Of Seward’s Life ami Works, in 5 vols., edited by George E. Baker, the last volume deals with his career during his first term as secretary of state.

The second constituent is from an agricultural point of view the most valuable, and from a hygienic point of view the most dangerous, element of sewage. Even healthy excreta decompose, if kept for a short time after they are produced, and give rise to noxious gases; but a more serious danger proceeds from the fact that in certain cases of sickness these products are charged with specific germs of disease. Speedy removal or destruction of excremental sewage is therefore imperative. It may be removed in an unmixed state, either in pails or tanks or (with the aid of pneumatic pressure) by pipes; or it may be defecated by mixture with dry earth or ashes; or, finally, it may be conveyed away in sewers by gravitation, after the addition of a relatively large volume of water. This last mode of disposal is termed the water-carriage system of sewerage. It is the plan now usually adopted in towns which have a sufficient water supply, and it is probably the mode which best meets the needs of any large community. The sewers which carry the diluted excreta serve also to take slop-water, and may or may not be used to remove the surface water due to rainfall. The water-carriage system has the disadvantage that much of the agricultural value of sewage is lost by its dilution, while the volume of foul matter to be disposed of is greatly increased. But it has been found that, even when the excrement of a community is kept out of the sewers, and subjected to distinct treatment, the contents of the sewers are still so foul that their discharge into streams is scarcely less objectionable than when the water-carriage system is adopted; and, further, it appears difficult if not impossible to realize the agricultural value of excrement by any process of separate treatment that is not offensive or dangerous or inapplicable to towns.

When, in the water-carriage system, the same sewers carry foul sewage and surface-water due to rainfall, the sewerage is said to be “combined”; the “separate” system, on the other hand, is that in which a distinct set of sewers is provided to carry off rainfall. Each plan has its advantages. In the separate system the foul-water sewers need be large enough to take only the normal flow; they may thus be made self-cleansing much more readily than if their size were sufficient to carry the immensely greater volume to which (on the combined plan) sewage may be swollen during heavy rain. The amount of dangerously foul matter is also much reduced. On the other hand, the contents of the rain-water sewers are still too much tainted by the filth of the streets to render their discharge into rivers or lakes desirable; and the complication of two sets of mains and branches is a serious drawback. Where old sewers are giving place to new ones it is not unusual to retain the old sewers for the carriage of surface-water; but in new works a single system of sewers, provided with storm-overflows to relieve them of part of the rainfall during exceptionally heavy showers, would probably be preferred in nearly every case. Since sewers should, in all cases, be water-tight, they do not form suitable collectors of subsoil water. The water-carriage system of sewerage will bo noticed here under its three aspects:—(1) the ultimate disposal of sewage; (2) the system of common sewers by which sewage is conveyed to its destination; (3) the domestic arrangements for the collection of sewage.

I. The Ultimate Disposal of Water-carried Sewage. —In the water-carriage system of sewerage the fertilizing elements are so largely diluted that it becomes a matter of the utmost difficulty to turn them to profitable account. It has been estimated that every ton of London sewage contains ingredients whose value as manure is rather more than 2d., a value which, could it be realized, would make the sewage of the metropolis worth a million and three quarters sterling per annum. Sewage farming, however, does not pay. After much costly experiment the conviction is gaining ground that, neither by applying sewage directly to land, nor by any process of chemical treatment that has yet been proposed, can sewage be made to yield a return as manure which will cover the cost of its transport, treatment, and distribution, except perhaps in a few cases where the circumstances are peculiarly favourable. At the same time, sewage farming does afford one satisfactory solution of the problem of how to dispose of sewage without creating a nuisance—a problem in which any question of profit or loss is of secondary importance. A very early instance of irrigation by sewage is that of the Craigentinny Meadows, a sandy tract of 400 acres, on which part of the sewage of Edinburgh has been discharged during certain seasons for nearly a century. There, owing to favourable conditions, and to the fact that complete purification of the sewage is not attempted, the process yields a profit; but no such result could be looked for if the sea were not at hand to receive the imperfectly cleansed sewage and the wholly uncleansed surplus. Germany furnishes a still older example of irrigation in the sewage farm of the town of Bunzlau, which has been in existence for more than three hundred years.

Five methods of treating sewage may be named, of which two or more are often found in combination.

Discharge into the Sea or into a large watercourse is in general the least costly means by which a community can rid itself of its sewage. Much care in the choice of outlets is necessary to make this plan effective in avoiding nuisance. Some towns make use of tanks or outlet sowers of large capacity, from which the discharge is allowed to occur only when the tide is ebbing. When the volume of sewage is very large, even this precaution does not wholly protect the neighbouring coast from foul deposits. A striking instance is furnished by the case of London, which discharges its sewage into the tidal estuary of the Thames at Barking and Crossness during only some three or four hours from the time of each high tide. It is found that the discharged matter is washed up and down the river with every tide, occasionally reaching as far up as Teddington, and that the portion which is not deposited in the form of mud banks only very slowly works its way to the sea.

Broad Irrigation.— By this is meant the use of sewage to irrigate a comparatively large tract of cultivated land, in the proportion of about 1 acre (or more) of land to every 120 persons in the sewage-contributing population. This system is now largely and successfully used, especially where the soil is a porous sandy loam. Fears that the farms would prove dangerous to the health of the neighbouring district, and that the crops and vegetables grown on them would be unwholesome, have proved groundless. When the farm is properly laid out and carefully managed the effluent water is pure enough to be admitted to a clear stream from which water-supply is drawn. Broad irrigation is practised at Croydon, Cheltenham, Blackburn, and many other English towns; and it has recently been applied, on a very large scale, to dispose of the sewage of Berlin.

Intermittent Downward Filtration.— This is another mode of purifying sewage by applying it to land, which differs from broad irrigation in requiring a much smaller area in proportion to the sewage dealt with. In 1870 Dr Frankland drew attention to the fact that if sewage were passed through porous soil, not continuously but at intervals long enough to let the soil become aerated, rapid purification took place through the oxidizing action of the air which the soil held in its pores. He estimated that an acre of suitable ground, well furnished with subsoil drains to remove the water after percolation, could in this way take the sewage of 2000 persons. This estimate is now considered excessive, and 1000 persons to the acre is a more recent limit. Mr J. Bailey-Denton at once took up Dr Frankland’s suggestion, and in his hands the system of intermittent filtration through land has been successfully applied to the sewage of many towns.The land which constitutes the filter is used to grow vegetables and other crops. Clay soils are, as far as possible, avoided, and the land is thoroughly underdrained at a depth of about 6 feet. The sewage is distributed over the surface in open channels, the proper laying out of which is an important item in the cost of the system, but is essential to its success. When the number of persons exceeds 500 per acre it is advisable to precipitate the solid matter that is held in suspension before the liquid is applied to the land, in order to prevent the surface of the ground from becoming clogged with sewage sludge. Mr Bailey-Denton has pointed out the advantage which the system of intermittent filtration offers as a supplement to broad irrigation, where that is carried out. A serious objection to the disposal of sewago by irrigation is the fact that the farmer must take the sewage always,—at times when it hurts the land as well as at times when the land wants it. But by laying out a portion of the land as a filter bed the sewage may bo thrown on that whenever its presence on the remainder would do harm rather than good. Mr Denton has applied this combined system in several instances, and insists, apparently with much reason, that such a combination offers a better prospect of profit than any other efficient mode of purifying sewage. The system of intermittent filtration through land has been recommended by the Royal Commission of 1882-84 as a mode of treating Loudon sewage.

Filtration through Artificial Filters of sand, gravel, ashes, charcoal, coke, peat, &c., though often experimented on, can scarcely be described as an actual system. It is attended by the difficulty that the filter becomes speedily choked by the deposit of sludge. The intermittent use of a suitable artificial filter will, however, servo efficiently to oxidize and therefore purify the liquid portion of sewage from which the sludge has been previously precipitated and filtration through coke is used in some instances as a supplement to the process which is next to be described.

Chemical Treatment, or Precipitation.— When sewage is allowed to stand, or to flow very slowly through a large tank, a gradual subsidence of the solid particles takes place. The subsidence is, however, much too slow to be complete before decomposition sets in. But it may be very greatly accelerated by the addition of certain reagents, with the object of producing a precipitate which, in falling, will carry down with it the minute particles of solid matter that are suspended throughout the mass. Lime is the substance most usually employed. It is introduced in the form of milk of lime, and in the proportion of about one ton of lime to one million gallons of sewage. When thoroughly mixed, the liquid is left at rest, and a rapid separation of the sewage follows, into a comparatively clear supernatant liquid and a glutinous precipitate or “sludge.” The sludge has little value as manure, for the best agricultural constituents of sewage are contained in solution, and very little of the soluble matter is carried down in the deposit. The sludge is dried by being strained over beds of slag, pressed into blocks for transport, and got rid of by being burnt or dug into the ground or thrown into the sea. It has been used in the manufacture of bricks and of cement (Scott’s process), but in general it can be disposed of only at a loss. The clarified effluent still contains dissolved organic matter, and may be admitted into running streams only when a high standard of purity is not compulsory. When, however, the volume of the running water which it enters is relatively very large a quick purification takes place by means of the oxygen which the water carries in solution.

The lime process is practised, without further purification of the effluent water, at Leeds and at Burnley. At Bradford, after precipitation by lime, the effluent is filtered through beds of coke-breeze. At Birmingham the sewage of 600,000 people, after clarification by lime (which also serves to neutralize the acid contributed by manufactories), is used to irrigate a farm of 1200 acres.

Very many patents have been obtained for the precipitation of sewage by other chemicals in place of or in addition to lime. In Hillé's process lime is the chief ingredient, with tar and chloride of magnesium or calcium added. At Coventry the precipitants are sulphate of alumina, protosulphate of iron, and lime, and the effluent is afterwards filtered through land, in the proportion of 1 acre to 5000 of the population.

Sillar’s “ABC” process, worked by the Native Guano Company at Aylesbury, differs from others in producing a sludge which has considerable value as manure. An emulsion of clay and carbon with a little blood is first mixed with the sewage; a precipitating solution of alum is then added, and the mixture is allowed to settle. The process gives a remarkably clear effluent; practically the whole of the insoluble constituents of the sewage and a portion of the dissolved impurities are carried down in the precipitate, which, when dried and ground along with some sulphate of magnesia, is sold under the name of native guano. The ABC process has been in successful use for nine years at Aylesbury, where the “guano” finds a sale at 70s. per ton. In 1870 the Rivers Pollution Commissioners reported unfavourably on the process, a fact which may have prevented its adoption by other towns, but it has since then received the approval of many specialists. A recent protracted investigation by Dr C. M. Tidy and Prof. Dewar showed that the percentage of oxidizable organic matter removed by the process ranges from 75 to 86—a result, in their judgment, satisfactory. At Leeds, where the process was tried for a time, it was given up because the effluent was purer than the river into which it ran, and the simple lime-process, which costs less but gives a less clear effluent, was adopted in its place.

Much difference of opinion still exists as to the relative merits of broad irrigation, filtration through land, and chemical treatment, as means of disposing of sewage. That either of the two first plans or a combination of them both can be made to yield a satisfactory solution of the sewage problem, from a hygienic point of view, seems unquestionable. That chemical treatment, especially if supplemented by filtration through land, will also purify well, is generally admitted. No process of effective purification is now expected to yield a profit; but the question of cost, on which the choice of a system principally turns, is too extensive to be touched in this article.

II. The Conveyance of Sewage. —For small sewers, circular pipes of glazed earthenware or fire-clay or of moulded cement are used, from 6 inches to 18 inches and even 20 inches in diameter. The pipes are made in short lengths, and are usually jointed by passing the end or spigot of one into the socket or faucet of the next. Into the space between the spigot and faucet a ring of gasket or tarred hemp should be forced, and the rest of the space filled up with cement, not clay. The gasket prevents the cement from entering the pipe, and so obstructing the flow; at the same time it forms an elastic packing which serves to keep the successive lengths of pipe concentric, even if the cement should fail. The pipes are laid with the spigot ends pointing in the direction of the flow, with a uniform gradient, and, where practicable, in straight lines. In special positions, such as under the bed of a stream, cast-iron pipes are used for the conveyance of sewage. Where the capacity of an 18-inch circular pipe would be insufficient, built sewers are used in place of earthenware pipes. These are sometimes circular or oval, but more commonly of an egg-shaped section, the invert or lower side of the sewer being a curve of shorter radius than the arch or upper side. The advantage of this form lies in the fact that great variations in the volume of flow must be expected, and the egg-section presents for the small or dry-weather flow a narrower channel than would be presented by a circular sewer of the same total capacity. Figs. 1 and 2 show two common forms of egg-sections, with dimensions expressed in terms of the diameter of the arch. Fig. 2 is the more modern form, and has the advantage of a sharper invert. The ratio of width to height is 2 to 3.

Built sewers are most commonly made of bricks, moulded to suit the curved structure of which they are to form part. Separate invert blocks of glazed earthenware, terra-cotta, or fire-clay are often used in combination with brickwork. The bricks are laid over a templet made to the section of the sewer, and are grouted with cement. An egg-shaped sewer, made with two thicknesses of brick, an invert block, and a concrete setting, is illustrated in fig.

3. Concrete is now very largely used in the construction of sewers, either in combination with brickwork or alone.

For this purpose the concrete consists of from 5 to 7 parts of sand and gravel or broken stone to 1 of Portland cement. It may be used as a cradle for or as a backing to a brick ring, or as the sole material of construction by running it into position round a mould which is removed when the concrete is sufficiently set, the inner surface of the sewer being in this case coated with a thin layer of cement.

In determining the dimensions of sewers, the amount of sewage proper may be taken as equal to the water supply (generally about 30 gallons per head per diem), and to this must be added an allowance for the surface water due to rainfall. The latter, which is generally by far the larger constituent, is to be estimated from the maximum rate of rainfall for the district and from the area and character of the surface. In the sewerage of Berlin, for example, (one of the most recent instances of the combined water-carriage system applied on a large scale), the maximum rainfall allowed for is ⅞ of an inch per hour, of which one-third is supposed to enter the sewers. In any estimate of the size of sewers based on rainfall account must of course be taken of the relief provided by storm-overflows, and also of the capacity of the sewers to become simply charged with water during the short time to which very heavy showers are invariably limited. Rainfall at the rate of 5 or 6 inches per hour has been known to occur for a few minutes, but it is altogether unnecessary to provide (even above storm-overflows) sewers capable of discharging any such amount as this; the time taken by sewers of more moderate size to fill would of itself prevent the discharge from them from reaching a condition of steady flow; and, apart from this, the risk of damage by such an exceptional fall would not warrant so great an initial expenditure. Engineers differ widely in their estimates of the allowance to be...

Many of the features of the sewing machine are distinctly specified in a patent secured in England by Thomas Saint in 1790, in which he, inter alia, describes a machine for stitching, quilting, or sewing. Saint’s machine, which appears to have been intended principally for leather work, was fitted with an awl which, working vertically, pierced a hole for the thread. A spindle and projection laid the thread over this hole, and a descending forked needle pressed a loop of thread through it. The loop was caught on the under side by a reciprocating hook; a feed moved the work forward the extent of one stitch; and a second loop was formed by the same motions as the first. It, however, descended within the first, which was thrown off by the hook as it caught the second, and being thus secured and tightened up an ordinary tambour or chain stitch was formed. Had Saint hit on the idea of the eye-pointed needle his machine would have been a complete anticipation of the modern chain-stitch machine.

The inventor who first devised a real working machine was a poor tailor, Barthélemy Thimonier, of St Etienne, who obtained letters patent in France in 1830. In Thi-monier’s apparatus the needle was crocheted, and descending through the cloth it brought up with it a loop of thread which it carried through the previously made loop, and thus it formed a chain on the upper surface of the fabric. The machine was a rather clumsy affair, made principally of wood, notwithstanding which as many as eighty were being worked in Paris in 1841, making army clothing, when an ignorant and furious crowd wrecked the establishment and nearly murdered the unfortunate inventor. Thimonier, however, was not discouraged, for in 1845 he twice patented improvements on it, and in 1848 he obtained both in France and the United Kingdom patents for further improvements. The machine was then made entirely of metal, and vastly improved on the first model. But the troubles of 1848 blasted the prospects of the resolute inventor. His patent rights for Great Britain were sold; a machine shown in the Great Exhibition of 1851 attracted no attention, and Thimonier died in 1857 unfriended and unrewarded.

The most important ideas of an eye-pointed needle and a double thread or lock-stitch are strictly of American origin, and that combination was first conceived by Walter Hunt of New York about 1832-34. Hunt reaped nothing of the enormous pecuniary reward which has been shared among the introducers of the sewing machine, and it is therefore all the more necessary that his great merit as an inventor should be insisted on. He constructed a machine having a vibrating arm, at the extremity of which he fixed a curved needle with an eye near its point. By this needle a loop of thread was formed under the cloth to be sewn, and through that loop a thread carried in an oscillating shuttle was passed, thus making the lockstitch of all ordinary two-thread machines. Hunt’s invention was purchased by a blacksmith named Arrowsmith, and a good deal was done towards improving its mechanical details, but no patent was sought, nor was any serious attempt made to draw attention to the invention. After the success of machines based on his two devices was fully established, Hunt in 1853 applied for a patent; but his claim was disallowed on the ground of abandonment. The most important feature in Hunt’s invention—the eye-pointed needle—was first patented in the United Kingdom by Newton and Archbold in 1841, in connexion with glove-stitching.

Apparently quite unconscious of the invention of Walter Hunt, the attention of Elias Howe, a native of Spencer, Mass., was di rected to machinesewing about the year 1843. In 1844 he completed a rough model, and in 1846 he patented his sewing machine (fig. 1).

Howe was thus the first to patent a lock-stitch machine, but his invention had the two essential features—the curved eye-pointed needle and the underthread shuttle— which undoubtedly were invented by Walter Hunt twelve years previously. Howe’s invention was sold in England to William Thomas of Cheapside, London, a corset manufacturer, for £250. Thomas secured in December 1846 the English patent in his own name, and engaged Howe on weekly wages to adapt the machine for his manufacturing purposes. The career of the inventor in London was chequered and unsuccessful; and, having pawned his American patent rights in England, he returned in April 1849 in deep poverty to America. There in the meantime the sewing machine was beginning to excite public curiosity, and various persons were making machines which Howe found to trench on his patent rights. The most prominent of the manufacturers, if not of inventors, ultimately appeared in the person of Isaac Merritt Singer, who in 1851 secured a patent for his machine (fig. 2), and immediately devoted himself with immense en ergy to push the fortunes of the infant industry.

Howe now became alert to vindicate his rights, and, after regaining possession of his pawned patent, he instituted suits against the in fringers. An enor mous amount of litigation ensued, in which Singer figured as a most obstinate defendant, but ultimately all makers became tributary to Elias Howe. It is calculated that Howe received in the form of royalties on machines made up to the period of the expiry of his extended patent— September 1867—which was also the month of his death, a sum of not less than two millions of dollars.

The practicability of machine-sewing being demonstrated, inventions of considerable originality and merit followed in quick succession. One of the most ingenious of all the inventors—who worked also without knowledge of previous efforts—was Mr Allan B. Wilson. In 1849 he devised the rotary hook and bobbin combination, which now forms the special feature of the Wheeler & Wilson machine. Mr Wilson obtained a patent for his machine, which included the important and effective four-motion feed, in November 1850. In February 1851 Mr William O. Grover, tailor, of Boston, patented his double chain-stitch action, which formed the basis of the Grover & Baker machine. At a later date, in 1856, Mr James A. E. Gibbs, a Virginia farmer, devised the improved chain-stitch machine now popularly known as the Willcox & Gibbs. These together—all American inventions—form the types of the various machines now in common use. Several thousands of patents have been issued in the United States and Europe, covering improvements in the sewing machine; but, although the efficiency of the machine has been greatly increased by numerous accessories and attachments, the main principles of the various machines have not been affected thereby.

In machine sewing there are three varieties of stitch made,—(1) the simple chain or tambour stitch, (2) the double chain stitch, and (3) the lock stitch. In the first variety the machine works with a single thread; the other forms use two, an upper and an under thread.

The structure of the chain stitch is shown in fig. 3. The needle first descends through the cloth, then as it begins to ascend the friction of the thread against the fabric is suf ficient to form a small loop into which the point of a hook operat ing under the cloth plate enters, expanding and holding the loop while the needle rises to its full height. The feed then moves the fabric forward one stitch length, the hook with its loop is also projected so that when next the needle descends its loop is formed within the previous loop. The hook then releases loop No. 1, seizes and expands loop No. 2, and in so doing draws up the previous loop into a stitch, chain-like on the under side but plain on the upper surface of the fabric. The seam so made is firm and elastic, but easily undone, for if at any point a thread is broken the whole of the sewing can be readily run out backwards by pulling the thread, just as in crochet work. To a certain extent this imperfection in the chain-stitch machine is overcome in the Willcox & Gibbs machine, in which each loop is, by means of a rotating hook, twisted half a revolution after it has passed through its predecessor.

The double chain stitch is made by machines associated with the name of Grover & Baker. The somewhat complicated course of the threads in this stitch is shown in fig. 4. The under thread in this machine is supplied from an ordinary bobbin and is threaded through a circular needle of peculiar form. The machine is wasteful of thread, and the sewing forms a knotted ridge on the under side of the fabric. Except for special manufacturing and ornamental purposes the machine is now in little use.

The lock stitch is that made by all ordinary two-thread sewing machines, and is a stitch peculiar to machine sewing. Its structure is, as shown in fig. 5, very simple, and when by proper tension the threads interlock with in the work the stitch shows the same on both sides and is very secure.

When, however, the tension on the upper thread is weak, the under thread runs along the surface as at b, held more or less tightly by the upper loops. It will be seen that to make the chain stitch the under thread has to be passed quite through the loop of the upper thread. That is done in two principal ways. By the first plan a small metal shuttle, holding within it a bobbin of thread, is carried backward and forward under the cloth plate, and at each forward movement it passes through the upper thread loop formed by each succeeding stroke of the needle. Such is the principle devised by Hunt, introduced by Howe, and improved by Singer and many others. The second principal method of forming the lock stitch consists in seizing the loop of the upper thread by a rotating hook, expanding the loop and passing it around a stationary bobbin within which is wound the under thread. The method is the invention of Mr A. B. Wilson, and is known generally as the Wheeler & Wilson principle. The rotary hook seen at b, fig. 6, is so bevelled and notched that it opens and expands the upper thread loop, causing it quite to enclose the bobbin of under thread, after which it throws it off and the so-formed lock stitch is pulled up and tightened either by an independent take-up motion as in recent machines, or by the expansion of the next loop as in the older forms. The bobbin A, lenticular in form, and its case B, fig. 6, fit easily into a circular depression within the hook, against which they are held by the bobbin holder a, fig. 6.

Intermediate between the shuttle and the rotary-hook machines is the new oscillating-shuttle machine introduced by. the Singer Co. The shuttle is hook-formed, not unlike the Wilson hook, and it carries within it a capacious circular bobbin of thread h, fig. 7. This shuttle is driven by an oscillating driver db within an annular raceway a a, and, instead of revolving completely like the Wilson hook, it only oscillates in an arc of 150°, so far as serves to catch and clear the upper thread. The oscillating- shuttle and rotary-hook machines work with great smoothness and rapidity.

There are numerous special sewing machines adapted for leather work, glove-sewing, &c., some of which will be alluded to under Shoes.