2 THOMAS MACFAELANE : 



tacitly recognised by the members of this Section, because they have considerately chosen 

 their officers, alternately, from among those of their colleagues who have devoted them- 

 selves to the mathematical sciences, and from those who have been engaged in chemical 

 studies. It has also been the practice of former presidents in their annual addresses, to 

 touch upon subjects with which they were more especially familiar. I shall, therefore, 

 ask you to allow me to confine myself to chemical subjects, and indeed to one of rather a 

 practical character. It has often been remarked, and not long ago, on a very prominent 

 occasion, by one of the past presidents of the Society, that it is impossible for any man to 

 keep pace with the progress of more than one limited branch of science. This must be 

 my excuse for confining my remarks to a matter which, all through my life, has occupied 

 my attention and studies, namely, the utilisation of waste in several branches of chemical 

 manufacture and in ordinary civilised life. 



The history of chemical technology for the last thirty years is the history of the utili- 

 sation of waste products. Chemists and manufacturers have been indefatigable in their 

 eflForts to prevent waste, and they have been very often materially stimiilated in so doing 

 by a long-suffering, but finally exasperated public. Waste, besides being impoverishing 

 to the individual, is frequently injurious to the jpublic, and it is hard to say whether the 

 individual's wish to save money, or the desire on the part of the public to abate a 

 nuisance, has led to most improvement. The latter has sometimes been extremely power- 

 ful and has often been the cause of undertakings in which the prospect of pecuniary 

 profit was very unpromising. On the other hand, the prevention of waste need not have 

 an invariable connection with the making of money. It is surely a low or uncharitable 

 view to take of the saving of time, expense, or material to suppose that it is only done 

 for pecuniary profit. May it not happen to be done in order to prevent oxu reverting to 

 the type of thriftlessness and disorder that exists among uncivilised nations ? Or again, 

 may it not be done in obedience to a higher law or craving that insists upon progress or 

 elaboration? System and tidiness prevent waste, but it would be manifestly incorrect 

 to say that both are practised from love of money. It would seem easy to define vxiste- 

 One would say that the act of wasting is the neglect to save apparently valueless sub. 

 stances and to apply them to a useful purpose. " Waste " is the substance so neglected, or 

 the adjective for qualifying it. A piece of bread thrown into the street is waste, but not 

 when used in making a pudding. A tub of dirty soapsuds is waste when it reaches the 

 sewer, but not when used to moisten a manure heaj). Still there are uses of the term 

 that do not agree with our definition. Among the functions of living organisms, waste is 

 mentioned along with those of assimilation, reproduction and growth. But in the case of 

 plants, where is the waste ? Not in the oxygen returned to the atmosphere. Not even 

 after death, for it would seem that what is called " waste " from one part of creation is 

 food for another. In the animal kingdom, the gaseous products of the so-called waste are 

 essential to the sustenance of plants. Nor in the case of the solid and liquid products of 

 living beings are these necessarily " waste." Such ejections only become waste when 

 improperly eared for or neglected. So it is also with " waste jiroducts " from manufactur- 

 ing and other operations. They are for the most part useful and only hurtful when 

 neglected. Waste is neglected matter just as dirt is misplaced matter. " Waste lands " 

 so called, are useful if improved, and even in the mineral kingdom we can conceive of 

 ores being wasted when suffered to lie dormant. Leaving, however, such definitions and 



