1750 A NEW MUZZLING ORDER.-PLUMBING AND THE NEW CORPORATIONS.

Scotland which should have the attention of all intelligentand religious people. In the year 1899176,000 persons wereapprehended or cited for these offences ; and the numbersconstitute a record. The following are the five towns whichhave the worst record : South Queen sferry has 1424 cases ofdrunkenness and disorder per 10,000 population; Falkirk,1066 cases; Linlithgow, 830 ; Cumnock, 770; and Clydebank,756. We venture to suggest that the medical profession ofScotland, apart from all extreme theories and practices,should take this subject into its consideration with a view tosome public statement of the medical and pathological bearing of such statistics.

A NEW MUZZLING ORDER.

AN order of the Board of Agriculture in the LondonGazette of Dec. 8th provides that every dog brought to

Great Britain from any other country except the ChannelIslands and the Isle of Man shall, unless accompanied by aproperly issued licence authorising its landing, be chainedand muzzled in some inclosed portion of the ship, while thelatter is lying at any port in Great Britain. In case of

default the owner of the dog, the person for the time beingin charge thereof, and the master of the vessel may be

proceeded against under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894.

INDIAN AND COLONIAL ADDENDUM TO THEBRITISH PHARMACOPŒIA, 1898.

By the courtesy of the General Medical Council we havereceived for review an early copy of the above. The copy is

avowedly imperfect and subject to slight verbal and typo-graphical alterations, and it cannot yet be obtained from thepublishers, since the price has not been determined by theTreasury. We understand that it is impossible to give anyidea of the precise date of publication, but that meanwhilecopies similar to that supplied to us may be consulted at theoffices of the General Medical Council, in London, Edin-burgh, and Dublin. -

THE REGENT’S CANAL AND THE PUBLIC WEAL.

THE Regent’s Canal was intended to be, and originallywas, an attractive water-way. The general design of the

canal and the details of the work alike show that it was

arranged with a view to be beautiful as well as useful. Its

primary object was, of course, to transport heavy goods.The work was projected in the early part of the presentcentury at a time when food was scarce, and it was saidthat such a canal would diminish the cost of cartingand lessen the number of draught-horses, " whereby,"urged the promoters, " much land now applied in the

growth of provender for them may be more beneficiallyused in the culture of food for mankind." The projecttook statutory form in the year 1812 (52 Geo. III.,c. 195), and the work, begun on Oct. 14th of that

year, was completed and opened for traffic in 1820.The company obtained from the Consolidated Fund theuse of a sum of £200,000, and later another sum

of .B100,OOO was advanced on the security of the

undertaking (1 & 2 Geo. IV., c. 43). From these facts it

will be seen that the Regent’s Canal was projected nomi-nally in the public interest and that to assist in carrying outthe work the use of the public credit was granted. It followsfrom this that the business ought to be carried on ina way to serve, and not to interfere with, the public weal.It cannot be said that these conditions have been, or are,fulfilled. For many years past the accessories which madethe canal banks attractive and beautiful have been neglected,the towing-path has fallen into a state of bad repair, and,worse than all, the water in the canal, instead of beingclear and bright, has been allowed to become filthy and

putrid. Every summer lately during the warm weather thestench from the canal has been most offensive: A reportrecently presented to the Public Health Committee of theLondon County Council has called attention to the foulnessof the water, and some rather curious suggestions were madeas to what ought to be done in the matter. One councillor

gave it as his opinion that the canal should be done awaywith-a proposition which would, of course, require an Actof Parliament to give it statutory force. Another councillor

thought that the Thames Conservancy should have power toprevent the canal water from passing into the Thames. This

proposal also could only be carried out under a special Actpassed for the purpose, and if then it could be enforcedit would necessarily render the state of the canal more foulthan it is at present. The report of the Health Committeeof the London County Council is, however, more worthy ofconsideration. The Regent’s Canal Company, it is said, areauthorised to sell water from the higher levels outside thecounty and they exercise this right, the proceeds of the saleforming part of their revenue. For the purposes of navigationthe water, instead of being allowed to flow down from thehigher levels, is pumped back from the lower levels. Thecommittee point out that the good effects of flushing thecanal with water from the upper levels has been practicallyproved. Some years ago several of the vestries complainedof the foulness of the canal and the company allowed nearly16,000,000 gallons of water to pass down, whereupon thenuisance was quickly abated. In December, 1893, theHealth Committee conferred with representatives of the

sanitary authorities through whose districts the canal passed,and in February, 1894, the London County Council tookcounsel’s opinion as to whether the Attorney-General could,if called upon by the Council, proceed by public indictmentagainst the canal company for creating a public nuisanceby neglect in the management of their business. The

Council were advised that the case was not one in whichthe Attorney-General would be likely to take proceedingsuntil every effort had been made to stop the nuisance

under the Public Health London Act (1891). It doesnot appear from the report that the Council have made

every, or indeed any, effort to avail themselves of the

Act of 1891, nor is any explanation given as to why theyhave neglected to use so ready and effective a weapon,which appears to be the more curious inasmuch as thecounsel who advised them pointed out that in his opinionthe Council were not empowered to pay the expenses of anaction by indictment. The Public Health London Act

(1891) was passed for the very purpose of giving the localauthorities power in all matters relating to nuisances. It

is an excellent Act and if use were made of its provisionsLondon would be a very much cleaner, a much more

beautiful, and a much more healthy place than it is at

present. We have every confidence that the new metro-

politan boroughs will effectively carry out the great dutiescommitted to their care and will abolish nuisances whichhave eluded both the apathy of the vestries and, if it maybe so called, the vigilance of the London County Council.

PLUMBING AND THE NEW CORPORATIONS.

THE annual Livery dinner of the Worshipful Company ofPlumbers, held on Nov. 27th at the Fishmongers’ Hallwas a gathering of more than usual interest. it affordedthe Lord Mayor of London, and many of the mayors of theoldest municipalities in the country, the opportunity of meet-ing their more recently created brethren of the municipalworld, including the 28 mayors so recently enrolled inGreater London. In fact, as one of the speakers (Mr.Robert Crawford of Glasgow) said : "The Plumbers’

Company had succeeded in creating, in a way impos-sible for any other body, a federation of all the