8 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
[July 2, 1870. 
cyanides, and of atropine, have been struck out. 
With these exceptions the Bill appears to remain 
intact. 
BETTS’S METALLIC CAPSULES. 
PROSECUTIONS AGAINST RETAIL CHEMISTS. 
The long-pending suits in Chancery, which were 
commenced by Mr. Betts about five years ago, against 
a number of retail chemists and perfumers, for selling 
articles capped with metallic capsules which the 
plaintiff alleged were not of his manufacture and the 
use of which was an infringement of his patent rights, 
have at last been decided by Vice-Chancellor James, 
and we are happy to say that the decision is wholly 
in favour of the defendants. The circumstances 
under which the suits were instituted are described 
at page 41, Vol. VII., 2nd series, of this Journal, 
and allusion has been made to the subject several 
times since. In our next issue we shall give an ac¬ 
count of the trial, which has occupied two days. 
We can only state here that the cases were all dis¬ 
missed with costs, and that the Vice-Chancellor, in 
giving judgment, condemned in strong terms the 
conduct of the plaintiff in this affair. 
PROFESSOR HUXLEY ON MATERIA MEDICA AS 
A BRANCH OF MEDICAL EDUCATION. 
In an address delivered by Professor Huxley the 
other day, on the occasion of the distribution of 
prizes to the medical students at University College, 
in alluding to subjects he would omit from the curri¬ 
culum of medical education, the following remarks 
were made 
“ I must confess, if I had my way, I would 
abolish Materia Meclica* altogether. I recollect, 
when I was at the University of London, Dr. Pereira 
was the examiner,—and you know that Pereira’s 
‘ Materia Meclica ’ was a book cle omnibus rebus. I 
recollect my struggles with that book late at night 
and early in the morning (I worked very hard in 
those days), and I do believe that I got that book 
into my head somehow or other, but then I will 
undertake to say that I forgot it all a week after¬ 
wards. Not one trace of a knowledge of drugs has 
remained in my memory from that tune to this; and 
really, as a matter of common sense, I cannot under¬ 
stand the arguments for obliging a medical man to 
know all about drugs, and where they come from. 
Why not make him belong to the Iron and Steel 
Institute, and learn something about cutlery, be¬ 
cause he uses knives ? But do not suppose, after all 
these deductions, there would not be ample room for 
your activity. Let us count up what we have left. 
I suppose, at the outside, all the tune that can be 
hoped for for medical education is about four years. 
That is taking the outside limit. Well, what have 
you hi those four years upon my estimate ? Physics 
applied to physiology, chemistry applied to physio¬ 
logy, physiology, anatomy, surgery, medicine, ob¬ 
stetrics, hygiene, and medical jurisprudence,—nine 
subjects for four years ! And when you consider 
* “It will, I hope, be understood that I do not include 
Therapeutics under this head.” 
what those subjects are, and that the acquirement of 
anything beyond the rudiments of any one of them 
may tax the energies of a lifetime, I think that even 
those energies which you, young gentlemen, have 
been displaying for the last hour or two might be 
taxed to keep thoroughly up to what is wanted for 
your medical career; and I entertain a very strong 
conviction that any one who adds to medical educa¬ 
tion one iota or tittle beyond what is absolutely 
necessary is guilty of a very grave offence.” 
“AN AGE OF PROGRESS.” 
TO THE EDITOR OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Sir,—I beg you will allow me space in your next 
issue to protest against the character of one of the 
leading articles in your last. 
I could excuse, though I could not approve the 
tone of some of the speakers who were borne along 
in the storm of debate at the annual meeting; and I 
could extenuate, though certainly I could not justify 
the conduct of a scrutineer who allowed his excited 
feelings to eclipse his judgment; but I can acknow¬ 
ledge no excuse for the publication of a leading 
article, professedly giving a deliberate opinion,—a 
calm judgment founded upon the superior knowledge 
of the writer,—in contrast to the ignorance and im¬ 
petuosity of the bulk of the members of our Society, 
yet containing statements which, though partial 
truths, are virtually misrepresentations, and con¬ 
taining remarks which can only be regarded as 
sneering and unjust towards the men whom it pro¬ 
fesses to honour. 
I could not have imagined, Sir, that an article so 
puerile and undignified could have fallen from your 
pen, nor that your judgment, which I have always 
held in high estimation, could have yielded a place 
of honour to a communication which was scarcely 
entitled to space in the columns of anonymous cor¬ 
respondence. 
Were it not that the editorship is vacant at the 
moment I write, I would say that justice demands a 
public apology, and a fair representation of the case 
in your next number; but as the Journal in July 
may appear under the authority of a new editor, or, 
perhaps, without an editor at all, I beg to chaw at¬ 
tention to one or two points which may enable your 
readers to form a more just estimate of the merits of 
the case than they are at present likely to possess. 
In saying that Mr. Bottle has attended no com¬ 
mittee meeting, does not justice require that the con¬ 
text should clearly state that he has never been 
called to one? The partial truth is, that he has 
never attended a single committee; the lurking in¬ 
justice is the statement of tins truth in such a way 
as to leave the impression that he has neglected his 
duty. 
Might it not be said with equal truth that the 
London members, being in majority, elected one an¬ 
other to the committees, and fixed the days of meet¬ 
ing at such times as would not be convenient to any 
one at a distance ? and as your article states three- 
fourths of the business of the Council is pre-arranged 
at these committee meetings, and a country member 
attending Council without the knowledge which 
committee work would give him, has no chance 
against his metropolitan brethren,—might we not, 
with equal justice, conclude that the country mem¬ 
bers of the Council were thus virtually set aside, 
