EDITORIAL OBSERVATIONS. 
161 
falsely designated refuse matter. It seems but a common 
sense view of the subject, that w'e cannot for aye and for ever 
be withdrawing from the soil, and never adding anything 
to it. Yet such we have been doing to a very great extent 
for some time past. We have allowed the drainage of our 
towns to escape into the sea, and at the mouths of our rivers 
has been deposited(^e^mvvorthmillions,lying as useless,which, 
if returned to our fields, would have doubled their former 
productiveness, but the want of which has rendered them 
comparatively sterile. To meet this loss we have been con¬ 
tent to expend not less than j£20,000,000 in sea-birds^ dung, 
and how much more we know not in what are called artificial 
manures—an open door for all kinds of fraud and imposture. 
From time to time we have referred to the use of sewage, 
and are glad to perceive that the importance of the subject 
is becoming appreciated in the proper quarters. 
The select committee on sewage of towns have presented 
a second report, in which their former opinions, as to the 
value of sewage for agricultural purposes, are more definitely 
and emphatically pronounced. They had two grand objects 
in view—the reduction of local taxation, and the benefit of 
agriculture. The committee think that both objects may 
be attained by utilising the sewage; and they show, by 
analysis of the evidence brought before them, how this may 
be effected. They are further of opinion that the informa¬ 
tion they give will enable the authorities in cities and towns 
to deal with the sewage in the manner most suitable to the 
particular circumstances of the place; but, at the same time, 
they state that the municipal authorities have not at present 
sufficient powers to enable them to rent or otherwise deal 
with lands in their neighbourhood for the most profitable 
application of the sewage in relief of local taxation. 
The following extracts may be worthy of perusal; 
“ In their analysis of the evidence, the committee give the following 
among the various conclusions they have arrived at: 
“ The evidence proves that sewage contains the elements of every 
crop which is grown. That, as compared with solid manure, there are 
advantages in the application of sewage to land. In the application of 
solid manure loss is sustained from evaporation, but no such loss occurs 
with sewage. In the application of solid manure to land, years may pass 
before its entire productive qualities are all absorbed, causing a loss to 
the farmer from the slow return of the capital sunk in manure; but in 
XXXVI. 11 
