ST JAMES 5 REPORT FOR THE YEAR 1897, made to the Vestry of Saint James's WESTMINSTER, by JAMBS EDMUNDS, M.D., Member of the Royal College of Physicians of London ; Member of the Society of Public Analysts ; Fellow of the Chemical Society ; &c., &c., &c. MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH and PUBLIC ANALYST For ST. JAMES'S. WESTMINSTER. London: PRINTED BY G. PULMAN & SONS. 24-25-26, ThayeR Steeet, Manchester SqUare, W. 1898. CONTENTS. I.—PUBLIC HEALTH. pages General Report for the year 1897 3-9 Appendix of Tables. 1. Summary of Causes of Death (Tables A and B) 10-13 2. Cases of Notifiable Infectious Diseases 14-30 3. Sanitary Inspectors' Work 31-33 4. Underground Rooms cleared of Occupants 34 5. Summary of Sanitary Inspectors' Work 35 II.—PUBLIC ANALYSIS. Report on Articles Analysed during the year, 1897 36-37 Appendices. 1. Table of Articles and Results of Analyses 38-42 2. Special Report on Milk. Correspondence thereon with Government Laboratory and Introductory Observations. Resolutions of the Vestry thereon (final page of appendix) 43 TO THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS of the Vestry of Saint James's Westminster Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, I have the honour to submit my Annual Report for the year, 1897, upon the Public Health of the Parish of St. James, Westminster. This Report is the twenty-fourth which 1 have had the honour to prepare for the Parish of St. James. Eighteen Annual Reports had previously been prepared by Dr. Edwin Lankester, my predecessor in this office. The area and population, to which this Report relates, have been summarized in the following table:— Area in Acres 162 Population. Mean Density of Population per Acre. Census, 1831 37,053 229 1841 37,398 231 1851 36,406 225 1861 35,326 218 1871 33,619 214 1881 29,865 184 1891 24,995 154 1896 23,050 142 In Registration London the average density of the population for 1896 is given by the Registrar-General as 59.2 persons per acre. A 2 4 During the year 1897, the net mortality of the district of St. James's has been 388 deaths. Taking the population as enumerated in the census of 1896, we have 20,053 persons, with 388 deaths—a death-rate of 19.35 for each 1,000 persons sleeping in St. James's. The figures for the net mortality of St. James's are obtained by taking the deaths registered in St. James's, adding to this number the deaths in Outlying Institutions of persons removed from St. James's, and then subtracting the deaths registered in St. James's of persons who were noted as non-parishioners by the Registrar. This procedure is as follows 309+118—39=388 net mortality. These mortality data are shown in greater detail in the following figures :— The deaths registered as having occurred in St. James's for the four quarters of the year 1897, were as follows:— First Quarter 86 Second Quarter 63 Third Quarter 59 Fourth Quarter 101 Deaths registered in St. James's during the year 309 Add deaths in Outlying Institutions among persons removed from St. James's 118 427 Deduct deaths of persons reported as NonParishioners;— Dying in the Union House 24 Dying in the Throat Hospital 9 Dying elsewhere 6 39 Net mortality of St. James's for the year 1897 388 5 During the year 1897, 29 bodies were removed into the Mortuary. Twenty-six inquests have been held upon bodies lying in the Mortuary, and 25 post-mortem, examinations for judicial purposes have been made in the Examination Room adjoining the Mortuary. The following Table gives a summary of the certified causes of death among persons dying in Outlying Institutions, after having been removed from the district of St. James's, Westminster, during the year 1897:— Accidental Injury 7 Anaemia 1 Brain Disease 8 Bronchitis 6 Broncho-Pneumonia 4 Cancer 6 Diarrhoea 1 Diphtheria 5 Epilepsy 2 Enteric Fever 3 Gangrene 1 Gout 1 Heart Disease 10 Kidney Disease 9 Measles 1 Meningitis 4 Old Age 3 Other Causes 8 Paralysis 2 Phthisis 21 Pleurisy 1 Pneumonia 4 Scarlet Fever 7 Tuberculosis 3 118 6 The following Table shows the periods of life, and the seasonal variations of the Mortality in St. James's, during the Seven years 1890-1896 inclusive. Under 1 Year of Age. 1 and under 5. 5 and under 20. 20 and under 40. 40 and under 60. 60 and under 80. 80 and upwards. All Ages. 1890 First Quarter 23 9 5 15 15 23 1 91 Second Quarter 26 11 1 10 13 12 3 76 Third Quarter 27 6 2 11 15 27 3 91 Fourth Quarter 22 9 3 18 34 20 5 111 Totals 98 35 11 54 77 82 12 369 1891 First Quarter 16 6 5 16 24 34 4 105 Second Quarter 18 16 3 12 35 55 9 147 Third Quarter 25 12 1 9 19 15 5 88 Fourth Quarter 17 7 2 9 17 21 3 78 Totals 76 41 11 46 95 125 21 418 1892 First Quarter 19 19 4 15 33 47 10 147 Second Quarter 18 14 6 6 25 12 2 83 Third Quarter 17 12 2 7 15 11 3 67 Fourth Quarter 17 3 2 12 20 25 8 87 Totals 71 48 14 40 93 95 23 384 1893 First Quarter 14 8 3 15 28 29 6 103 Second Quarter 14 11 4 11 25 34 9 98 Third Quarter 21 8 4 6 15 17 5 77 Fourth Quarter 21 9 4 11 22 32 2 101 Totals 80 36 15 43 90 102 22 379 1894 First Quarter 17 13 3 11 18 36 3 101 Second Quarter 17 12 3 7 21 4 64 Third Quarter.. 16 6 4 4 15 16 3 64 Fourth Quarter 24 6 1 19 15 19 5 89 Totals 74 37 8 37 55 92 15 318 1895 First Quarter 26 8 4 10 34 48 10 140 Second Quarter 18 5 4 8 11 17 7 68 Third Quarter 20 2 l 8 14 10 3 58 Fourth Quarter 15 9 3 13 11 23 3 77 Totals 77 24 12 39 70 98 23 343 1896 First Quarter 27 20 2 4 13 24 3 92 Second Quarter 17 9 4 9 16 25 7 87 Third Quarter. 16 6 3 8 13 18 5 69 Fourth Quarter 9 4 4 17 16 43 1 94 Totals 69 39 3 38 58 110 16 342 7 ZYMOTIC DEATHS REGISTERED IN ST. JAMES'S DURING THE 25 YEARS—1872-96 INCLUSIVE. 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896. Smallpox 6 1 1 3 1 3 1 Measles 24 20 1 4 21 8 19 6 26 10 17 2 10 8 10 8 4 18 7 2 9 3 11 1 27 Scarlet Fever and Diphtheria 6 13 19 11 7 20 15 20 10 11 3 7 2 5 4 5 3 2 5 6 1 2 Whooping Cough 30 18 14 28 14 7 19 14 18 8 12 1 3 2 6 5 3 11 7 6 7 9 3 Diarrhoea 28 29 11 21 19 13 21 9 23 15 12 12 16 19 15 10 8 7 11 8 7 6 3 7 9 Typhus and Typhoid Fever 8 9 6 3 7 12 9 4 6 5 5 1 4 3 5 1 2 3 1 3 6 2 1 Cholera 1 Total 102 77 45 75 76 50 89 48 93 51 57 18 38 36 27 29 26 31 26 26 25 23 33 20 42 During the 25 years, 1872-96 inclusive, the deaths from these Zymotics were 1,171, being an average yearly mortality of 46.84. 8 Of the notifiable Infectious Diseases, 224 cases came under notice during the year 1897. Of these 224 cases, 131 were of Scarlet Fever; 3 were of Small-Pox; 49 were of Diphtheria; 24 were of Erysipelas; 13 were of Enteric Fever; 1 was of Puerperal Fever; 1 was of Membranous Croup, and 2 of Continued Fever. Of the 224 cases, 180 were removed to Extra-Parochial Hospitals, 1 to the Union House in Poland Street, and 3 to private residences; 44 of the cases were not removed. Details of these 224 cases are appended in Table II., pages 14 to 30. Tables of the causes of death and other data for the year 1897 are appended. The parish has been visited by no epidemic during the year 1897. Mr. John Percy Folland, and Mr. Thomas Winter Calverley, our two Sanitary Inspectors, have given me cordial and efficient assistance in the sanitary work of the Parish. During the year 1897, the sanitary work of the Parish has been quietly, and, in my opinion, efficiently done. The routine work as Medical Officer of Health has been done by me throughout the whole of the year. Under date December 15th, 1896, the London County Council, taking action under "The Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855," published a draft of proposed new Bye-laws for the regulation of drainage and other sanitary works in London. As these Bye-laws would affect property of an annual rateable value of £40,000,000 sterling, it is of vast importance to have such Bye-laws well considered, and to have their text so clearly worded as to be intelligible to practical builders and householders. At the instance of the Public Health Committee of St. James's Vestry, a detailed Report on the text and on the effect of the proposed Bye-laws was prepared by the Surveyor, Henry Monson,Esq., and myself. That Report was printed and circulated, and its 9 substance will be found on record in The Lancet of April 28th, 1897, pages 1164-5. Up to this time (June, 1898), these proposed Bye-laws are still under consideration. It is to be hoped that a really efficient, workable, and wise code of Bye-laws for these important matters may shortly be obtained for this great Metropolis. I have the honour to remain, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, Your obedient Servant, JAMES EDMUNDS. 28, Dover Street, Piccadilly. 10 Table A.—DEATHS registered during the year 1897 in the Classified according to Localities. Mortality from all causes, at subjoined ages. Mortality from subjoined At all Ages. Under 1. 1—5. 5-15. 15—25. 25—65. 65 and upwards. Ages. 1 2 3 4 5 Small-Pox. Scarlet Fever. Diphtheria. Membranous Croup. Typhus. (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) Parish of St. James (minus Union-House and Throat Hospital) 245 65 35 4 9 94 38 Under 5. .. .. .. .. .. 5 upwds. .. .. .. .. .. Westminster UnionHouse, Poland St. 55 6 .. .. 2 22 25 Under 5 .. .. .. .. .. 5 upwds. .. .. .. .. .. Throat Hospital, Golden Square 9 1 1 1 4 2 Under 5 .. .. .. .. .. 5 upwds. .. .. .. .. .. Totals 309 71 36 5 12 120 65 Under 5 .. .. .. .. .. 5 upwds. .. .. .. .. .. The subjoined numbers have also to be taken into account Deaths occurring outside the district among persons belonging thereto† 118 6 14 8 10 67 1 Under 5 .. 2 3 .. .. 5 upwds. .. 5 2 .. .. Deaths occur'g within the district among persons not belonging thereto 39 2 1 1 2 23** 10 Under 5 .. .. .. .. .. 5 upwds. .. .. .. .. .. *In the model form the heading of column 19 is left blank for the insertion of any other columns might well be devoted to the tabulation of "Malignant Growths," and of "Tuberculous as to the Causes of Death. ‡ The term "Scarlatina" often suggests that the cases are not infectious. As this is a § Enteric Fever is still often called " Typhoid." The term Typhoid arose from the marked by an affection of the lining membrane of the intestine, which is as characteristic †More precisely, these figures are of "persons removed from St. James's." Some of these were ** Including 4 deaths in Union House of wandering persons of unknown address. 11 Parish of St. Jambs, Westminster—a Metropolitan District. Diseases, Ages, and Localities. Causes, Distinguishing Deaths Of Children Under Five. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 21 22 Fevers. Cholera. Erysipelas. Measles. Whooping Cough. Diarrhæa and Dysentery. Rheumatic Fever. Phthisis. Bronchitis, Pneumonia, and Pleurisy. Heart Disease. Cancer. Injuries. All other Diseases. Total. Enteric. § Continued. Relapsing. Puerperal. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11 5 8 .. 1 25 2 2 44 98 .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 .. .. .. 26 34 24 12 7 43 147 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6 6 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 5 8 18 17 49 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 1 .. 1 3 4 8 .. .. .. 11 5 8 1 25 2 2.. .. 51 105 .. .. 1 1 32 42 42 15 ' 64 204 in judging of the above records of Mortality. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 .. 1 .. .. 6 .. .. .. 5 18 3 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 23 11 6 4 6 40 100 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 3 3 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 3 4 15 3 1 10 36 disease which it may be thought desirable to record. I have inserted " Cancer." Two extra Diseases "; but, for this, a greater precision is needed than at present obtains in the Certificates dangerous mistake, Scarlet Fever is the only term used. supposition that this fever was akin to Typhus. It is now known to be a distinct fever, as is the affection of the skin in Small-Pox. It is best described as Enteric Fever, more or less casually in the Parish, and are not fairly described as " belonging thereto." 12 Table B.—POPULATION, BIRTHS, AND NEW CASES OE Medical Officer of Health, during the year 1897, in the Classified according to Localities. Population at all ages. Registered Births. Infectious Sickness Kkpokted Ages. l 2 a i fi 6 7 Census 1891 Census 189g. Smallpox. i Scarlet Fever. " Diphtheria. 1 Membranous Croup. Fevers. Typhus. Enteric. Continued. | («) (« (c) 1 (d) («) Parish of St. James (minus Union-House and Throat Hospital) 463 Under 5 5 upwards... 3 48 81 i I 14 35 1 13 i I Westminster Union House, Poland Street 33 Under 5 ... 5 upwards. . — Throat Hospital, Golden Square Under 5 ... 5 upwards... I i Totals 24,995 23,050 496 Under 5 ... 5 upwards... 3 48 83 14 35 1 13 " Notification of Infectious Disease" has been compulsory in the District since October, the various Hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board. To these Isolation Hospitals and some to their own homes in the suburbs of London (vide page 8 and Table II.). from their homes." To meet these facts and to increase the clearness of Tables A and B, In the preparation of the above Tables A and B, as prescribed Board, I have given attention to the annotations 13 INFECTIOUS SICKNESS coming to the knowledge of the Parish of St. James's, Westminster—a Metropolitan District. Diseases, Ages, and Localities. In each locality. Infectious casks removed to extra-parochial hospitals or elsewhere 8 9 10 11 Totals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Totals. Fevers. Cholera. Erysipelas Smallpox. Scarlet Fever. Diphtheria. Membranous. Croup. Fevers. Cholera. Erysipelas. Relapsing. Puerperal. Typhus. Enteric. Continued. Relapsing. Puerperal. ... ... ... 3 67 48 9 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 57 ... 1 ... 21 155 3 77 29 ... ... 11 1 ... ... ... 3 124 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 1 ... 1 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 1 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 1 ... 1 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 1 ... ... ... 3 671 224 ... 48 9 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 57 183 ... 1 ... 21 157 3 79 29 ... ... 11 1 ... ... ... 3 126 1889. The Isolation Hospitals used by the sick are all outside the Parish. They are 164 of the above removals took place, while 16 went to other extra parochial Hospitals, Many such cases in St. James's, again, are not completely described as "removed I have slightly altered the wording of certain headings and the ruling of certain compartments. by Sec. 15 of Article 18 of the Order of the Local Government which are endorsed upon the Model Forms.—J. E. 14 APPENDIX TO REPORT OF MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH. Table II.—Cases of Infectious Diseases notifiable under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, Sec 55, and coming to the knowledge of the Medical Officer of Health during the year 1897. No of Case. Date. Address. Sex. Age. Diseaee. Removed to. Patient's Occupation. Parent's Occupation. Remarks. 1 Jan. 2 29, Great Windmill street Female 9 years Diphtheria Not removed Scholar Porter 2 2 14, Broad street Female 2 years Scarlet Fever Western Fever Hospital Scholar Tailor 3 14 14, King street, Regent street Male 6 years Diphtheria Not removed Scholar Publican 4 20 12, Bridle lane Female 63 years Facial Erysipelas Not removed Wife of a Coachman 5 22 83, St. James's residences Female 5 years Diphtheria Tooting Hospital Scholar Widow 6 25 25, Broad street Female 16 years Diphtheria Haverstock Hill Hospital Tailoress Tailor 7 Feb. 1 10, Carnaby street Female 28 years Diphtheria Fulham Hospital 8 1 80, Berwick street Female 1 year Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Nil Widow 9 2 36, Warwick street, Regent street Male 3 years Scarlet Fever Not removed Nil Licensed Victualler 10 4 201, Piccadilly Female 19 years Typhoid Fever Haverstock Hill Hospital Nurse Died 11 10 12, Savile row Female 4 years Diphtheria Not removed Nil Police Sergeant 12 23 8, Upper John street F emale 4 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Nil Unemployed h-» 13 Mar. 4 8, Peter street Female 2 years Diphtheria Middlesex Hospital Nil Labourer 14 4 26, Noel street Male 3 years Diphtheria Fulham Hospital Nil French Polisher 15 7 34, Sackville street Female 10 years Scarlatina Fulham Hospital Scholar Warehouseman 16 8 8, Peter street Female 25 years Diphtheria Middlesex Hospital Wife of a Labourer 17 14 22, Lexington street Female 62 years Erysipelas Not removed Charwoman 18 18 39, Shaftesbury avenue Male 4 years Scarlet Fever 12, University Hosier 19 17 44, Regent street Male 2 years Diphtheria Dllcct Not removed Nil Hosier 20 19 28, Rupert street Female 3 years Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Hospital Nil Widow 21 20 120, St. James's residences Female 5 years Membranous Croup Not, removed Scholar Tailor Died 22 25 5, Crown court, Pall Mall Male 22 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Cook 23 25 30, Argyll street Male 27 years Diphtheria London Fever Hospital Porter 24 28 30, Argyll street Male 16 years Diphtheria London Fever Hospital Porter Died 25 28 30, Argyll street Male 18 years Diphtheria Fulham Hospital Porter 26 28 30, Argyll street Male 19 years Diphtheria Fulham Hospital Porter 27 April 2 193, Regent street Male 23 years Diphtheria Walton, Hertford Porter 28 8 66, Berwick street Female 4 years Scarlet Fever Stockwell Hospital Scholar Tailor 16 APPENDIX TO EEPOET OP MEDICAL OPFICEE OP HEALTH. Table II.—Cases of Infectious Diseases notifiable under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, Sec. 55, and coming to the knowledge of the Medical Officer of Health during the year 1897—Continued. No.of Case. Date. Address. Sex Age. Disease. Removed to. Patient's Occupation. Parent's Occupation. Remarks. 29 April 9 49, Berwick street Male 9 years Scarlet Fever Stockwell Hospital Scholar Tailor 30 11 49, Berwick street Male 4 years Scarlet Fever Stockwell Hospital Scholar Tailor 31 13 Union house, Poland street Female Scarlatina Fulham Hospital Pauper Tailor 32 12 41, Broad street Male 7 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Scholar 33 13 227, Piccadilly Female 21 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Barmaid 34 12 72, Berwick street Male 27' years Facial Erysipelas Not removed 35 20 21, Broad street Male 6 years Scarlet Fever Scholar Tailor 36 20 68, Pall Mall Male 36 years Typhoid Fever Not removed Gentleman 37 21 18, Ormond yard Male 6 years Scarlet Fever Havers tock Hill Hospital Nil Inspector R.S.P.C.A. 38 22 193, Regent street Female 30 years Diphtheria London Fever Hospital Domestic Servant 39 22 57, Ingestre buildings Male 4 mos. Erysipelas Not removed Nil Police Constabl e 40 23 21, Portland street Female 16 years Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Hospital Tailoress 17 41 April24 5, George place, Ganton street Female 3 years Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Hospital Scholar Upholsteress 42 27 4, Green's court Female 1 mo. Erysipelas Not removed Nil Tailor 43 May 3 174, Piccadilly Female 4 years Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Hospital Nil Tailor 44 9 9, St. James's market Female 5 years Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Hospital Scholar French Polisher 45 9 25, Berwick street Female 5 years Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Hospital Scholar Shoemaker 46 10 61, Poland street Female 61 years Small-Pox Hospital Ships, Long Reach Widow 47 10 2, Ramilies street F emale 6 years Diphtheria Haverstock Hill Hospital Scholar Publican 48 11 61, Poland street Female 23 years Small-Pox Hospital Ships, Long Reach Domestic Servant 49 12 52, Ingestre buildings, Ingestre place. Female 6 years Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Hospital Scholar Police Constable 50 12 60, Ingestre buildings, Ingestre place Female 6 years Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Hospital Scholar Tailor 51 13 Throat Hospital, Golden square Female 19 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Notification sent to Vestry of Stoke Newington. 52 14 61, Poland street Female 17 years Small-Pox Hospital Ships. Long Reach Domestic Servant 53 17 14, Elkington buildings, Archer street Male 1 year Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Hospital Nil Confectioner 54 23 4, Ingestre buildings Male 3 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Nil Police Constable 55 a 24 36, Poland street Female 15 years Diphtheria Not Removed Dressmaker's Apprentice 18 APPENDIX TO REPORT OF MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH. Table II.—Cases of Infectious Diseases notifiable under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, Sec. 55, and coining to the knowledge of the Medical Officer of Health during the year 1897—Continued. No. of Case. Date. Address. Sex. Age. Disease. Removed to. Patient's Occupation. Parent's Occupation. Remarks. 56 May 26 7, Archer street Female 50 years Erysipelas Not removed Waistcoat Maker 57 27 50a Brewer street Female 29 years Puerperal Fever. Not removed Wife of a Groom 58 29 11, Poland street Male 13 years Erysipelas Not removed Scholar Tailor 59 31 4, Ganton street Male 10 years Scarlet Fever Stockwell Hospital Scholar Labourer 60 June 2 196, Regent street F emale 26 years Scarlatina Not removed Wife of a Jeweller 61 5 28, Rupert street Female 2 years Scarlatina Haverstock Hill Widow 62 8 60, Berwick street Male 2 years Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Painter • 63 8 28, Rupert street Male 5 years Diphtheria Haverstock Hill Nil Widow 64 8 28, Rupert street Female 8 years Diphtheria Haverstock Hill Scholar Widow 65 9 K.I., the Albany F emale 12 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Domestic Servant 66 11 3, Appletree yard Male 22 years Scarlatina F ulham Hospital Newsvendor 67 12 21b, Wellington mews Male 7 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital. Scholar Baker 19 68 June 15 147a, Regent street. Female 14 years Erysipelas Not removed Bookbinder 69 16 25, Charles street Female 22 years Erysipelas Workhouse Charwoman 70 18 Fire Station, Great Marlborough street Male 6 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Scholar Fireman 71 21 12, St. Alban's place Female 11 years Scarlatina Not removed Scholar Jewish Rabbi 72 21 3 & 4, Sherwood street Male 27 years Erysipelas 71, Sussex Kitchen 73 21 72, St. James's Residences, Little Pulteney street F emale 16 months Diphtheria Street, Poplar Not removed Porter Cook 74 28 16, Ganton street Female 8 years Diphtheria Not removed Scholar Rag Merchant 75 July 1 3, Portland street Male 7 years Scarlet Fever Tottenham Fever Hospital Scholar Bootmaker 76 2 6, Pulteney Chambers, Little Pulteney street Male 4 years Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Nil Relieving Officer 77 6 25, Berwick street Female 5 years Scarlet Fever Stockwell Hospital Scholar Tailor Died 78 5 58, Poland street Female 12 years Scarlet Fever Stockwell Hospital Scholar Hairdresser 79 6 25. Berwick street Female 3 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Nil Tailor 80 7 3, Denman street Female 50 years Erysipelas Not removed Nil 81 7 St. James's Theatre, King street, S.W. Male 25 years Typhoid Fever Middlesex Hospital Actor 82 w to 7 25, Berwick street Female 7 years Scarlet Fever F ulham Hospital Scholar Tailor 20 APPENDIX TO REPORT OF MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH. Table II.—Cases of Infectious Diseases notifiable under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, Sec. 55, and coming to the knowledge of the Medical Officer of Health during the year 1897—Continued. No.of Case. Date. Address. Sex- Age. Disease. Removed to. Patient's Occupation. Parent's Occupation. Remarks. 83 July 7 28, Glasshouse street Female 6 years Scarlet Fever Stockwell Hospital Scholar Drapers' Salesman Tailor 84 8 7. Denman street Male 13 years Diphtheria Stockwell Hospital Scholar 85 9 48, St. James's residences, Little Pulteney street Male 3 years Scarlet Fever Stockwell Hospital Nil Agent 86 13 12, Ingestre place Female 8 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Scholar General Shopkeeper Clerk Died August 7th, 1897. 87 13 9, Swallow street Female 4 years Diphtheria Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond street 88 13 34, Broad street Female 6 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Scholar Tailor 89 13 26, Marshall street Female 10 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Scholar Tailor 90 14 13, Livonia street Male 2 years Diphtheria Hampstead Hospital Cellarman 91 14 13, Livonia street Female 8 years Diphtheria Fulham Hospital Scholar Cellarman 92 12 15, Ingestre buildings Female 7 years Scarlet Fever Haversltck Hill Scholar Tailor 93 14 44, Lexington street Female 10 years Scarlet Fever Stockwell Hospital Scholar Widow of a Soldier to 94 July 17 6, Livonia street Female 5 years Diphtheria Stockwell Hospital Labourer 95 19 24, Broad street Female 9 years Scarlet Fever Stockwell Hospital Scholar Tailor 96 27 7, Ingestre place Male 8 years Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Hospital Scholar Tailor 97 22 7, Marshall street Male 7 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Scholar Clerk 98 22 19, Noel street Female 33 years Enteric Fever Stockwell Hospital Charwoman 99 23 43, Shaftesbury avenue Female 25 years Typhoid Fever Stockwell Hospital Nil Nil 100 24 25, Marshall house, Marshall street Male 2 years Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Hospital Nil Tailor 101 26 9, Elkington buildings, Archer street Female 5 years Scarlatina New Cross Hospital Scholar Cellarman 102 26 9, Elkington buildings, Archer street F emale 7 years Scarlatina New Cross Hospital Scholar Cellarman 103 26 65, Poland street Female 3 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Nil Tobacconist 104 26 6, West street Female 8 years Scarlatina New Cross Hospital Scholar Labourer 105 27 19, Noel street Male 4 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Scholar Tailor 106 27 2, Dufours place Male 4 years Scarlet Fever Tooting Hospital Scholar Tailor 107 27 26, Portland street Male 45 years Diphtheria Fulham Hospital Tailor 108 28 20, Great Marlborough street Female 11 years Facial Erysipelas Not removed Scholar Housekeeper • 22 APPENDIX TO REPORT OF MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH. Table II.—Cases of Infectious Diseases notifiable under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, Sec. 55, and coming to the knowledge of the Medical Officer of Health during the year 1897—Continued. No.of Case. Date. Address. Sex. Age. Disease. Removed to. Patient's Occupation. Parent's Occupation. Remarks. 109 July 29 26, Portland street Male 16 years Diphtheria Stockwell Hospital Fishmonger's Assistant 110 29 6, Dufours place Male 3 years Scarlatina Tooting Hospital Nil Cellarman 111 Aug. 3 71, St. James's residences Female 14 years Sfarlet Fever Full) am Hospital Errand Girl 112 3 65, Poland street Female 3 years Scarlatina Fulham Hospital Nil Tailor 113 3 52, Ingestre buildings Male 2 years Diphtheria Haverstock Hill Hospital Nil Police Constable Died Aug. 5th 114 5 11, Livonia street Male 7 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Scholar Viceman 115 5 25, Golden square Female 7 years Scarlatina Tooting Hospital, Scholar Caretaker 116 6 92, Berwick street Female 5 years Diphtheria Fulham Hospital Nil Widow 117 6 26, Berwick street Female 20 years Erysipelas Not removed 118 9 16, Elkington buildings, Archer street Male 7 years Scarlet Fever New Cross Hospital Scholar Inspector R.SP.C.A. 119 9 20, Golden square Male 11 years Diphtheria Not removed Scholar Caretaker 120 9 60, Ingestre buildings Male 7 years Scarlet Fever New Cross Hospital Scholar Tailor Oo 121 Aug. 10 60, Ingestre buildings Male 11 years Scarlet Fever New Cross Hospital Scholar Tailor 122 9 The Synagogue, 12, St. Alban's place Female 8 years Scarlet Fever Stockwell Hospital Scholar Jewish Rabbi 123 10 The Synagogue, 12, St. Alban's place Female 7 years Scarlet Fever Stockwell Hospital Scholar Jewish Rabbi 124 11 2 Portland street Male 3 years Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill. Nil Tailoress 125 12 50, Ingestre buildings Female 4 years Scarlet Fever Stockwell Hospital Scholar Tailor 126 18 6, Kemp's court Female 15 years Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Domestic Servant 127 21 81, Berwick street F emale 4 years Diphtheria Stockwell Hospital Scholar Bootmaker 128 21 2, Portland street Female 12 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Scholar Potman 129 21 6, Kemp's court Female 12 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Scholar Stoker 130 21 12, Livonia street Male 13 months Diphtheria Haverstock Hill Nil Street Washer Died 27th Aug., 1897 131 23 40, Berwick street Female 8 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Scholar Tailor 132 23 40, Berwick street Male 3 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Nil Tailor 133 25 3, Portland street Female 3 years Scarlatina Fulham Hospital Nil Tailor 134 25 40, Berwick street B'emale 6 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Scholar Tailor 135 25 40, Berwick street Female 13 months Scarlatina Haverstock Hill Nil Tailor 24 APPENDIX TO REPORT OF MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH. Table II.—Cases of Infectious Diseases notifiable under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, Sec. 55, and coming to the knowledge of the Medical Officer of Health during the year 1897—Continued. No.of Case. Date. Address. Sex. Age. Disease. Removed to. Patient's Occupation. Parent's Occupation. Remarks. 136 Aug. 30 16, Ingestre buildings Female 55 years Facial Erysipelas Not rmemoved Widow 137 31 1, Livonia street Male 4 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Scholar Cloth Worker 138 Sept 4 5, Portland street Female 7 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Scholar Engraver 139 5 96, St. James's residences Female 12 years Scarlet Fever Stockwell Hospital Scholar Tobacconist 140 8 19, Noel street Male 3 years Scarlatina Fulham Hospital Scholar Tailor 141 9 Taylor's stables. 31, Rupert street Male 6 years Scarlatina Fulham Hospital Scholar Horsekeeper 142 11 2, Poland street Female 6 years Scarlet Fever Stockwell Hospital Scholar Tailor 143 13 3, Broad street buildings Female 15 years Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Tailor 144 13 179, Wardour street Female 8 years Scarlatina Not removed Scholar French Polisher 145 13 24, Great Pulteney street Male 10 years Scarlet Fever London Fever Hospital Scholar Tailor 146 13 4, Ingestre buildings, Broad street Male 32 years Diphtheria Fulham Hospital Police Constable 147 17 43, Berwick street Male 6 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Scholar Gas Fitter Died 20th Sept., 1897 25 148 Sept. 16 81, St. James's residences Female 6 years Scarlet Fever Havers tock Hill Hospital Scholar Tailor 149 17 30, Old Burlington street Female 40 years Typhoid Fever Not removed Housekeeper 150 20 13, Ingestre place Female 5 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Scholar Compositor 151 20 24, Beak street Female 10 years Scarlet Fever Not removed Scholar Hairdresser 152 20 3, Edward street Male 2 years Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Nil Tailor 153 20 3, Edward street Female 6 years Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Scholar Tailor 154 21 12, Berwick street Female 10 years Scarlatina Haverstock Hill Scholar Widow 155 21 13, Livonia street Male 44 years Facial Not Harness Maker 156 23 5, Kemps court Female 13 years Erysipelas Scarlet Fever removed Fulham Hospital Scholar Widow 157 24 45a, Berwick street Female 2 years Continued Not Nil Omnibus 158 27 9, Marshall street Male 4 years Fever Scarlatina removed Haverstock Hill Scholar Conductor French Polisher 159 27 30, Berwick street Male 7 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Scholar Tailor Died Nov. 12th, 1897 160 27 5, Silver place Male 3 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Nil Tailor 161 30 26, Portland street Male 53 years Erysipelas of Face Hospital German H ospital Tailor 162 30 4, Dufours place Male 10 years Scarlatina Stockwell Hospital Scholar Carman 26 APPENDIX TO REPORT OF MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH. Table II.—Cases of Infectious Diseases Notifiable under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, Sec. 55, and coming to the knowledge of the Medical Officer of Health during the year 1897—Continued. No.of Case. Date. Address. Sex. Age. Disease. Removed to. Patient's Occupation. Parent's Occupation. Remarks. 163 Sept. 30 18, Ramilies street Female 50 years Erysipelas Not removed 164 Oct. 1 9, Marshall street Male 3 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital French Polisher 165 1 10, Marshall house, Marshall street Female 3 years Scarlatina Fulham Hospital Tailor 166 4 9, Marshall street Female 2 years Scarlatina Fulham Hospital Nil French Polisher 167 5 12, Lexington street Female 7 years Scarlet Fever Stockwell Hospital Scholar Widow 168 6 46, Brewer street Female 7 years Scarlatina Tooting Hospital Scholar Widow 169 7 8, Peter street Male 8 months Scarlatina Tooting Hospital Nil Labourer 170 8 15, Broad street Male 36 years Erysipelas Not removed 171 8 1, Great Pulteney street Male 4 years Scarlet Fever London Fever Hospital Nil Tailor 172 11 139, Oxford street Male 33 years Typhoid Fever Stockwell Hospital Carpenter Died 173 12 30, Rupert street Male 15 years Diphtheria Stockwell Hospital Errand Boy Tailor 174 12 18, Lexington street Male 11 years Diphtheria Fulham Hospital Scholar Widow 27 175 Oct. 14 8, Berwick street Female 6 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Scholar Shoemaker Died 176 17 20, Ingestre buildings Male 6 months Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Hospital Nil Chapel Keeper 177 18 8, Berwick street Female 2 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Nil Shoemaker Died 178 18 2, Marshall street Male 6 years Diphtheria Stockwell Hospital Scholar Porter 179 20 4, Church place Male 6 years Diphtheria Not removed Scholar Restaurant Proprietor 180 20 2, Marshall street Female 27 years Diphtheria Fulham Hospital Tailoress 181 22 29, Lexington street Male 11 years Diphtheria Haverstock Hill Scholar 182 23 32, Rupert street Female 23 years Typhoid Fever Charing Cross Hospital Milliner 183 25 7, Noel street Female 7 years Scarlatina Fulham Hospital Scholar Bootmaker Died 184 26 50, Ingestre buildings Male 12 years Typhoid Fever St. Thomas's Hospital Scholar Tailor 185 23 4, Green's court Male 22 years Typhoid Fever Middlesex Hospital Carman 186 25 92, Berwick street Female 5 years Scarlatina Fulham Hospital Nil Widow 187 26 44, Ingestre buildings Female 4 years Scarlet Fever Stockwell Hospital Scholar Packer 188 28 27, Beak street Male 23 years Erysipelas Not removed Stableman 189 Nov. 1 3, Black Lion court Female 11 years Diphtheria Not removed Scholar Bootmaker 190 2 Sports Club, St. James's square Male 16 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Page 28 APPENDIX TO REPORT OF MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH. Table II.—Cases of Infectious Diseases notifiable under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, Sec. 55, and coming to the knowledge of the Medical Officer of Health during the year 1897—Continued. No.of Case Date. Address. Sex. Age. Disease. Removed to Patient's Occupation. Parent's Occupation. Remarks. 191 Nov. 2 Junior United Service Club, St. James's Male 18 years Scarlet Fever London Fever Hospital Lift attendant Died 192 2 28, Rupert street Female 5 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Scholar Widow 193 4 4, Green's court Female 19 years Typhoid Fever Middlesex Hospital Wife of a Carman 194 6 19, Noel street Male 10 years Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Hospital Scholar Tailor 195 9 36, Little Pulteney street Female 2 years Erysipelas Not removed Nil Tailor 196 10 15, King street, Regent street Male 18 years Enteric Fever St. George's Hospital Tailor 197 10 1, Livonia street Female 14 months Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Hospital Nil Clothworker 198 11 93, Wardour street Female 3 years Diphtheria Not removed Nil Oilman 199 12 62, Jermyn street Female 7 years Diphtheria Not removed Scholar Fishmonger 200 15 24, Broad street Female 11 years Diphtheria Tooting Hospital Scholar Tailor 201 22 30, Rupert street Male 11 years Diphtheria Fulham Hospital Scholar Tailor 202 18 60, Berwick street Female 38 years Erysipelas Not removed Wife of a Tailor 29 203 Nov. 19 5, Little Pulteney street Male 5 years Scarlatina Haverstock Hill Scholar Tailor 204 19 28, Berwick street Female 5 years Scarlatina London Fever Hospital Scholar Linendraper 205 22 12, Denman street Male 6 years Scarlet Fever London Fever Hospital Scholar Tailor 206 22 12, Denman street Female 5 years Scarlet Fever London Fever Hospital Scholar Tailor 207 22 33. Rupert Street Female 30 years Erysipelas Not removed Dressmaker 208 25 3, Livonia Street Male 5 years Scarlet Fever Fulham Hospital Scholar Gasfiitter 209 25 24, Broad Street Male 3 years Diphtheria Not removed Scholar Tailor 210 27 1, Archer St. Chambers, Archer Street Female 9 years Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Hospital Scholar Police Constable 211 29 36, Little Pulteney street Male 6 years Scarlatina Fulham Hospital Scholar Tailor 212 29 53, Broad street Female 3 years Diphtheria Fulham Hospital Nil Ice Cream Merchant 213 Dec. 2 36, Little Pulteney street Male 2 years Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Hospital Nil Tailor 214 3 52, Warwick street Male 4 years Diphtheria Stockwell Hospital Nil Tailor 215 4 15, Peter's buildings, Peter street Female 4 years Scarlatina Haverstock Hill Hospital Nil Tailor 216 6 51, Carnaby street Male 3 years Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Hospital Nil Machinist 217 7 117, Wardour street Male 27 years Continued Fever St. George's Hospital Chemist's Assistant 218 16 2 Portland street Male 5 years Scarlatina Fulham Hospital Scholar Lift Porter 30 APPENDIX TO REPORT OF MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH. Table II.—Cases of Infectious Diseases notifiable under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, Sec. 55, and coming to the knowledge of the Medical Officer of Health during the year 1897—Continued. No.of Case Date. Address. Sex. Age. Disease. Removed to. Patient's Occupation. Parent's Occupation. Remarks. 219 Dec. 16 2 Tyler's court Female 7 years Scarlatina Fulham Hospital Scholar Carpenter 220 16 17 Ingestre place Male 7 years Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Hospital Scholar Porter 221 21 38 Carnaby street Male 53 years Erysipelas Not removed Labourer 222 24 5 Brewer street Male 35 years Enteric Fever Charing Cross Hospital Waiter 223 28 6 Little Pulteney street Female 17 years Erysipelas Not removed General Servant 224 30 24 Gt. Windmill street Female 12 years Scarlet Fever Haverstock Hill Hospital General Servant 31 PARISH OF ST. JAMES, WESTMINSTER. APPENDIX TO REPORT OF MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH. TABLE III.—ABSTRACT OF WORK DONE BY SANITARY INSPECTORS DURING THE TEAR 1897. NUISANCES REMOVED OR ABATED. First Quarter. Second Quarter. Third Quarter. Fourth Quarter. For the whole Year. Animals, Nuisances from, abated 0 2 1 0 3 Areas, whitewashed and cleansed 5 13 6 13 37 ,, paving of, repaired 2 10 2 8 22 Basements, whitewashed and cleansed 17 21 20 25 83 ,, floors, repaired and cleansed 5 12 6 7 30 „ lighted and ventilated 0 0 0 0 0 Baths, traps furnished to 0 0 0 0 0 Beds, disinfected 17 36 65 44 162 Bedclothes, disinfected 141 249 340 247 977 Bell traps, removed 23 13 13 7 56 Carpets, disinfected 0 9 6 0 15 Cisterns, cleansed 8 9 6 11 34 „ new ones provided 0 0 0 0 0 „ covers furnished to 6 6 2 6 20 ,, repaired generally 0 2 0 0 2 „ apparatus repaired 0 0 0 0 0 Cesspools, abolished 0 0 0 0 0 Drains, reconstructed with glazed pipes and ventilated. 32 25 29 35 121 „ unstopped 6 6 5 3 20 „ repaired 2 1 5 1 9 „ traps furnished to 1 0 0 0 1 „ earthenware gully traps furnished to 5 11 1 2 19 „ disconnected from sewer and ventilated 0 1 2 14 17 Dustbins, repaired 4 3 0 7 14 „ new ones provided 7 11 14 13 45 Dung pits abolished 1 0 1 0 2 Foul matter removed 14 15 12 3 44 Food, unsound, seized and condemned 0 0 0 0 0 Gutters, cleansed and repaired 1 3 4 5 13 „ new ones furnished. 0 0 0 0 0 Houses, furnished with water supply 0 0 0 0 0 ,, water supply reinstated 1 1 0 0 2 ,, closed unfit for human habitation 0 0 0 0 0 ,, ventilation improved 0 0 0 0 0 Kitchens, whitewashed 4 4 2 10 20 „ underground cleared of occupants 7 3 1 0 11 Lead flats, roofs cleansed 0 0 0 0 0 „ „ repaired 0 0 0 0 0 Mattresses, disinfected 25 22 32 33 112 Manure, removed 4 6 3 0 13 Miscellaneous articles disinfected 133 263 407 343 1146 Passages, whitewashed and cleansed 8 19 12 11 50 „ floor of, repaired and cleansed 0 0 0 0 0 Pillows disinfected 69 130 202 157 558 Rain water pipes, new ones furnished 0 0 0 1 1 „ „ unstopped, cleansed and repaired 5 7 8 4 24 „ „ disconnected from drain 15 16 14 13 58 Rooms, whitewashed and cleansed. 113 124 70 102 409 „ disinfected 24 50 72 52 198 „ overcrowded, abated 13 3 2 2 20 „ floors of, repaired and cleansed 0 0 0 0 0 Carried forward 718 1106 1365 1179 4368 32 PARISH OF ST. JAMES, WESTMINSTER. APPENDIX TO REPORT OF MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH. TABLE III—ABSTRACT OF WORK DONE BY SANITARY INSPECTORS DURING THE YEAR 1897 (Continued). NUISANCES REMOVED OR ABATED. First Quarter. Second Quarter. Third Quarter. Fourth Quarter. For the whole Year. Brought forward 718 1106 1365 1179 4368 Roofs, repaired 7 8 6 3 24 Rooms, ventilation improved 0 0 0 0 0 Service pipes, new ones furnished 0 0 0 0 0 ,, ,, repaired 0 0 0 3 3 Sinks, traps furnished to 0 0 1 0 1 ,, and lavatories, waste pipes disconnected from drain 22 30 24 22 98 „ ,, repaired 6 2 1 2 11 ., new pipes and traps furnished to 0 1 1 3 5 ,, unstopped and cleansed 0 0 0 0 0 Staircases, whitewashed and cleansed 23 24 15 24 86 ,, steps of, cleansed 0 0 0 1 1 Stables, cleansed and whitewashed 0 1 0 0 1 „ paving of, cleansed and repaired 0 0 1 1 2 Smoke, nuisance from, abated 1 1 2 0 4 Urinals (private) whitewashed 0 0 0 0 0 „ cleansed 3 2 1 2 8 „ traps furnished to 0 0 0 0 0 ,, furnished with water supply 2 2 2 1 7 „ abolished 0 0 0 0 0 ,, reconstructed 0 0 1 1 2 Vaults, whitewashed. 0 0 2 0 2 Water closets, cleansed generally 25 33 17 17 92 „ ,, furnished with water 0 0 0 0 0 „ ,, „ „ new apparatus 0 1 1 2 4 ,, „ apparatus repaired 14 12 21 18 65 „ „ new pans furnished to 9 20 5 11 45 ,, „ pans cleansed 12 35 11 33 91 „ „ water supply reinstated 3 4 0 2 9 „ „ repaired generally 2 4 2 2 10 „ „ abolished 3 4 0 1 8 „ „ soil pipes, new, furnished to 5 8 5 11 29 „ „ „ ventilated 7 23 10 21 61 „ ,, re-constructed 6 4 6 7 23 ,, „ new, erected 14 7 4 11 36 „ „ light and ventilation improved 6 11 11 14 42 ,, „ soil pipes unstopped and repaired 2 3 2 4 11 „ „ traps furnished to 0 0 0 2 2 „ „ unstopped 8 12 5 9 34 Yards, whitewashed 6 13 10 8 37 „ paving of, cleansed 2 0 1 0 3 „ „ repaired. 7 11 8 10 36 ,, „ new traps to drain 0 0 0 0 0 Water stopped from running as a nuisance 1 0 3 3 7 Wearing apparel disinfected 428 587 844 593 2452 Wash-houses, whitewashed and cleansed. 6 0 1 0 7 ,, „ floors repaired 1 2 0 1 4 Workshops, whitewashed and cleansed 21 18 5 12 56 „ overcrowding abated . 0 1 0 1 2 ,, ventilation improved 0 0 0 0 0 Water, separate supply for drinking purposes provided 2 0 0 0 2 (drinking), disconnected from water-closet 2 1 2 2 7 Total 1374 1991 2396 2037 7798 33 PARISH OF ST. JAMES, WESTMINSTER. APPENDIX TO REPORT OF MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH. REPORT OF SANITARY INSPECTORS AS TO CONDITION OF BAKEHOUSES IN THE PARISH DURING THE YEAR 1897. January 11th, 1898. To the Public Health Committee. Me. Chairman and Gentlemen, We beg to report that we have inspected the whole of the Bakehouses (numbering 27) in the Parish during the year 1897. The general condition of the Bakehouses was, on the whole, fairly satisfactory. In a few instances certain slight defects were found and have been reported to you. Taking into consideration that the Bakehouses in this Parish, with but two exceptions, are underground, they may be said to be in fair sanitary condition, and the majority of owners have readily complied with any request or suggestion for improvement made by us. We are, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, Your obedient Servants, J. P. FOLLAND, Sanitary T. W. CALVERLEY, Inspectors. 34 PARISH OF ST. JAMES, WESTMINSTER. APPENDIX TO REPORT OF MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH. Table V.—Underground Rooms or Cellars cleared of Occupants, under the 96th Section of the Act, 54 and 55 Victoria, cap. 76, up to end of year 1897. 4 Archer street 6 Heddon court 25 Marshall street 5 do. 7 do. 29 do. 16 Berwick street 8 do. 44 do. 18 do. 10 Heddon street 47 do. 26 do. 16 do. 2 Noel street 28 do. 1 Hopkin street, front 5 do. 29 do. 9 do. two rooms 13 do. front room 30 do. 10 do. 21 do. 36 do. 11 do. 11 Peter street 39 do. 1 Kemp's court 20 do. two rooms 43 do. 2 do. 21 do. 45 do. 3 do. 22 do. 49 do. 4 do. 26 do. 50 do. 7 King street, Regent st. 12 Poland street 56 do. 8 do. 14 do. 58 do. 20 do. two rooms 21 do. 66A do. 21 do. 22 do. 79 do. 26 do. 56 do. two rooms 81 do. front room 66 do. 57 do. do. 89 do. 12 Lexington street 58 do. 95 do. 14 do. 59 do. 50 Brewer street 16 do. 4 Portland street 4 Broad street 18 do. 7 do. 12 do. 22 do. 11 do. 13A do. 27 do. 15 do. 31 do. 28 do. 19 do. 43 do. two rooms 29 do. 31 do. 44 do. 30 do. 7 Rupert court 45 do. 31 do. 11 Rupert street 52 do. two rooms 32 do. 30 do. 4 Carnaby street 33 do. 31 do. 6 do. 44 do. back 49 do. 17 do. two rooms 47 do. 2 Rupert street, Upper 18 do. do. 3 Livonia street 7 do. do. 27 do. do. 5 do. 43 Shaftesbury avenue, 30 do. 7 do. front room 7 Denman street 10 do. 2 Silver place, two 1 Dufour's place 12 do. rooms 3 do. back 13 do. 1 Smith's court 9 do. 14 do. 2 do. 10 do. two rooms 2 Lowndes court 3 do. 3 Edward street 1 Marlborough row, two 7 Sherwood street 24 Foubert's-pl., one rooms 16 do. room 2 do. do. 1 West street 1 Ganton street 3 do. do. 6 do. 2 do. 4 do. do. 8 do. 3 do. 5 do. do. 12 do. 5 do. 6 do. do. 14 do. 17 do. 7 do. do. 15 do. 19 do. 9 do. do. 24 Windmill street, Great 26 Great Pulteney street 10 do do. 18 do. do. back room 9 Marshall street 30 do. do. 7 Green's court 10 do. 32 do. do. 3 Heddon court 11 do. 41 do. front JOHN PERCY FOLLAND, Sanitary THOMAS WINTER CALVERLEY, Inspectors. 35 PARISH OF ST. JAMES, WESTMINSTER. APPENDIX TO REPORT OF MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH. TABLE IV.—SUMMARY OF WORK BY SANITARY INSPECTORS DURING THE YEAR 1897. NUISANCES REMOVED OR ABATED. First Quarter. Second Quarter Third Quarter. Fourth Quarter. For the whole year. No. of Complaints received 116 101 102 122 441 „ Small Pox cases visited ... 3 ... ... 3 ,, Scarlet Fever 8 27 64 32 131 „ Typhoid (Enteric) Fever cases visited 1 1 4 7 13 ,, Continued Fever cases visited ... ... 1 1 2 Puerperal „ „ ... 1 ... ... 1 Relapsing „ „ ... ... ... ... ... „ Typhus „ „ ... ... ... ... ... „ Diphtheria „ „ 14 8 13 14 49 „ Erysipelas „ „ 2 8 7 7 24 „ Cholera „ „ ... ... ... ... ... „ Membranous Croup „ 1 ... ... ... 1 „ Articles disinfected ,, 813 1296 1896 1417 5422 „ Rooms disinfected ,, 24 50 72 52 198 „ Articles obtained for Analysis 19 15 19 31 84 „ Bodies received into Mortuary 7 11 2 9 29 JOHN PERCY FOLLAND, Sanitary THOMAS WINTER CALVERLEY, Inspectors. C 36 REPORT UPON ARTICLES ANALYSED DURING THE YEAR 1897, made to the Vestry of Saint James's, Westminster, by JAMES EDMUNDS, M.D., M.R.C.P.Lond., F.C.S., &c., Medical Officer of Health and Public Analyst. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, During the year 1897, under the provisions of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 84 samples were examined, all which were procured for examination by the Vestry Officers. In none of these samples was any poisonous ingredient discovered. Among the samples submitted for examination, there were:— Milks 36 Coffees 14 Mustards 13 Sugars 7 Arrowroots 4 Peppers 3 Teas 3 Sweets 2 Ice Creams 2 84 37 Nothing, except the stipend paid by the Vestry, has been received by me in connection with these analyses. Details of the analyses are shown in the table annexed. No. 53 in the annexed Table was a sample of Milk in which, a prosecution having been ordered by the Vestry, defendant was convicted and fined ten shillings. Owing, however, to the terms of a certificate issued by the Government Laboratory after a control analysis, the Vestry was left to pay its own costs. In this prosecution the questions raised are of wide and fundamental importance to the administration of the Adulteration Acts. A full narrative of the case, together with my correspondence with the Government Laboratory, some Introductory Notes upon the Law upon standards of comparison and upon the limits of the variations which are excused, also certain resolutions arrived at by the Public Health Committee, and approved and adopted by the Vestry, are appended hereto in a Special Report (vide appendix 2, page 43). 1 have the honour to remain, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, Your obedient Servant, JAMBS EDMUNDS. 28, Dover Street, Piccadilly. 38 Table of 84 Samples submitted for examination during the year 1897. Note.—A good average milk should contain 12.5 % of Milk Solids. Milks containing 13 % and over are described as " Excellent." Milks containing from 12 to 13 % are described as " Good." Milks containing less than 12 % are described as " Poor." Milks containing less than 11.25 are certified as adulterated with water, and thereupon the percentage of added water is calculated in comparison with a standard of fair average Milk containing 12 5 of Milk Solids. For general remarks on Standards, see my Report on Food Analysis for year 1896 (pages 48-50). No. Article. Quality. Principal Facta of Analysis. Remarks. 1 Demerara Sugar Genuine 2 Demerara Sugar Genuine 3 Demerara Sugar Genuine 4 Demerara Sugar Stained 5 Demerara Sugar Stained 6 Demerara Sugar Stained 7 Demerara Sugar Stained 8 Cocoanut Rolls No injurious colouring matters 9 Toasted Cocoanut Caramels No injurious colouring matters 10 Milk Poor Milk solids 11.1% 11 Milk Poor Milk solids 11.2 % 39 12 Milk Contains 17.5 % of added water Milk solids 10.29 % Fined £5 & 12/6 costs 13 Milk Poor Milk solids 11.88 % 14 Milk Good Milk solids 12.88 % 15 Milk Poor Milk solids 11.97 % 16 Milk Poor Milk solids 11.74 % 17 Coffee Genuine 18 Coffee Genuine 19 Coffee Genuine 20 Arrowroot Genuine 21 Arrowroot Genuine 22 Arrowroot Genuine 23 Coffee Genuine 24 Coffee Genuine 25 Coffee Genuine 26 Milk Poor Milk solids 11.33 % 27 Milk Good Milk solids 12.56 % 28 Milk Excellent Milk solids 13.24 % 29 Tea Genuine 30 Tea Genuine 31 Tea Genuine 32 Milk Poor Milk solids 11.48 % 33 Milk Poor Milk solids 11.80 % 34 Milk Excellent Milk solids 13.37 % 35 Milk Good Milk solids 12.81 % 40 Table of 84 Samples submitted for examination during the year 1897—continued. No. Article. Quality. Principal facts of Analysis. Remarks. 36 Milk Excellent Milk solids 13.05 % 37 Milk Poor Milk solids 11.66 % 38 Milk Good Milk solids 12.45 % 39 Milk Poor Milk solids 11.63 % 40 Milk Good Milk solids 12.37 % 41 Milk Good Milk solids 12.24 % 42 Milk Good Milk solids 12.10 % 43 Milk Poor Milk solids 11.40 % 44 Milk Excellent Milk solids 13.70 % 45 Milk Contains 23 % of added water Milk solids 9.60 % Fined 40s. & costs 46 Milk Excellent Milk solids 13.56 % 47 Milk Excellent Milk solids 14.84 % 48 Milk Good Milk solids 12.16 % 49 Milk Poor Milk solids 11.83 % 50 Milk Poor Milk solids 11.43 % 51 Milk Poor Milk solids 11.55 % 52 Milk Poor Milk solids 11.80 % 53 Milk Contains 12 % of added water Milk solids 10.94 % Fined 10s.; Vestry to pay costs. See Special Report and Correspondence thereon appended 1 hereto (page 43). 41 54 Milk Good Milk solids 12.80 % 55 Milk Good Milk solids 12.77 % 56 Milk Excellent Milk solids 13.12 % *57 Milk Excellent Milk solids 13.08 % 58 Ice Cream No injurious ingredient 59 Ice Cream No injurious ingredient 60 Mustard Genuine 61 Mustard Genuine 62 Mustard Genuine 63 Mustard Genuine 64 Mustard Genuine 65 Coffee Genuine 66 Mustard Genuine 67 Coffee Genuine 68 Black Pepper Genuine 69 Coffee Genuine 70 Mustard Genuine 71 Black Pepper Genuine 72 Black Pepper Genuine 73 Mustard Genuine A few casual granules of foreign starch 74 Arrowroot Genuine 75 Coffee Contained 60 % of foreign vegetable matter This Coffee was sold as a Mixture 76 Coffee Genuine * By some error in labelling, this sample was delivered to me labelled " No. 54." As Nos. 54, 55, & 56 had then been appropriated to other samples, I re-numbered this as 57. 42 Table of 84 Samples submitted for examination during the year 1897—continued. No. Article. Quality. Principal Facts of Analysis. Remarks. 77 Coffee Genuine 78 Coffee Genuine 79 Coffee Genuine 80 Mustard Genuine 81 Mustard Genuine 82 Mustard Genuine A few casual granules of foreign starch 83 Mustard Genuine 84 Mustard Genuine 1 REPORT upon MILK SAMPLE "No. 53" and The Prosecution thereon ordered by the VESTRY OF ST. JAMES'S, WESTMINSTER, October, 1897. by Dr. EDMUNDS, Public Analyst. Also Copies of Resolutions passed by the Public Health Committee and adopted unanimously by the Vestry. (Vide page 28.) [Printed by order of the Public Health Committee.] INTRODUCTORY NOTES. This milk was taken on behalf of the Vestry of St. James's, Westminster. The sample was divided into three portions, which were analysed independently by three different Analysts, and their certified results are tabulated at pages 4-5. It will be seen that:— 1. All the certificates agreed as to the percentage of total milk-solids contained in the sample. All agreed that the sample had been adulterated with water. 2. In regard to the proportions of the fatty and nonfatty milk-solids, the certificates by myself and the Government Laboratory agreed. But the Vendor's Analyst allotted a larger proportion to the fatty, and a smaller proportion to the non-fatty solids. 3. In regard to the percentage of added water, the certificates all varied. As between myself and the Government Laboratory, this variation arose from comparing the adulterated sample with different standards of milk. This being an unreal difference, it disappeared when the sample was compared with the same standard. The Vendor's Analyst certified to a larger percentage of added water. This arose from his having allotted a larger proportion of the milk-solids to fat, and a smaller percentage to the non-fatty solids upon which he judged the milk. This difference would not have arisen had the milk been judged on its aggregate milk-solids. 4. The standards of comparison used by the Vendor's Analyst and the Government Laboratory were the same, 2 i.e., a bottom-limit milk, containing 8.5 % of non-fatty solids. But neither of these certificates set out the standard with which the adulterated milk had been compared. My certificate stated that the sample contained " 12 % of added water—good average milk being taken as containing 12½ % of milk-solids." The Government Analyst, taking as standard the poorest milk that escapes being condemned as adulterated, certified that the sample contained " not less than 3 % of added water." The Vendor's Analyst, taking the same poorest milk as standard, but estimating the non-fatty solids at a smaller percentage, certified that his client's "sample was adulterated with not less that 9% of added water." Thereupon,the Defendant did not produce to the Magistrate the certificate from his own Analyst, but he sheltered himself behind the more favourable certificate given from the Government Laboratory. And he did not "tender himself or his wife to be examined on his behalf," as he is privileged to do under the Act. Thus the learned Magistrate had before him no evidence, except the two written certificates from myself and the Government Laboratory. 5. The certificate of the Government Laboratory having omitted to specify the standard of milk with which the adulterated sample had been compared, the Magistrate had no data for comparing the two certificates. The prestige of the Government Laboratory inclined him to think that the milk "contained 3 % of added water or thereabouts." He would probably have dismissed the summons had not the solicitor for the Vestry then tendered evidence proving a previous conviction of the defendant for adulterating milk with 20 % of water. Thereupon the learned magistrate congratulated the defendant upon having reduced his adulteration from 20 % to 3 %, and inflicted a fine of ten shillings—leaving the Vestry to pay its own costs. 6. It will be seen from the table at page 4, that I had analysed the first portion of the sample upon the day after it had been taken, and that no question as to loss of non-fatty solids by decomposition during storage had arisen as to my portion of the sample. The Vendor's Analyst analysed the second portion of the sample after four weeks' storage. His certificate does not show what, nor whether any, addition had been made to the non-fatty solids on account of estimated loss by decomposition during storage. The Government Laboratory analysed the third portion of the sample after five weeks' storage. It certified that it had made addition on account of loss by decomposition during storage, but it did not state the amount of such 3 addition. Subsequently, in reply to interrogatories from myself, it stated, that "practically no addition" had been made; ultimately it stated that "no addition" had been made. These statements are irreconcilable. 7. Whereas I had certified that the sample contained 12 % of added water — in comparison with "good average milk''; only by laborious interrogation was it subsequently elicited that the "not less than 3 % of added water"—as calculated at the Government Laboratory— depended upon a comparison with milk at that point of poverty at which it only just escapes condemnation as adulterated. Which of these standards should be used for comparison with a condemned milk—the object being to secure fair play as between vendor and purchaser—is a common-sense question of great importance. For the consideration of this question no better jury could be formed than the Public Health Committee of St. James's Vestry. Another question is, Whether a milk should be judged by its percentage of milk-solids in the aggregate ? Or, by a deficiency in one kind of milk-solids—an excess in the milk-solids of another kind not being credited to the Vendor as a set-off against the deficiency. 8. In this particular prosecution, the accuracy of my own analytical findings, the fairness of my deductions, and the completeness of my certificate were all admitted, yet, owing to the Government Laboratory setting up the poorest passable milk as a standard, and owing to its non-compliance with the law as to making clear the standard taken for the calculation of the percentage of added water, a serious divergency in conclusion was suggested to the mind of the learned Magistrate. To appeal on the ground that the certificate from the Government Laboratory was incomplete and misleading would amount to a public scandal. It would, in any event, be a severe infliction upon the defendant, and it would certainly involve heavy law-costs. The questions raised by the events of this prosecution are of large importance to the working of the Adulteration Acts. The great body of Public Analysts throughout the country contain among their number many eminent chemists—men who have done much to advance those processes by which adulterants in food and drugs are now detected. Yet a proper appeal court is necessary for the revision or endorsement of the analytical findings which become the basis for prosecutions in our courts of justice. It is obvious, however, that chaotic, incomplete, and contradictory statements—such as, in the annexed correspondents, appear to have emanated from the Government Laboratory—must be severely dealt with; otherwise, the entire administration of the Adulteration Acts will be thrown into confusion and uncertainty. 4 MILK, "No. 53." Analytical Findings from the same Percentages by Weight. Standard of Comparison as stated in Certificate for the calculation of Added Water. Standard of Comparison actually used. Portion of Sample sent to:— Date of Analysis. 1897. Total Milk Solids. Milk Fat. Milk Solids not Fat. Additions made for estimated loss of Nonfatty Solids by decomposition during storage. Added Water as certified. T)r. Edmunds on Sept. 24th Sept. 25th 10.94 (Fractions rounded off in favour of Vendor and taken at 11.00) 2.69 (Coil Process) 8.25 None 12.00 A good average Milk- containing 12.5 % of Milk Solids A good average Milk- containing 12.5 % o Milk Solids Vendor's Analyst on Oct. 17th Oct. 22nd 10.86 814 (Schmid Process) 7.72 None "Not less than 9 00" Standard not stated The poorest Milk that escapes condemnation— containing 8.5 % of Solidsnot-Fat Government Laboratory on Oct. 28th Nov. 5th 10.87 2.67 (Maceration Process) 820 None* "Not less than 3.00" Standard not stated The same Standard as above —8.5 % of Solidsnot-Fat * Mr. Bannister certified at first that addition had been made (Nov. 6), vide page 13. Mr. Bannister subsequently wrote:—"Practically no addition" (Nov. 16 and Dec. 24), vidr pages 16 and 24. In further reply to Dr. Edmunds, Mr. Bannister wrote:—"No addition" (Jan. 5), vide page 26. These statements seem irreconcilable.—[J.E.] 5 Sample of Milk, as certified by three different Analysts. Percentages of Added Water, as Calculated from the Analytical Findings when compared with the following standards of MILK:— Fair Average Milk, containing 12.5 % of Milk Solids. Bottom limit Milk, containing 11.25% of Milk Solids. Bottom limit Milk, regarding its 8 5 % of Non-fatty Solids; disregarding excess or deficiency in its 2.75 % Fat. 10.94 = .8752 12.50 Average Milk 87.52 % Added Water 12.48 % 11.00 12.50= .8752 Average Milk 88.00 % Added Water ... 12.00% 10.86— .8688 12.50 Average Milk 86.88 % Added Water 13.12 % 10.87 = .8697 12.50 Average Milk 86.97 % Added Water 13.03% 10.94 = .9724 11.25 Bottom limit Milk, 97.24 % Added Water 2.76 % 10.86 11.25 = .9653 Bottom limit Milk, 96.53 % Added Water 3.47 % 10.87 =.9662 11.25 Bottom limit Milk, 96.62 % Added Water 3.38 % 8.25 8.50 = .9706 Bottom limit Milk, 97.06 % Added Water 2.94 % 7.72 = .9082 8.50 Bottom limit Milk, 90.82 Added Water 9.18 % 8.20 8.50 = .9647 Bottom limit Milk, 96.47 % Added Water 3.53 % 6 The narrative of the case, and the text of the certificates and correspondence are appended. 9. The Law governing Analysts as to the form of their certificates is clearly laid down by the High Court of Justice in the appeal case Fortune v. Hanson. A report of this case will be found in The Times of January 28th, 1896. After hearing argument by counsel, the judges are reported as. follows:— "Mr. Justice Hawkins thought the certificate here did not conform to the requirements of the Act. It was admitted that milk naturally had water in it, and therefore it was necessary, in his opinion, that the magistrate should know what standard the Analyst took. Standards differed greatly, the magistrate might take one, the Analyst another. To say there was 5 % of added water was merely an opinion of the Analyst. The justices ought to know upon what percentage he based his calculation. It was not as if water was a substance totally unknown to milk in its pure state. "Mr. Justice Kennedy concurred. The certificate was to give substantially the data on which the justices could act for themselves. It would be wrong to convict upon a mere statement that there was 5 % of added water. The analysis should be clear, and afford materials on which the justices and the accused also might know how the result had. been arrived at." It will be seen from this ruling that, apart from the commonsense duty of so framing a certificate as to enable the magistrate to apply his personal judgment to the case, the Law makes it incumbent upon the Analyst to specify in his certificate the standard which he takes for the calculation of added water. Such cases, moreover, have first to be adjudicated upon by the Local Authority—so far as to determine whether a prosecution shall be ordered. The reasoning applied by the Judges as to what the Analyst's certificate should make clear to the magistrate, applies equally to what the certificate should make clear to the members of the Local Authority, and, moreover, also to the person accused of the adulteration. 10. The Standard with which a condemned milk is compared in order to calculate its percentage of added water, is often confused with the limit at which a deficiency of milk-solids is no longer excused. Yet the standard and the limit are altogether different things. For different countries, and even for different seasons or pastoral conditions, the standard may need to be 7 varied. Dr. Bell, the well-known principal of the Government Laboratory, obtained milks from 235 individual cows—each milked in the presence of a responsible person for the purpose of a test analysis. These 235 milks gave an average of total milk-solids, 12.83%—consisting of fat 3.83 %, non-fatty solids 9.00 %. Then 24 dairy-milks (each the mixed milk of a herd of dairy cows) gave an average of total milk-solids, 13.22 %— consisting of fat 4.12 %, non-fatty-solids 9.1 %. Dr. Bell sums up these two tables by saying:—"Average milk ranges in non-fatty solids from 9.0 to 9.1 %, in fat from 3.83 to 4.12 %." This gives, for average milk, a range of total milksolids from 12.83 to 13.22 %. Dr. Bell then wrote:— "It is to be hoped that the results of this inquiry will serve to settle the vexed question as to the alleged constancy in the composition of cow's milk, especially in the non-fattysolids. The samples were obtained from different parts of the country, and comprise milk yielded both by house and grass fed cows, and every effort was made to obtain fair representative specimens of milk yielded by different cows, and under the ordinary conditions of changes of food and season." The figures thus set out by Dr. Bell may be accepted as fairly representing an average milk " of the nature, substance and quality demanded " when milk is purchased. It need only be added that, owing to recent improvements in the extraction of the butter-fat, a larger proportion of the milk-solids are now described as fat, while the non-fatty-solids are to the same extent lessened. It is material to note that in St. James's there are now no cowhouses, and therefore that the milk sold in St. James's is practically all dairy milk, i.e., the mixed milk of herds of dairy cows. Therefore when we take as the standard a milk containing 12.50 % of milk solids, we give the turn of the balance in favour of any one who may be accused of adulteration. Among Dr. Bell's 235 individual milks, the fat varied from 1.92 to 6.87 %, while the non-fatty-solids varied from 8.00 to 11.27 %. And even these extremes would not cover every case which may occasionally be discovered in the milk of an individual cow. But if abnormal milks were admitted as "of the nature, substance and quality demanded "when milk is purchased, it would always be safe to add 30 % of water to an average milk. If adulteration is to be controlled, we cannot allow the adulterator to ride off upon the phantom of a sick or half-starved cow. Morbid secretions of that sort must not be sent to market as milk. 8 On perusing the correspondence,* it will be seen that Mr. Bannister, describing his practice at the Government Laboratory, writes:— "We have no power to fix standards of quality, and the limits that we impose, of 8.5 % non-fatty solids and 2.75 % of fat, are only intended to guide the magistrates in demanding strict proof that poor samples of milk brought before them are as obtained from the cow, and not made so by the addition of water or the removal of fat." For the Analyst "to fix standards of quality" is manifestly no part of the duty imposed upon him by the Adulteration Acts; but it is obvious that the Analyst, unless he have regard to the quality of fair samples, could never affirm that any sample was adulterated. How could the Analyst certify that an article was not "of the nature, substance and quality demanded," unless by comparison with some standard of that "nature, substance and quality"? In the Eleventh Annual Report of the Local Government Board this fundamental question is dealt with as follows:— "The Analyst, in judging of milk, must necessarily adopt a minimum standard of constituents based on a large number of analyses of genuine milk. But there would be a great difficulty in prescribing a standard by Act of Parliament, as has occasionally been suggested, for if it were fixed as low as to class as genuine the milk of the oldest and worst-fed cows to be found in the country, it would admit the addition of an enormous amount of water to milk of fair quality; if, on the other hand, the standard of a fair average milk were adopted, there would be a loud outcry against the prohibition to sell genuine milk falling below that average." Obviously, the question of a standard being set up by the Analyst for his own guidance is a different thing from that of the erection of standards in a general sense. But Mr. Bannister also appears to introduce, with a light heart, an alteration in the English Constitution. He suggests that a tradesman is to be hauled up before a magistrate on suspicion, in order to be made to prove that he has not watered his milk. If I read Mr. Bannister's proposition correctly, he issues from the Government Laboratory a certificate affirming certain scientific conclusions, the truth of which conclusions depends upon whether the said milk afterwards proves to have been extracted from a cow or not. (Vide letters, Nov. 15 and Dec. 14, pages 15 and 23.) * Vide letter of Dec. 14, page 23. 9 11. The Limit is that point of poverty in milk-solids below which we condemn the milk as adulterated. If we allow a downward variation such as to give the purchaser 90% of the milksolids to which, on the standard of 12.50% milk-solids, he is entitled; we deduct 1.25 from 12-50%, which gives a milk containing 11.25% of milk-solids. This allows the vendor to add 10 quarts of water to 90 quarts of 12.50% milk. Below this limit we condemn the milk as adulterated. Then, a milk having been condemned as adulterated, What standard are we to compare it with for the purpose of calculating the percentage of added water? Are we to compare it with an average milk of 12.50% milk-solids? Or, shall we take up with the theory that the adulterator buys a milk just above that point of poverty at which it will be condemned, and then proceeds to secure his own conviction by adding 3% more of water to a milk of 11.25% milk-solids? This theory is ridiculous. What the adulterator does is to buy of a respectable firm of milk merchants a milk such as that which contained 13.08% of milk-solids. He then waters this down until its milk solids are diluted to a point between 11.25 and 11.50%, which is just the limit at which an adulterator, if cleverly defended, can defeat a prosecution and leave the local authority to pay all the costs. Sometimes, especially on Sundays, the adulterator is tempted to add a little more water, and, should a sample of thia blend be taken, he gets caught. That is the real history of milk adulteration. If 11.25% be adopted, not only as the limit but also as the standard, which by some confusion of thought is often done, the Magistrate gets a certificate that the sample contains "not less than 3% of added water." Should the said standard be properly set out in the certificate the true significance of the facts may still be pointed out to the Magistrate. But, if the standard be not set out, the prosecution is defeated or is stultified. In that case the Local Authority is not only left to pay all the costs, but it is paralysed by the aspersion of an officious severity. 12. Upon the question whether a milk should be judged by the percentage of its milk-solids in the aggregate—or in one part only, and without setting off to the vendor's credit any excess that may be found in other of the milk solids, some further facts have to be considered. In a inilk deficient in fat but otherwise excellent, we debit the deficiency in fat to the milk-seller. Thereupon, the law charges him with a criminal offence—that of abstracting the cream. Yet that deficiency in fat may arise from mere carelessness in a milk-server who gives to one customer an excess of cream and to another a deficiency. Such deficiency in fat may 10 occur without fraudulent intent, or even knowledge of the fact on the part of the milk-seller, and without his gaining any sort of advantage. Deficiency of fat occurs in two cases. In one case the non-fatty solids also are deficient and the case is then clearly one of fraudulent watering. In the other case the nonfatty solids are full or in excess, while the fat is deficient. How are we to judge these latter milks? If we pay fourpence per quart for milk containing 12.50% of milk-solids, we buy a pound of milk-solids at about the price that we now pay for a pound of butter. There is therefore no serious commercial disadvantage to the buyer if either the fatty or the non-fatty solids do exceed their usual proportions. As a matter of all-round food value, the non-fatty solids of milk are—weight for weight—about equal in value to the fat. It may be said that corpulent adults would do better upon the non-fatty solids; that emaciated infants would do better upon the fat. What I submit is that, when there is a deficiency in one particular, while there is an excess in another, the Vendor does not get fair play unless the excess is allowed as a set off against tbe deficiency. It has therefore been my practice to judge a milk upon its aggregate milk-solids, and not upon a deficiency in one particular. The certificate framed upon this basis becomes simpler and more intelligible to the members of the Local Authority and to the Magistrates. In my own judgment it is also fairer to the Vendor, while equally fair to the purchaser. In this particular prosecution (Milk No. 53), the certificate issued from the Government Laboratory was not in accordance with the ruling of the judges of the High Court of Justice (vide page 6). It does not give the standard taken for the calculation of added water. Further, it makes an addition for assumed loss during storage, and it does not state the amount of that addition. The certificate therefore contains two unknown quantities, and it does not "afford materials or which the justices, or the accused, might know how the results had been arrived at." 11 NARRATIVE AND CORRESPONDENCE. I.—On September 24th, 1897, a sample of milk, "No. 53," was submitted to me for analysis. I completed the analysis on September 25th, and found that the sample contained:— In 100 parts. Fat 2.69 Non-fatty Solids 8.25 Total Milk Solids 10.94 In these determinations, the turn of the balance was always given in favour of the Vendor; and, in estimating the added water, I went upon the basis that there was certainly not more than II parts of milk-solids in each 100 parts of the milk. Then, as "a good average milk" contains not less than 12.50 per cent. by weight of milk solids, each 100 parts of this sample contained 88 of "good average milk," and 12 of added water. I thereupon certified as follows :— "I am of opinion that the above sample of milk contains 12 parts per centum of added water—good average milk being taken to contain 12½ parts per centum of milk-solids." On October 7 a prosecution was ordered by the Vestry. The sample of milk taken on September 24th had been divided into three portions—each into a six-ounce glass bottle furnished with a glass screw-stopper and red rubber washer. One of these three portions was handed to the vendor, one was brought to me, and one was retained in the custody of the Vestry in order to be available for a control analysis. The summons was returnable on October 27th, at the Police Court, Great Marlborough Street. II.—Upon receiving the summons, the defendant ascribed the adulteration to the Farmer or to the wholesale milk dealers. Next day (October the 15th), without warning to the wholesale dealers, a sample of their milk—then in course of delivery to the defendant, was taken and submitted to me for analysis. I found that this sample contained:— In 100 parts. Fat 3.98 Non-fatty Solids 9.10 Total Milk Solids 13.08 I reported this sample as "excellent milk." 12 III.—The wholesale milk merchants proved to be Messrs. Pryce and Harris, of Craven Court, Drury Lane. On December 10th, Messrs. Pryce and Harris informed me that the milk delivered to the Defendant on September 24th was from the same source as that delivered on October 15th. That this milk came from a gentleman-farmer of high character at Peterborough ; and that the milk-churns, as sent up per Great Northern Railway, had been taken on each occasion direct from King's Cross terminus to the Defendant's shop. Some days after the sample had been taken from their delivery of milk on October 15th, Messrs. Pryce and Harris sent the Defendant's portion of the first sample to Messrs. Redwood and de Hailes, the well-known analysts, in order that they might analyse it on his behalf. The following is a copy of the certificate issued by these gentlemen as the result of their analysis:— [Copy.] 15, Red Lion Square, W.C., 23rd October, 1897. Redwood & de Hailes, Having analysed a sample of milk received on 20th October, from Messrs. Pryce and Harris, of Drury Lane, and marked "Parish of St. James, Westminster—53—24th September, 1897," we are of opinion that it is adulterated with not less than 9 % added water. Sp. Gr. Sour. Total Solids 10.86 percent. Fat 3.14 „ „ Solids not Fat 7.72 „ „ (Signed) REDWOOD & de HAILES. The fat was estimated by the Schmid process. IV.—On October 27th, the case came before Mr. Plowden, one of the learned Magistrates at the Police Court, Great Marlborough Street. The Defendant then did not produce his own Analyst's certificate, but asked that that portion of the sample which was still in the custody of the Vestry should be sent on to the Government Laboratory for a control analysis. Thereupon the learned Magistrate ordered the sample to be sent to the Government Laboratory with a request for its analysis and a report thereon. And the case was adjourned till November 10th. The following certificate was received by J.Ronaldson Lyell, Esq., Chief Clerk, Policc Court Marlborough Street. 13 [Copy.] " Government Laboratory, Clement's Inn Passage, Strand, London, W.C. The sample of milk, marked '' No. 53," and referred to in your letter of the 27th ultimo, was received here oil the following day, securely sealed. We hereby certify that we have analysed the milk and declare the results of our analysis to be as follows:— Non-fatty Solids = 8.20 per cent. Fat = 2.67 „ „ From a consideration of these results, and after making addition to the non-fatty solids on account of natural loss arising from the change which has occurred in the milk through keeping, we are of opinion that the sample in question contains not less than three per cent, of added water. As witness our hands this Sixth day of November, 1897. (Signed) R. BANNISTER. „ G. LEWIN. The Clerk to the Magistrates, Police Court, Marlborough Street, W." At the adjourned hearing, on November 10th, upon this certificate being read, the Solicitor in charge of the prosecution asked for an adjournment in order that I might be subpoenaed to attend and give evidence in person. Therefore the case was again adjourned till November 17th. V.—On my comparing the two certificates, it appeared that:— 1. The analyses agreed closely in their results, but the conclusions diverged widely. 2. My certificate was complete in itself, as showing the standard of comparison to be a "good average milk containing 12£ parts per centum of milk-solids." The certificate from the Government Laboratory did not disclose its standard of comparison, and it also added to the non-fatty solids obtained by analysis an undisclosed amount "on account of natural loss arising from the change which has occurred in the milk through keeping." In the absence of these two data, there were no common terms in which the certificates could be compared. I therefore wrote as follows to the Government Laboratory:— 14 [Copy.] " Re Milk Sample, No. 53. Vestry Hall, Piccadilly, November 13 th, 1897. Dear Sir, In your certificate to the Magistrate of the Marlboro' Police Court, upon the above sample, you certified that the milk contained 10.87 per cent, of milk-solids, and you gave the conclusion that the milk contained "not less than three per cent. of added water." In my analysis, made on September 25th, the result was milk-solids 10.94 percent., and, having judged the milk to be watered, I gave the odd fraction in favour of the vendor, and based my certificate upon the milk-solids certainly not exceeding 11 per cent. Taking good average milk as containing 12.5 per cent. of milk-solids, it follows that 11/12.5 = .88, and this gives 88 per cent. of average milk, plus 12 per cent. of added water. I shall be much obliged if you will favour me with A description of the methods used in your analysis, The standards of reference used, And the methods of calculation, as the case has been adjourned for the purpose of further consideration. Faithfully yours, (Signed) JAMES EDMUNDS. R. Bannister, Esq., F.C.S., &c., &c., &c. Government Laboratory." The following reply was received: — " Government Laboratory, Clement's Inn Passage, [Copy.] Strand, London, W.C., 15th November, 1897. Dear Sir, Milk Reference No 53. Our method of analysis was the ordinary "maceration process " which is so well known to milk analysts. The results you obtained agreed with ours, so there is no necessity to go further into methods of analysis, but we may confine ourselves to the conclusions drawn from these results. 15 We consider that when milk is sold containing less than 8.5% non fatty solids or 2.75% fat, it is the duty of the Vendor to satisfy the Court that the milk sold is as milked from the cow and not diluted with water or deprived of its fat. You assume that for giving the extent of dilution the comparison should be made with milk containing 12.5% milk-solids which per centage includes fats as well as the non-fatty solids. By such a comparison you make the fat short as well as the non-fatty solids, and to be logical the milk should have been shown deficient in fat as well as diluted with water. The Act of 1875 is silent about the average composition of milk, but it has been decided in the superior Courts that the milk mentioned in the Act is that given by the cow whether rich or poor. Yours very faithfully, (Signed) R. BANNISTER. Dr. Edmunds, Vestry Hall, Piccadilly, W." The following letter was then sent to Mr. Bannister : — [Copy.] "Vestry Hall, Piccadilly, November 16 th, 1897. Re Milk Reference, No. 53. Dear Sir, I am much obliged for your letter of yesterday's date, and am glad to know that the results of our analyses agree. But I do not see how you arrive at your conclusion. Will you favour me with the following additional data:— 1. The addition which you made to the non-fatty solids on account of such decomposition as may have occurred subsequent to my analysis of the sample on September 25th ? 2. The standard of reference which you adopted in order to calculate the percentage of added water ? Upon judging a milk diluted, do you compare it with a fair average milk, containing, say, 12.5 per cent. of milk solids ? Or, do you compare it with a milk at some other standard; and, if so, what standard ? 16 3. The methods of standardising under different kinds of deficiency, with a view to determine the percentage of added water in the sample:— a. The fats being deficient and:— 1. The non-fatty solids being also deficient ? 2. The non-fatty solids being full ? 3. The non-fatty solids being in excess ? b. The non-fatty solids being deficient and:— 1. The fats being also deficient ? 2. The fats being full ? 3. The fats being in excess ? I remain, dear Sir, Yours faithfully, (Signed) JAMES EDMUNDS. Richard Bannister, Esq., F.C.S., &c., &c., &c., Government Laboratory." Mr. Bannister replied as follows:— [Copy.] " Government Laboratory, Clement's Inn Passage, Strand, London, W.C., November 16 th, 1897. Re Milk Reference iNo. 53. Dear Sir, The sample of milk in question was in such good condition when received that practically no addition to the non-fatty solids had to be made to cover the loss by keeping. The percentage of added water was worked on an 8.5% "solids not fat." The questions put under head 3 in your letter are I think not exactly what you mean. It is evident that the assumption of watering in a 2 and a 3 could not apply, because the non-fatty solids are in 2 "full" and therefore satisfactory, and in 3 they are in excess. Such milk would be wrong because of deficiency of fat, and not for dilution with water. In a 1 and b 1 the offence would be the same, viz.:— addition of water and deficiency in fat. Usually we should make 8.5 as the basis for estimating dilution with water, and 2.75 for fat deficiency; but if the 17 milk were of abnormal composition we should take these facts into consideration when drawing our conclusions from the results obtained. In the cases of b 2 and b 3, great care would have to be exercised in deciding whether the non-fatty solids had been depressed by getting a sample containing more than the normal proportion of fat. If this were so the non-fatty solids would be naturally lowered at the expense of the fat. Each of such cases would have to be decided on its own merits, and it is consequently not practicable to give a general answer which could be made to apply to individual cases. Believe me, Yours faithfully, (Signed) H, BANNISTER. Dr. James Edmunds, Vestry Hall, Piccadilly, W." VI.—At the second adjournment, on November 17th, the learned Magistrate made strong remarks upon the divergence between the conclusions of the two certificates. Nevertheless, he saw that both certificates concurred in proving that there was nome adulteration. Thereupon evidence was admitted as to a previous conviction for adulterating milk with 20 per cent. of water, and a fine of twenty shillings and costs. Upon this, the learned Magistrate inflicted upon the defendant a fine of ten shillings, and left the Vestry to pay its own costs. VII.—In order to arrive, if possible, at an understanding of the procedure adopted at the Government Laboratory, I wrote again to Mr. Bannister, as follows:— [Copy.] December 6th, 1897. " Re Milk Reference, No. 53. Dear Sir, 1. I thank you for your letter of November 10th, and I now forward copy of my own certificate, and the result of the prosecution. 2. The great general importance of this matter is my excuse for asking you for some further data. I think we ought to seek the good offices of the Government Laboratory with a view to agree upon some uniform procedure for the determination of milk solids, and also to agree upon uniform standards of comparison for adulterated milks. Such 18 ment would enable added water to be calculated without those divergencies which now arise to hinder the administration of the Adulteration Acts, and to cast ridicule upon our scientific reports. 3. (a) On considering the data given by your analysis, and your conclusions as to the percentage of added water, I gather that you added "05 % to the percentage of nonfatty solids, so as to raise their percentage from 8*20 % to 8 25 % 1 (6) You have not favoured me with the reference to any published description of " the ordinary maceration process," which was used for the examination of this milk. May I ask whether it was the process described in the second part of Dr. Bell's book—at pages 9 and 10; or at pages 16, 17 and 18; or was it some other process ? (c) By what data do you determine the additions to be made for loss during storage in stale samples of milk ? 4. As you have pointed out, the results of our analyses agree in this case. You will probably also agree that:— (а) I might have signed your certificate as well as my own ? (b) You might have signed my certificate as well as yours ? (c) The difference in our conclusions was due simply to our using different standards of milk in order to calculate the percentage of added water ? 5. It is obvious that, at the Government Laboratory, you wish to do what is fair and right according to law. You cannot intend your certificate to be incomplete as a scientific document, and thereby to put the Public Analyst into the position of having to assail the certificate of a professional brother, or else to submit himself to disparagement. Yet such was the position in which I was placed by the certificate sent to the magistrate on the 6th of November last. Now, I venture to submit that your certificate, though correct as a scientific document, is worded in such a manner as to confuse the mind of a magistrate. For when you certify, as in this case, that "the sample in question contains not less than 3 per cent. of added water," the magistrate naturally assumes that this is probably the full extent of the adulteration. How is he to know that you are comparing this adulterated milk with the lowest passable standard of milk? If a milk is so poor that it can safely be certified as adulterated, surely it is the most equitable course to compare it 19 with "a fair average milk." In any case the standard of comparison ought to appear in the certificate. When you take such a low standard, this is the more important in order that the Magistrate may realise the true significance of your certificate. Again, when the amount added to the non-fatty solids, for estimated decomposition during storage, is not shown upon the certificate, it reduces your conclusion to the position of a mere arbitrary opinion. 6. It is obvious that, in general, the Magistrates do not understand the precise significance of the two decimal fractions which express the percentages of the fatty and of the non-fatty solids respectively. They do not understand the inferences to be drawn from the variations of these two fractions—each varying either above or below an arbitrary standard of level. They have no means of judging standards of milk, except by comparison with "a fair average milk." In this very prosecution, it was impracticable to show the magistrate that, while I had specified mv standard as being "a good average milk containing 12.5% of milk solids;" your standard, which you had not specified, contained only 11.25% of milk solids—the poorest milk that, upon analysis, would escape condemnation. The learned Magistrate very properly declined to enter into a technical discussion. All he could see was that both certificates concurred in proving that some adulteration had occurred—that adulteration being as he surmised, "three per cent or thereabouts," and he seemed inclined to decide the case against the Vestry. It was only upon evidence as to a previous conviction for adulterating milk with 20% of water being rendered, that the magistrate saw his way, and inflicted a fine of ten shillings—leaving the Vestry to pay its own costs. 1 venture to point out that, if the standard of comparison you used—and the amount of your addition on account of loss had been stated, your certificate would have been comparable with mine. In that case the learned Magistrate would have perceived that the divergent conclusions arose from using different standards of comparison, and he would have been enabled to apply his own judgment as to which was the fairest point from which to calculate the percentage of added water. For the Vestry to prosecute a milkman for an inferential addition of three per cent. of water to "a fair average milk," would have been severe, or even officious. But to prosecute a milkman who adds 12 to 16% of water to "a fair average milk" is necessary alike for the security of the public and for the protection of 20 men who sell good milk. Other simples of milk, taken by the same officers—at about the same time— from other tradesmen in the parish, yielded on analysis 13.19%. 13.54%, and 14.84% respectively, of milk-solids. How can such tradesmen keep their doors open if others in the parish be allowed to sell as milk a liquid containing only 10.94% of milk-solids. This defendant, when summoned, attributed the adulteration to the farmer who supplied him with milk. On the next day (October 15th), in order to test that allegation, a sample of the milk, then in course of delivery by this farmer, was taken and analysed. It was found to be an excellent milk, containing 13.08% of milk-solids (fat 3.98%, non-fatty solids 9.1%). Now, if we assume that the milk delivered by this farmer, on September 24th, was equal to that which we know that he delivered on October 15th, then 10.94/13.08 = 83.6% of milk and 16.4% of added water. If we take as the standard that average of 235 authentic milks which was published by Dr. Bell, then 10.94/12.83 = 85.3% of milk, and 14.7% of added water. 7. In your letter of November 15th (par. 3), you speak of a deficiency of non-fatty solids or of fat. And again, referring to my certificate, you say:—"You assume that for giving the extent of dilution the comparison should be made with milk containing 12.50% of milk-solids which percentage includes fats as well as the non-fatty solids. By such a comparison you make the fat short as well as the nonfatty solids, and to be logical the milk should have been shown deficient in fat as well as diluted with water." Yet in this very milk the non-fatty solids and the fat were both deficient. It is obvious also, in general, that the addition of water must always, bv mechanical displacement, lower the proportion of fat in the same degree as it dilutes the nontatty solids. I do not see how your comment applies either in this case or in general. 8. With regard to the particular cases on which you comment in yours of November 16th:— (a) It is true that a 1 and b 1 are similar. But the two cases may have to be regarded from different standpoints, according as the principal deficiency is found in the fatty or in the non-fatty solids, and the recognition of the two cases makes the scheme symmetrical. (b) It will be observed that the terms "full" and "in excess" are variables, subject to an up-and-down movement, according to the levels at which standards of reference are fixed. Whether particular "fulnesses" or "excesses" will be "satisfactory" must, therefore, depend 21 upon the levels to which those terms relate. At the Government Laboratory 2.75% of fat, and 8.5% of non-fatty solids will both be "full." But neither of these can be regarded as satisfactory. In St. James's 3.5% of fat and 9.00% of non-fatty solids are regarded as "full," and also as legally "satisfactory." Then, milks which reach the level of Dr. Bell's average, i.e.: Fat 3.83% and non-fatty solids 9.00% are regarded as really full measure, and as morally satisfactory. Milks containing more than 12.83% of milk-solids are marked "excellent." (c) In your penultimate sentence you say:—"The non-fatty solids would be naturally lowered at the expense of the fat." You will agree with me that, in general, one thing cannot lose at the expense of another. What I submit here is that the addition of fat mechanically displaces part of the non-fatty solution. In that way, the addition of fat lowers the percentage of non-fatty solids in a given volume of milk, and lowers it in precisely the same proportion as the addition of the same volume of water would lower it by dilution. This, if you agree, makes it that the fat gains at the expense of the non-fattv solids. 9. Touching the advantages and disadvantages of judging a milk analysis by the measure of its milk-solids in the aggregate, or by the measure of its milk-solids—fatty or non-fatty, disjunctively; we have four cases, i.e.-, a 2, a 3, b 2, and b 3. To illustrate a frequent case, we take a 3, in which two pints of good milk have been blended with one pint of separated milk. We get such a result as:—Fat= 2.00%, non-fatty solids 9.5%. Here we have a milk whose fat is distinctly deficient, but whose milk solids in the aggregate are above the 11.25%. In a milk equal to the average of Bell's 235 milks, we get:—Fat 3.83%, non-fatty solids 9.00%. Two pints of this mixed with one pint of separated milk containing fat .26%, non-fatty solids 9.00%, yield a blend which is slightly below the level for fat, but well above the level for non-fatty solids. This yields fat 2.64%, non-fatty solids 9.00%, = aggregate milk-solids 11.64%. How are we to certify these cases ? As Analysts, we have no evidence that these milks have been blended. We know that mere stupidity or carelessness in distribution may give an excess of cream to one customer, and a deficiency of cream to another; and that, in this way, such case may occur without fradulent intent on the part of the milk-seller. Now, the sale of adulterated milk is a criminal offence. It is a fundamental principle of English law, that an accused person is to be deemed innocent until proved to be guilty. The Vendor 22 of such a milk is liable for a civil wrong to the purchaser. But is the vendor fairly open to prosecution for a criminal offence when the analyst, if skilfully cross-examined, would have to say that this milk might have been misdistributed by accident or stupidity, and altogether without fraudulent intent Moreover, the sole profit accrues to the purchase!' who happens to receive the undue share of cream. I submit that, in such cases:— (a) The Vendor has an equal right to be credited with any excess, as to be debited with any deficiency, in his milk-solids. (b) By judging the milk upon its aggregated milksolids we get a simpler and fairer, and more easily understood standard. (c) A milk, when below the limit for its aggregated milk-solids—say below 11.5%—should be condemned as an adulterated milk. (d) An adulterated milk should have its added water measured, not by a milk at the bottom-limit of variation, but by comparison with "a fair average milk." (e) And it has been abundantly shown that "a fair average milk" contains fully 12.50% of genuine milksolids. I remain, dear Sir, Very faithfully yours, JAMES EDMUNDS. Richard Bannister, Esq., F.C.S., &c., &c., &c., Government Laboratory. And the following reply was received :— " Government Laboratory, [Copy.] Clement's Inn Passage, Strand, London, W.C., December 1 kth, 1897. Dear Sir, I appreciate the kind words used in the second and fifth paragraphs of your letter of the Sth inst. respecting this department, and can truly say that our aim is to administer the Foods' Acts in a just and impartial manner. The maceration process, as. applied to a sour milk is given in the second part of Bell's book p.p. 16 to 18, but the additions made for loss by keeping are made in a different manner to what is there described. 23 We now directly estimate the amount of alcohol, ammonia, and acids, and convert our results into solids-notfat—from which source they have been derived—the fat itself remaining uniform throughout. As pointed out in my first letter to you the Act of 1875 is silent about the milk referred to in the Act itself being of average composition, and in the case of Hewitt v. Taylor heard by Lords Justices Lindley and Kay, in the Court of Queen's Bench in 1895, it was decided that a milk having the composition 7.98 per cent. of non-fatty solids, and 2.94 per cent, of fat, and proved to have been sold as it came from the cow was genuine milk. It follows therefore that we have no power to fix standards of quality, and the limits that we impose of 8.5 per cent, non-fatty solids and 2.75 per cent of fat are only intended to guide the magistrate in demanding strict proof that poor samples of milk brought before them, are as obtained from the cow, and not made so by the addition of water or the removal of fat. Your letter raises so many novel points in connection with milk analysis that it would be more satisfactory to see you than to attempt to write in full reply. So if you can call here I shall be glad to go over with you the points you have raised. Yours faithfully, (Signed) R. BANNISTER. Dr. Jambs Edmunds, M.D." [Copy.] " December 16th, 1897. Re Milk Reference " No. 53." Dear Sir, I thank you for your letter of the 14th inst. I gladly accept your kind invitation to call upon you and talk over the various important questions which have arisen out of our correspondence upon this case. This particular prosecution has to be reported upon fully to our Public Health Committee; and, therefore, I shall be glad if we may first finish in our correspondence the residual data of this particular case. The general questions in my letter of the 6th inst. can then stand over for our conference, and it is to be hoped that we may arrive at such procedure, and such form of certificate, as will, in future, prevent trouble other than such as may arise from "the personal equation" of various Analysts. 24 Perhaps, therefore, I may trespass upon your good nature so far as to ask you again for those residual data of my letter of the 6th, as far as to complete this case. I gather that in "No. 53" it was not found necessary to determine the alcohol, the ammonia, the acids, and the carbon dioxide, with a view to calculate them back into the non-fatty solids. But if any amount was added to your findings on account of loss in storage I shall be glad to know what that amount was. Since my last letter I find that the Defendant's portion of sample "No. 53" was sent to Messrs. Redwood & de Hailes for analysis on his behalf on October 20th, and that they certified that " the milk was adulterated with not less than nine per cent, of added water." But your certificate being so much better, the Defendant did not produce his certificate from Messrs. Redwood & de Hailes. Faithfully yours, (Signed) JAMES EDMUNDS. Richabd Bannister, Esq., F.C.S., &c., &c." Government Laboratory, [Copy.] Clement's Inn Passage, Strand, W.C., 24th December, 1897. Dear Sir, In reply to the enquiry contained in your letter of the 16th instant whether the Alcohol, Ammonia, &c., were determined in the sample of Reference Milk 53, I have to state that in accordance with our usual practice they were estimated.* The result of our examination was stated in my letter of November 16th, viz., that no allowance had, practically, to be made to cover the loss of non-fatty solids by keeping. I may state in conclusion that if the law had permitted us to use as a standard for comparison 12.5% milk-solids, as you have done in making your calculation of water addition, our conclusions and yours would have agreed. With the season's compliments. Believe me, Yours faithfully, (Signed) R. BANNISTER. Du. James Edmunds. * The term "estimated" is not an answer. To estimate an ingredient means to make an approximate judgment as to quantity. To determine it is to measure it or to weigh it. To "test" for a tiling is merely to determine the fact of its presence, but without determining or even estimating its quantity.—[J.E.] 25 Vestry Hall, [Copy.] Piccadilly, W., January 4th, 1898. Re Milk Reference "No. 53." Dear Sir, I thank you for answering one more of the questions. This answer shews that the divergency in our conclusions was due entirely to our using different standards of milk for comparison with the adulterated sample, and it closes that point. I think that you under-estimate the intelligence of the Members of the Public Health Committee of St. James's, when you assume that they will regard as intelligible your replies upon the remaining questions. With a view to save us all the trouble which would be caused by their appealing to the Home Secretary for these data, I therefore trouble you with one more letter, and I ask you to favour me with answers to the following questions:— 1. What ground have you for suggesting that the law does not "permit us to use as a standard of com parison 12.5% milk-solids"? As I read the Acts my standard of 12.5% milk-solids is just as permissible as your standard of 8.5% solids-not-fat. 2. Were the Alcohol, Ammonia and acids in this sample determined? If yes, will you favour me with the figures of those determinations? If nothing was added for loss, will you kindly say so? If something was added, will you favour me with the figures of the amount added, and the method by which that amount was deduced from the aforesaid determinations. With the compliments of the season. Yours faithfully, (Signed) JAMES EDMUNDS. Richard Bannister, Esq., F.C.S., &c., &c., &c. 26 Government Laboratory, [Copy.] Clement's Inn Passage, Strand, W.C., January 5th, 1898. Dear Sir, In your letter of yesterday's date you ask me two questions, to the second of which I have already replied in my letters of November 16th and December 24th, viz., that the sample of milk was tested* for Alcohol, Ammonia, and acids, and that no addition† was made for loss. In reply to your first question may I refer you to the fourth paragraph of my letter of December 14th? You will there see that I have not used the term "standard," and the reason is also given for not doing so. The interpretation of the law is the special function of Magistrates and Judges who try such cases, and j-ou cannot therefore expect me to say more on the points raised in your first question. Yours faithfully, (Signed) R. BANNISTER. Dr. Edmunds, M.D. Vestry Hall, [Copy.] Piccadilly, W., January 7th, 1898. Re Milk Reference "No. 53." Dear Sir, I thank you for yours of the 5th instant, and for your answer. That answer closes the questions as to the significance of your certificate. But I cannot understand your reply to my question as to the new point which you introduced in the last paragraph of your letter of December 24th, and your reference to your previous letter does not help me. In yours of December 24th it is obvious that you did use the word standard. You also suggested that "the use of 12.5% milk-solids as a standard for comparison is not * This is no answer. Vide foot-note, page 24. † Reference to the letter will show that Mr. Bannister's then statement was "practically no addition." 27 permitted to us by law." I ask whether you really mean to suggest that my certificate used a standard not permitted to us by law 1 and, if yes, on what ground you make that suggestion 1 The choice of a standard for comparison with an adulterated milk is, I think, left wholly to the discretion of the Analyst. If you agree, then 12.5% milk-solids is just as much "permitted to us by law" as is 8.5% of non-fatty solids. If the Analyst uses an improper standard for the purpose of drawing his conclusions, the remedy is provided. That remedy is to put the Analyst into the box and crossexamine him, so that the Magistrate may judge of the accuracy of his findings and of the propriety of his deductions. To have put you into the box in this case would have been to ask the Magistrate for a fourth adjournment, and this would have been harsh to the Defendant. It would ulso have thrown further costs upon the Vestry or upon the Defendant. To appeal in these cases involves enormous law costs. Yours faithfully, (Signed) JAMES EDMUNDS- Richard Bannister, Esq., F.C.S., &c., &c., &c. 28 On June 28th, 1898, the Public Health Committee of St. James's Vestry passed the following resolutions:— That they have had under consideration a report by Dr. Edmunds on the analysis of a certain sample of milk, and the correspondence between him and the Authorities at Somerset House thereon; and that the Committee are of opinion:— 1. That the present arrangements at the ment Laboratory for the control, analysis, and certification of samples are unsatisfactory. 2. That when a sample of milk falls below its bottom limit of variation, it should be compared with a fair average milk, containing 12.50% of milksolids, in order to calculate the percentage of added water. 3. That a copy of the foregoing resolutions should be forwarded to the Local Government Board, the Authorities at Somerset House, the Society of Public Analysts, and the Local Authorities administering the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts in the Metropolis. On July 2nd, 1898, at a meeting of the St. James's Vestry, the above recommendations of the Public Health Committee were unanimously approved and adopted.