Commission should not be allowed to drop, for surely the results so far attained justify the establishment of a permanent place where the work of the Commission can be continued after it has issued its final Report and retired. Behind tuberculosis other questions still remain relating to diseases common to animals and man which affect the public health and can only be studied on a scale impossible for private enterprise, but trifling in cost when paid for by the Government for the good of the community. There is no such place in this country at the present time, and even this Tuberculosis Commission is indebted to private generosity for the opportunity of carrying out the work unhampered by want of space, and relieved of the necessity for considering such expensive items as rent, rates, and taxes, in their dealings with the Treasury. The introduction to the Report describes how the farms, the necessary lands for cattle, various buildings and laboratories, and even a house in addition, were handed over to the Commissioners by Sir James Blyth free of cost to the nation and without any conditions restricting their use. This action of Sir James Blyth, whose name is closely associated with the agricultural interests of the country, shows that he is one of those enlightened men who recognise the practical value of scientific research. Any detailed criticism of the Report would obviously be out of place here, but the simple language in which it is written and the clearness with which the arguments are set out make it easy to follow by the lay mind.

The tubercle bacillus is an organism, the Report tells us, capable of living not only within but also outside the animal body; it may be cultivated on various artificial media. Like other organisms, it exhibits certain morphological characters which may be observed by means of the microscope; it grows and multiplies in certain ways; and it possesses certain physiological properties, through which it acts upon, and is acted upon by, its environment, whether that environment be a living animal body or a lifeless artificial medium.

The artificial medium means serum obtained from different animals, glycerine broth, glycerine agar (gelatine), glycerine potato, and other substances. The curious thing is that the bacillus taken from one of these sources will grow slowly and with difficulty, while the bacillus from another will grow with great readiness on the same medium.

The Commission carried out two parallel investigations at two entirely separate and distinct places-one on tuberculosis of bovine origin, and the other on tuberculosis from human sources. Each of these was studied from every aspect. The bacillus causing the disease in both was examined, first as to the effect it causes when inoculated into similar animals, and as to the manner in which it grows when

2 Serum is blood which is allowed to stand still till the red part falls to the bottom, leaving a clear liquid above.

isolated and cultured outside the living body. The Commission found that the typical 'bovine' bacillus differed in certain respects from the typical 'human' bacillus, and could easily be recognised. Many different viruses' from bovine animals were examined, and it was found that they resembled each other in almost every respect. The human bacillus was isolated from many cases of tuberculous disease in all kinds and types of patients, and as a result the Commission has classed it in two groups. One of these is apparently the bacillus of human tuberculosis said by Koch to be an entirely separate and distinct organism. The other group is the vitally important point. The viruses included in it were obtained from cases of tuberculosis treated by operation, and in many instances from the bodies of patients who had died of the disease. The bacillus isolated from these viruses was found to be identical with that found in naturally infected bovine animals. In other words, the Commission has proved that severe and even fatal disease can be, and frequently is, caused in human beings by Koch's own so-called 'bovine' tubercle bacillus. The argument is strengthened by the statement in the Report that the cases of human tuberculosis examined were not selected with a view to obtaining only those most likely to have been infected from cows' milk, but were chosen as being representative of the various forms of the disease as generally seen both in children and adults. Under these circumstances the rge proportion of cases in which it was found that human beings had been naturally infected with typical bovine tuberculosis becomes even more striking. Cows' milk containing bovine tubercle bacilli was found clearly a cause of tuberculosis, and of fatal tuberculosis, in man. The Commission further adds that milk coming from such cows ought not to form part of human food, and, indeed, ought not to be used as food at all. Results clearly point to the necessity of measures more stringent than those at present enforced being taken to prevent the sale and consumption of such milk.

This point is perhaps the most important in the Report, but many others not so directly connected with the food supply should be carefully considered by all in any way interested in questions of milk, dairies, and cowsheds.

The careful precautions adopted by the Commissioners to obtain only healthy cattle for their experiments show that they were fully aware of the enormous number of tuberculous animals in this country, and their statements as to the value of the tuberculin test as a means of diagnosis prove its reliability and importance.

It requires no great effort of imagination to see that within a short time the testing with tuberculin of all cows supplying milk will possibly be made compulsory by law, for the Commissioners insist that the proper carrying out of the test is essential to its accuracy. The means they adopted with their own animals are further detailed in the Report, and this is open to all.

To do any practical good we must go to the fountain head, the farm, and establish properly qualified veterinary surgeons to examine the cattle with tuberculin and separate the healthy from the unhealthy, and, further, to start fresh breeds in sound and sanitary conditions. Many experienced authorities are in favour of dispensing with byres and cowsheds, leaving the cattle to enjoy the privilege of open air summer and winter, day and night. Open sheds might be erected for shelter in bad weather, but if turned out in summer they soon become accustomed to the changes of season. In fact, one farmer who has already adopted the open-air treatment asserts that he has found no harm come even when a calf is born out in the field during pouring rain. It is found that the first year the cows give less milk, but subsequently, when nature has provided them with thicker coats, they bear the cold remarkably well, and yield more milk as they get hardier.

It is scarcely to be expected that the humble farmer could grapple with the intricacies of science, but it would be something gained if he were made to realise at last that cleanliness paid better than dirt, and that obedience to modern laws brought better returns and fewer losses than holding to the traditions of his forefathers and centuries of death-dealing ignorance.

ELIZA PRIESTLEY.

ORCHARD CITIES

THE GARDENISATION OF ENGLAND

ONE of the most significant signs of the times is the extraordinary rise in the value of land in Outer London during the past decade. The increase in the number of tubes and other forms of locomotion, combined with a steady rise of population, has been followed by a phenomenal appreciation in the value of metropolitan property. There can be no doubt that presently it will be impossible to secure at any reasonable price land within twenty-five miles of London Proper. Gardens and open spaces near the Metropolis are rapidly being swallowed up by miles of dreary streets. The result of this rise in land values has been a corresponding augmentation of rent, for high rentals invariably run parallel with dear land. And the end is not yet. The movement, the history of which I propose to summarise, may in one sense be considered as a protest against the dreadful monotony of suburban life with its stereotyped stock-brick or stucco villa and its eighty by fifteen feet patch of ground by courtesy called a garden. The movement so far has been on a small scale, but it has been singularly successful, and it may, I venture to think, be considered as the acorn from which great forests may yet spring.

Some years ago, when I was editor of the Horticultural Times, I contributed a paper to this Review dealing with 'The Fruit-Growing Revival,' in which I set forth, inter alia, a plan for cutting up land in small holdings for orchard purposes-in other words, of establishing a series of orchard cities. The seed fell on good soil, and as a result of that article the idea has been carried into practical effect. I propose as briefly as possible to set forth the manner in which these miniature cities adjacent to London have been founded, merely premising that I have no financial interest in the matter and that this article is written with the desire to show that what has been done in a small way may be carried out for the public good on a more extensive scale. I believe that, when the value to the community at large of these fruit or orchard cities is understood and they are appreciated as they deserve, we shall see a new era in the gardenisation-to coin a word— not only of available land within twenty-five miles of London, but

within a reasonable range of every large city in the country. Fruit or orchard cities will meet the needs of the retired townsman who seeks the joys of country life without being cut off from easy access to the town and of the ever-increasing section of the community who desire to utilise week-end cottages not too far from their town residence. In my opinion, no practical orchard colony, to be permanently successful, should be more than twenty-five miles from a great city.

When it was decided to cut up an estate near London to start these cities the formula was an acre orchard, a well, and a glasshouse. There was to be no philanthropy in the matter, no sentiment, no appeals to the public or press; everything was to be run on strictly business lines. First, observe the amount of land. Surely, if a man goes from the town into the country he should have more than a city back garden; otherwise he suffers the inconvenience of rural life without its chief compensation. To attract the dusty-weary dweller in towns to the country we decided to offer him garden room enough and to spare. A 150 by 20 feet plot is totally insufficient-in fact, I contend that in the interests of health no one should be allowed to build a house anywhere with a garden less than double that size. The denizen of an orchard city not only wants to see his neighbours' grass and trees, but he demands, and with reason, grass and trees-or land on which he can grow them for himself. Therefore, in the first place, we decided that those who people real garden or fruit cities should have at least an acre of land freehold apiece. In the next place, we arranged that they should not suffer building restrictions, or leasehold or manorial restraints. Their freeholds were to be freeholds in the widest and best sense of the term. A man who has an acre of land can, as a rule, build without depreciating his neighbour's property; given plenty of elbow space,' the very different style of house is a pleasing change; strikingly in contrast, moreover, with the hopeless uniformity of a London suburban street. It has now been demonstrated that a man or woman who is the proud possessor of an acre of freehold orchard will rise to the occasion, and, by hook or by crook, will erect thereon a residence worthy of the site. Neither of the two chief cities-the pioneers of orchard towns in this country-has a 'shanty' or jerrybuilt house upon it; on the contrary, most of the houses are artistic in design, and every one is built in the soundest possible way.

THE LAND, TREES, AND WATER OF THE CITIES

The difficulty at the start was to get suitable land at a reasonable price for the undertaking. We were compelled to go to Essex, because in the first place land was cheaper, and in the next place railway fares and charges were more reasonable. As a fact, the railway season ticket to the nearest station for the chief of