262 The Ghost of the Season. [May, 
being properly effected. It is surely singular and significant 
that Dr. Percy Frankland should have contented himself 
with this old analysis, and never taken the trouble even to 
inquire whether it and the conclusions based upon it were 
still applicable at the present day. Surely a wish to deal 
out even-handed justice would have dictated a different 
course. I learn that he has since applied for, and I believe 
received permission, to take samples of the sewage and 
effluent at Aylesbury. Would not this step have come with 
a better grace before his paper had been read ? 
There is another point which here deserves notice. In the 
Commissioners’ analysis quoted by Dr. Percy Frankland the 
ammonia in the effluent is found to be greather than that in 
the raw sewage. This is true, but wherefore ? In those 
days of “ ancient history,” as Mr. Norman Bazalgette not 
unhappily calls them, ammonia-alum was used in the ABC 
process, and a certain quantity of ammonia was thus intro- 
duced. But for twelve years this ammonia-alum has been 
abandoned in favour of so-called cake-alum, aluminium sul- 
phate, which contains no ammonia. Now Dr. Percy Frank- 
land either knew of this important alteration or not. If 
not, his acquaintance with the A B C process and its working 
is indeed archaic. If he knew of it and kept silence, what 
shall we say of his candour ? 
In the analysis of the two identical samples of Leeds 
sewage quoted above there is an item “ total solid impurity.” 
It was the custom of the Commissioners to class everything 
found in water beyond the oxide of hydrogen as “ impurity.” 
So it certainly is from an abstract chemical point of view. 
But from a sanitary point of view it is no such thing. All 
ordinary waters contain carbonates and sulphates of lime 
and magnesia, sometimes also traces of iron and silica. But 
it is far from being demonstrated that these impurities are 
detrimental to health. In faCt the balance of medical opinion 
seems to incline to the conviction that soft waters — i.e., those 
free from such “impurities” — are dietetically inferior to 
moderately hard waters. Surely, then, to speak of such 
matters as “ impurities ” in documents drawn up in the in- 
terests of public health, savours strongly of sensationalism. 
It was a great misfortune that the Commission did not 
include at least one physician. 
I come now to the consideration of the living organisms 
— baCteria, or other microbia — which are now commonly 
supposed to be the agents of infection. The question has 
been raised whether these “ germs,” if present in sewage, 
can by any treatment, chemical or mechanical, be either 
