ee eS ee 
Oct. 30, 1873] 
é 
. 
PA 
raised to 100° C. and subsequently protected from contamination. 
He has been convinced that his supposition on this subject was 
erroneous, And since this period, whilst I have been careful to 
undertake fresh researches concerning the death point of Bacteria, 
he has been content to rest in the stage of mere supposition on 
_ this most important point, and is now, as it appears, quite un- 
_ prepared to question the truth of my assertion that Bacteria are 
killed at 60°C. It is right that the public should know this, 
and I only regret that Dr. Sanderson himself cannot be induced 
to inform them as to the real extent of his knowledge upon 
this part of the subject. 
H. CHARLTON Bastian 
University College, Oct. 20 
_— 
Foreign Orders 
THE acceptance and refusal of foreign orders by British 
subjects has hitherto been universally misunderstood. The exist- 
ence of the Queen’s Regulations, which you have reprinted in your 
columns (vol. viii. p. 481), prohibiting the receipt of these orders 
without special permission, must, after the discussion which took 
place in the House of Commons during last session, surprise 
many of your readers, who will naturally ask why regulations so 
stringent and so habitually disregarded, have been either kept 
entirely private in the Foreign Office, or, if published, have never 
been followed up. As it is, I will venture to say that not one 
out of some hundreds who have received foreign orders are aware 
of the prohibition or have any obvious means of becoming aware 
of it. Announcements of the presentation to British subjects 
(and it is assumed acceptance of by them) of such orders habi- 
tually appear in the most conspicuous type of the most widely 
circulated papers, but never a hint on the part of the Foreign 
Office that the recipients are violating Her Majesty’s rules, as 
drawn up by itself and signed by the Secretary of State for 
Foreign Affairs. 
Such being the case, it is somewhat singular that the Foreign 
Office should issue regulations approved by Her Majesty, forbid- 
ding British subjects to accept or to wear foreign orders and 
their decorations, except in the very rare cases in which Her 
Majesty's permission is obtainable, and yet take no steps through 
its agents at foreign courts to instruct the habitual givers that 
Her Majesty not only disapproves of their action, but requires 
of her subjects to tell them so in the most ungracious of all 
ways, namely by refusing to accept their favours, and returning 
the tokens thereof. 
Surely if the prohibition to accept is wise and good (and I 
am the last person to doubt Her Majesty’s wisdom) the obvious 
course for the Foreign Office to pursue is to inform all foreign 
Sovereigns of the fact, and instruct British subjects to transmit 
any orders that they may receive or have received to the Foreign 
Office to be returned to the sovereign who sent them, if the ser- 
vices of the recipient are not of such a nature as to enable him to 
obtain permission to accept them. 
Into the merits of the prohibition I am not disposed to 
enter at much Jength. That foreign orders are comparatively 
valueless in themselves is generally admitted ; and it is well un- 
derstood that not a few are to be had for the asking by men of real 
or supposed eminence, and others by solicitation from men of no 
eminence at all, or of doubtful eminence. It would surprise your 
readers to know how many of these orders there are in the pos- 
‘session of their countrymen, whose habitual disregard of such 
‘honours leads them in most cases to toss them into a drawer and 
‘say nothing about it to any one but their wives, who think they 
would suit their necks better than their husbands’ long-tailed coats. 
Some few (very few) no doubt have a definite scientific or 
iterary value ; but so long as the British public are entirely ig- 
norant of this value, they will be held in no higher estimation 
‘than the others, nor do I see any way by which the value 
-of a foreign order could be made known and recognised, or by 
which the title of the recipient to wear it could be appraised 
I believe that it is to the rarity of British orders that any 
‘desire to obtain foreign ones is mainly due. Had we more, or 
none, their value would diminish or expire; as, however, I am 
not prepared to propose either the restriction or multiplication 
of British orders, a third alternative might be suggested to the 
Foreign Office, and that is the command to wear them if accepted ; 
which would result in a display in our soiveés and assemblies of 
which men of eminence would be heartily ashamed, and lead to a 
petition for relief, that would be followed by an abandonment of 
the practice of giving by the powers that be. D.C.L. 
"NATURE 
Mr. Forbes on Mr. Mallet’s Theory of Volcanic 
Eruption, 
I po not intend to depart from my purpose, as stated in my 
last (NATURE, vol. viii. p. 485), to have done with further contro- 
versy. I must, however, beg your permission to correct a state- 
ment as toa matter of fact which constitutes the prominent 
feature of Mr. D. Forbes’ letter on the above, and which is 
published in the Jast number of NATURE. 
Mr. Forbes says, and begs your readers to remember that his 
remarks [namely, in his original review of my translation of 
‘* Palmieri”] were altogether directed to the assertions contained 
in my introductory sketch, and not comments upon my theory of 
volcanic energy—of which Mr. Forbes now says we, viz., he and 
your readers, as yet know little or nothing, That is to say, 
nothing beyond what is given in the abstract in the Proceedings 
of the Royal Society and in my Introduction to Palmieri. 
Mr. Forbes’ review (NATURE, vol. vii. p. 259) which called forth 
this correspondence, was no doubt confined to my translation of, 
and introduction to, ‘‘ Palmieri’s Vesuvius,” &c. But in that 
same introduction was contained a sketch of my theory of vol- 
canic energy—upon which Mr. Forbes deemed himself war- 
ranted to make his sweeping condemnation—that it was not 
probable that this hypothesis will receive the adhesion of either 
chemist, mineralogist, or geologist. 
If this were not a comment upon my theory of volcanic 
energy I know not what a comment means. 
My complaint has been that it was a comment condemnatory 
—based on erroneous as well as inapplicable premises—and 
made at a time when, as Mr. Forbes himself in his last admits, 
he knew very little about that theory, as fully expounded in my 
paper in the Phil.yTrans, RoBeRT MALLET 
Oct. 28 
Settle-Cave Report 
I HAVE just read with considerable astonishment Mr. Tidde- 
man’s letter (NATURE, October 23) relating to an abstract which © 
I never saw tll to-day, and for which, therefore, I am not 
responsible. The whole question of the antiquity of cave- 
deposits as well as thatof those in the Victoria Cave, in parti- 
cular is treated in my work on “ Cave-Hunting,” shortly to be 
published, and therefore I see no reason for entering into any 
argument based on the distribution of the Pleistocene Mammalia, 
or to depart from my rule of not entering into a controversial 
correspondence. W. Boyp DAWKINS 
Owens College, Manchester, Oct. 24 
The Oxford Science Fellowships 
I write to confirm Prof. Clifton’s letter (in the last number 
of NaTuRE) respecting Mr. Perry and Oxford Scieace Fellow- 
ships. Nothing, it seems to me, can be more conclusive than 
the way in which Mr. Perry’s letter has been answered. Any 
remark further of mine on this point would be superfluous. 
I will only say that, in the practical part of the examination, 
no subject could have been chosen better fitted for giving per- 
fectly fair play to allconcerned. If it were possible to imagine 
that any advantage was given, it was, by the choice of the 
subject, given to those who were unacquainted with the Univer- 
sity laboratory. 
In conclusion—far from being looked on as an unwelcome 
intruder, I met with from all, whether candidates or examiners, 
the most generous courtesy and kindness. 
Cambridge, Oct. 24 THE CAMBRIDGE B.A, 
Professor CLIFTON cannot have considered what a great 
mistake I have been the victim of, or he would not in his 
hastily written attempt to defend the general science arrange- 
ments at Oxford, have forced me to the following explanation. 
He knows that I stated my case fairly, and he might surely have 
given credit for this whilst letting us have the benefit of his later 
information. 
1. [have not at hand a copy of my letter to the Warden. I 
am quite sure that I told him I was a graduate of the Queen’s 
University in [reland. The Warden simply directed me to the short 
notice in the 7imes (afterwards given in your columns), said that 
the clection would not be limited to graduates of Oxford, and 
would altogether depend on the results of the examination held 
at Merton on Oct. 7. I thought this letter perfectly satisfactory 
549 
empath 
*i 
Se Nn a Oe TaN A een ee 
$s. 
us 
-* 
/ 
