415

Mr. MACOUN moved that the voting-papersbe preserved for inspection.The question was then put, when there

appeared,-For the motion, 21 ; amendment,20; majority in favour of the ballot, 1.Mr. MANGNALL proposed that Mr. Taylor

be Coroner for the borough.’ He conceivedhim to be fully capable of discharging theduties of the office, from the extensive prac-tice he had had in criminal law proceedings.In addition to this Mr. Taylor had been ofgreat service to the cause of reform, andespecially that of the municipality. Hebegged to hand to them testimonials fromgentlemen of the bar in favour of Mr. ’Taylor. ’

Mr. NIGHTINGALE seconded the motion.He hoped that they would not allow anypersonal consideration to influence theirvotes.Mr. EVANS moved that Mr. Barton be ap-

pointed, for he was well known to the town.The office of Coroner ought to be filled by aserious person. He had nothing to sayagainst Mr. Taylor, but he conceived thatMr. Barton would serve them efficiently.Mr. CHAPMAN seconded the amendment,

from his personal knowledge of the indivi-dual. He thought that in a selection of thisnature moral worth ought to be one of thehighest considerations. It was his opinionthat a man ought to come before them withsome degree of moral worth.*Mr. DEAN wished to know whether there

were any testimonials in favour of Mr. Bar-ton.The CHAIRMAN replied in the negative.Mr. CHAPMAN said that the testimonials

produced had not affected him at all. Theyall knew Mr. Taylor sufficiently without.Mr. Barton was known to be a ploddingman that had made his way in the world;one that was not noisy, but very sure. Hehad known him get through a very difficultcase of late with considerable ability. Thesewere the only testimonials he was preparedto present.The CHAIRMAN declared the result to be as

follows:-John Taylor, 26; Thomas Bar-ton, 19; majority for Mr. Taylor, 7.Mr. WOOD then said, " that a legal gen-

tleman had been appointed Coroner for

Manchester, and another for Birmingham,t* " If Mr. Taylor’s character is in any

way impeachable, why not prefer definitecharges against him at the time? Why notbe bold and manly, and not insinuate? Wehave no hesitation in saying, if there be oneman out of the whole batch of liberals whoseintelligence and straightforward politicalsentiments (though hostile to our own) en-title him to, and have obtaiued for him, therespect of persons of all shades of opinion,that man is Mr. John Taylor."-Ed. of theBolton Chronicle.

t The medical candidate was elected atBirmingham.-ED. L.

and Mr. Wakley had in consequence writtentwo severe articles upon the subject, statingthat it was feudalism, and trounced themvery severely for not appointing surgeons.He merely made these remarks because theelection of Coroner had been advertised inBolton, and as no medical gentleman hadofrered, the Council here would not, hehoped, have subjected themselves to similarstrictures from Mr. Wakley."* Ws shall be glad to learn from some

correspondent at Bolton, why no medicalgentleman in that town, which must findprofessional employment for at least half ahundred practitioners, became a candidatefor the vacant office.

THE NEW PHARMACOPŒIA.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.Six:-I have just seen the reply of’ Vox"

to my letter of the llth instant. I agreewith your correspondent that it is very un-likely that any one connected with the pro-fession is ignorant of the present pharma-ceutical name of calomel. The " discovery"to which I referred alluded, of course, tothe last thing mentioned, viz., that" Mr. R.Phillips thinks it should be called the proto-chloride whenever a pointed distinction is

necessary ; and I will now tell " Vox "that this discovery surprised me, just be-cause I have been in the habit of supposingthat in prescribing any article whatsoever, apointed distinction is always necessary.vex appears highly amused by my

having overlooked the legislative chaage inthe pint measure. For the sake of the gene-ral safety of our patients I wish I were sin-gular. Any one who will take the troubleto inquire, will find that, although the dealersand chapmen in the profession are generallywell acquainted with the contents of thepint measure, yet that a large majority ofpurely professional persons (who seldomprescribe by the pintB have either forgotten(as was my own case), or have never heardof the change in question. And I am con-fident that there are hundreds of respectablepractitioners who will thank you for yourinadvertence in printing my letter. It stillremains unexplained why the strength ofthe infusion of digitalis is changed in thenew Pharmacopoeia, the new formula di-

recting a drachm to twenty ounces, and theformer Pharmacopoeia ordering a drachm toeight ounces. I need not direct your atten-tion to the mistakes which are likely toarise from this and other real changes, suchas that with regard to the hydrocyanic acid;nor need I add how likely they are to befatal. All unnecessary alterations are at.tended with great inconvenience and risk.I remain, Sir, yours faithfully,

A GENERAL PRACTITIONER.