain or sewer-both communicating with his patent ventilating cowl near the roof.

It is very evident to me, that since Mr. Buchan did not choose to claim an inlet, but still manifestly showed one working in combination with a withdrawing cowl, that no one, after the date of his patent could claim one. The idea of an inlet being required is, to say the very least of

it, ancient. Mr. Buchan apparently uses or used the Archimedean revolving cowl at that time, and it was doubtless because it was so well understood that an air inlet was necessary, that he did not include the inlet in his claim. This view is borne out by Mr. Evans, in his letter (February 3 last), and I, strange to say, was the author of the series of papers alluded to by him, which in 1871, stated the absolute necessity of an inlet of air in combination with such a cowl. Even then, however, I only stated it by way of recapitulation, never dreaming that any one could fancy he could, by means of the cowl, screw the air out of a chamber innocent of inlet. If Mr. Banner believes this air-inlet was unknown before 1875, he is mistaken. The very sweeps used it in tall shafts to create an upcast. According to the correspondence hitherto printed, the principle was even applied to drains and soil-pipes for a long time before Mr. Banner's patent.

The first to admit air into a trap with a view to its levitation upwards, was Mr. Molesworth, early in 1872, and the small diagram in the 'Manual of Practical

Fig. 3.

Hygiene' of my lamented friend and colleague, the late Dr. Parkes, was borrowed by him from me. It first appeared in my 'Sanitary Arrangements,' published in 1874, and the sketch No. 3 given herewith will further show its action. I did not draw an extracting cowl on it, it is true, but it was not because one was undreamt of. I have before me a receipt from Messrs. Boyle and Sons, Glasgow, dated April, 1875, for six ventilators, which I purchased for experimenting on the top of soil-pipes, and as these were used with and without what served to act as inlets, I think the relation

may be useful as evidence.

If Mr. Buchan will only give us the dates of the journals, newspapers, and publications where he has been led to understand this combined arrangement was published long ago, he will do us all, I am sure, a favour. Or if Mr. Waring will kindly say whether the idea has been patented in America, and refer us to the number of the patent, it will serve to set the question at rest, seeing

that no patent can be taken out in England for any foreign notion which has been once openly communicated to our Patent Office. I should think, for the matter of that, that Mr. Banner himself would be glad to know exactly where he stands. I imagine that, having received letters patent' for his ideas, he throws the onus on the Patent Office. He can, however, simply flaunt the banneret of his sealed patent in the tournament; practised sanitarian knights will not enrol themselves under its folds.

Professor Jenkin, in his very interesting letter which appeared in your issue of February 23 last, doubts whether the double opening be an advan tage, and I think that the second fytte of this soil-pipe ventilating tourney might safely take this direction. It will be most interesting to both the beholders and those in the mêlée. I do not take upon myself to say that there should be an end to the present controversy, but I say that it has become about as interesting as Sir Walter Scott's Ashby fight, when the tallest knight would not fight at all. Mr. Banner is still silent.

When I first gathered from an article in the British Medical Journal that Mr. Banner claimed an inlet as a patent, I called upon him and disputed it, giving him some reasons for my opinion. I also frankly said that I would, in the interests of sanitary science, publicly oppose his claim, and this pledge I now feebly fulfil. I have no animus against Mr. Banner, but regard him as a friend. I only desire that he should set himself right with us all, and