1454

ever, known the Digest to fail to give the information we havesought in its pages, and our frequent quotations from it forthe benefit of our readers show its worth. We have oftenwondered why correspondents write to us asking us ques-tions the exact answers to which will be found in so well-known a volume. In an out-of-the-way part of the countrywe can understand the practitioner deciding that the

possession of an index to literature which he cannot consultis of no practical use to him; but where files and boundvolumes of all good medical periodicals can be perused-asobtains in every big town in the land-no medical manwill regret the purchase of a Digest. Armed with it he ismaster of all possible information on medical literature,and by looking out his references for himself he will spareus trouble (which we do not grudge) and he will have thepleasure at the same time of feeling that he is making somereturn to Dr. Neale for the unremunerative and splendidlabour of a lifetime. Neale’s Digest is not a cheap book, z,but its price is very reasonable when it is taken into con-

sideration that the expense of printing must be very greatand that only a limited sale can be expected. But manymore people want the book than have it-a state of thingswhich we advise them to remedy at once by purchasing acopy of the latest edition. - "

THE EXPERTS’ REPORT ON MANCHESTERSEWAGE.

THE long-expected report by the three gentlemen-Mr.Baldwin Latham, Mr. Percy F. Frankland, and Mr. W. H.Perkin, jun.-who were requested in May last to undertake athorough examination of the Manchester sewage and to adviseas to the best method of treatment has now been issued.From visits to sewage works at various places they came tothe conclusion that there were three different types of treat-ment :-1. Disposal without purification by discharge intothe sea, tidal estuary, lakes, rivers, &c. 2. Separation of moreor less impurity by precipitation, mechanical or chemical.The matters left in solution by this method undergo sub-sequent putrefaction as they are scarcely affected by thetreatment. 3. Destruction of more or less impurityby resolution into simple and inoffemive materials. This

destruction may be effected by actual combustion, also bythe use of certain chemicals, and by means of low forms ofife-micro-organisms or bacteria. As regards the formertwo the cost is prohibitive, so that for the real purificationof sewage there is only one practicable means available-viz., the employment of bacteria in some shape or form.Three methods had been before the committee of the cor-

poration. As to the first, treatment of the effluent on land, itwas calculated that 1300 acres would be required, exclusivelyof roads, carriers, and the usual adjuncts of a sewage farm.In view of the large cost and the unsuitability of the landat Davyhulme this system could not be recommended.The culvert scheme, the second on the list, is condemned inconsequence, among other reasons, of the geographicalposition of Manchester and its obligations to the ShipCanal. They believe it would occasion considerablenuisance and call forth the " most hostile opposition of theriparian communities which would be affected." If thescheme received the consent of Parliament, which theyconsider highly improbable, they believe that the growth ofpublic opinion on river pollution would render necessaryfurther treatment of the effluent where it would be dis-

charged into the estuary, which would mean that the cost ofthe culvert would be thrown away. There is the further

objection that it would cause the abstraction of upwardsof 25,000,000 gallons per day from the waters of

the Ship Canal. These are a few of the objectionsto the culvert scheme. Thirdly, the bacterial scheme is

examined. The experts were impressed by the experimental

results obtained by Sir 1L Roscoe and subsequently byMr. G. J. Fowler, contained in the city surveyor’s reportsfor 1896 and 1897. But the scheme then in use involvesthe carriage by steamer out to sea of 190,000 tons of sludgeevery year and the outlay of .65000 for chemicals. Theytherefore made a searching investigation of their own as tohow bacteriological processes could be best applied to thespecial case of Manchester sewage. They wished to learn iftrade refuse seriously impaired them, if part of the sludgecould be destroyed by bacterial agency, if the additionof chemicals could be dispensed with, and to deter.mine if an aerobic process, or a combination of theanaerobic and aerobic processes, is the more advan-

tageous. It would occupy too much space to go intofurther detail, but the conclusion was arrived at thatthe bacterial system is the best for the purification of

the Manchester sewage, notwithstanding the presence ofmuch manufacturing refuse. As regards this last point theresults obtained have far surpassed their expectations. This

treatment is efficacious at all seasons, the temperature of thesewage being sufficient both to prevent any toppage of thebeds by the formation of ice and also to maintain the neces.sary activity of the bacteria even in the coldest weather.After giving their conclusions very fully the report specifiestheir practical recommendations, and it concludes bystating their confident opinion that this system will givean effluent which will not only conform with the

" Mersey and Irwell standard, but which will also mate-rially improve the condition of the Ship Canal," andthat as it does away with the use of chemicals and to a verylarge extent reduces the volume of the sludge to be dealtwith, much of the present expense will be saved by its

adoption, and this saving may be taken as a material set-offagainst the cost of the proposed works. Having now gottheir report it remains to be seen what the Council will dowith it.

THE "GARBAGE MONGERS."SOME little time ago we commented upon the case of

some infamous persons named Fells who were convicted of

selling putrid foodstuffs of various kinds, one of whom

consequently enjoyed during a period of four months

wholesome meals in a spotlessly clean room at the

expense of the taxpayers. On Nov. 16th Thomas Daley of32, Woodstock-road, Poplar, was charged at the Thames

Police-court with selling a quantity of condensed milk unfitfor human consumption. Evidence was given of the supply ofbad milk to various tradesmen by the defendant, and Mr.F. W. Alexander, the medical officer of health of Poplar,deposed to the condition of the milk. The majority ofthe tins found in a shop kept by a man named Morlandwere "blown" and the contents were bad. Mr. Morland

gave evidence and said that he had been in the habit of

buying milk from the defendant for 3s. or 3s. 6d. per case.The milk was cheap and was used in the trade for makingpastry and cakes. He did not consider that a halfpenny atin was a good price. Various other witnesses deposed tohaving bought milk from Daley which had been con-

demned. The foreman to Messrs. Lehmann, milk importers,said that a man named Worsfold had been paidto take away bad milk, and the tins shown to him

by Mr. Alexander were those which Worsfold had been

paid to take away. The defendant, who gave evidence,said that he had been traveller to a Mr. Long who was in theemploy of Mr. Fells. He had never got any milk fromWorsfold. He should hesitato to sell blown" tins, but couldnot quite say why. He declined to say from whom he pur-chased milk. The defendant’s solicitor said that he had no

1 THE LANCET, April 15th, p. 1047, April 29th, p. 1171, and July 29th,1899, p. 293.