924 THE EABTH-OLOSET SYSTEM. 



constitution of the earth-closet, so far as disinfection or the want of 

 disinfection is concerned. And if I am told that the earth-closet is 

 inoffensive, and that the privy is fetid, I answer that a rattlesnak( 

 is none the less dangerous because its rattle is removed ; and that, 

 for anything shown or known to the contrary, odour is to infection, 

 deodorisation to disinfection, what the noise of the serpent is to its 

 bite. 



I believe now, as I said some years ago in an article in th( 

 * Quarterly Journal of Science' for April, 1866, page 189, that 

 some modification of the latrine system, securing all the advantages 

 and avoiding all the dangers of the water-closet system proper, 

 may be contrived for, and safely entrusted to, even the poorest and 

 most careless of our populations. Upon this point Liebig's opinion 

 will be of interest, and the more so, perhaps, inasmuch as, with a 

 curious neglect of accuracy, the illustrious chemist is often alleged 

 to be an opponent of systems for the removal of sewage by the 

 cheapest mode of carriage — namely, that by suspension in water. 

 His real opinion may be found in a letter addressed to Dr. Varren- 

 trap. May i, 1866^ and published by that writer in his very 

 valuable work, 'UeberWerth oder Unwerth der Wasserclosette,' 

 p. 178, Berlin, 1868. Baron Liebig, after stating that he agrees 

 with Mr. Lindley's plans for the drainage of Frankfort in all essen- 

 tial points, says : — 



*I am of opinion that of the present means for the removal of sewage, the one 

 which is based upon a water-supply, distributed at the rate of six cubic feet (about 

 thirty-six gallons) per head, is the safest ■■ d cheapest method for the removal of all 

 impurity both of house and of street water . . . For the purposes of agriculture it is 

 of particular importance that the contents of the sewers should not be conducted into 

 the sewers, but should be used for manuring.' 



Since writing the above, I have performed each of the following 

 five experiments several times : — 



I. Having added to five drops of liquor ammonise (London 

 Pharm.) 100 cubic centimetres of distilled water, I connected the 

 glass jar containing this solution with an aspirator, between which 

 and the jar some of Nessler's reagent for the detection of ammonia 

 was placed in a tube with several bulbs. A Woulff s bottle, con- 

 taining sulphuric acid^ was adapted to the distal side of the jar, so 

 as to secure the passing of the aspirated air through the acid. 

 Very shortly after the commencement of aspiration the test fluid 



