556 Analyses of Books. [September, 
skill acquired is not so much the question as the acquisition of 
those habits of observation which our present and past systems 
of education have aimed at destroying. 
The work before us would furnish an admirable text-book for 
pupils who can in every case start from the faCts. 
Household Chemistry : for the Non-Chemical. By Alfred J. 
Shilton, F.C.S., LeCturer on Organic Chemistry at the 
Midland Institute, Birmingham ; and at the Walsall Insti- 
tute. London : F. V. White and Co. 
We have here a work which, though in smaller compass, re- 
minds us in some respeCts of Johnstone’s “ Chemistry of 
Common Life.” It differs, however, in the more copious intro- 
duction of chemical formulae. 
The author remarks that certain earlier works, covering to 
some extent the same ground, have been at fault in containing 
matter “ not of a strictly chemical nature, and which, however 
interesting in itself, swells the book to a large size without 
adding to its usefulness.” On this we may remark that in a 
popular treatise it is sometimes difficult to observe the boundary- 
lines of stridt method. Of this Mr. Shilton himself is an 
instance, since in his chapter on Candles (Chapter IV.) a great 
part of the information given relates to purely mechanical ope- 
rations. No small portion of the concluding chapter, also, 
might be referred to a treatise on “ Household Physiology.” 
The instruction given in the work must be pronounced, as far 
as we perceive, accurate in itself and clear in exposition. We 
are much pleased with the author’s remarks upon ozone, the 
faith in which may deservedly rank as one of the superstitions 
of this scientific age. We are far from certain whether, when, 
and to what extent, this body exists in the atmosphere. Granting 
its presence, its sanitary value is a still more doubtful question. 
From experiments made with ozone, as artificially prepared, it 
seems to have no very beneficial aCtion upon animal life. 
The chapter on Water also contains much of which we must 
express our approval. The author gives it as his opinion that 
soft waters are dietetically preferable to such as are hard. With 
this we agree. That some towns supplied with soft waters have 
a higher death-rate than that of certain others consuming hard 
waters proves nothing, unless all the other conditions were alike. 
We scarcely agree, however, with the author’s expressed prefer- 
ence for the waters of deep wells as against that collected from 
uncultivated siliceous uplands. We fear that in populous 
