ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN87803FP049

出版商:RSC    

年代:1878

数据来源: RSC

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN87803BP051

出版商:RSC    

年代:1878

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

373 SOCIETY OF PUBLIC ANALYSTS. A GENERAL MEETING of this Society was held at Burlington House, Piccadilly, on the 20th November, the President, Dr. Dupr6, F.R.S., in the Chair. The Minutes of the Xeeting held in Dublin, were read and confirmed. Dr. J. Baker Edwards, Public Analyst for tho District of Montreal, Canada; and Mr. R. G. Fraser, Public Analyst fer the District of Halifax, Canada, were proposed for election as members.The President said it must be very satisfactory to Members to know that the fame of the Society had extended to that distant Colony. Mr. Bernard Dger, and Mr. J. Newlands were appointed Auditors to examine the Accounts for the current year. Dr. Dupr6 read a paper, ‘‘ On the Sale of Food and Drugs Act in its relation to the dilution of Spirits.” Mr.Heisch also read a paper on the same subject. Mr. Wigner read a paper, “ On the clauses of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act which relate t o the purchase of samples.” A long discussion ensued after the reading of these papers, and ultimately a Committee was appointed to consider the Amendments necessary in the Act, and to report thereon, and if necessary, to appoint a deputation to wait on the President of the Local Government Board. Dr. Dupr6 read a paper, “ On the Detection and Estimation of Alum in Wheat- Flour.” Mr. Wigner read a paper, “On Cleopatra’s Needle,” and another paper, ‘;On the Nitrogenous Constituents of Cocoa.” The ballot will take place at the Meeting, in January.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN878030373b

出版商:RSC    

年代:1878

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

374 THE ANALYST. ON THE SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS’ ACT, IN ITS RELATION TO THE DILUTION OF SPIRITS, By A. DUPRE’, Ph.D., F.R.S. Read before the h’oc2kty of Publzk Analysts, on 20th November, 1878. TOWARD^ the end of the last Session of Parliament, an amendment to the “Sale of Food and Drugs’ Act Amendment Bill,’’ was moved by JIr. Saul Isaac, and apparently supported by Government, which, in effect, directed that in judging of the adulteration of spirits by water, regard should be had, not only to the extent of the admixture, but also to the price a t which the spirits so reduced were sold.This amendment will, most likely, be re-introduced during the coming session, and as it will, if passed, most seriously affect the working of the present Act, a short discussion in our Society regarding it, will not, I think, be out of place.I n order to fitart such discussion, the following obserra- tions are offered :- A t first sight the proposed clause seems extremely fair and reasonable ; a little closer examination, will, however, I believe, ehow that it would be quiet unworkable with the machinery established under the present Act. I say nothing here of the alteration in principle involved, which will also merit most serious consideration. The amendment directs, that not only the extent of dilution, but also the price at which the reduced spirit has been sold is t o be taken into consideration. But who is to be the judge of the fairness, or otherwise, of the price charged? I t cannot be the analyst, for his analysis is absolutely useless for fixing the price, nor the inspector, for he has no special training as a spirit taster, neither can it be the magistrate, for he has only to decide on the evidence brought before bim.Who then is to do this? are we to have special officers appointed under the Sale of Food and Drugs’ Act, whose sole duty it will be to taste spirits found diluted by the analyet, and t o decide what the value of the spirit was before it had been diluted, and are we to have a second Somerset House Court of Appeal to decide on questions even more difficult to settle than the amount of solids in milk.An Act of Parliament must be taken in its widest application, and with our recent experience it would indeed be lamentable if a fresh loophole for evading the provisions of the Lct were given to adulteratore.I f a principle is sound it may be pushed to its extreme legitimate conclusion, and yet be found valid. What, however, becomes of this clause if thus treated? The wholesale price of French brandy, duty paid, and of about proof strength varies, roughly speaking, between about 15s. and 35s. per gallon. The higher priced brandy could therefore be diluted with water to nearly two and a half times its bulk, or be reduced t o a strength of about sixty per cent.under proof, and still the cost of the article so reduced would be as high a5 that of the cheaper brandy undiluted. I s this diluted brandy to be passed as unadulterated? I n such a caae, the analyst, as before stated, would be absolutely incapable of deciding upon the value of the brandy on the strength of his analysis.Who then is to decide ? and would not such I case give rise to au enormous amount of conflicting evidence ? The same difficulty, though perhaps to a minor degree would arise, whateyer might be the price of the brandy. If now we turn to whisky, we shall h d that here also the prices vary, irrespectire of mere alcoholic strength, but not t o the same degree a5 in the case of brandy, though even hereTHE ANALYST.3 75 the price, duty paid, may easily vary between 13s. 6d. and 18s. per gallon, and most probably, the cheaper would be the stronger. I n such a case, therefore, one gallon of the more expensire whisky might be reduced so as to yield 1.33 gallon, and yet the cost price per gallon would be the same as that of the cheaper whisky unreduced.The variation is, I believe still less in the case of gin. As long, however, as there is any variation at all in the price of spirits, not governed by their alcoholic strength, the amendment proposed will be unworkable by the officials appointed under the present Act. It will no doubt be said that I have brought forward an extreme case, but my answer is that every such case, unless specially excluded, must be judged of by the provisions of the Act.The clause under consideration is, I suppose, chiefly intended to apply to the spirits sold at public houses, or by small retail dealers, and if this be so, the clause might, perhaps, be amended as follows--“ provided that the price per proof gallon as calculated from the price paid for the reduced spirit, does not exceed- In the case of brandy ... ... ... whisky ... ... ... gin ... ... 9 9 19 60, and fio many shillings per proof gallon.” These prices would have to be flxed by the Act, but this I think would offer no serious difficulty. The working of the clause would then be restricted to the cheaper kinds of spirit, and it could be worked by the officers at present appointed.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8780300374

出版商:RSC    

年代:1878

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

THE ANALYST. 3 75 ON THE SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACT, I N ITS RELATION TO THE DILUTION OF SPIRITS. BY c. HEIBCH, F.C.8. Read before the Society cf Public Analysts, OR 20th November, 1878. 1 WAS somewhat surprised to find myself put down for a formal paper this evening. I had intended to confine myself to some remarks on whatever might fall from our President, and though I have a paper before me, what 1 say must necessarily be more in the shape of remarks than an original communication.I cannot quite agree with our President that to take price into account is an unmixed evil, especially in an article like spirits, much of which is sold according t o its strength. I am quite aware that flavour and other circumstances affect the price of some spirits, as well as strength, but 8s a rule these are what may be called almost fancy spirits-fine old brandies, and SO on, the purchasers of which can well take care of themselves.The spirits we have to do with are mainly those sold in small quantities in public-houses, and many of these are priced according to strength. Many houses of which Gilbey is a notable instance, price even brandies on the same principle. I have just heard of a case where some brandy was sold as Martell's case brandy, which turned out to be many degrees more under proof than any to be found in Martell's cases, and the vendor was convicted of selling an article under a false name, solely on the question of strength; but when spirits are mentioned, there is no doubt that gin is the one spirit more especially meant, and the dictum of Mr.Justice Grove that it should not be sold at more than twenty under proof, I have no doubt is what provoked the introduction of the clause in question, Having had a good deal t o do with gin distillers, I know that,376 THE ANALYST. unless specially ordered, it usually leaves their premises at either seventeen or twenty- two under proof, but is also prepared at thirty-three under proof for special market.Publicans, howerer, rarely buy anjthing but seventeen under proof. The price of this varies with the price of grain; it has been as low as 10s. per gallon, and as high a8 12s. lid., but may be taken as averaging 11s. The publican puts to this, each his o m flavouring, and brings it down to various other strengths, which are commonly known 8s 6d., 5d., and 4d.gins, that being the price per quartern at which they are sold. The precise degree of dilution will vary a little, but in round terms we may say that 6d. is from twenty to twenty-two under proof, 5d. from thirty to thirty-three under proof, and 4d. from thirty-nine to forty-two under proof. Now, if we take the price at 11s. per gallon for seventeen under proof, it costs the publican 4.12d.per quartern. To make it twenty-two under proof he has to add, in round numbers, half a pint, two quarterns of water to the gallon, which makes the cost per quartern 3.88d. ; to bring it to thirty-three under proof 7.5 quarterns of water are added, which makes the cost 3.34d. per quartern ; and to bring it to thirty-nine under proof he adds 11.54 quarterns, which makes the cost 3*03d.per quartern. Now, taking the selling prices before-mentioned, and the risks of waste, and all other expenses into account, this shows no excessive profit. Moreover, he can charge no more per quartern if he pays 12s. per gallon. The cost to him, in each case, is shown below :- Cost at 12s. per gallon. Per quartern. Cost at 11s.per gallon. Per quartern. Sold at 17 U.P. ......... 4-50d. I7 U.P. ......... 4-12d. ... 6d. 22 U.P. ......... 4*25d. 22 U.P. ......... 3.88d. ... 6d. 33 U.P. ......... 3.64d. 38 U.P. ......... 3.34d. ... 6d. 39 U.P. ......... 3.31d. 39 U.P. ......... 3 03d. ... 4d. Books are published, showing the publican at a glance what his spirits have cost him after various dilutions, according to the price he pays for them, and it seems to me only reasonable that a man who takes 4d.gin should be content with the dilute article, while one who pays 6d. and gets 39 U.P. hae good reason to complain, and that the carrying out of Mr. Justice Grove’s decision would cause considerable injustice. Practically price is taken into account. Two cases were tried at Greenwich, one of which was dismissed because the gin was as strong as could be expected for 5d., in the other the publican was fined for selling gin of about the same strength for 6d.Though difficulties might arise in some cases, I think they might be faced, in order that sub- stantial justice might be done in general. Even in articles where we profess to have 8 standard, magistrates will now take price into consideration, We must all remember the case of watered milk, in which the magistrate, when he found that only 33d. a quad had been paid, at once dismissed the case, at the same time asking the inspector what he could expect for the price. I should therefore not so much object to Bee the con- sideration of price clause introduced.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8780300375

出版商:RSC    

年代:1878

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

376 THE ANALYST. ON THE CLAUSES OF THE SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS’ ACT, WHICH By G. W. WIGNEB, F.C.S. Read before the Society of Public Analysts, on 20th November, 1878. THOSE who have followed the published reports of prosecutions under the above Act, will no doubt have been struck witb the fact, that the defence in nine out Qf ten cages is RELATE TO THE PURCRASE OF SAMPLES.THE ANALYST. 377 entirely of a technical character, and in the tenth case the defence set up ia generally an alleged blunder on the part of the analyst.I need hardly remind you that these technical objections have taken every form, and have dealt at one time or other with every one of what may be called the working sections of the Act. In a large number of cases the objections hare been taken under the section which relates to the labelling of aamples-in as many, or perhaps even more instances, some quibble has been raised as to the precise form of the analyst’s certificate, and several cases have broken down because the analyst had not thought it desirable to injure his balances by weighing a quartern loaf, and had not therefore stated the weight of the sample in his certificate. But the most important of all these, I may say, frivolous objections, and the one with which I shall more particularly deal this evening, is that which relates to the first few words of the sixth section, commonly known as the Attention has of late been drawn very prominently to this clause, owing to some judicial decisions and expressions of opinion, which of course, have had great weight with magistrates, who have consequently dismissed several case8 where there waa no doubt that the articles had been tampered with, but because these articles having been bought by inspectors for analysis, and not for use, the magistrates considered that the inspectors were not prejudiced by having adulterated articles sold to them as pure, It is quite evident that if the Act is not to remain a dead letter, a definite decision of the Supreme Court overruling this objection must be obtained, or the present Act must be amended.It is true that steps are being taken to obtain the opinion of a higher Court on the matter, but it seems highly improbable that any decision can be given for some months, and meanwhile in many districts the Act is rendered totally inoperative, and in other districts the authorities hesitate at prosecuting even in the most flagrant cases, lest they should be saddled with the costs, through the collapse of the case on this technical point.A good many suggestions have been made to overcome this quibble-which I think has been allowed to succeed under R wrong idea, as I will presently show.Some of these suggestions equal the objection itself in quibbling-such for instance as instructing the inspectors to eat or consume a portion of every sample they purchase- or giving a portion of every sample to the inspectors-or giving them the residues of samples found to be pure and not the remains of adulterated samples, by which of course the inspectors would be actual losers, or even making the inspectors purchase the samples out of their own money.It would, however, be eminently undesirable, even if not impracticable that any such tricky mode of procedure should be adopted, and to my thinking it is astonishing that we should have to consider what to do to meet the adulterator’s objection. We may at once admit that nn inspector who, by the direction and with the money of the local authority, purchases a sample for analyais, is not personally prejudiced if that sample turns out impure; but is it necessary that he should be? The Act says “to the prejudice of the purchaser,” but the inspector is not the real purchaser-he is simply the servant and buys it by the direction of the local authority, and pays for it with their money, and there- fore it seems to me that the purchaser is, not the inspector who merely goes into the shop and buys the sample, but the authority which instructed him and paid him to do it.And as to the local authority being prejudiced by their inspector buying an adulterated article, I consider that they are on several grounds--first they pay for an article not of the prejudice to purchaser ” clause.3 78 THE AKSLYST.nature and quality demanded, and next they have to institute a prosecution to get the vendor of this impure article punished. The Act does not define in what manncr the “prejudice ” is to arise, whether by a person being half poisoned with an adulterated article, or by paying for a pure article and getting an impure one, or by the expenses of a prosecution.And there can, therefore, be no doubt that the prejudiced parties are in the first instance the local authority ; and ultimately the public, with whose money the sample is purchased, and who in turn are the masters of the local authority. However, as another view has been judicially taken, it seems clear the Act must be amended, and as a considerable amount of discussion is certain to take place both in and out of Parliament when the amending Bill is brought forward, it appears desirable to recall what occurred while the Sale of Food Act was passing through the Houses of Parliament.It will, no doubt, be in the recollection of many analysts that the clause in question did not appear a t all in the Act when the latter was first introduced to Parliament as a draft Bill.This Bill was, no doubt, tinctured very strongly indeed with a trade bias, and the word i t knowingly,” and the phrase ‘ I usages of the trade,” occurred so frequently and persistently, that it would probably have been almost impossible to have secured a con- viction under it. The clause in question-the 6th-as it stood originally in the Bill, ran thus-“ No person shall knowingly sell any article of food or any drug which is not of the nature, substance and quality of the article demanded by the purchaser.” If this had stood without any qualification, it seems very probable that it might have answered the purpose for which it was intended, but unfortunately the clause went on to say ‘‘ except as herein excepted or provided,” and these exceptions were so wide that it was difficult to see what adulterations would not be passed. This became quite eyident to the members of the House when the Bill was first discussed, and when it was reprinted before being considered in detail in committee, the words ‘‘ to the prejudice of the purchaser ” were found to have been introduced.The discussion which took place on the first reading of the Bill gave some clue to the reasons for the introduction of these words.One of the speakers on that occasion read acommunication which he had received from a public analyet and member of this society, in which, after pointing out a number of the defects in the 1812 Act, the writer went on to say that, as the samples brought to him for analysis were all purchased by inspectors in uniform, he always got the best of everything, and that when he wanted cream for his own use he Bent an inspector to purchase milk, and always got cream inlrtead.Some of the members of the House, with a keen eye to their trade constituents, naturally thought that this was unjust, and I believe that this was the first and, perhaps, only reason for the introduction into the Bill ef the words referred to.No one, however, appears to have at all thought of the perverted meaning which might be: and indeed has now been, placed upon them, for on looking carefully through the whole of the discusion which took place while the Bill was before Parliament, I find that, although every clause was criticized unfavourably from one or other point of view, the only criticism which appears to have been bestowed upon this phrase, was the general one that the Bill would have been much simpler and more workable if it merely enacted that No person shall sell an adulterated article,” and then set out in a schedule what should be considered as adulteration.Even in the House of Lords, when this very clause was again recast, and theTHE ANALYST.379 exceptions in i t very materially altered, no one seems to have thought that any harm could arise from leaving in the words “to the prejudice of the purchaser.” I n fact, vie wed in a common-sense way, they appeared to mean simply what was intended, namely, that if a purchaser got a better article than he asked for the vendor should not be held to have committed an offence.Immediately the Act was passed, the National Chamber of Trade, who, from their own standpoint, had taken a very active part throughout in framing it, issued instructions for the guidance of retail traders, and on going through these I find that although the retail trader has most of the loopholes of the Act carefully pointed out to him, although he is particularly instructed to show to the satisfaction of the Court that he could not, with reasonable diligence have ascertained that the article sold by him was mixed or coloured, and although he is told to insist fully on the clauses for the division of samples, for the calling of the analyst as a witness, and for the appeal to Somerset Hause and to the Quarter Sessions, nothing whatever is suggested about the “ prejudice to purchaser ’’ question.Very shortly afterwards the Local Government Board issued an offlcial notification in reference to the Act to the Clerks of the Peace throughout the country. This, which was a carefullydrawn up circular, pointed out the differences between the 1872 and 1876 Acts, and summed up the matter, as regards the public, by saying :- (1.) (( The new Act protects the purchaser against the delivery of any article which differs in substance, naturc, or quality from the one demanded.” (3.) (‘ It prevents the sale of articles mixed with ingredients, not in accordance with the demand of the purchaser, without a label indicating that t h e j are mixed.” (7.) And (as if by way of satire on the Act) I‘ it renders the law more intelligible.” Clearly, therefore, the Local Government Board did not believe that any diaculty was introduced by the words in question.About the middle of 1877 the objection that the inspector was not prejudiced began to be taken by clever solicitors in defending adulteration cases, but as far as I can ascertain the objection was not sustained for some months, except in one case in the Midland Counties.It was then raised on appeal in ti Scotch Court, and the opinion of the judges there was decidedly that the objection could be upheld. The point was subsequently referred to incidentally in a case in the Queen’s Bench, and the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice coincided with that of the Scotch Judges. The natural consequence, of course, has been that many magistrates, in different parts of the country, have followed these rulings, and have dismissed cases simply on the ground of this technical objection baving been taken.The objection has frequently been raised before several of the metropolitan magistrates (several times in my own hearing), but I am not aware that any of them allowed it until this month. When, however, Sir James Ingham, as the head of the metropolitan police magistrates, allows the objection-although during the very same week three or four of the other metropolitan magistrates decided not to follow his ruling-it is clear that the point cannot be decided by any mere discussion, but that we must at once endeavour to get an amending Bill introduced as soon as Parliament meets, because, although as I hare mentioned an appeal case is coming before the Superior Courts, yet many months will probably elapse before a decision is obtained, and even then, if the judges should uphold the decision, we should still have to strive for an amending Act.So much, therefore, for what took place in Parliament.380 THE ANALYST. I have just put these facts before the Societj in order that they be in a position to prras Borne definite resolution to-night as to the steps to be taken in the matter. Personally I am of opinion that a committee should be appointed, and that a deputation should be sent to the President of the LGcal Government Board, to ask him to introduce an amending Bill at the opening of the ensuing session.The question will then be open for discussion, as to whether we should suggest the desirability of any other amendment beside this particular one, and those which have been alluded to in the other papers read to-night.No doubt there are several other points which it would be desirable to have altered, but it must be borne in mind that every fresh alteration very probably means fresh opposition to the passing of an amending Bill.Meanwhile, as to the “prejudice )’ question, until something is done the restria and county authorities have, at any rate, one remedy in their hands, and they may do well to follow the example of one of the London District Boards, and for the present inalead of prosecuting the vendors of samples found to be adulterated, direct these vendors’ names to be read out at the Board meetings in order that they may be published in the newspaper reports.This, at least, would have the advantage of giving a considerable degree of publicity to the facts shown by the analyses, and might even prove as strongly deterrent as a prosecution and a light fine at the police courts, the reports of which are too often kept out of the newspapers. In the discussion which took place on the preceding papers, Mr.Angel1 said he thought that, as public analysts, they should not trouble them- EeIVeS much about the question of price, as the matter would be rendered much more difficult if they took int,o consideration the different ways in which publicans sell their gin, but if they could arive at some understanding as to what the fair standard for gin should be they would have no more difficulty.If they entered into the question of price as to this, they must do 80 with regard t o all tradee. Dr. Bartlett mid he had had a good deal of professional business in connection with distillers, and also been consulted upon the analysis of a large number of samples of different spirits obtained in different parts of England.His experience so far agreed with that of Mr. Heisch’s as to there being three different prices of gin and three different and varying degrees of dilution. This applied not only to London but to almost all the other towns of England. He had no hesitation in saying that when once the question of price was introduced into the certificates of analysts, these certificates would virtually become mere trade valuations, upon which no conviction for adulteration could be obtained. The question then came, what is brandy? As to its being more valuable or less valuable, that is the business of a trade expert or broker, but the analyst can only deal with the proportion of proof spirit and with the possible presence of injurious matters.With brandy as with whisky, certain limits of alcoholicity must be recognised as being those under which the trade is usually carried oa by respectable dealers.These limits will have to be determined upon a eufficiency of sound evidence, and will form standards by which analyst8 will be guided in giving evidence as to undue dilution, which in itaelf constitutes adulteration. These etandards of proportion of proof spirit, below which brandy and whisky ought Dot to be sold, might be discussed with propriety by the Society of Public Analysts, and a concerted action might be taken upon such pgrecd standards i n tbe same way as had been done with An article is demanded-say brandy.THE ANALYST.361 regard to milk. As for gin, if it were proved that ‘‘ first,” “ seconds,” and ‘‘ thirds” gin are really required by the wants of the lower orders, an assertion which Dr.Bartlett strongly combatted, he thought similar limits of alcoholic strength might be adopted, but nothing could induce him to think it would be safe either to the public or to the analyst to have the quality known in any way by the price, which, after all, is entirely arbitrary. His experience had been that inferior spirits, sometimes the worst and the most injurious, althougb containing a minimum of alcohol, were sold in certain localities at higher prices than such as could be purchased in other neighbourhoods which were both stronger and more wholesome.The element of price, as regards the dilution of spirits, was therefore a complete snare, and would, he wa3 sure, prove not only a delusion but the downfall of all efforts to promote purity and wholesomeness in the retailing of such articles.The importation of the question of price also imports the question of valuation, which he (Dr. Bartlett) regarded as the thin end of the wedge by which the purity of all articles of food, or drink, or of drugs, would have t o be estimated by the double sliding ecale of the prices at which the samples are sold and the amount of money-value received by the purchaser.Unless public analysts add t o their chemical qualifications the prerogative of Bworn trade valuers, asserting their competence to estimate every article of food and drugs ; and unless their valuations are to be held in Court as legally indisputable, no conviction for adulteration will be sustained as long a8 price has to be considered. The Food and Drugs’ Act would, under these circum- stances, become a dead letter, and the appointments of public analysts must cease to exist.In some districts, and in some Courts, local authority and hypercritical judgment of the meaning of the Act already combine to throw its working powers into abeyance. He was informed that it was proposed a t Arundel to appoint a public analyst (for the honour of the position) without salary, but with the assurance that he would not be expected to expend either his time or his chemicals, as ‘‘ it was not intended to send any samples for analysis.” So also the action of the Scotch Judges, and of Sir James Ingham, regarding the prejudice to purchaser when the samples were bought specially for analysis, showed a disposition to quibble at the obvious meaning of the Act, which is now having the most disastrous effect in directly inspiring a pettyfogging h e of defence, which no respectable shopkeeper would adopt if he relied on the bolza $des of the source from which he obtained the goods.The purchasing inspector is, however, undoubtedly the servant of the ratepayers, and it ie difficult to see how such a ruling can be sustained on appeal.Dr. Muter said that after the exhaustive remarks of Dr. Bartlett he did not see thaf much remained to be said. I f it were simply a matter of limiting the thing to gin he &ould not object to Mr. Heisch’s view, because his experience agreed with Mr. Heisch’s as t o there being three prices of gin.But the great difficulty mas the getting in the thin edge of the wedge; when once they had anything to do with price they must apply it to everything, and then you must employ a spirit broker, and by and by there might be a class of milk brokers, In reality he thought what was wanted was to keep the Act strictly for what it represented itself to be, and that there should be some central authority appointed by the Clovernment, whose duty it should be to enquire into and from time to time fix standards for various articles of food and drink.Nearly all the break- downs that had taken place had been over disputed standards-very seldom over a rea difference of opinion as to the chemical nature of a thing, but as to what the chemical nature meant. I n conclusion Dr. Muter said he thought the appointment of a VommitkoTHE ANALYST. would meet with every one’s approbation, and suggested that i t should include ~ o m e members of the Society outside the Council. Dr. Dupr6, in replying to the remarks made on his paper, agreed that gin was very little governed by quality, and that it might be taken under the clause, but unfortunately the clause did not say it was to be restricted to gin, and it would be applicable to all spirits sold unless any were specially excluded, and then the clause would be useless. Gin would be the least affected. They had not to deal with honest people, but with those who would break the law if they could. Dr. Dupr6 also thought a Committee should be appointed to consider the question. Mr. Heisch pointed out that Mr. Paget, three or four days after Sir James Inghsm gave his decision, not only decided a case in a precisely oppoaite direction, but cited a case in which Justices Mellor and Lush gave a decision contrary to Sir James Ingham, and Mr. Paget also said that he did not see what right a magistrate had to repeal an Act of Parliament. After some further discussion, a Committee was appointed as stated on page 373.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8780300376

出版商:RSC    

年代:1878

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

382 THE ANALYST. ON CLEOPATRA’S NEEDLE. BY G. W. WIQNER, F.C.S. Read before the Society of Pzcblic Analysts on the 20th Nouember, 1878. I NEED hardly remind the members present that the granite of which Cleopatra’s Needle is composed, was obtained from quarries situate at Syene, on the Nile. The general appearance of the granite is probably pretty well known, so that I need not do more than draw attention to the specimens, which, by the courtesy of Mr.Dixon, I am enabled to exhibit to-night. There will, however, I thihk, be some interest taken in the resulte of some analyses which 1 have recently made of different parts of it, The specific gravity of the stone is 2.682. It has a very uniform density throughout, fragments broken from the top and bottom differing in gravity only in the fourth place of decimals, The surface of Borne portions, especially of that face which has laid upwards in Egypt is very considerably weathered, and it was consequently desirable to ascertain the relative absorbent powers of the unchanged stone and of the weathered surface whea exposed to water. For thia determination two pieces were selected, one of which was taken from the centre of the base, which had to be dressed flat in order to make the obelisk stand erect on its pedestal, and the other piece, which had a con- siderable portion of weathered surface on one side, Tho lump of sound granite weighed about 2,000 grains, and after two days submersion in distilled water it had absorbed *6 of a grain of water, but no further increase in weight took place although it was left some days longer under water and was repeatedly weighed. On being exposed to the air of a warm room for 24 hours it lost all the moisture it had absorbed, and weighed -10 of a grain less than it did at first.Calculating as closely as I can, from the area of the rough stone, the absorption would be at the rate of 7.8 grains of water per square foot of surface.The lump having a portion of the surface weathered, weighed about 3,300 grs, ; after being submerged in diddled water for two days the weight had increased 1.3 ps., after two daSs more it had incrcnsed another 2 grs., after which time the weight remainedTHE ANALYST. 383 very nearly constant. A considerable portion of the surface of tbis piece of stone was of course a recent fracture, and calculating the absorption of this newly fractured part at the 6ame rate as ahore would only account for an increaae of weight of -70 grain.We have, therefore, 1.6 grs. absorbed by the weathered snrface ; this surface measured 5 square inchea and the absorption was therefore at the rate of 46.1 grs. per square foot, or nearly six times as much as on the sound part.This absorption does not of courm include surface moisture, as the surface water was in each case carefully removed by blotting, and the stone exposed for an hour on a table to a temperature of 65 Fahr. before being weighed. The 46 grs. of absorption per square foot gives us a comparatively fair estimate of the amount of water which can be retained in the weathered surface and which is ready by its expansion on freezing to split or disintegrate that surface still further.Another portion of the stone was roughly powdered and by means of Sonstadt’s eolution separated as far as possible into Mica, Quartz and Feldspar. After dividing it in this way into 12 or 14 portions of different gravities, the proportions of each of the proximate constituents were estimated so that the following results are probably within about 1 or at most 1.5 per cent.of the truth.-They showed,- Mica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 per cent. Quartz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 ,, Feldspar 69 ?, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Taking pure fragments of each of the three constituents the specific gravities were found to be as follows :- Mica .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.986 Quartz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.747 Feldspar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.695 I shculd note that the proportion of Nica varied considerably in different parts of The portion of granite taken from the centre of the base and not veatherrd was the stone. analgsed, and gave the following results :- Silica .. . . . . . . . . . . Alumina . . . . . . . . . Lime . . . . . . . . . . . . M agnesia . . . . . . . . . Soda . . . . . . . . . . . . Potash . . . . . . . . . . . . Manganese . . . . . . . . . Sesqui Oxide of Iron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68-18 per cent. . . . . . . . . . 4-10 ,, . . . . . . . . . 16.20 ,, . . . . . . . . . 1.76 ,, .. . . . . . . . *48 ,, . . . . . . . . . 2.88 ,, . . . . . . . . . 6-48 ,, . . . . . . traces 100.07 The portion taken from the exterior surface which was probably weathered as much as any portion of the Needle, gave the following results :- Silica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.36 per cent. Sesqui Oxide of Iron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.13 ,, Alumina . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-37 ,, Lime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.05 ,, Magnesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 ,, Soda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.40 ,) Potash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.34 ?, Manganese . . . . . . . . . . . . slight traces 1co-10334 THE ANALYST. It will be seen that the weathering has scarcely affected tbe iron.The alumina has decreased from 16-20 to 15.37, and the lime has increased from 1-75 to 2.05, while the alkalies show a decrease in the caee of soda from 2.88 per cent. to 2.40 per cent. and in the case of potash €?om 6.48 per cent to 5.34 per cent. A few of the most perfect crystals of Feldspar were picked out and analysed separately, and gave the following results :- Silica . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.88 per cent. Oxide of Iron Lime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.09 ,, Magnesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 046 ,, Soda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.84 ,, Potash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.66 ,, and *lurnina } . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.25 9) 100.17 Some of the Mica separated and analysed in the same way gare the following results :- Silica .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.16 per cent. Oxide of Iron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-30 ,, Alumina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 -1 8 ,, Magnesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . R ,, Potash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.24 ,, Soda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -92 ,, 102.57 The quantity of Mica separated was 80 small that it was impossible to repeat this analysis. In conclusion, I must point out what an act of vandalism it would be to cover such a stone as this with silicate solution, as has been proposed. Such a solution would not even fill up the pores of the weathered portion, and it could not sensibly increase the coherence of the porous surface. The only proper course is to fill the pores with a non-porous and neutral subsfance-such as parafin wax for instance.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8780300382

出版商:RSC    

年代:1878

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

334 THE ANALYST. [The Editors are not CORRElSPONDENCE. responsible for the opinions of their Correspondente.1 To SIR,-AS you have asked for at the Southwark Police Court, I THE EDITOR OF ‘( THE ANALYST.” information with reference t o the case 71, heard by Mr. Bensoa, hasten to give you all that can be required. The milk analysed waa done in duplicate, and the results given as followa :- Total 6olids .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-46 9.34 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.64 90.66 Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.88 2-80 Solids* not fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.58 6-54 100~00 100~00 - - -~ *Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.60 Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.20 Using Professor Wanklyn’a method of calculation, I gave it as containing nearly 26 per cent. of added water. The sample of milk which the inspector was supposed to have left with defendant was brought into Court, and defendant insisted upon his sample being analyaed at Somersct House, He doubtlese thoughtTHE ANALYST. 385 that judgment would be given upon his sample, which he had exchanged with a neighbour, whose milk WSB unexceptionably good.The certificate from Somerset House of the inspector’s sample, after three weeks’ keeping, read as follows :- Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.93 Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-91 Soiids not fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6’16 100~00 The opinion subjoined :-(‘ This milk has not less than 22 per cent.of added water.” Since this report, another equally interesting one has been decided in Lamb4th Police Court, before the presiding magiatrate, Mr. Chance. I gave a certificate in the case of No. 77 of 7* per cent. of added water, based upon the following analysis done in duplicate :- Total solids . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-22 11.24 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.78 88-76 Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.91 2.98 Solids* not fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-31 8.26 100~00 100~00 - - - - *Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.71 Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.12 I n this case the analysis was not disputed, but the poor milk was owing to the class of cow, and if it be claimed as a pure milk, should be sold, as Mr.Chance suggested, as a poor milk. Dr. Redwood, analyst to the Metropolitan Dairymen’s Society, was brought forward to prove that it was poesibly a genuine milk. With the consent of Dr. Redwood, and on my suggestion-it having been admitted that this was a portion of mixed milk from 18 cows-the remainder of the herd, 15 in number, was milked next morning, and an analysie made both by Dr.Redwood, Mr. Stewart, and myself. The result was as follows :- Total solids . . . . . . . . . 11.83 11.84 11.68 11.64 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.17 88.18 88.32 88’36 Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-63 2-68 2.60 2-62 Solids* not fat . . . . . . 9-20 9.16 9.08 9.04 100*00 100~00 100~00 100.00 Bernays. Stewart. Redwood. Redwood. - - - - ~ - - - *Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.84 Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.16 We both agreed that this was genuine t d k , and Dr. Redwood candidly admitted that my former The magistrate inflicted a fine of €10 and I may further mention that this sample which on a Saturday gave 9.20 solids not fat, gave 9.04 on analysis indicated a milk possibly but not probably genuine. €5 5s. costs. Monday. Yours faithfully, ALBERT J. BERNAYS. ST. THOMAS’S HOSPITAL, November 18th, 1878.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8780300384

出版商:RSC    

年代:1878

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

THE ANALYST. 385 ANALY ST8’ REPORTS. MILK ADULTERATTON IN MbRYLEBoNE.-?dr. Alfred W. Stokes, the public analyst for Paddington, reports that during the last quarter, 21 articles of food had been submitted to him for analysis : and on the whole, he was sorry to state that a ratter large amount of adulteration is still going on in the parish Of the 21 articlee, no less than 18 were adulterated, the largest proportion being samples of milk.These numbered 14, of which two only were not adulterated. The rest were diluted with water, varying from 10 to 20 per cent, This adulteration might not be due solely, nor perhaps mainly to the London vendor for no fewer than 10 of the adulterated samples referred to were brought from the country supplier, to be re-sold here. This report having been presented to the Sanitary and Public Health Committee, they have passed the following important resolutions, viz., directing the inspector under the act forthwith to take proceedings against certain of the sellers of the samples referred to, and recommending that inasmuch as it appears the wholesale dealers will not prosecute the adulterators of milk in the county, the vestry do take such steps as may be necessary, to prosecute such H holesalc dealers.386 THE ANALYST.Mr. J. W. Gatehouse, the Public Analyst for Bath, reports that during the quarter ending September 28th he analysed 42 articles under the ( l Sale of Food and Drugs’ Act,” of which 39 were genuine and 3 were not genuine. These 3 articles consisted of milks, which were deficient in fat to the extent of 54, 30 and 26 per cent.respectively. The charges for the analyses, according to the scale agreed upon, amounted t o €16 12s. 6d. For private individuals he had analysed 8 articles of food, in which 3 were genuine and 6 adulterated or unfit for food. Ale, 1 sample, genuine, but decomposed by keeping so as to be unfit for consumption ; milk, 1 sample, contained 10 per cent. of added water; milk, 2 samples, unfit for food from containing blood ; rum, 1 sample, containing resins.At the last meeting of the Kewport (Monmouthshire) Town Council, Mr. Thomas, the borough analyst, reported that on June 14 he analjsed fifty samples, and during the last quarter he had ale0 analysed fourteen samples. About twenty convictions under the Sale of Food Act had been obtained during the half-year.-At the last meeting of the Bath Town Council, Mr, J.Gatehouse, public analyst, presented his report for the quarter. He said he had aualpsed forty-two articles bought by the inspector, of which thirty-nine were genuine. Among the genuine samples were two of butter, two of confectionery, and one each of arrowroot, oatmeal, pepper and coffee. For private individuals he had analysed eight articles of food, of which three were genuine, and five adulterated or unfit for food. One adulterated sample was rum, containing resins. The results of the analyses of the articles brought by private individuals compared very unfavourably with those brought by the inspector.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8780300385

出版商:RSC    

年代:1878

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

386 THE ANALYST. LAW REPORTS. At Bow Street, a summons against William Pitt Hitchman, of 6, Museum Street, Bloomsburp, for selling milk alleged to be adulterated with water to Hojle, inspector of nuisances, was again before the Court, Sir James Ingham said in this case the adulterated milk sold by the defendant was purchased by a sanitary inspector, not for consumption, but for the purpose of analysis.The question was whether in such circumstances the milk was 601d *‘ to the prejudice of the purchaser ” within the meaning of the 6th section of the Food and Drugs Act, 1875. A case very similar to the present came before the Justiciary Appeal Court of Scotland. The Court held that prejudice to the purchaser had not been proved, the purchase having been made for the purpose of analysis only.The same construction of the statute appeared to have been adopted by the Lord Chief Justice of England in the case of ‘‘ Sandys v. Small;” According to a report contained in The Analyst (which is in conformity with the report in the newspapers at the time), his Lordship said, aith reference to adulterated whisky bought by an inspector for analgsis. ‘‘ I do not see how this inspector is prejudiced, as he did not drink the whisky.” Sir James Ingham thought it would be unbecoming in him to express an opinion contrary to such high authorities, and therefore he dismissed the summons.-Z‘Times.Subsequently upon the application of the counsel for the prosecution, a case waagranted for the Court of Queen’s Bench. LAMBETIL-ADULTERATION OF MIm.-Mr.Marsden, Vestry Clerk of Camberwell, applied to Mr. Chance, and said the magistrate would remember that he had a case of milk adulteration before him a short time back, when an objection was taken that the inspector, as the purchaser, was not prejuziced, and his worship adjourned the matter to look into the case of ‘‘ Sandys Y. Small.” Since then Sir James Ingham had given a decision which rendered it highly necessary that the vestries should take immediate steps.He therefore, now wished to ask his worship what opinion he held upon the point, as it was intended to take out other summonses under the Act. It would be satkfactory to the Vestry, to the public, and those tradesmen who sold a bonl-fide article, to know what his worship thought on the matter.Mr. Chance considered it was a very proper application. He was anxious to hear Sir J. Ingham on the subject, and had an interview with him. Mr. Mayo had taken the same objection in this Court, but he, (Mr. Chance) had overruled it, as he considered it made the Act all nonsense. He considered also, that if any person paid the price of a pure article, and was served with water, it was sufficient to ahow the purchaser was prejudiced.H e (Mr. Chance) should continue to hold his opinion until over- ruled by a decision in a superior Court against it, With regard to Sir James Ingham he saw the difficulty taking place, in the country particularly, in consequence of the decision in the Scotch Court#. Sir James Ingham told him that he considered the best course was to have the question decided by a superior Court, and that was partly why he gave the decision against the vestry. I t mas the best way to set the matter at rest.Mr. Chance further remarked that he saw that a few days back Mr. De Rutzen bad refused to accept the objection, and convicted the defendants. He (Mr. Chance) repeated that in all case8 brought before him and proved he should continue to impose penalties, as be considered he was justified in doing.Sir James lngharu. was of the same opinion, but considered it best to hbve a case taken for the superior Court. I t would be nonsense to imagine it wits ever intended that persons should be supplied with milk and water for months, and the party supplying such a thing to ride off without conviction.Mr. Marsden thanked his worship, and stated that he would mention the matter to the vestry. -Telegra2A.THE ANALYST. 387 MARYLEBONE.-ADULTERATION.-JOhIl Gowers, of 1, Marylebone Road, Paddington, appeared, in answer to an adjourned summons by the Vestry of Paddington, charging him with selling as pure milk found on analysis to be adulterated by the addition of 18 per cent.of water.-Mr. Hortin prosecuted for the Vestry, Mr. C. L. Berkeley defending.-At the first hearhg evidence was given as to the purchase of the milk by Thomas Reeves Clifford, sanitory inspector, and its analysis by the public analyst, and Mr. De Rutzen adjourned the case to enable him to look into the law and the decisions on the subject, having regard to the recent decision of Sir James Ingham, and also to the fact that the solicitors on both sides asked that, whichever way the decieion went, he would grant a case.-Mr.Berkeley contended that the case was un all fours with that heard by Sir James Ingham, where the chief magistrate dismissed the summons, on the ground that the sample was purchased by the sanitary inspector, not for consumption, but for analysis, and, tl:ercfort, he was not prejudiced.-Mr.De Rutzen, i n delivering his decision, said : The facts of this case are admitted, and the only contention on the part of the defendant is that, as the milk was purchased for the purpose of analysis, and not for consumption, it could not be said to be sold (‘to the prejudice of the purchaser” within the meaning of the 6th section of the Act.I am aware that there was a case decided in the Scotch courts where it was so held, but that case is not binding upon us, and I may add that the case of Sandys v Small, which is relied upon by the defendant, has in my opinion no bearing whatever upon this case. I have had to decide a great many of these cases, and I have always convicted where the circumstances of the cases have been similar to this, and in doing so I have not acted entirely upon my own view of the statute.There appears to me to be direct authority for it in the case of Sandys v Markham, 41, ‘&Justice of the Peace,” page 63, which was heard in the Queen’s Bench before Justices Mellor and Lush, where this very point was raised. I t was a caBe of gelling adulterated mustard.The inspector bought a sample for analysis. The magistrate dismissed the information, and in the caae which they stated for the opinion of the Queen’s Bench they gave as one of the grounds of their decision “That (notwithstanding the fact that the appellant, in procuring the sample for analysis and not for consumption, pursued the course pointed out by section 14 for giving effect to the Act) the sale in question under the circumstances was not to the prejudice of the purchaser.” This point, which went to the root of the whole case, was argued before the judges, and was disposed of by Mr.Justice Lush, who said, ‘‘ Surely if the purchaser did not get pure mustard, as he was entitled to, prejudice must be presumed. I consider this a very strong case, and umil it is decided otherwise, 1 shall continue to act upon that view.In this particular cage there will be a fine of $10 and costs.-Mr. Berkeley asked whether, if he applied for a case, after looking into the decision, his worship would grant it.-Mr. De Rutzen said he would.-Four other cases were then gone into, the defendants’ names and addresses and the degrees of adulteration being ae follows : Richard Crofts, 2, Kilburn Park Road, Maida Vale, (defended by Mr.Berkeley), 15 per cent. of added water ; George Robinson, 3, Kilburn Park Road, Maida Vale, 15 per cent. of added water; Emanuel Lawrence, 97, Chippenham Road, Paddington, 12 per cent. of added water ; Johs Orchard, 16, Campbell Street, Hall Park, Paddington, 10 per cent. of added water.-Mr. De Rutzen said in all these cases a cruel frand was committed on poor people by water being sold to them when they asked for milk. I t was the added water that made the fraud, and the only wag t o stop i t was by inflicting heavy fines on those who sold the adulterated milk to innocent people.There was no rule by which they should not sell milk and water, and no reason why they should not say to a customer, “ I have a nice mixture of milk and water at so much a quart.” It was the suppressing this very material fact that was the fraud.- The defendant Crofts was fined €10 and 2s.costs, Robinson % l o and 2s. costs, Lawrence €5 and 2s. costs, and Orchard €1 and 2s. costs. At Bow Street police court, on the 20th November, Mr. Jones, solicitor to the parish of St.Gileg applied to Mr. Vaughan for summonses under the Adulteration Act. He said that before taking these SummonseB out, however, he should like to know whether Mr. Vaughan, after the recent decision of the chief magistrate, Sir James Ingham, would be inclined to give any decision in the casee. Several other London magistrates, since that decision, had not held themselves bound by it, but had convicted, their opinion being that in these cases the question of prejudice did not arise.Mr. Vaughan said he tbought all these cases should stand over until the opinion of the superior Courts upon Sir Jamee Ingham’s. decision had been taken. Mr. Jones said no doubt that waa so, but it had been fixed not to come on till next term. The matter was very serious, for since Sir James Ingham’s decision, adulteration had been, and no doubt would continue, vastly on the increase.Mr. Vaughan repeated that all these cases ought to stand orer till after the decision of the judges had been given. The proper course to pursue was to take out the summonses and then adjourn them until the point had been decided, Re thought that whoever these summonses came before ought to adjourn them for that reason.Mr. Jones then took out Bome summonses in the ordinary course. A statement is reported to have been made by Mr. Bridge which is interesting. After convicting a grocer named Horden of Goldhawk Road, for selling coffee mixed with chicory. Mr. Bridge (according to the Daily Arew:s) referred to the recent decision in a milk case heard at Bow Street, and said that a doubt bad arisen whether the officer of a parish was prejudiced in consequence of the decision in the Court in A case had been granted.388 THE ANALYST.Scotland and the reported dictum of the Lord Chief Justice of England, Sir James Ingham inquired of the defendant if he could have a case stated in the event of a conviction; but he declined to do so.Mr. Poland, who appeared for the parish, said he would take a case if the summons mas dismissed. For the purpose of having the question decided, he dismissed the summons, and granted a case for the opinion of the Court of Queen’s Bench. Sir James gave that decision simply for the purpose of having the case stated, and not to form a precedent. He (Mr. Bridge) believed that all the magistrates were of opinion that the selling of an article not of the substance and quality demanded was to the prejudice of the urchaser, whether an o%icer of the parish or any other person ; otherwise the Act would become a dead fetter.E e should go on hearing cases; but he suggested that the parishes should not enforce the convictions until the uestion had been determined.-Mr.Jones said he ww very lad to hear those remarks. He had no aoubt that his Board would act upon them.-Mr, Bridge said he%ad been requestld by Sir James Ingham to make that statement. of carefully testing the injector furnaces made by Fletcher of Warrington, and we find them certaidy the most convenient and efticient &B furnaces we have yet seen. The burner is extremely simple, a horizontal tube about one inch in fiameter and eight inches long, into the side of which the gas is led, while a jet of air is blown into its open end.The combuation of the gas seems absolutely perfect. Starting with the furnace cold, and even slightly damp, and with a gas supply from an ordinary Q tap, cast iron in rough lumps was melted in seventeen minutes, and in nineteen minutes the melted m%ss weighed 31bs.The crucibles, which the furnace is capable of taking, would hold three times this quantity, and 21bs more were added and melted in a few minutes. In another experiment three crucibles full of 6oda lime holding about llb each were successively ignited to full red heat in sixteen minutes. Messrs. Townson & Mercer have recently issued a new catalogue of chemical and physical apparatus, The book is well illustrated and the contents arranged in alphabetical order.We feel sure that a catalogue of this description will find favor with all requiring scientific apparatus. There are several new and useful instruments given, and also a series of sets of apparatus for the aiialysis of water, milk, tea, coffee, &c. Messrs. M. Jacksoii & Co. have also issued a new list in book form, comprising a large number of pieces of apparatus for scientific purposes, and we note epecially the catalogue of electrical galvanic and magnetic apparatus ; also the sets for the Science and Art Department, and some comprehensive and well arranged sets for popular lectures. These books arc indeed a great improvement upon the usual price lists of apparatus, and will be very serviceable to analysta. FLETCHER’S FURNACES.-we have recently had an opportunit The list of apparatus for experiments in heat is most carefully got together. Mr. R. Oxland has been appointed Public Analyst for the Borough of Plymouth. Mr. W. Pearce has been appointed Public Analyst for the Borough of Maidenhead. Dr. Muter one of the Vice-Presidents of the Society of Public Analysts has been Dr. Thompson has been appointed Public Analyst for the Borough of Learnington, appointed Public Analyst for the Borough of Tenterden.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8780300386

出版商:RSC    

年代:1878

数据来源: RSC