Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1873-02-22

The question has lately been asked "why
should we refrain from eating new bread?'
The answer Is, "Because unleavened bread is
the only kind of bread, except aerated, which
should be eaten warm. New fermented bread
i, much more difficult of digestion than when it
rs a gay Old. Inc process OF fermentation, or
portion of the starch of the -four. through the
agency of the yeast, into sugar, and the farther
change OF the sugar into carbonic acid gas,
which raises the dough and alcohol. More
cases OF dyspepsia are produced by eating fresh
raised bread than by any other one article of
food. White bran, or that from which the bran
has been removed, will not make the ssstaff of
life" In the first place, it does not contain in
sufficient quantity the elements needed to prop
erly nourish and sustain the bones, muscles and
brain, these elements being mostly contained in
the bran, which Is either thrown away or given
to the cattle and pigs. In the second place,
fine flour contains by far too large proportion
of starch, which, when eaten freely and con-
stantly, causes obstruction of the liver and con-
sdpation of the bowels; and these two condi-
tions, ii Is well-knOwn, lead to nearly every
other form OF disease. People who live largely
ishcd, and children brought up upon it cannot
lie otherwise than small, weak and puny, for the
reason that 1t does not contain the bone and
muscle making elements they require for Wig
Orous growth. If fine white -four could be
banshed from the land and unbOlted wheat
meal take its place, the next generation would
show wonderful increase in size and strength
OF body and vigor OF mind over the present one.
THE LATE DIR. LU sHINGToN AND THE BYRON
CAsE.-English papers contain particulars of
tie life of the late Right Hon. Stephen Lushing-
ton, the distinguished Judge of the admiralty
court, whose death occurred few weeks ago.
One writer recalls how, after having retired
from his judicial Office in 1861, at the age of
eighty-fve years, his name was again prOmi-
nently brought before the public in connection
with the Mrs. StOwe-ByrOn scandal. In the
long and embittered controversy that ensued
both sides appealed to Mr. Lushington, who was
the sole living repository of the secret of Byrons
SEPARATION from his wife, to appear and testify
in their behalf. At time Just prior to the
separation Of Lord and Lady Byron, the ad vice
OF Sir Samuel Romilly, DIR. Baillie, and
Dir. Washington had been asked both by
Lady Byron's family and by Lady Byron herself
Ii was in consequence of a letter written by Mr.
Lushington in 1880, and Lady Byron's action
upon it, that the separation between the IL
mated pair was finally accomplished. In 1869,
at the time of the excitement caused by Mrs.
stoves statements, 1t was generally asserted
that Mr.. Lushington alone preserved the clue TO
the mystery, and il was thought that he would
in order TO settle the matter, tell all he knew
upon the subject; but the result, and the silence
that he maintained ever afterwards, showed
that his sense of what was due to the confidence
that had been rerosed in him was superior to
any demands that might be made non him to
satisfy curiosity which was, at bes., out a vul-
gar one.