March 4,1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
711 
supplies a notable proof of its speculative character. 
The anticipated surplus of 1870-71 is chiefly due to 
the fact that “ opium has come to the rescue,” having 
realized 1113 instead of 975 rupees per chest. 
However grateful we may be for tliis relief, we 
cannot forget that opium has before now deserted us 
with equal fickleness in the hour of need, and that 
it is, in fact, the most precarious and unstable of all 
financial resources. 
Our contemporary Nature states that at Cambridge 
it is proposed to increase the stipend of the Pro¬ 
fessor of Chemistry from 1300 to 1500 per annum. 
It is also proposed to appoint a Demonstrator of 
Chemistry at 1150 per annum. 
The British Medical Journal , in a report of a 
chemical examination of samples of chloral hydrate, 
expresses disapproval of the practice of stating the 
dose upon labels attached to chloral hydrate. It 
says, “ In some cases this is done in such a way as 
to suggest the idea that it is intended for amateurs 
and as a facility for self-treatment. Considering the 
possibility that there is, to say the least, of this me¬ 
dicine being misused, and the number of fatal cases 
which have lately occurred where over-doses of 
chloral hydrate are suspected of being the cause of 
death, this is a point on which it is scarcely possible 
to lay too much stress.” 
The trustees of the British Museum have ap¬ 
pointed Mr. W. Carruthers, F.L.S., F.G.S., to the 
Keepersliip of the Botanical Department, recently 
vacated by the resignation of Mr. J. J. Bennett, 
F.R.S. Mr. Carruthers, who has been Senior As¬ 
sistant in the Department several years, is well 
known to botanists by Ills contributions towards the 
study of Fossil Botany. 
The method of watering the streets with a solution 
of the chlorides of sodium, calcium and aluminium, 
as proposed by Mr. Cooper, appears to have been 
successfully earned out in Westminster, and is now 
being adopted in St. Luke’s, Finsbury, and several 
provincial towns. 
The following is the list of officers and council of 
the Royal Microscopical Society for the current year: 
—President, W. R. Parker, F.R.S.; Vice-Presidents, 
Charles Brooke, F.R.S., J. E. Gray, F.R.S., J. 
Millar, F. H. Windham ; Treasurer, Richard Mes- 
tayer; Secretaries, Henry J. Slack, Jabez Hogg; 
Council: R. Braithwaite, M.D., John Berney, 
James Glaisher, F.R.S., W. J. Gray, M.D., Henry 
Lawson, M.D., Henry Lee, James Murie, M.D., 
G. W. Royston Pigott, M.D., J. W. Stephenson, 
Charles Stewart, Charles Tyler, T. C. White; 
Assistant-Secretary, Walter W. Reeves. 
In a communication to the British Medical Journal r 
Dr. Lionel Beale says:— 
“You have twice directed attention of your readers to 
some unphilosophical remarks which the Professor of 
Natural Philosophy in the Royal Institution of Great 
Britain, the successor of Faraday, has thought fit to 
make in a book ho has recently published. It may be 
important the profession should know, and it is desirable 
the fact should be recorded, that ‘ tolerance,’ and of a 
particular kind, has been extended both by Dr. Tyndall 
and Mr. Huxley to one among many who, as the former 
observes, foolishly (!) try to support or oppose the fiery- 
cloud-origination hypothesis. Dr. Tyndall says, ‘ Both 
Mr. Huxley and myself have long practised, and shall, I 
trust, continue to practise tolerance’ with reference to 
one conspicuous member ‘ of the class of microscopists, 
ignorant alike of philosophy and biology, a Doctor of 
Medicine, lately Professor in a London College famous 
for its orthodoxy’! (‘Use and Limit of the Imagination 
in Science,’ p. 49.) Let us not attempt to restrict in any 
way the liberty accorded to ‘ privileged spirits.’ As Dr. 
Tyndall observes, freedom to them is of paramount im¬ 
portance. They must have liberty to speak openly; 
and, if they tolerate the ‘weaker brethren,’ all may be 
thankful. What would have happened if Dr. Tyndall 
and Mr. Huxley had not practised tolerance, and what 
would happen were they not to continue to practise tole¬ 
rance, with reference to the ‘ Professor in a London Col¬ 
lege famous for its orthodoxy’ ? ” 
The Chester Courant in a recent issue calls atten¬ 
tion to the unnecessarily late work which lias to be 
done by druggists, and suggests that, in order to give 
more time for study to young men preparing for their 
examinations, the public should endeavour to send 
all orders during the proper hours of business, and 
that only exceptionally urgent medicines should be 
applied for after the shops are closed or on Sunday. 
franaattim tfet f larnmentol Sorittg. 
EXAMINATION IN EDINBURGH. 
February 21 st, 1871. 
Present—Messrs. Aitken, Baildon, Brown, Buchanarq 
Kemp, Mackay and Young. 
Twelve candidates were examined,—six for the First 
or Preliminary Examination, two for the Minor, one for 
the Major, and three for the Modified; the following 
passed, and were declared to be duly qualified to bo 
registered:—- 
FIRST, or PRELIMINARY (as Apprentices or 
Students). 
Brown, Robert.Leith. 
Kemp, John.Inverness. 
Lawler, Hugh .Edinburgh. 
Wood, James .Edinburgh. 
MINOR (as Chemists and Druggists). 
Wilson, Thomas Davison .Sunderland. 
Kemp, John.Inverness. 
These names are arranged in order of merit. 
MAJOR (as a Pharmaceutical Chemist). 
Strachan, Alexander .Aberdeen. 
MODIFIED (as Chemists and Druggists). 
Harcus, John ..North Shields. 
Matheson, James.Dornoch. 
Stothard, Thomas .North Shields. 
These names are arranged in order of merit. 
