478 Sanitary Reform and its Vagaries : [August 
Before us lies a paper bearing the heading “ Proceedings of 
the Sanitary Institute of Great Britain, June 21, 188 r. 
Abstract — The Present State of the Sewage Question. By 
Prof. W. H. Corfield, M.A., M.D.” In this document we 
find the words — “ The various chemical processes for the 
treatment of sewage were passed in review, and all shown to 
be quite inadequate to cope with the difficulty.” Now we 
have the authority of gentlemen present for declaring that 
not even an attempt was made to pass the chemical processes 
in review and to show their inadequacy. The subject was 
discreetly avoided. How, then, must the unqualified state- 
ment just quoted be characterised ? 
Prof. Corfield did indeed mention as untrustworthy — we 
believe a stronger term was used — the analysis of an effluent 
water obtained by a chemical process. Whence the effluent 
in question had been obtained, or by what process produced, 
the lecturer did not think it necessary to mention, but the 
figures quoted were identical with those obtained by Prof. 
J. A. Wanklyn on analysing a sample of effluent produced 
at Aylesbury by the process of the Native Guano Company, 
April 26th, 1880. The numbers were — Grains of chlorine 
per gallon, 3*2 ; free ammonia, per million, 0*05 part ; albu- 
menoid ammonia, 0*30, or only one-tenth part the propor- 
tions considered as admissible by the Rivers’ Pollution 
Commissioners in their celebrated “ Recommendations.” 
We learn, and we understand it could be judicially proved 
if necessary, that the samples operated upon by Prof. 
Wanklyn were taken by a Buckinghamshire sanitary in- 
spector, without any warning given to the Native Guano 
Company or their officials. It seems to us that an attempt 
to discredit the work of a chemist of Prof. Wanklyn’s known 
eminence, on mere conjecture, is, to say the least, highly 
indiscreet. 
We must also remind Prof. Corfield that Prof. Wanklyn’s 
analysis, whilst totally uncontradiCted, is substantially con- 
firmed by those of independent authorities. Dr. R. Angus 
Smith, in an official report, gives the Aylesbury effluent 
water a very high character. Surely, therefore, it may be 
contended that the lecturer’s zeal had outrun his discretion. 
Judicious chemists are in the present day very cautious as 
to pronouncing on “ chemical impossibilities.” 
Just as the defects of sewage precipitation were magni- 
fied, so those of irrigation were overlooked or understated. 
No one can deny that the effects of irrigation are to reduce 
the temperature of the soil, and thereby, in our climate, to 
retard the crops. This result is complained of at the 
