557 
1 877 .] Notices of Books. 
a book in which the plainest faCts are denied or misinterpreted, 
and in which the all-important evidence of palaeontology on the 
former elevations and subsidences of lands, and on their alter- 
nating connections and disconnections, is left out of view. A 
real “ Scepticism in Geology ” would be welcome, and would do 
the world good service, but it must produce very different evi- 
dence and be written in a totally different spirit from the book 
before us. £< Verifier ” has been nine centuries too late. 
A Treatise on the Law Relating to the Pollution and Obstruction 
of Water-courses , together with a Brief Summary of the 
Various Sources of Rivers Pollution. By Clement Higgins, 
M.A., F.C.S., Barrister-at-Law. London : Stevens and 
Haynes. 
It is only under very exceptional circumstances that we can, 
with either benefit to our readers or credit to ourselves, presume 
to give an opinion concerning the merits or the defeats of a work 
on any branch of law. Even in a case like the present, where 
we may lay claim to some acquaintance with, and at any rate a 
deep interest in, the subjeCl-matter of the laws expounded, we 
can only deal with what may be called collateral issues. We 
may be able to discuss the question as to what constitutes 
“ pollution” in a river. We may show the impracticability of 
certain standards that have been laid down, and point out others 
more feasible and rational. But the interpretation of statutes we 
must dismiss as a matter not within our competence. 
The treatise before us is divided into two parts. The first of 
these is devoted to an exposition of the “ Rivers’ Pollution Pre- 
vention ACt” of 1876. The author examines what constitutes 
an offence under the ACt as to solid matters, sewage pollution, 
manufacturing refuse, and mining pollutions, and then treats of 
the institution of proceedings, and of facilities for conveying 
the refuse of factories into sewers. It is in this part of the work 
only that certain chemical questions arise. What constitutes 
“ pollution ” is the first difficulty. The author remarks that 
“ The successful working of the ACt will much depend upon the 
meaning placed upon the word “ polluting” as therein used by 
those with whom its interpretation rests. It may be compara- 
tively easy to determine whether any particular manufacturing, 
mining, or other refuse is poisonous or noxious, but it is certainly 
far more different, on account of the different meanings placed 
upon the word, to say whether it is or is not polluting. No 
attempt has been made by the framers of the ACt to define the 
word, but they are content to say merely that the term “ polluting” 
shall not include innocuous discolouration.” 
This exception seems to us an element of danger. No one 
