JANUARY 25, 1917] 
is very deadly in its effect, and showed why this 
was so. Nevertheless sulphur had got a bad 
name in the early days of steel-making, chiefly 
owing to the fact that it was impossible to intro- 
duce sufficient manganese without raising carbon 
unduly, the only material available being German 
spiegeleisen. When, however, the Ebbw Vale 
Steel Company was able to produce an alloy con- 
taining a much higher percentage of manganese 
this difficulty vanished. In spite of this, sulphur’s 
bad name has stuck, and even to-day, according 
to Dr. Stead, steel rails are rejected which pass 
all the specified mechanical tests because the per- 
centage of sulphur exceeds an arbitrary limit. He 
states that steel high in sulphur resembles wrought 
iron, and is, like that material, more or less 
fibrous. Perhaps his most interesting—certainly 
his most challenging—statement with regard to 
sulphur is the following :—“It is a fact that steel 
called free-cutting fibrous steel is being imported 
and used in England to-day, and the peculiar pro- 
perties referred to are due to the deliberate intro- 
duction of sulphur into the steel. Such material 
contains about o*15 per cent. sulphur. Sulphur, 
then, may be regarded as a friend when it is used 
intelligently, and not invariably as the enemy it 
is represented to be.”” A point, however, in con- 
nection with the question of the possible use of 
high-sulphur steels that requires careful investiga- 
tion is whether such materials would be more liable 
to atmospheric corrosion than low-sulphur steels. 
The issues raised by Dr. Stead with regard to 
the influence of phosphorus and sulphur in steel 
are of the utmost importance in their relation to 
the manufacture of steel in this country, both 
during and after the war. In the discussion on 
his paper he stated that at the beginning of the 
war sulphur was restricted to 0’04 per cent. in all 
shells, and that it was alleged that these would 
be liable to fail if the proportion was raised to 
0°06 per cent., but that, thanks to Sir Robert 
Hadfield, the limit had been raised to the higher 
figure, and shells did not fail more in the gun than 
formerly. This raising of the limit has made it 
possible to increase the output of shell steel. Can 
the limit be raised still further? That is the 
question. The case that Dr. Stead has made out 
for reconsidering the particular limits imposed on 
sulphur and phosphorus in ordnance steel specifi- 
cations is very strong. | Chemical analysis is 
introduced into steel specifications in order to aid 
in securing that the requisite properties—chemical, 
physical, and mechanical—are obtained. If steels 
possessing those properties can be prepared which 
do not come within the chemical specification the 
latter requires revision. In such matters chemical 
analysis is the servant. It should not be allowed 
to become the master. By all means let the 
authorities concerned subject Dr. Stead’s con- 
clusions to the severest criticism, and test them 
experimentally in the most thorough way. It 
ought to be done without delay. He has raised 
the question in the interests of the nation. It is 
earnestly to be hoped that the authorities will 
approach it in the same way. : 
H. C. H. Carpenter. 
No. 2465, VoL. 98] 
NATURE 
4il 
WORK OF THE GOVERNMENT 
LABORATORY. 
alae the recently issued report of the Govern- 
- ment Chemist,! it appears that 239,706 
samples were analysed at the Government Labora- 
tory during the course of the year 1915-16. This 
is an increase of some 9300 samples compared 
with the previous year, and of about 5000 com- 
pared with the year 1913-14, before the outbreak 
of war. The samples comprised a large variety 
of articles. 
The greater part of the work of the department 
is carried out in the main laboratory at Clement’s 
Inn Passage and in the branch laboratory at the 
Custom House. There are, however, eighteen 
chemical stations in different parts of the United 
Kingdom at which revenue samples alone are 
examined; these were responsible for the testing 
of an additional 144,186 samples ot dutiable goods 
during the period in question. At one time the 
laboratory was devoted solely to revenue work. 
It was, in fact, established (in the year 1843) 
with the single object of checking the adulteration 
of tobacco. From time to time, however, State 
departments other than those concerned with fiscal 
questions have found that they required assistance 
in the form of analytical work or other matters 
involving chemical knowledge, and the services of 
the laboratory officials have been requisitioned to 
meet these demands, as well as to carry out the 
provisions of certain statutes relating to the 
adulteration of foods, drugs, and other articles. 
Thus from a purely revenue establishment the 
laboratory has in process of time become a general 
State laboratory for purposes lying mainly in the 
domain of analytical chemistry, but including also 
advisory work arising in connection with a con- 
siderable variety of chemical questions. 
With this extension of scope the status of the 
laboratory has naturally undergone alteration. 
Some time ago the department was reconstituted, 
and it may be of interest to indicate its present 
standing. Whereas in the early stages of its 
career the laboratory was a small scientific branch 
placed under the control of a large fiscal depart- 
ment, it has now been made a separate and inde- 
pendent establishment supported by funds provided 
under a separate Vote in Parliament—namely, that 
for the “ Department of the Government Chemist.” 
The head is a scientific man responsible directly 
to Parliament for the expenditure of moneys 
voted. Thus the laboratory is now under a single 
administrative control, and, subject to general 
oversight by the Treasury, enjoys the privilege of 
independent action. 
This alteration of status is a matter of some 
importance as indicating a sympathetic and 
sagacious policy for which the authorities deserve 
due credit. No doubt it might be said that the 
former arrangement had its counterpart in such 
instances as the Greenwich Observatory (placed 
under the Admiralty) or the Geological Survey 
(under the Board of Education). These, however, 
are not quite analogous cases. It was a question 
1 Report upon the Work of the Government Laboratory. Cd. 8394. 
(London: Wyman and Sons, Ltd., r916.) Price 24d, 
