400 
NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS. 
C. II. E. (London).—We know of no such work as the one described; probably 
Gardner’s ‘Household Medicine,’ published by Smith, Elder, and Co., would answer the 
purpose. 
S. J. —(1) Ether used as directed in the Pharmacopoeia forms, with the water present 
in the galls, a concentrated solution of tannic acid, in which there is very little of any 
of the other soluble constituents of the galls, and the solution by evaporation yields the 
tannic acid. (2) In the purification of bismuth, nitrate of potash is used to oxidize any 
arsenic, iron, and other oxidizable metals that may be present, leaving the bismuth 
which is not acted upon. (3) Oxalate of cerium is generally made from the nitrate. 
Use of Bisulphite of Lime. —We have received a communication from Messrs. Prince 
and Co., patent agents, referring to a notice on the above subject in our last number, in 
which they say,—“We have carefully read the specification of Rattray’s patent of 1861, 
so specifically referred to by your correspondent, and we unhesitatingly declare it in no 
way resembles the process described in Medlock and Bailey’s patent.” We admit that 
in some respects Rattray’s and Medlock’s processes are different, but in some respects 
also they are similar. In our notice last month we referred only to the points of resem¬ 
blance. In answer to a correspondent, who wished to know whether solution of sulphite 
of lime could be used for the preservation of animal substances without interfering with 
existing patent rights, we stated, and now repeat, that it may, as it has been frequently 
used for such purpose, and its use particularly specified in Rattray’s Patent. 
We have also received a communication, at the moment of going to press, from 
Messrs. Chapman, Clarke, and Turner, in which they say, “ The specification of Rattray’s 
Patent, 1861, referred to by you, does not mention bisulphite of lime. It is true that a 
claim is made for ‘ preserving animal and vegetable substances by means of alkaline and 
earthy sulphites,’ but neither in the claim nor in the description of the process is any 
particular sulphite indicated.” 
We presume the gentlemen who wrote thus had not read Rattray’s specification ; if 
they had, they would have found, that not only is there a very explicit description given 
of the use of “ solution of either of the alkaline sulphites or of the earthy sulphites,” 
which of course includes sulphite of lime, but “ concentrated solution of sulphite of 
lime, or of sulphite of alumine, in sulphurous acid,” is particularly mentioned more than 
once, leaving no room for doubt on the subject. We need hardly say that “ solution of 
sulphite of lime in sulphurous acid” is bisulphite of lime. According to Rattray’s pro¬ 
cess, this was applied by dipping the meat into the solution, then draining it, and ex¬ 
posing it to the air to dry; or the meat was first wrapped in cloths and then treated in 
the same way ; or the sulphite in the form of powder was applied to the surface of the 
meat. 
Rattray’s patent has lapsed, and the process is now public property. It signifies not 
whether it was ever a good patent, or whether the process is identical with Medlock and 
Bailey’s. We merely give, for the information of a correspondent, the fact, that bisul¬ 
phite of lime having been specified in a lapsed patent, may be used in the manner 
indicated in that patent. 
“ N. 0.” (Hexham).—We have no knowledge of the formulae referred to. 
“ M. P. aS.” is thanked for his communication. 
J. S. L. (Canterbury).—Both labels forwarded are liable to the Patent Medicine 
Duty. 
“ Apprentice .”—A new edition is in course of preparation. 
Instructions from Members and Associates respecting the transmission of the 
Journal before the 25th of the month, to Elias Bremridge, Secretary, 17, 
Bloomsbury Square, W.C. 
Advertisements (not later than the 23rd) to Messrs. Churchill, New Bur¬ 
lington Street. Other communications to the Editors, Bloomsbury Square. 
