49 
and I think after reviewing them, we may safely come to the 
conclusion, that the state of our country to-day as regards san- 
itary matters, will bear favourable comparison with any period 
of the past. 
I have endeavoured to give briefly an account of these appli- 
ances, and if I have succeeded in arousing a feeling of the great 
importance of each person being his own sanitarian, I shall, I 
think, have answered the end for which I started this paper. 
I am indebted to Mr. Samuel Gray, City Engineer, Providence, 
U.S.A., for much valuable information, 
After the reading of the paper an interesting discussion ensued. 
Dr. Mackenzie said that sanitary matters in Burnley were in a 
deplorable condition. The carrying out of the pail system was 
very seriously neglected, and he was informed that complaints 
made to the authorities failed to receive prompt attention. He 
condemned the tipping of refuse at the foundations of houses 
and controverted Mr. Dall’s statement as to the inefficiency and 
danger of the irrigation process. This plan, he considered, was 
both beneficial and remunerative and it was adopted with great 
success in connection with the city of Edinburgh. Dr. Briggs, 
J.P., endorsed the previous speaker’s reasons for the complaints 
he had made, and spoke against the emptying of ashpits during 
the day. Mr. B. Sagar observed that the careful construction of 
drains was of the first importance and required vigilant watching. 
He feared that frequently defective drains were made. He also 
insisted strongly upon the extension of the water-closet system. 
In connection with this matter, Mr. Councillor Roberts observed 
that there was great ignorance amongst the masses of the people 
as to the proper use of the water-closet. He also stated that the 
Health Department each year witnessed an improvement in its 
working. Complaints made to the Nuisance Inspector received 
daily attention. He thought the pail system was the best, and 
referred to its adoption in Manchester. The proper carrying out 
of the system, however, depended partly on the construction of 
the conveniences. He could not agree with the eulogistic re- 
marks of Mr. Dall respecting the value of the refuse destructor 
to which he alluded. After remarks from Mr. James Kay, J.P., 
who spoke in favour of the trough arrangement in Mills, &., and 
Mr. James Lancaster, who referred to the success of sewage farms, 
Mr. W. H. Colbran said he considered the irrigation process for 
the disposal of sewage asthe best. Cesspools should be abolished 
at once and water-closets become universal. This, however, 
would require an immense addition to our water supply, and 
Mr. Colbran asked if the waste water from slopstones could not 
be utilised for the purpose. The ash-pits were in most cases 
constructed too large, and he was of opinion that a small tub, 
to be emptied weekly, would be sweeter and better. Some 
