TBE ANALYST. 225 CORRE8PONDENCE. [The Editors are not responsible for the opinions of their Correspondents.] To THE EDITOR OF “THE ANALYST.” SIB,-h reply to your statement in the last iasue of THE AN-QLYST, ‘ L That it would be interesting to know what Mr. Cleaver’s flgures were, and what standard he adopted,” I beg to give you copies of my analyses of the Milk which were stated by me to have been adulterated.No. 34. No. 40. Solids . . . . . . . . . 11.10 Solids . . . . . . . . . 11 .SO Fat . . . . . . 3.20 Fat . . . . . . 3.40 Solids not Fat . . . . . . 7.90 Solids not Fat . . . . . . 8.40 My certificates were to the effect that No. 34 was adulterated with 15 per cent, of water, and No. 40 with 8 per cent,, so that it mill be at once seen that the standard I adopted did not press at all severely on the render.I n addition to my own analyses, I also annex a copy of the reports and analyses, dated 22nd January, 1878, made on the duplicate samples a t Somerset House, and signed by Messrs. J, Bell, R. Bannister, and C. Lewin. (‘ The sample of milk referred to in the enclosed letter, and marked No. 34, was received here on the 10th inst. The bottle was securely sealed, We hereby certify that we have analysed the Milk, and declare the results of our analyses to be 8s follows :- ‘‘ Solids not Fat .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.69 per cent. Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.22 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.09 100.00 Ash ...... 0.68 “The amount of Fat is equal to that found in genuine Milk of good quality.After making aliowance for the natural loss arising from decomposition through the keeping, the proportion of Solids not Fat is lower than is found in genuiue Milk of low quality. From a consideration of these results we are of opinion that the Milk contains not less than seven per cent. of added water.” c4 The sample of Nilk referred to in the enclosed letter, and marked No.40, was received here on the inst. The bottle was securely sealed. We hereby certify that we have analysed the Milk, and declare the results of our analysis to be as follows :- “Solid not Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.95 Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.43 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 88.62 100.00 Ash . . . . . . .7 3 “The amount of Fat is equal to that found in genuine Milk of good quality. After making allowance for the natural loss arising from the decomposition of this Milk through keeping, the amount of Solids not Fat is low. From a consideration of these results we are of opinion that the Milk contains not less than four per cent. of added water.” These analyses were made about one month after my own, and SD granting the analyses in both cases, and on both sides, to have been correctly made, the amount of natural loss is, in No.34, .21 per cent., and in No. 40, .45 per cent,, which would mean that the loss was equal to that which would be obtained by adding respectively about 3 and 6 per cent. of water to pure Milk.This lost amount is, I consider, more loss than ‘usually takes place in winter time, but as I do not know what method of analysis is followed by the Somerset House chemists, it is impossible to say if there is anything to account for it. The certificate does not state the amount of loss allowed for, but it is evident from these reports that the authorities i?) have some standard to guide them, and they ought, therefore, in fairness to the analyst, to make this stdndard (and also any others) public.The analyses of the Somerset House chemists point to their standards of Solids not Fat being some- where about 8.5 per cent,, if 3 per cent. is allowed for natural loss, or to 8.2 per cent. if no such allowance be made. Now Mr. Bell has once stated in evidence” that he has found a Milk giving as low as 8.2 per cent, Solids not Fat, and that he could not therefore certify to any Milk giving such a result being adulterated, but if he takes 8.2 as his standard he cannot have allowed any margin for natural loss, and as he states that there has been a natural loss he must evidently take a higher standard, so that in point of fact he has somehow altered his opinion since the Birmingham case.* ANALYST. Vol. 1 ,, page 40.226 THE ANALYST. Granted Mr. Bell’s analysis of his milk with 8.2 solid not fat being correct, the question arises, ought he to take that milk as a standard, knowing, as he must do, that i t is of extremely rare occurrence ? In fact, I believe N r . Bcll is the only analyst who has ever met with such a case.According to the exact terms of the Act, the chemical officers a t Somerset House are only empowered t o give a certificate of :he reszilts of their analyses, and are not asked for any cspression of opinion, and hence I consider the gentlemen referred to are exceeding their duty in furnishing such reports as above. I bcg also to dram attmtion to the absurdity of the clause as to the amount of fat, when contrasted with the after opinion th:it the milk is adulterated, and it is time that the attention of the Government should he drawn to the manner in which the Act is iendered inoperative by their officials, both by their peculiar vipws on the subject of Analyses, and by the issue of ccrtificates framed in such an ambiguous manner that a magistrate, after rcading them, feels bound to dismiss a summons, even though the Milk is expressly stated to have been adulterated.I am, Sir, yours S.C., 318, King’s Road, E. L. CLEAVER, Chelsea, S.W. Public Annlyst t o the Parish of fit. Nary Abbott, h7eiasingtoit. To THE ED~TOR OF “THE ANALYST.’’ Siit,-I s l ~ a l l be glad if you can inform me where I can find a reprint of the Lecture dclivcred by Mr. James Bell, of the Somerset House Laboratory, some years ago, before the Chemical Society, on the Adulteration of Food. Yours &e., A PUBLIC ANALYST. Fsb. 22, lS7S. [Wc suppose the Lecture referred to \WY the one stated in the Jozirizal of IAC CAcmicaZ Society, T~JI. 11, new Series, page 1197, to have becn dclivercd on thc 19th Pebruavy, 1Si4, but we cannot succecd in finding any reprint or abstract of it.-E:DIToHs ANALYST.]