662 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
dence, not having sufficient evidence before me on which to build an opinion, but, at 
least, I have a misgiving that such men are more and more declining to take apprentices. 
I shall be glad to elicit an expression generally from the trade on this point. If such 
a state of things were to grow, the reflex action on ourselves must needs be unhappy; 
from whence are we to derive our assistants ? I will briefly recapitulate the arguments 
1 have advanced :—(a) Residence in the house of business desirable, but if not practic¬ 
able, the employer still to be regarded as responsible for the moral training of his 
apprentices. (6) The term of apprenticeship may be advantageously shortened, 
(c) Healthier notions in regard to work need to be inculcated. And further, as a 
matter which I have purposely eliminated from discussion, we need some fresh interpre¬ 
tation of the law as to our liability in courts of law for errors committed by our 
employes , both assistants and apprentices. I hasten to close this letter by remarking, 
that the question of apprenticeship has been for some time past quietly drifting in the 
wrong direction, and yet it is one of such primary importance, as to deserve the wise 
and thoughtful consideration of the best men amongst us.—I am, faithfully yours, S. 
R. Atkins, Salisbury , April 12, 1869. 
“ Trochisci Opii , P.B." —To the Editor of the Pharmaceutical Journal,—Sir, I think 
it desirable to call the attention of medical men and chemists generally to an error com¬ 
monly prevailing among manufacturers of lozenges in reference to the opium lozenges 
of the Pharmacopoeia. Every sample that I have met with has stamped upon it, 
“Opium Lozenge, T \j grain,” and as the Pharmacopoeia directs that they should con¬ 
tain gr. Ext. Opii , just double the strength, the matter becomes serious. I do not 
know whether they carry it so far as to make them with opium instead of the extract, 
but in any case the misnomer should be corrected The error is not common to lozenge 
makers alone, for I find it repeated in one of the best of our materia medica text-books, 
and one specially recommended by the Pharmaceutical Society to students. I am, Sir, 
your obedient servant. Archbell James Ndtt, 47, Piccadilly , April 10 th, 1869. 
Council , not Privy Council. —To the Editor of the Pharmaceutical Journal.—Sir,— 
Every year as we come round to the time for electing the Council of the Pharmaceutical 
Society, I feel strongly—and I may say every year more strongly—the need there is of 
some better means of judging the relative merits of the various candidates. And now 
I would again urge the sheer impossibility of doing justice either to those who are in 
office, or those who are willing to devote themselves to the work of the Society, without 
better means of knowing what is the part taken by the various gentlemen who are from 
time to time elected to represent us. Country members as a rule have little means of 
judging of their London brethren, except such of them as make known their views and 
their abilities by contributions to the Journal, or addresses at the Society’s meetings; 
and for this, as far as it relates to those who are not in office, I am not prepared to pro¬ 
pose any remedy ; but when once elected to the Council, it becomes a right of those who 
elected them to know how they fulfil the duties of their office. Nothing can be more 
constitutional, more just, or more politic than that the subjects brought before the 
Council should be published, together with the support or opposition given to them by 
the various members present; and nothing can be more objectionable than exposing 
wrnrthy representatives to non-re-election by concealing their utility and allowing their 
names to go almost unknown among the constituency, while others, it may be, are elected 
who have little to recommend them but the familiarity of their names, and that perhaps 
gained by the association with a quack medicine or a “ druggist’s sundry.” I trust that 
the suggestion of Mr. Reynolds upon this subject in your last number will meet with 
favourable consideration.— Barnard S. Proctor, 11, Grey Street , Newcastle, April 21, 
1869. 
The Lecture Hour. —To the Editor of the Pharmaceutical Journal.—Sir,—Will you 
allow me, through your columns, to call the attention of the Council of the Society to 
the very inconvenient hour for the chemical and botanical lectures? Half-past eight 
may be very convenient for those students who live in the immediate neighbourhood of 
Bloomsbury, but for those who reside in the suburbs, it simply means exclusion from 
the lectures. Take my case:—I live fifteen miles from London,—the earliest time I can 
possibly get to Bloomsbury Square is nine o’clock ; I must now either go up to town 
