THE A N A L Y S T . THE SOMERBET HOUSE COURT OF APPEAL? IT will be in the recollection of nearly all our readers, that when the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1874, was before the House of Commons, the Public Analysts of this country and many independent members of the House of Commons acting on behalf of their constituents, opposed very strongly the appointment of the Inland Revenue Chemists as referees in disputed cases under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act.This opposition was not made from personal grounds, but simply because the members and the analysts doubted the sufficiency of the experience which the Inland Revenue Chemists had had in such cases. From time to time since a few incidental matters have cropped up which have been sufficient to show that the doubt was not without foundation; but the mode of procedure which the chemists at Somerset House have adopted, has been SO extremely cautious and tentative that it is only occasionally that a case has come to light to which it has been necessary to draw public attention through the failure of justice which has been occasioned by their conduct.At the time when the question was before the House of Commons, the arguments on the point were very strong, and it was contended that tradesmen were suffering severely by the want of a competent ! Court of Appeal ; but the fact that the Inland Revenue Chemists only had to analyse five or six samples during the first year in which this duty was imposed upon them-and if our memory he right, they confirmed the analyses of the analysts in three cases of these five, and in one other case had opposed to them five chemists of wide reputation, and who all disagreed with their deductions- is sufficient, we think, to show that there was not much need for szcch a Court.The letters which are published in our correspondence column this month, throw some further light on the matter. Our readers will also remember the letter from Dr, Norgan, of Swansea, which we published in our last number, wherein he stated that these gomerset House Chemiats having found a certain sample of beer to contain 66.5 grains of common salt per gallon, added Strong Burton Beers contain about 60 grains of common salt per gallon, solely derived from the water, malt, and hops used.” This statement, however, although made above the three signatures of Messrs.Bell, Bannister, and Helm, is not only different from the results which the Chemists of the Inland Revenue Department at Somerset House themselves found only a few years since, but is, in fact, inaccurate. The circumstances under which the previous investigation took place were, that salt having been inserted in the schedule of the Licensing Act as one of the prohibited ingredients, and complaints having been made by some of the brewers in reference to this, the Somerset House Chemists were directed t o make an investigation into the amount of salt contained in ordinary ales, and the result of the investigation which they then made was that the rule was relaxed so far as to allow of the excessive amount of 50 grains of salt per gallon; and if our memory be right-we have not the figures before us now-the waximutn amount in all the samples (several hundred in number), which were examined for the purposes of this enquiry was not more than about 55 grains per gallon, and wc believe that this occurred in one ease only.128 THE AN AT,YST.It is hardly to be wondered at that the Burton brewers, resent such an outrageous statement.The Burton water certainly does not derive its excellence for brewing purposes from the amount of salt it contains, or it would be easy to imitate it; and it is scarcely possible for the Inland Revenue Chemists to make a more unjust or unfounded statement than to say that the strong Burton ales contain about 60 grains of common salt per gallon.The paper which we publish from Mr. Gatehouse, shews pretty conclusively what i B the maximum amount which can be derived from the malt and hops used. The amount present in the waters is capable of the most ready determination, and there can be no possible difficulty in allowing for the amount of concentration which takes place during the brewing process, and we affirm, unhesitatingly, that it is extremely rare to find a sample of genuine ale from any of the leading Burton breweries containing so much SB 60 grains of salt per gallon.In this case, therefore, the want of knowledge on the part of the Inland Revenue Chemists has led to a failure of justice. Not content with failing to make themselves acquainted not only with what had been done by other analysts, but also with the reports which had been issued from their own laboratory, the Inland Revenue Chemists, who were, up to 1873 or 1874 unfamiliar with the subject of milk analysis-while other chemists had worked on the matter for many years previously-have since then examined samples of milk, many of which have, apparently, been taken from under-fed or imperfectly -milked cows, and a large proportion of which have, in all probability, been some days in the course of transmission to Somerset House, and on the basis of these experiments they have evidently come to the absurd conclusion that milk always decomposes at a certain definite rate, and that if they analyse a sample a certain time after it has been examined by the original analyst, they must make allowances on the results which they obtain before they form their conclusions as to its purity or otherwise.More than this, instead of taking the milk of average cows or an average dairy as a standard, or instead of taking the milk even from the poorest healthy cow which they could meet with, and which was not half-milked-they actually go out of their way, not only to take as a etandard the milk of under-fed cows, but also to do, what the Sale of Food and Drugs Act certainly does not in any way authorise them to do, viz., receive and act upon exTarte statements of the g'poor proseczlted milkman," as t o the character of the food upon which the COWS have been kept.It is incredible that any Court of Justice could, for one moment, admit evidence founded upon irregular statements of this kind.By whom are the analyses at Somerset House executed? We cannot forget the fact that before a Committee of the House of Commons, not many years since, the heads of this very laboratory gave evidence " that neither by chemistry nor by any other means was the admixture of chicory with coffee to be detected." Even supposing that we admit that these men themselves do the work, are they honestly qualified to successfully contradict, by the examination of stale samples, the evidence of men who have been selected, by open competition, for the posts which they hold, and whose appointment has been in every case confirmed by the Local Government Board, and who have worked upon the fresh sample, while it was still in a state fit for analysis ? Still more : is it just that a certificate from Somerset House, should be taken fts a certificate representing the actual work of three men who in most cases are not cross- examined, in contradiction to the evidence o f Public Annlpts who w e cross-examined, We must go further.Still one more point we must raise.THE ANATJYST. 129 when the fact is notorious that only one, if any, of the three signatories t o the Somerset House certificate has been actually concerned in the analysis? Let the certificate of each man’s work bear its own proper signature only, and then there will be a fair basis on which to act, as his position and salary will be then known, and the magistrates will be better able to judge into whose hands the reputation of the original analyst has been placed.We do not say more now, because we know that as Boon as Parliament meets, the matter is t o be brought before the House of Commons, and we think this will be the most satisfactory mode of ventilating the whole subject; and, as amendments are certain to be made in the Bct next session, it will probably be a convenient time for amending this point also, and relieving the Inland Itevenue authorities from this source of anxiety.If prosecuting solicitors mould only insist on the personal attendance of these gentlemen in the witness box, and give them full scope t o air their little wisdom, the world would be the wiser, and the Somerset House Chemists more laughed at. THE CHEMICAL SOCIETY’S JOURNAL. SOME months ago a general meeting of the Fellows of the Chemical Society was held at Bur- lington House.At this meeting, among other things, the condition of the Society’s Journal was discussed, and various improvements were suggested and promised. So far, however, we are sorry to say, no beneficial results seem to have been produced. The Journal appears as late as ever, and the character of the abstracts becomes less arid less satisfactory.Take the September number, for example. In this (page 271) we have an abstract of rather more than half a page, in which we are informed that, as it was difficult to form an abstract we had better consult the original. Why then attempt abstraction at all? On the same page an abstract of rather more than a page in length begins, written by some one, (whose initials, by-the-bye, we do not find among the recognised abstractors given on the cover,) which few, we believe, will understand fully unless they have read the original ; the attempted explanation of the fact that bubbles are sometimes attracted, sometimes repelled by heat being particularly unsatisfactory.On page 275 space is wasted on a perfectly childish experiment, called 4 d Abortive experiment on Torpedoes,” and the three abstracts, Apparatus for Oxidation,’’ (‘ Laboratory Gasometer,” and “ A cheap Gas Blow-pipe,” would have been more advantageously placed in the waste paper basket of the editor.The next sixty pages are chiefly devoted to abstracts on organic chemistry, which we pass over with the remark that a very undue proportion of space is devoted to abstracts of papers, the authors of which claim an intimate acquaintance mit.h the exact position of every atom in even the most complicated compound.This may be very interesting to chemista who, like the authors of these papers, fancy them- selves hail-fellows-well-met with every atom under the sun, but it is somewhat tedious to ordinary chemists not on the visiting list of either atom8 or molecules.Passing on to other portions we come, on page 373, to what is probably the gem of the collection, entitled ‘‘ Differences observed in unadulterated milk (we suppose unadulterated milk from healthy cows is meant) in which the specific gravity of cows’ milk is said to vary between 1018 and 1045 ! ! ! This is really too much for our feelings, we must stop, and can only exclaim, whisper it not at Somerset House, or the increase in our dairies of the130 THE ANSLYST.well-known breed of cows favoured with iron tails. will be something truly alarming. I n order to improve this lamentable condition of things, and to render the journal worthy of the Chemical Society of London, and an expenditure on it of over $1,500 a year, me renture to offer the following suggestions. Instead of hampering our able Xditor with two dozen abstractors, occasioning the loss of much time and the frittering away of money, let there be but two, or at most three. These should be required to devote the greater part, if not the whole, of their time to the work of abstraction. A room in Burlington House should be set apart for their labour, and as an additional inducement to young but able chemists, the laboratory of the Society should be fitted up and placed at their disposal for certain kinds of work to be determii,ed, or approvod, by the Council. Under such an arrangement the Editor, and the Council of Publication, would have the whole work much better under control, which in consequence would be done with much greater regularity, and on the whole, much better than at present.