Search results

Before attempting to decide what are and what are not legitimate constituents of toilet and domestic soaps, it is necessary first to touch upon another question to which in some way it is more difficult to give a definite and satisfactory reply—namely, to what is the cleansing power of soap due? The answer to this depends a good deal upon the standpoint from which the matter is viewed. To the chemist the exact explanation is hardly yet entirely forthcoming, and he can at present only answer in a general way by saying that the chief value of a soap is owing to its power of dissolving or emulsifying fats; but why it does so is still more or less under discussion. It has been shown that a solution of a neutral soap when largely diluted with water is decomposed into free alkali, and a fatty acid which is precipitated.

In a volume of the Cornhill Magazine published in the year 1860 we have discovered an article entitled “Adulteration and its Remedy” which well deserves the attention of those persons who imagine that we have made “wonderful progress” during the past half century and that the trade morality of to‐day is infinitely superior to the trade morality of the past. The unknown author of this article must have had a very clear appreciation of the nature of the gigantic evil upon which he wrote and of the character and probable effectiveness of the remedies to be applied. The adulteration of the period is described by him as a “strange, disgusting and poisonous demon” and while it is true that at the time, as shown by the revelations of the “Lancet Sanitary Commission,” there existed many forms of gross, disgusting and poisonous adulteration which are but rarely detected nowadays, our author's somewhat hyperbolic definition may still be regarded as applicable. For many of the grosser forms of adulteration prevalent fifty years ago were largely due to the ignorance of the adulterator. His prototype of the present day is no more troubled with moral scruples than he was. The dissemination and absorption of knowledge has not been accompanied, as some rabid “educationalists’ would have us believe, by any improvements in morality and virtue. The “faker ” of to‐day is merely a more skilful “faker” than his predecessor. He knows the value and makes full use of “expert” assistance, both scientific and legal, for the purpose of facilitating his escape—easy enough in any case—from what grip there is in that cranky and lumbering legislative machinery which is innocently supposed by the majority of people in this country to act as a sufficiently effective deterrent and repressant.

Some people assert that the tendency of modern Governments is to be too grandmotherly. They urge that people must not depend on the Government preventing them from coming to harm, and that they should be self‐reliant. This is very true, but nowadays one individual cannot be a specialist in everything. The ordinary person has to take a great many things on trust. For instance, a passenger by train is not able to inspect the engine and look at all the wheels, examine the whole length of railway, and in other ways assure himself that he and his are fairly safe from the results of the carelessness of others. On the contrary, he has to trust to the “powers that be” that they have adjusted the laws concerning responsibility in case of accident to any train that, on the average, the proper amount of care has been exercised. It is the same with weights and measures; a purchaser cannot always carry about with him a pair of scales and a set of weights to ensure his not being cheated; he has to trust to the Government and its inspector. And the Food and Drugs Acts constitute an attempt to protect people who are not in a position to protect themselves from being cheated. It has been suggested that the same principle should be extended to ensuring the proper cooking of food. The digestibility of most foods depends very largely upon the cooking, and yet how many of those who keep restaurants or roadside inns are really capable of cooking food properly? A busy man at the lunch hour and a cyclist at an inn are usually in a hurry. They have to eat the food supplied or go for some hours without any, and there ought to be some means invented to ensure the food being fit to eat. There would, of course, have to be some legal definition of “well‐done” or “under‐done” meat, and what a cup of “fresh” tea ought to be. The exact hardness of potatoes allowable by law would give rise to appeal cases, and some glaring case of an egg boiled too hard might send a landlord to prison for a month. Boarding‐houses might even be brought within the administrations of the Proper Cooking of Food Acts.

The Society of the White Cross of Geneva appears to have been founded with the object of organising on an international basis the attempts that are being made at the present time in civilised countries to bring under control, and if possible to stamp out, certain abuses, frauds, and other injurious factors more or less existent in modern civilised life. Among the subjects to be dealt with are mentioned “les empoisonnements alimentaires,” and adulteration generally, and the principal part of the business of the International Congress which met at Geneva last year and whose second sitting has just ended in Paris, appears to have related to food questions. The objects aimed at by the society are, no doubt, excellent, but they are hardly likely to be attained if the procedure followed in certain respects at the Geneva and Paris Congresses is adopted in the future. Many of the questions brought before these Congresses were of a highly technical nature, and, for this reason, it was not only very desirable, but absolutely necessary that the matters under discussion should have been dealt with, so far as time allowed, by a thoroughly representative international body composed exclusively of scientific and legal experts of recognised position in their respective countries—that is to say, if the conclusions arrived at were to be taken as representing a serious expression of authoritative opinion. It does not appear that the conclusions and resolutions of these Congresses were arrived at by meetings constituted on these lines, and it is probably for this reason that very little, if any, impression has been produced by the gatherings referred to. The initial mistake appears to have been the admission of a number of people who were obviously only interested in the commercial aspects of the subjects dealt with, and who were sufficiently numerous and persistent to influence the meetings in directions favourable to what were declared to be the “requirements” of trade.

The wastage that occurs owing to defective knowledge of the conditions affecting the quality of fruit carried in refrigerating chambers on board ship, and the attempts which are being made to solve the problems involved, formed the subject of a joint contribution to the Section of Engineering by Dr. Ezer Griffiths and Mr. Edgar A. Griffiths.

AT the Conference at Folkestone of the London and Home Counties Branch of the Library Association, Mr. Jast gave one more example of his old fire and vigour in a paper which he entitled Publishers and Librarians. No doubt in other pages than ours the text will be given in full. Here, in summary, we may say that he dealt with some of the needs of librarians and readers for well‐produced editions of good books which for some reason were obtainable only in double‐columned small type or otherwise almost unreadable or at any rate unattractive form. He instanced Disraeli's Curiosities of Literature. He urged that if a sufficient number of public and other librarians represented this want to publishers, promising that the libraries would support such an edition, it was unlikely that the request would be ignored. A further suggestion arose from the established fact that in the welter of editions of certain books many were ill‐produced and unworthy to be placed in the hands of unsuspecting bookbuyers. Robinson Crusoe was a case in point, and as many parents desired their sons to read this they were often persuaded to buy editions which were unsuitable. Here he made a suggestion which is entirely practicable: that the Library Association should examine all of the common classics for form and for textual accuracy—a feature in which he alleged that some were deficient—and fix on suitable editions, allowing the publisher to add to their title‐pages “approved by the Library Association.” We seize upon this point first because there is nothing Utopian about it. It is a work that ought to be done.

Those who contemplate attending the Annual Conference of the Library Association at Portsmouth would be well advised to secure their accommodation immediately if they have not done so already. The demands upon hotel space have been very much greater than even sanguine members anticipated, and already we hear of people being refused rooms because they are no longer available. Portsmouth, of course, is the naval centre of the Empire, and that common‐place piece of knowledge is magnetic, nevertheless. There are other attractions in Portsmouth. Its situation, practically adjacent to the Isle of Wight, with all its charms, on one side, and its nearness to the New Forest and the belt of Hampshire towns on the west, and on the east with such places as Chichester, Selsey, Bognor, Worthing, and Brighton make it, from the location point of view, of special interest. There is the further call of the literary associations of Portsmouth. Every book on the Navy has something about it, as those of us who read W. H. G. Kingston, Captain Marryatt and many another sea‐author can testify. Perhaps the most important author who came out of Portsmouth was not a sea‐writer but the son of a naval outfitter—George Meredith. Pernaps to a post‐War generation he seems old‐fashioned, involved, unnecessarily intricate, precious, and possesses other faults. This is a superficial point of view, and certainly in his poems he rises to heights and reaches depths that are denied to most writers of to‐day. In any case, The Ordeal of Richard Feverel and Beauchamp's Career, to say nothing of The Egoist, are among the great novels of the English language.

In an article, explanatory of the System of Permanent Analytical Control and of the methods of working, the Daily Mail has observed :—

A “ Practitioner of over Forty Years' Experience ” in a letter to the Pall Mall Gazette observes that few members of the medical profession “ regard ‘ calories ’ and such like as guides to treatment of patients, simply because they cannot implicitly rely upon laboratory experiments. Anyhow, they do not impress the profession generally, as their doubts are based upon everyday experiences.” The real point that seems to have been overlooked by the so‐called experts is that, “ although the same amount of nourishment may be present in two substances, according to laboratory experiments, it does not necessarily follow we can assimilate them equally well. Here is a case in point. We know that starch and dextrine are similar, and contain very nearly the same amount of nourishment, and, chemically, are almost indistinguishable; hence biscuits should be as supporting as bread. But it is a known fact that soldiers cannot march and thrive so well on the former as upon the latter (notwithstanding that in the point of nourishment as shown by laboratory experiments, 18 ounces of biscuit are said to equal 24 ounces of freshly made bread), hence it comes about that ovens are sent to the front rather than tons of biscuits. It is not meant that biscuits are not nourishing, but merely that they cannot be assimilated so well as bread, dextrine so well as starch.”

At a meeting of the Hull Corporation Health Committee, on November 22nd, the Town Clerk referred to the decision in the recent case of milk, alleged to have contained dirt. Originally the justices dismissed the summons on a legal point. The Corporation, prosecuting, asked for a case to be stated in the High Court, and the latter decided in the Corporation's favour, and sent the case back to the Hull magistrates to be heard on its merits. The evidence of the prosecution was that the milk contained 3·9 parts of dirt per 100,000 parts of milk, the far greater part of the sediment present consisting of manure. In previous cases prosecutions were secured where the dirt was slightly less, but this summons was dismissed on the ground that there was no standard laid down by law as to what amount of dirt might be permitted. If this was a reason for dismissal, then milk might be half dirt. That was absurd. The question was “What was the Corporation going to do?” He suggested that they should go on exactly as they were doing, take the cases, and place the responsibility on the justices. Perhaps if they went on a little longer they would get some idea at to what the Bench considered was such a state of contamination as to justify the local authority in taking action.