1866 | Sewage and Sewerage. 195 
sively, as expounded in Dr. Hunter’s longer Report contained in 
the same volume, and already referred to in this review. 
We have spent so much time and occupied so much space with 
what concerns alike rich and poor, whom, Anthropology notwith- 
standing, we believe to be of the same species, that we cannot here 
and now dwell, as we could wish, upon the anti-sanitary condition 
of Lazarus. If the limits of our islands could be expanded consen- 
taneously with the increase of our population, the profession of the 
political economist and the occupation of the statesman would 
both alike be gone. But so long as our territory remains inexten- 
sile, whilst our people continue to be fruitful and over-replenish it, 
so long do we remain liable to hear any day the cry of the Hebrew 
prophet, “Thou has multiplied the people, but not imereased the 
joy, rising into tones articulate and loud enough to alarm the most 
thoughtless. Whispers and echoes of this cry can be caught at all 
times by the attentive ear in over-crowded England ; the years that 
are coming upon us may make its notes familiar to all of us. Those 
who are best acquainted with all the multiform shapes of poverty’s 
degradation, are agreed that physical amelioration must take pre- 
cedence of all less material improvements; and finding that vice is 
as surely linked on to filth, in their experience, as cleanliness is 
bound up with godliness in the proverb, they would agree with us 
in thinking that the line of reform about which we have here been 
writing should be entered upon. first of all. 
The agricultural economist, however, as well as the sanitarian, is 
concerned in the questions of sewage and sewerage ; and whilst the 
latter will find the works already passed in review to be drawn up 
more particularly from his own point of view, those which still 
remain to be noticed, deal mainly, though not exclusively, with the 
engineering and financial aspect of the matter. The‘ Third Report,’ 
indeed, ‘ of the Commission appointed to inquire into the best Mode 
of Distributing the Sewage of Towns,’ contains almost equal amounts 
of the discussions, interesting to either class of investigators. Mr. 
. Rawlinson, in a paper occupying some eight pages, divides his most 
valuable advice pretty impartially between the two classes of 
claimants for information and direction ; whilst a long memorandum 
on ‘The Contamination of the Water of Leith, by Dr. Stevenson 
MacAdam, is, as we should expect, more specially sanitarian. The 
description Dr. MacAdam gives, at p. 36, of the intimate relations 
which prevail in Scotland in “ the non-drainage localities ”—7.e., “in 
the smaller towns and villages,”—between the cesspools and the wells 
cannot fail to be interesting, and, indeed, something more than 
interesting, to the tourist who contemplates visiting that romantic 
but somewhat uncleanly country. The names of Lord Essex, Mr. 
Lawes, and Professor Way (the two latter of whom, by the way, 
pledge themselves, at p. 80, to 5,000 tons of sewage as being the 
