Search results

A pæan of joy and triumph which speaks for itself, and which is a very true indication of how the question of poisonous adulteration is viewed by certain sections of “the trade,” and by certain of the smaller and irresponsible trade organs, has appeared in print. It would seem that the thanks of “the trade” are due to the defendants in the case heard at the Liverpool Police Court for having obtained an official acknowledgment that the use of salicylic acid and of other preservatives, even in large amounts, in wines and suchlike articles, is not only allowable, but is really necessary for the proper keeping of the product. It must have been a charming change in the general proceedings at the Liverpool Court to listen to a “preservatives” case conducted before a magistrate who evidently realises that manufacturers, in these days, in order to make a “decent” profit, have to use the cheapest materials they can buy, and cannot afford to pick and choose; and that they have therefore “been compelled” to put preservatives into their articles so as to prevent their going bad. He was evidently not to be misled by the usual statement that such substances should not be used because they are injurious to health— as though that could be thought to have anything to do with the much more important fact that the public “really want” to have an article supplied to them which is cheap, and yet keeps well. Besides, many doctors and professors were brought forward to prove that they had never known a case of fatal poisoning due to the use of salicylic acid as a preservative. Unfortunately, it is only the big firms that can manage to bring forward such admirable and learned witnesses, and the smaller firms have to suffer persecution by faddists and others who attempt to obtain the public notice by pretending to be solicitous about the public health. Altogether the prosecution did not have a pleasant time, for the magistrate showed his appreciation of the evidence of one of the witnesses by humorously rallying him about his experiments with kittens, as though any‐one could presume to judge from experiments on brute beasts what would be the effect on human beings—the “lords of creation.” Everyone reading the evidence will be struck by the fact that the defendant stated that he had once tried to brew without preservatives, but with the only result that the entire lot “went bad.” All manufacturers of his own type will sympathise with him, since, of course, there is no practicable way of getting over this trouble except by the use of preservatives; although the above‐mentioned faddists are so unkind as to state that if everything is clean the article will keep. But this must surely be sheer theory, for it cannot be supposed that there can be any manufacturer of this class of article who would be foolish enough to think he could run his business at a profit, and yet go to all the expense of having the returned empties washed out before refilling, and of paying the heavy price asked for the best crude materials, when he has to compete with rival firms, who can use practically anything, and yet turn out an article equal in every way from a selling point of view, and one that will keep sufficiently, by the simple (and cheap) expedient of throwing theory on one side, and by pinning their faith to a preservative which has now received the approval of a magistrate. Manufacturers who use preservatives, whether they are makers of wines or are dairymen, and all similar tradesmen, should join together to protect their interests, for, as they must all admit, “the welfare of the trade” is the chief thing they have to consider, and any other interest must come second, if it is to come in at all. Now is the time for action, for the Commission appointed to inquire into the use of preservatives in foods has not yet given its decision, and there is still time for a properly‐conducted campaign, backed up by those “influential members of the trade” of whom we hear so much, and aided by such far‐reaching and brilliant magisterial decisions, to force these opinions prominently forward, in spite of the prejudice of the public; and to insure to the trades interested the unfettered use of preservatives,—which save “the trade” hundreds of thousands of pounds every year, by enabling the manufacturers to dispense with heavily‐priced apparatus, with extra workmen and with the use of expensive materials,—and which are urgently asked for by the public,—since we all prefer to have our foods drugged than to have them pure.

Merchants and manufacturers have it in their power to minimise in some degree the extent to which we are becoming indebted to foreign countries in respect of the large excess of imports over exports, by obtaining, as far as possible, their imported supplies of food products and raw materials for industries from countries within the Empire. Take, for example, meat and cheese. The prevailing high prices are no doubt encouraging the home production of these commodities. Nevertheless a large quantity must necessarily be imported. In 1914 meat to the value of 62 million pounds was imported, and cheese to the value of 8 million pounds. Of the imports of meat 26 per cent. came from within the Empire, and of cheese 82 per cent. Clearly it is better under existing circumstances that we should buy meat from Australia and New Zealand than from Argentina, and cheese from Canada and New Zealand rather than from Holland and the United States. Many other examples may be mentioned of products which can equally as well be obtained within the Empire as from foreign countries, such as maize from South Africa, where a large increase of production is expected this year; oats from Canada rather than from Argentina and the United States; barley from Canada; peas from New Zealand; butter from Australia and New Zealand; canned salmon, of which 2½ million pounds' worth was imported in 1914, from Canada rather than from the United States; apples from Canada and Australia; wine from Australia; tea from India and Ceylon rather than from China and Java; cocoa from the Gold Coast and the West Indies; copra from Malaya, India and Australia; rubber from Malaya and Ceylon; fibres from New Zealand, Mauritius, Ceylon, etc.; wood pulp from Canada and Newfoundland; wool from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the Falkland Islands rather than from Argentina, Chile and other foreign sources; tanning materials from India, Natal, Australia and British East Africa; dyewoods from the West Indies; timber from Canada; hardwoods from India, West Africa, the West Indies and Australia; copper and copper ore from Australia and South Africa; tin and tin ore from Malaya, Nigeria, South Africa and Australia; manganese from India; plumbago from Ceylon; hides from India, Africa and Australia, and so forth. It has been stated that the result of the war may ultimately depend largely on financial strength. In that case the country which is to the greatest extent self‐supporting as regards supplies of the necessaries of life and materials for the manufacture of munitions of war will be in a position to carry on the longest. Undoubtedly the British Empire contains within itself the power to produce all such materials, and the Dominions, Colonies and Dependencies are in fact already supplying a large proportion of the food products and raw materials for industries, which are imported into the United Kingdom. There are a few notable exceptions, e.g., for our supplies of cotton and sugar we have always been largely dependent on foreign countries, but Uganda and the Soudan are capable of producing in the future very large quantities of cotton of the quality required by Lancashire spinners, and sugar production in our Colonies could, with proper encouragement, be expanded so as to meet the whole of the requirements of the Mother Country. If the British capital and energy which have in the past gone every year to the development of enterprises in foreign countries had been devoted for a tew years exclusively to exploiting the resources of the Dominions and Colonies, the British Empire would, by this time, have become practically self‐supporting, and the bulk of our imported foodstuffs and raw products required for our manufacturing industries would now be obtained from within the Empire and paid for by increased quantities of our own manufactures. It may be hoped that one of the lessons which we shall learn from the war will be definitely to encourage the development of the vast resources of our overseas Empire. — The Chamber of Commerce Journal.

With the beginning of the twentieth century, preventive medicine is entering upon a new era. We are now confronted by a set of problems which are different in many respects from the problems so successfully attacked by the great masters of preventive medicine of the last century, and which call for the application of different preventive measures. The objects which Edwin Chadwick, John Simon, and our other great forerunners of the last century, sought to attain, and which to a large extent they did attain, may, I think, not unfairly be described by the phrase “ civic cleanliness.” They sought to provide pure water supplies ; to remove refuse and filth from the vicinity of human beings by establishing improved systems of drainage and sewerage, and better methods of dust collection ; to provide open spaces and wider streets; to pave streets, yards, etc.; to raise the sanitary standard of building construction; to provide proper burial grounds ; to regulate offensive trades ; and to abate the smoke nuisance and the pollution of rivers. Of course we all know that they did very much more than this. Their work was too great and its effect too far‐reaching to be described by any single phrase. Still, I think it not unfair to say that, broadly speaking, we may regard the attainment of civic cleanliness as the great object of cur public health administration in the nineteenth century. It cannot be said that this object has been wholly attained. In a country whose capital is still supplied with something like filtered sewage as drinking water, it is obvious that there is much yet to be done to secure civic cleanliness. But the point is that any further progress in this direction must, or should, take place on the lines already laid down by our predecessors. Their methods of civic sanitation have stood the test of experience, and all that is wanted is a further development on existing lines. It is otherwise with the new problems that now press for solution. These are problems of a different nature, and demand new methods of treatment, although the principles underlying the methods will be found, probably, to be the same. Preventive medicine in the nineteenth century was chiefly occupied with problems of civic cleanliness ; in the twentieth century we are confronted with the problems of personal hygiene, and the three problems of this kind which appear to me to call most urgently for solution at the present time are: (1) The problem of infantile mortality; (2) The problem of school hygiene; (3) The problem of the milk supply.

The Corporation of the City of London are about to appoint a Public Analyst, and by advertisement have invited applications for the post. It is obviously desirable that the person appointed to this office should not only possess the usual professional qualifications, but that he should be a scientific man of high standing and of good repute, whose name would afford a guarantee of thoroughness and reliability in regard to the work entrusted to him, and whose opinion would carry weight and command respect. Far from being of a nature to attract a man of this stamp, the terms and conditions attaching to the office as set forth in the advertisement above referred to are such that no self‐respecting member of the analytical profession, and most certainly no leading member of it, could possibly accept them. It is simply pitiable that the Corporation of the City of London should offer terms, and make conditions in connection with them, which no scientific analyst could agree to without disgracing himself and degrading his profession. The offer of such terms, in fact, amounts to a gross insult to the whole body of members of that profession, and is excusable only—if excusable at all—on the score of utter ignorance as to the character of the work required to be done, and as to the nature of the qualifications and attainments of the scientific experts who are called upon to do it. In the analytical profession, as in every other profession, there are men who, under the pressure of necessity, are compelled to accept almost any remuneration that they can get, and several of these poorer, and therefore weaker, brethren will, of course, become candidates for the City appointment.

The attention of the Board is drawn from time to time to advertisements in trade papers and circulars of preservative substances sold under proprietary names. These consist for the most part of well‐known preservatives or mixtures of preservatives which are easily detected by the analyst in food substances to which they have been added. A new preservative, sold under the name of “Mystin,” for preserving milk and cream has recently been advertised as possessing the advantage that its presence cannot be detected by analysis. Samples have been sent to farmers and milk vendors accompanied by a trade circular from which the following extracts have been taken:—

Numbers of worthy people are no doubt nursing themselves in the fond and foolish belief that when the Food Bill has received the Royal assent, and becomes law, the manufacture and sale of adulterated and sophisticated products will, to all intents and purposes, be suppressed, and that the Public Analyst and the Inspector will be able to report the existence of almost universal purity and virtue. This optimistic feeling will not be shared by the traders and manufacturers who have suffered from the effects of unfair and dishonest competition, nor by those whose knowledge and experience of the existing law enables them to gauge the probable value of the new one with some approach to accuracy. The measure has satisfied nobody, and can satisfy nobody but those whose nefarious practices it is intended to check, and who can fully appreciate the value, to them, of patchwork and superficial legislation. We have repeatedly pointed out that repressive legislation, however stringent and however well applied, can never give the public that which the public, in theory, should receive—namely, complete protection and adequate guarantee,—nor to the honest trader the full support and encouragement to which he is entitled. But, in spite of the defects and ineffectualities necessarily attaching to legislation of this nature, a strong Government could without much difficulty have produced a far more effective, and therefore more valuable law than that which, after so long an incubation, is to be added to the statute‐book.

The Board of Agriculture, by virtue of the powers conferred upon them by the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, have made regulations whereby it may be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that milk containing less than 8·5 per cent. of solids‐not‐fat, or less than 3 per cent of fat, is adulterated within the meaning of the Act. The suggested limit for fat in milk recommended by the special committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture was 3·per cent., and it will therefore be observed that the new regulations have fixed a standard for milk‐fat which is even lower than the low limit recommended by the committee. There are even rumours that a further lowering of this standard is to bo urged upon the authorities. Although from the point of view of Public Analysts and the officials responsible for the enforcement of the Food and Drugs Acts it is satisfactory that an official standard for the composition of milk has at last been set up, it is idle to suppose that the fixing of such a limit will materially improve the character of the milk‐supply as a whole. It should be remembered that milk which contains only 3 per cent of fat, although under the new regulations legally “genuine,” is, as a matter of fact, of the poorest quality, and is only produced by a cow when in bad condition, or by a particular breed of cow which is remarkable more for the quantity than for the quality of the fluid yielded. Producers and vendors of milk of good quality have been placed in a very unfortunate position by the new regulations, as the tendency of the trade will be to lower all milk to the official limits, with the result that those dealers who are still desirous of maintaining a high standard of quality will have to compete in the matter of price with less conscientious traders, who, taking advantage of the protection afforded by the regulations, will be enabled to sell to the public “genuine” milk, from which all “superfluous” fat has been removed. Gradation of quality in an article of food cannot, of course, be provided for by official regulation, and for the purpose of legal classification it is only possible to differentiate between legally “genuine” and adulterated articles. Therefore, in a legal sense, and also in a popular sense, a milk containing 4 per cent. of fat is no more “ genuine ” than one containing 3 per cent., although the former is, of course, a superior article. Competition in the dairy trade, which has of late years become very keen, will, as the result of the fixing of this standard, become more acute than before, and to keep their position it will be necessary for those milk‐vendors who are desirous of maintaining their reputation as vendors of milk of good quality to give to their customers some guarantee that their product is indeed superior to the legalised article. Any statements of the traders themselves upon this point will naturally be received by customers with reserve, as proceeding from an interested source, and the guarantee, to be effective, must therefore be given by an authority whose statements are above suspicion. It is hero that the system of Control will be found to be a necessity both to the milk dealer and milk consumer.

In commenting upon a recent action brought by a Mr. Soper for a libel published upon him in a trade journal in regard to the sale of adulterated boots, the Daily Telegraph makes some excellent remarks, which ought to appeal strongly to all manufacturers, no matter what trade they are engaged in, who are really desirous of conducting their concerns upon honest and straightforward lines. The Daily Telegraph observes that reformers are rarely popular with their rivals, especially when they expose tricks in the trade, and advocate raising the standard of commercial honesty. Mr. Soper, the plaintiff in the case in question, was in that position. He had started a crusade against the practice of adulterating the soles of boots with paper fillings, and advocated a standard mark, in order to distinguish what is genuine from what is adulterated. This was resented by the threatened interests. Mr. Soper raised up enemies, and, in consequence, the article complained of was written, accusing him of “knowingly” selling adulterated boots at his shop while he thus publicly denounced them. The libel lay in the word “knowingly,” for it appeared that adulterated boots were actually sold at Mr. SoPer's establishment. But this was because he had failed to detect their presence; he had taken all the precautions which he could take, and he had cut open a number of pairs; he demanded guarantees from the manufacturers with whom he dealt; and, moreover, he was willing to take back any pair from any customer which were found to contain paper. The boot trade does not emerge with credit from this investigation. It was admitted that adulteration had been going on for the last ten years, and one manufacturer's traveller, when asked whether he was not surprised that paper should be found in the soles of boots costing seven or eight shillings, frankly replied, “Nothing surprises me in the boot trade.” The public will share his truly Horatian attitude of mind. Some such standard mark as that advocated by Mr. Soper seems to be the only method of protecting the public, if, indeed, the public desires to be protected, which seems doubtful. The ordinary customer is as helpless in a boot shop as in a curiosity shop. He must trust the word of the shopkeeper. And in turn the shopkeeper has to trust the manufacturers. The excuses of some of the latter, that the use of paper instead of leather did not mean any profit for them, or that the workmen could not be stopped from using cardboard fillings, will not do. There would be no adulteration if it were not profitable to adulterate. Adulteration seems to be rampant in most industries. One might even say that in some it is no longer the exception, but the rule. Wool, for example, has been treated just as scurvily as leather. Woollen no longer means woollen, but cotton with a pinch of wool. One has to ask for “guaranteed pure wool”— and pay accordingly—to feel any confidence that one is getting wool. So, too, with flannel and silk, and even cotton is adulterated with minerals to give it an essentially false weight. The ingredients from which “shoddy” is made would terrify the future wearer of it if he could see the “devil” at work, tearing up the noisome rags. Ignorance in this respect is becoming more blissful every year. Cheap sweets, cheap jams, cheap table delicacies, and all kinds of foods, all of which are warranted pure by the manufacturers, are, as a matter of fact, adulterated with impunity, and are all, in reality, “nasty” as well as “cheap.” The impotence of Government departments and of the Legislature in face of this condition of things has been demonstrated ad nauseam, and while such efforts as are made by local authorities to detect and suppress adulteration should receive all possible support and encouragement, it must be admitted that there is only one effective way of dealing with the evil—namely, the supply of guarantees of an independent and authoritative type to retail vendors and purchasers.

It is generally admitted that the professions are much over‐crowded. While the condition of affairs which exists in professions of older standing such as medicine or the law is fairly well known, even to the unprofessional man, and the qualifications requisite for advancement and success are generally appreciated to a certain extent, the same degree of knowledge does not obtain in the case of chemistry, about which, as a means of livelihood, the profoundest ignorance prevails—even among the better‐educated classes. The opportunities which are apparently held out to aspirants and the greatly increased facilities for chemical study have given rise to an absolutely false idea in the mind of the public at large as to the positions obtainable and the prospects offered. Chemistry is, perhaps, the most over‐crowded of all professional careers, for, although the science has gained enormously in importance and in technical application within a comparatively recent period of time, the supply of highly‐trained chemists greatly exceeds the number of positions available, while the remuneration to be obtained is, from a professional point of view, extremely low, and is quite out of proportion to the scientific qualifications possessed and to the nature of the work exacted. The causes of the over‐crowding are too many and too complex to be considered in detail here, but there may be cited as among the principal factors in this respect the greatly increased popularity of the science as a specialised study, the entrance into the profession of individuals who are in reality personally unsuited for a professional career, and the failure of the educationalists to grasp what the exact meaning and aim of the education of a community should be. While, however, the ultimate prospects of advancement and success are influenced greatly by the growing tendency of crowding out, there are, in this respect, other factors to be considered which are liable to be overlooked, namely, the actions of the members of the profession themselves, and, following from this, the degree of respect accorded and the value attached to that profession by the general public. A profession retains its status before the world, or loses it, according to the nature of the individual and concerted actions of its members, both in their relations with each other and in their intercourse with the public. The particular type of person who enters a profession might appear at first sight to be a factor of comparatively minor importance, provided that a thorough training had been undergone and good qualifications obtained. Such, however, is far from being the case. If it is to maintain an honourable position before the world and a recognised place among other intellectual callings, a profession must endeavour to attract the best type of man—the man who, apart from his scientific qualifications, possesses the true professional instinct and ideals, and the ambition to raise his calling and himself to as high a level as possible. “Qualifications” alone are not sufficient. To attract the man of higher type it is necessary to offer a reasonable prospect of adequate reward. It is open to question whether the chemical profession can, at present, offer the necessary inducement, from this point of view, to enter its ranks. It cannot be pretended that chemistry can present ultimate prospects compared to those offered by the other professions. The reward of the man of science is fixed unless his discoveries have a commercial value, and he himself possess the commercial instinct necessary to profit by them. It will be admitted that this is not the case with the specialist in medicine or with the leader at the Bar. The common objections put forward against such considerations as these are that a man devotes his life to the pursuit of a science purely out of love for that science and with little consideration for remuneration or for social status, and that questions of reward or remuneration being purely mercenary considerations should not be brought into the discussion. While such objections may appear reasonable at first sight, a little reflection will show that the matter lies somewhat deeper than this. The future of the chemical profession itself, and not only the pecuniary profit of the individual, is involved. To offer low remuneration for scientific positions is to ensure these positions being ultimately filled by men of mediocre capacities, and it must be understood that this applies as much to a junior assistantship in a technical laboratory as to a chair in a university or to a public position of trust. The prospects which there are at present in the chemical profession can be regarded only as being more likely to attract the mediocre person than the man of superior capabilities, and mediocrity cannot be considered as conducive to the advancement of a science. In these days of excessive competition it is imperative to consider many facts before choosing a particular professional career. Men of attainments superior to the ordinary will not voluntarily enter a profession in which the reward for their labours is to be in no way proportionate to their abilities, and that particular profession will necessarily suffer by their absence. It is a common fallacy to suppose that a man's intellectual capacity is measured by the number of examinations he has passed or by the number of degrees and diplomas which he may possess. Under our present Chinese system of examination it is possible for anyone, even if he be of really very modest attainments, to make a collection of degrees and diplomas. Originality in thought and the power to apply the knowledge obtained during training are not asked for. There is a type of man extremely common to‐day whose capacity for absorbing existent scientific facts (i.e., the ideas of other people) is as great as his incapacity for originating ideas of his own. To this particular type of person the obtaining of qualifications is a comparatively easy matter, especially in the case of chemistry, which is, strictly speaking, a non‐mathematical science. Whereas originality and individualism in thought makes for advancement in science, the mere repetition of the ideas of other persons can only result in stagnation. These facts are generally lost sight of by those persons who assert that the interest of his particular subject should prove an ample compensation for a low remuneration provided that that remuneration be sufficient in order to live. It is not recognised that if such a prospect of affairs becomes general those persons whose ideas are bounded by a narrow horizon (and such form the majority in any community) are attracted in preference to those whose ambitions take a wider scope, and who will naturally turn to another field of operations where their abilities will be more amply rewarded. The competition to‐day in the chemical profession has become even keener than that among the quill‐drivers; the early prospects are about the same as, or are little superior to, those of the latter calling, while ultimately there is the reward of a position at a remuneration very little better than that obtained by a head bookkeeper, and generally very much inferior to that of a small merchant or fairly successful tradesman—the supposed intellectual inferiors of the man of science. Again, with respect to public chemical appointments, there is the growing tendency to create “whole‐time” appointments at a fixed and insufficient remuneration, with no prospect of advancement or certainty of superannuation, and, in many cases, no security of tenure. In the purely technical world the position of affairs is even worse, while the prospect of making a living by practising privately as a technical and consulting chemist is limited, since the demand from the public is not large, and much of the work formerly obtained by the private practitioner is now done much more cheaply by a “tester” of some kind at a works. The consultant is certainly needed in certain cases, but these are of such comparative rarity as to have but little influence upon the general position. There is no doubt that much harm has been done by the nonsense emitted from time to time by unthinking persons and by those who describe themselves as “pure” chemists, to the effect that much of the work carried out in a technical or analytical laboratory can be performed quite as satisfactorily by the untrained person as by the skilled chemist. These opinions, which may perhaps find excuse in the ignorance of the persons holding them, are based upon the supposition that, as the work in such laboratories may tend to be of a routine nature, unskilled labour is quite as valuable as scientific training. The harm done by the promulgation of such statements is to be found in the fact that untrained persons conceive the idea that employment may be obtained in a chemical laboratory without any previous scientific education, and hence there is introduced a further tendency to lower the status of the chemical profession by the admission of unqualified persons. Whatever the condition of chemistry may be at present from an intellectual standpoint, it is manifestly unfair to give the preference to unskilled persons over those who have at least studied their subject, simply on the ground that such labour is cheaper, and it is suicidal that such a preference should be encouraged by the members of the chemical profession themselves. It is necessary to admit that much of the unsatisfactory condition of affairs in the chemical profession is due directly to the behaviour of the members themselves. They have never really appreciated the necessity of acting together for the benefit of all and for the profession as a whole; they have never recognised that, whatever the specialised branch of each may be, all are linked together by a common training and by common interests, that that which adversely affects an individual member adversely affects the whole profession, and that their actions and the value they themselves put upon their services determine the degree of respect accorded to their profession and to themselves by the outside public. The chemist who is engaged in teaching cares little if his technical colleague is underpaid, because he himself is not a technical chemist, and the latter, on the other hand, does not concern himself with the condition of affairs in the teaching branch of the profession. This policy of “sauve qui peut” is disastrous. Combination among its members is absolutely necessary if a profession is to “live.” A number of individuals having a general common training in a particular branch of knowledge, each one working for his own special interest and without regard for that of his fellows, no more constitutes a profession than a people possessed of no laws or constitution and bound by no social obligations constitutes a nation. That the necessity of efficient combination is not understood may be seen from a statement made by the President of the Institute of Chemistry at the last annual general meeting of that body. In the course of his address, the President said: “If the Institute were … . to become, as some critics have suggested it might become, a professional trade union for the regulation of fees and the suppression of competition, I feel sure that the larger proportion of its members would rightly lose all interest in its affairs.” If the Institute of Chemistry is to be regarded solely as an examining body, this particular statement of the President may be held to be excusable, if not justifiable, but if the Institute be considered as a professional body for controlling the interests of its members and acting for the advancement of the whole chemical profession, two possibilities are presented. Either a condition of affairs exists in the Institute of Chemistry which is lamentable, and which it would, perhaps, have been kinder to the Institute to have kept secret, or the statement of the President is not justified by the facts. The word “rightly” has, logically and morally, no place in the sentence in which it occurs. It would appear from a passing reference by the President to the Institute as “a great professional organisation” that the body in question does desire to be considered a professional institution. Under these circumstances, the statement above quoted amounts to this: as the Institute of Chemistry is not to concern itself with the fees paid to its members, or with the fees which those members choose to accept, it becomes open to any member (although a member of a “professional” body) to accept any fee, however low, for any work, and by a slight extension of this free and easy principle, any member may undercut any other member by performing the same work for a lower fee, and, given a sufficient scope for such “competition” without any restriction (and the only restriction possible is the veto of a firm professional authority), an impossible state of things would soon be reached. It will be noted that no account has been taken of length of service, years of experience, and professional position. A man with these extra qualifications is not to expect his own professional organisation to recognise them or to aid him in making others recognise them. Those for whom the regulation of fees has an interest are, for the most part, men in responsible public positions, or in private practice, who are endeavouring to maintain their profession and themselves in as high esteem as possible—in spite of the ignorant opposition offered to them by the public who do not appreciate their services and by their “professional” brethren who cannot understand what a professional man should be. It is these men who represent the Institute of Chemistry before the public, and without whom that Institute would be practically unknown. It is only to be expected that such men would be in the minority. The initiation of all wise things comes from individuals—generally from some one individual—and never from the mass. The general tendency of things throughout the world is to render mediocrity the ascendant power among mankind, and this applies as much to small bodies of men as to society at large. In questions of policy and future action the opinion of the majority of the mass may be discounted, for while the reasoned opinion of an individual may be biassed, it is an opinion (and, therefore, right or wrong, worth consideration); but, in the case of majorities, the opinions expressed by them do not represent the sum of individual ideas, but are simply the expressed preference of one or a few of the same type as those who constitute the majority, followed unthinkingly by the remainder—a state of things best comparable to a flock of sheep running round a tree. There is no reason for supposing that the majority in the Institute of Chemistry is any more capable of giving a wise and reasoned answer to a question of policy than are other majorities. In the present instance the reasons which can be brought forward against the assumption by a professional body of an indifference to the question of the remuneration of its members far outnumber any which may be advanced in defence of such a policy. We have drawn attention to the necessity of attracting the man of superior attainments to a profession, we have indicated what the ultimate effects of inadequate remuneration for scientific work will be, and we have urged the vital necessity of combination in calling attention to the policy of segregation which is having such disastrous results. Some of these points are referred to in the address of the president of the Institute of Chemistry, but from a different standpoint. “A large number of our Fellows are engaged in practice as analytical and consulting chemists, and questions of professional interest naturally appeal to this section of our membership, but an equally important section feel only a more remote interest in these questions, though they appreciate the wide influence of the Institute as a great professional organisation.” Again: “It must never be forgotten that an important part of the work of the Institute is the consolidation of the profession.” Nothing but unqualified approval can be accorded to this last statement. It is difficult to see, however, how the consolidation of the profession is to be effected by the Institute if one section of its members feel only a more remote interest in the questions which concern the advancement and success of the other, and if the majority of the members would view with disfavour an attempt on the part of the Institute to place the recognition of professional service upon a proper and a dignified basis. The problem of the regulation of fees is one of the most important questions with which a professional body has to deal, and it is not easy to comprehend how a body which deliberately ignores or avoids this point can, properly speaking, be called a professional organisation. There is now more than at any other time the crying need for a strong controlling authority in the chemical profession—an authority which would enforce professional conduct upon those under its control, and, passing the bounds of mere protestation, take a definite and severe line of action in all cases of infringement of its rules. Before joining a given professional organisation a man has a perfect right to inquire what benefits he is likely to gain from his membership. It is not sufficient to merely hold examinations and to grant diplomas—any examining institution can do that. In a body intended to deal with professional interests examinations are of secondary importance; the advancement of the profession and the welfare of the members demand the first consideration. If not, it becomes reasonable and perfectly justifiable for any member of the profession to refrain from allying himself with that body, and to refuse to recognise it professionally—a course of action which, although necessary in such a case, would not be beneficial to the profession; the fault, however, would lie with the controlling authority and not with the individual.

The great difficulties which attach to the fixing of legal standards of composition for food products have now to be grappled with by the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture to consider and determine what regulations should be made by the Board, under Section 4 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, with respect to the composition of butter. As we predicted in regard to the labours of the Milk and Cream Standards Committee, so we predict now that the Butter Committee will be unable to do more than to recommend standards and limits, which, while they will make for the protection of the public against the sale of grossly adulterated articles, will certainly not in any way insure the sale of butter of really satisfactory, or even of fair, composition. Standards and limits established by law for the purposes of the administration of criminal Acts of Parliament must of necessity be such as to legalise the sale of products of a most inferior character, to which the term “genuine” may still by law be applied as well as to legalise the sale of adulterated and sophisticated products so prepared as to come within the four corners of the law. It is, of course, an obvious necessity that official standards and limits should be established, and the Board of Agriculture are to be congratulated upon the manner in which they are endeavouring to deal with these extremely knotty problems; but it is important that misconception on the part of the public and the trade with respect to the effect of the regulations to be made should be as far as possible prevented. All that can be hoped for is that the conclusions at which the Committee may find themselves compelled to arrive will not be such as to place too high and too obvious a premium upon the sale of those inferior and scientifically‐adulterated products which are placed in such enormous quantities on the food market.