627

THE LANCET.

LONDON: SATURDAY, JUNE 7, 1851.

THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON.

IN the year 1836 the University of London was founded,and the Senate entered upon the exercise of the importantfunctions entrusted to them under the Charter. After pro-

viding for the necessary preliminary arrangements, while thesense of their responsibilities was yet fresh, while the powervested in them was so recent that it could not fail to be

vividly before them, this body, impressed with the imperfec-tion of the constitution framed for the infant University, pro-ceeded in 1840 to appoint a committee "to consider of anyalteration it may be expedient to make in the Charter." Thiscommittee comprised the whole Senate. After careful deli-

beration,. they adopted a scheme for incorporating the future ,,

graduates, and making them the electoral body of theUniversity.The following is the first section of this Report:-"As soon as the graduates of three years’ standing shall

amount in number to 200, it will be expedient to constitutethe said graduates, and all such future graduates of the samestanding, together with the persons who then, or thenceforth,shall be, or shall have been, members of the Senate, THEELECTORAL BODY OF THIS UNIVERSITY."

The committee of the whole Senate sent up their Report,embodying this resolution to themselves as a Senate, and asa Senate they amended it as follows :-

" As soon as those who have taken the degrees of M.A.,LL.D., and M.D., shall amount in number to 100, it will beexpedient to constitute them, together with all such futuregraduates, and all graduates of not less than five years’ stand-ing, together with" the actual or past members of the Senate,the Electoral Body.The Senate thus, in their higher capacity, deliberately re-

affirmed the fundamental principle of representation. Theynext proceeded to consider the second clause of the Report :-" That the number of members of the Senate shall be limited

" to thirty-six, exclusive of the Chancellor and Vice-chan-" cellor." At this stage a most unaccountable change of pur-pose appears to have influenced their proceedings. The entireReport was abruptly rejected. Nothing appears upon theminutes to explain this sudden abandonment of the task theSenate had undertaken. Perhaps it would serve no useful

purpose to inquire into the cause. Enough to know that bythe reiterated expression of their opinion, it must be con-

cluded that the Senate entertain a strong conviction that thegraduates ought to form the electoral body of the University.Looking to the illustrious names of the majority of thatSenate, those who had fixed a hopeful gaze upon the newUniversity would assuredly have been justified in anticipating

. from such men no other than the most liberal policy. It

would be scarcely credible, except upon their own testimony,that the Senate should, as a committee of the whole body,frame a Report, embracing the most important and evidentlynecessary measures, and having sent this Report to themselvesas a Senate, incontinently reject it. The eloquent BUFFONhas described the " homo duplex," constituted of two ever-

antagonistic elements. What a forcible illustration of his

argument might not he have drawn from this example of"duality" in a corporate body!After this abortive proceeding, the idea of remodelling the

constitution of the University-thus authoritatively con-demned, at the very outset, as too faulty to be maintained-was not revived till the year 1847-8. About this time, the greatmedical corporations had agreed upon certain " Principles," toserve as the basis for a measure of medical reform. Some ofthese principles were adverse to the just rights of the graduatesin medicine of the University of London, and were calculatedto interpose a serious obstacle in the way of the developmentof the University itself, and to impair its efficiency as thegreat engine for promoting public education. The graduateswere assailed in their very title to use the academical dis-tinctions they had earned ; and they keenly felt the

want of organization among themselves, and of a recognisedposition in their University, such as would enable them effec-tually to defend what they had laboriously acquired. Theylooked to the Senate for assistance. They found that bodynot indifferent to the call. But, compelled to consider

the relative position of the Senate and the graduateswith regard to questions affecting the public credit of theUniversity, they were soon made painfully aware of the widedifference existing between the respective parties. Theyfound the Senate composed of men secure from all personalinjury from any detriment the University might suffer; andthey also found that the Senate were members of other in-

stitutions, some of which were in an aggressive position withrespect to the University of London. On the other hand, thegraduates were reminded, by daily experience, that their ownstatu8, and their hopes of future honours and success in life,were intimately bound up with the welfare of the University.Between the graduates and the Senate, then, there were fewcommon grounds of sympathy upon which a mutual confidencecould be based.

In this position of affairs, the graduates did all they could-they met the immediate danger by a determined reliance ontheir own exertions; and they have ever since been endea-vouring to effect such a reconstitution of the University aswill afford the only security for its future integrity.

I The graduates have respectfully reminded the Senate of

their own resolution, quoted at the commencement of thisarticle, and have besought them to carry it into effect. It is

well known that during the last three years, in the course ofwhich period the number of graduates has far exceeded theminimum proposed by the Senate, the Senate and the Secre-

tary of State have severally recognised the justice of the mainobject contended for by the graduates. What then must be

our surprise on reading the resolution the Senate came to on the21st May, and which we printed in THE LANCET of May 24th tWe extract it again, and beg our readers to contrast it withthose resolutions of the Senate which are quoted at the com-mencement of this article.

"The Senate of the University of London has taken intoconsideration the Declaration of Graduates of the Universityof London, transmitted to the Registrar on the 10th ofFebruary, 1851.

" It seems to the Senate, that the question raised by thatDeclaration is not one which the Senate can with proprietydiscuss. The members of the Senate have, under the presentCharters, been selected by the Crown. They act under thesuperintendence of the Secretary of State. It is, in theiropinion, not for them, but for the authority which appointedthem, to determine whether the fundamental constitution of £

the University does or does not require alteration."

We will not at present offer any comment upon the dis-

crepancy of their conduct. We will not believe the Senate

628 THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.

intend this to be taken as the final expression of their views

upon this subject. We shall look with anxiety upon thefuture proceedings of the graduates and the Senate, and con-fidently expect that both will remember that the question atissue is not one which simply concerns themselves. It rests

upon a much broader basis, and involves other and far moreuniversal interests. Both the Senate and the graduates havean instructive example before them. The recent history ofthe College of Surgeons should serve as a lesson for both.From it the Senate may learn the danger of alienating thesympathy and the support of those who have a natural claimupon, and a natural affection for, their Alma Mater. From it

the graduates may learn the no less useful lesson, that a justdemand, pursued with energy, with resoluteness, with modera--tion, yet without compromise, must ultimately prevail. It is

worthy, however, of important consideration, whether, con-

sidering the position which the Senate has assumed, the

graduates ought not forthwith and continuously henceforwardto bring all their energies and exertions to bear upon thejudg-ment and feelings of the Secretary of State, with whom vir-

tually is invested that power which alone can furnish a legalcompliance with the just and reasonable demands cf thegraduates. On the present occasion we can only glance atthe leading features of the position this important question hasassumed. We shall enter into other matters relating to the ’,

subject on future opportunities. IIN the following remarks we shall consider the water supply

of the metropolis as it now is, under the three heads of qualitysupply, and price.London and its suburbs are at present supplied with watei

principally from the Thames, the River Lea,and the NewRiverThe chief source of supply is, however, the Thames, from

which five out of the nine companies obtain their water.Into that portion of the river, embracing a short course of a

few miles only, from which the several supplies are procured,the refuse of cities and towns, comprising upwards of twor4illions of inhabitants, is daily poured at almost every point.

This mingled refuse is made up of the contents of closetsand urinals, the gore and filth of the slaughter-house, theknacker’s-yard, and the dissecting-room-together with everyother conceivable abomination and corruption.A great portion of this refuse consists of a variety of dead

vegetable and animal substances; these are continually under-going decomposition and decay, evolving offensive odours, andgiving rise to the generation of noxious gases and compounds.A further effect of the presence of such an abundance of

dead and decaying organic matter in the water, is the deve-

lopment of whole hosts of minute vegetable and animal

productions, with which Thames water literally swarms.Marvellous to relate, this disgusting liquid, mis-called water,

compounded of every imaginable corruption, is supplied, withbut few and certainly no efficient attempts at purincation, tothe inhabitants of this great city, and is used by them for

washing, cooking, and, " horresco referens," even as a beverage.We scarcely know which most strongly to condemn-the

wickedness of the companies in furnishing such water, or theculpable apathy of the public in consenting to make use of iton any terms.Two other companies derive their supplies of water from

the River Lea and the New River; these, although usually

described as distinct sources, are really not so, since the New

River water consists of a mixture of spring, well, and RiverLea water, especially the latter.These rivers, like the Thames, are exposed to numerous

sources of contamination; some sewage, and the foul contentsof numerous ditches, find their way into them; and the waterof each is at all times, on examination, found to contain dead

organic matter, as well as a variety of living vegetable andanimal productions.In addition to the organic and other impurities contained in

these waters, they also hold in solution a variety of saline andearthy salts, and upon the presence of the latter depends theobjectionable quality of hardness possessed by all these waters.But bad as the water furnished to the inhabitants of London

is, even at the sources, it suffers a further deterioration fromthe manner in which it is distributed.

It is supplied upon what is called the intermittent system ;that is, the water is turned on for an hour or so, on certain

days of the week. This system involves the use of reservoirsand cisterns, with the costly and constantly deranged macninery of stop-cocks and ball-taps.

In the uncovered reservoir, the water exposed to air andlight is in a state of stagnation, and the organic matter con-tained in it is placed under circumstances the most favourablefor decomposition, and for giving rise to the development ofnew forms of animal and vegetable life ; moreover, the impu-rities present in the water as supplied to the reservoir dailyaccumulate with each additional quantity poured into it.

I In the cistern, the same changes and the same accumulationstake place, but here, in addition, a new source of deteriora-tion is introduced, viz., the chemical action of the water onthe lead of the cistern.

But there are other evils besides those arising from the aseof reservoirs and cisterns. In some localities the supply ofwater is wretchedly defective. In many streets and courts

pipes have not even been laid, the occupants of the

houses being too poor to meet the charges made by the watercompanies for a supply. In such cases, at the expense ofcleanliness and health, the inhabitants dispense with the useof water as much as possible ; and the little they do obtain isprocured with much labour in pitchers, pails, and jugs : theseare kept in close rooms-often the bed-room-the water be-coming, in consequence, still more corrupt and unfit for use.With respect to the price charged by the companies for

their water, it appears, from a recent calculation, that the

average cost of supply for each tenement is about £1 12s. per

annum; from which fact alone, it is evident that anything likea sufficient supply of water is, under the present system, farabove the means of the very poor.But we object altogether to water being made a source of

gain, for it, like air, is essential to life, and should be suppliedto all, even the very poorest, at the lowest possible charge.The whole of the present water supplies of the metropolis,

then, are impure in the extreme. Bad at their sources, theyundergo further deterioration from the objectionable and im-

perfect manner in which they are distributed.It is clear, therefore, that the ’Vater Bill" of the Govern-

ment, which proposes to convert the present water companiesinto one huge monopoly, should be resolutely opposed by theinhabitants of this vast metropolis.

629DR. WEBSTER AND THE MORTALITY OF THE LONDON HOSPITALS.

DR. MuRPSy has, at his leisure, penned a rather elaborate, fession that this case " had nothing to say to homooopathyll-aubut not very satisfactory, statement, in reply to the charge ambiguous phrase. No one asserted that Dr. MURPHY himselfthat he had met a homooopath in consultation and supported practised homcaopathy, but has it not somewhat to do and sayhim in his practice. Stripped of irrelevant matter, the case of homoaopathy, when a Professor states broadly in effect, thatstands, after Dr. MURPHY’S defence, in much the same posi- he is ready at any time to meet homoeopaths, and consider, nottion as when we first adverted to it. No doubt Dr. that he has gone to them, but that they have come to him tMuRPHY, or any other man, might, in the present state of When a legitimate practitioner not merely meets (for thatthings, be entrapped into meeting a homoeopath for the first might be done in ignorance) a person notoriously engaged intime, especially in the case of a call into the country. We the practice of homoeopathy, but leaves a patient formally inare glad Dr. MURPHY can be fanciful and facetious on this his hands, defends him, corresponds with him as his coad-point ; but the question is, what ought a consulting physician jutor-takes his fee from him, we scarcely think he is justifiedor surgeon to do, upon finding that he had been so entrapped! in exclaiming, with Dr. MuRrAV, " I am perfectly innocentShould he not, with a due regard for his own reputation, " of the charge of recognising in any way that mode of prac-sever the connexion as speedily as possible.? Dr. MURPHY" tice."

does not deny that he became aware Dr. BELL was a homcoo- It is not THE LANCET, but his own acts, which have draggedpath before he left Norwich, or that the consultation-fee came, Dr. Muttrny before the profession and the public on this

not from the pocket of his patient, but from the purse of the occasion. Two letters on the subject will be found at page 6372homoeopath. The profession will have observed, with regret, from Mr. GLADSTONE, the husband of the lady, and Mr. COOPER,,that at no stage of the proceedings has Dr. MuRPHY shown her medical attendant. We should, for ourselves, deeply regretany indication of an inclination to separate himself from Dr. the whole matter did we not feel the conviction that this case

BELL. He calls him an ugly name, it is true, but says that he will do more than anything else which has occurred, to put aaud all his tribe are quite welcome to his (Dr. MuRpHY’s) stop to the discreditable meetings, under any circumstances,opinion. between regular practitioners and homoeopaths. A state of feel-The grand principle has been laid down, that it is contrary to ing will be produced in which no homoeopath will dare to insult

professional honesty and sound ethics for regular practitioners a regular physician or surgeon, by summoning him for any otherto meet homoeopaths in consultation. Dr. McRPHY objects, and purpose but that of resigning a dangerous case into the handsis of a different opinion. He goes to a consultation, ignorant of of medical men who have preserved untainted their pro-the party summoning, but his virtue does not take the alarm fessional faith and honour.

when this is detected. When he knew Dr. BELL was a ___________ ._

homoeopath, he gave him a certificate of having treated the TnE last LANCET contained an abstract of Dr. WEBSTER7Scase skilfully, and containing an opinion which, whatever the elaborate communication read before the Medical Society,* ! elaborate communication read before the Medical Society,intention with which it was given, was certainly used against wherein, amongst other points, the mortality recently re-Mr. COOPER by Dr. BELL. Dr. MURPHY now knows that his

the general hospital of London was more especiallyMr. COOPER by Dr. BELL. Dr. MURPHY now knows that his corded at the general hospitals of London, was more especiallyopinion was erroneous, but he cannot express regret that it discussed. Considering this important question, and the variousopinion was ’ regret that is discussed. Considering this important question, and the variousshould have been given. When Mr. COOPER, the surgeon conclusions of a truly practical character which may bewhom the homoeopath had supplanted, comes upon the scene , legitimately deduced from the numerous data the authoe’s Dr. MURPHY still cleaves to Dr. BELL. He has no sympathy

paper supplied, the subject deserves more than a passingfor Mr. CoopER, who had been superseded by Dr. BELL under notice; we therefore would direct attention to one or two of thethe idea that he was going to practise homeeopathy, but he matters he has investigated, leaving other questions for subse-the idea that he was going to practise homœopathy, but he matters he has investigated, leaving other questions for subse-thinks Dr. BELL was " rather uncourteously dismissed." quent inquiry. Before entering, however, upon the particular

Dr. MURPHY makes it a point that in this case Dr. BELL did subjects we propose mooting, it does appear strange that nonot practise homoeopathically ; so much the worse for the answer was returned by the medical committee of Universityhomoeopathic honesty. Is it to be tolerated that such a man

College Hospital, to Dr. WEBSTER’S application respecting theshall take patients from his professional brethren, and then number of patients who had been admitted, discharged,treat them with the resources of legitimate medicine ? Is this

cured, or had died in that charity, during the time embracedto be considered, as Dr. MuRPHY would evidently consider it, by his report. Why his request was declined requires somerather a matter for praise and excuse than for blame and con- explanation. It is equally extraordinary that no return ofdemnation ? Dr. MURPHY says,

" I feel that the homoeopath the kind desired could be obtained from so rich and well-and the allopath have no path in common," but then he adds, officered an establishment as Guy’s Hospital. Verily some"if we join company, it must be only on the condition that he cogent reasons should be assigned, to account for bothis content to take my road because I refuse to travel his:’ these anomalies. Notwithstanding such omissions, in order toA very convenient arrangement truly, and one admirably cal- illustrate the movement of patients in general hospitals, Dr .culated to confound regular medicine and homoeopathy in nT n EBSTER has compiled , instructive table, which gives thethe eyes of the public. Better keep clear of bad company total adiiiissions and deaths at nine metropolitan institutions,altogether, for in the words of the Edinburgh College of Phy- from which it is evident that very variable rates of mortalitysicians,-- prevailed at different charities, amounting, in some instances,"No fellow of this College, nor any other physician can, by to one-third, and even to nearly double the proportion of

any possibility, without derogating from his own honour, and deaths, if the highest ratio be contrasted with the lowestfrom the honour of the profession, meet practitioners of deaths, if the highest ratio be contrasted with the lowest

homoeopathy in consultation, or co-operate with them in the reported from apparently similar establishments. In referenceother common duties of professional life." to the causes producing these marked discrepancies, no infor-

In conclusion, Dr. MURPHY trusts he has satisfied the pro- mation is given, or even attempted, however instructive any

630 THE ST. ANDRE W’S UNIVERSITY AND HOMŒOPATHY.

such explanation would prove to the profession. It is most honour and good fame of the University. The questions pro.desirable that some explanation should be given, especially pounded at the May examinations are such as no homoeo-as investigations of that description are always of much path could have answered, so as to pass them without

importance to practitioners, and ought never to be over- the utmost duplicity. We know, it is true, that BLAKE,looked by the authorities of any public institution appro- of Taunton, did pass his examination at the College of Sur-priated to the treatment of diseases, whether medical or geons; but in this examination it is just possible that no refer-surgical. The greater amount of mortality met with amongst ence may have been made to medical or therapeutical doctrinespatients labouring under diseases usually treated by physicians’ adverse to homoeopathy. But in the case of the St. Andrew’sthan by surgeons, in metropolitan hospitals, constitutes like- examination, the questions have been published, and they arewise an interesting feature of the present. inquiry; the questions which no homoeopath, with the slightest pretensiongeneral average of deaths being about twice as numerous, to straightforwardness, could have answered in such a way asspeaking comparatively, in the medical, as in the sur- to justly entitle him to the degree.gical department. The predominancy of the latter over the The first examination, for instance, was entirely therapeu-former class of inmates, at almost every institution, is also tical in its character. It embraced, inter alia, the charactersanother peculiarity characterizing the general hospitals of and nature of the medicinal acids and alkalies, the preparationsLondon; in which, out of 11,169 sick persons admitted, during of opium, the nature of the various emetics, and the cases ina period of six months, 6787 were surgical patients, and only which they are admissible. To get a clear notion of the4382 laboured under medical diseases; thus making nearly monstrous act which has apparently been performed, we mustone-half more of the former than the latter section of inmates. beg our readers to conceive a person, professedly practisingh2any other important inferences might be advanced from the homoeopathy, applying to a university for a degree in medicine,facts and figures now before us; but it is sufficient, at and sitting down with the rest of the candidates to delibe-

present, for us simply to express a decided opinion in favour rately answer such questions as the following :-of the utility of such statistics; and, further, to add, that What are croton oil, aloes, gamboge, scammony, and

professional men have an undoubted right to demand "elaterium ? Name the cases in which they are speciallyauthentic periodical reports of every agenda at all public " applicable, and the form and dose in which you usually pre-charitable institutions. Our best efforts will be given towards " scribe them."

accomplishing this desirable consummation; and we shall " Write a Latin prescription for an expectorant mixturelikewise endeavour, for the future, to prevent these useful " suitable for a case of chronic bronchitis; also for a warmestablishments from becoming, like the cave of Trophonius, "aperient draught."veritable dormitories, where officials fall asleep, so that innu- Fancy QUIN, CURIE, HENDERSON, or LAURIE, set to answermerable and valuable facts, if not unnoticed or forgotten, are such questions as these in terms to satisfy the board of exa-sometimes consigned to undeserved oblivion. miners at the University of St. Andrew’s, for degrees in

medicine. This board includes the names of Professors

DAY, CONNELL, and ANDERSON, and Drs. ROBERTSON andIN the list of provincial homoeopaths contained in the SELLER—men above the suspicion of acting in a spirit de-

Medical Directory, we find, under the head of Norwich, the rogatory to the honour of legitimate medicine. From in-name of ROBERT DOUGLAS HALE, M.R.C.S., 63, St. Giles- formation we have received, we are inclined to think a foulstreet." In the other section of the Directory, we have trick has been played, which we trust will be thoroughlyapparently the same party, described as " M.R.C.S.E., 1839, sifted and exposed. ’We should like to see the answers givenand L.S.A., 1842." In the recent pass list of the University by ROBERT DOUGLAS HALE, if he be the homoeopath, to theof St. Andrew’s, giving the results of the examination for the questions we have quoted. We should like, too, to knowdegree of Doctor of Medicine in May, 1851,we also find the name what his answers were to the questions of the board of exa-of a ROBERT DOUGLAS HALE, described also as M.R.C.S.E. and miners relative to the treatment of iritis, acute laryngitis,L.S.A., of Norwich. These circumstances cannot but suggest enteritis, intestinal entozoa, &c.

some singular inquiries. Can it be that the HALE of the We have said enough to show that this case requires in-

homoeopathic list, the HALE of the P2-ovincial Medical vestigation. We cannot expect, if our suspicions are correct,Directory, and the HALE of the University of St. Andrew’s, are that the newly-made M.D. will offer any elucidation of the

one and the same person? We can readily imagine, in these matter; but the professors of St. Andrew’s cannot, and will

days of dupedom, that a man passing the Hall and College not, we are assured, allow it to pass unexplained, particularlyten years ago, might have subsequently become a homcaopath. at the present time, when they are making great and praise-We can even imagine that the s-ime man might, in 1851, worthy efforts to render the examinations and the degrees ofreturn as a follower of legitimate medicine. But if we met St. Andrew’s worthy of the estimation and confidence of the

with this chameleon, we should require some explanation profession.respecting such a strange series of metamorphoses. Let our readers peruse the letter of Mr. COOPER at p. 637,From what we have seen of the ethical obligations by which and they will find an answer to some of the points which

homoeopaths appear to bind themselves, we are also con- appeared perplexing. Dr. HALE is at the present time prac-strained to ask whether this same ROBERT DOUGLAS HALE is, tising homoeopathy at Norwich. He was also practisingor is not, now practising homeeopathy in Norwich ? and homoeopathy up to the day he left Norwich to proceed towhether he has taken his degree at St. Andrew’s in a dis- St. Andrew’s. It appears that he was actually called in tohonest spirit? This is a matter which must be answered ; if the case of Mrs. GLADSTONE by Dr. BELL. Now that Norwichnot for the credit of the individual named, at least for the has a homoeopathic physician, Dr. MURPHY will probably not

631APOTHECARIES’ HALL AND EXAMINATION IN CLASSES.-THE COMMISSION.

again be summoned. We are informed from another source,that Dr. HALE is the proprietor of a homooopathic dispensaryat Norwich, in operation at the very time he was passing hisexamination at St. Andrew’s. The conduct of such a personat the examinations, and his motives for obtaining a degree,are easily explained. We trust the officers of the Universityhave been guilty of no culpable laxity in this matter, but wewait with some impatience the explanation which will nodoubt be offered.

IN answer to numerous correspondents who have writtento us upon the subject of the Preliminary Examination in

Classics and Mathematics, at the Apothecaries’ Hall, we haveauthority for stating, that however anxious the Court of

Examiners are to promote the acquisition of preliminaryknowledge among the rising members of the profession, theyhave no intention of inflicting injury upon existing interests,by passing regulations of a retrospective character; and thatall, those who have actually commenced their medical studies,by apprenticeship or otherwise, will be allowed, as heretofore,to pass the examination in CELSUS and GREGORY. We are

assured, that when the new regulations are about to becomecompulsory, ample notice will be given to the profession andto the public; and that no intention exists of entrappingstudents unawares into an examination for which they hadnever been prepared.But while thus allaying the fears of our correspondents as

to the compulsory nature of the new examination, we shouldstrongly advise all those who have received a moderately goodeducation to submit themselves to the proposed ordeal, whichappears to have been instituted solely upon public grounds.There cannot be any doubt that a youth who has lately comefrom school is far better fitted for passing an examinationupou the ordinary subjects of scholastic education, than heis for translating the somewhat antiquated and technical

Latinity of the strictly medical writers at the termination ofhis hospital studies. It is a notorious fact, that a great pro-portion of those who are rejected at the Ilall are sent backto their studies from their ignorance of the Latin language;and. it would surely be better to avoid this catastrophe bypassing an examination in earlier years, while the knowledgeof the classics and mathematics has not yet entirely slippedfrom the memory, and before the commencement of the

really practical studies of the profession..--

WE were glad to learn, that at the annual dinner of theofficers of the medical department of the army, on Friday, the30th ult., reference was made by Mr. GUTHRIE to the proprietyof offering some mark of gratitude to Sir DE LACY EVANS andSir Howan.n DOUGLAS, for their great services towards obtain-ing the distinction of the Bath for army and navy surgeons.Mr. GUTHRIE suggested that a public dinner might very appro-priately be given to these gallant officers, in grateful acknow-ledgment of their labours in Parliament. We understand thatthe officers of the army are about to give a dinner to his Gracethe Duke of RICHMOND, for his exertion, in obtaining warmedals for battles and victories long since fought and won.The army and navy medical men could not do better than

follow so excellent an example. In one point in his speech,Mr. GUTHRIE was, we are happy to say, in error. He ob-

served, that neither the medical officers of the army, navy, norEast India Company’s service, had moved hitherto in the mat-ter. At the,instigation of Mr. MARTIN, the Indian officersmet several months since to arrange addresses to Sir DE LACY

EvANS and SirHOWARD DOUGLAS,tliough owing to some accidentthe addresses have not yet reached this country. We trust

that Mr. GUTHRIE and Mr. MARTIN will unite in devising theproper measures, either by a dinner, or in some other way,for expressing the sense experienced by the surgeons of thepublic services for the honour they have obtained in the deco-ration of the Bath.

The subject is one that requires agitating, that the victorymay be as fruitful as it ought to be. Every one of the veteransurgeons recently decorated by their sovereign well deservedthat honour. But the principle observed in the distributionof the Bath was one of mere seniority, having no reference tomerit. It is required, that in the award of honours of this kind,for the future, brilliant services in the performance of surgicalduties in the field of battle, or great contributions to the

science and practice of military surgery, shall also be reco-gnised and rewarded.

THE

ANALYTICAL SANITARYCOMMISSION.

RECORDS OF THE RESULTS OF

MICROSCOPICAL AND CHEMICAL ANALYSESOF THE

SOLIDS AND FLUIDS

CONSUMED BY ALL CLASSES OF THE PUBLIC.

COCOA,AND ITS

ADULTERATIONS.(Concluded from page 612.)

HOMŒOPATHIC COCOA.

36th Sample.Purchased -of W. Holland, 127, Oxford-street. Price 9d.per ½Ib. packet.

" RELFE’SPECULIARLY PREPARED HOMŒOPATHIC

COCOA.

Strongly recommended by the most eminent of the faculty,for persons of delicate constitution, as being very nutritiousand easy of digestion.

Prepared and Sold byJ. D. BnowiNG.

JOHN RELFE, 4, Gracechurch-street, London."Analysis.-100 parts consist of about 12 parts sugar, and the

remaining 88 parts of a combination of cocoa and starch,’ in the proportion of about 24 of the latter to 100 of the

former, the starch being a mixture of Tacca or Tahiti,with a little Maranta arrou-root.

37th Sample.Purchased—of James Way & Co., 272, Oxford-street. Price

4d. per Ib.’ "TAYLOR BROTHERS’! DIETETIC COCOA,

London,Adapted for HOMŒOPATHIC Patients and DYSPEPTICS."

’ Analysis.-100 parts consist of about 18 parts sugar, andthe remaining 82 parts of a combination of cocoa andstarch, in the proportion of about 26 of the latter to 100of the former, the starch being a mixture of Marantaarrow-root and potato flour.