摘要:

INSYITUTE OF CHEMISTRY OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, THE REPORT OF THE COUNCIL AND 13ALAEC:E SHEET FOR 1879, TOGETHER WITH THE ADDRESS OF THE RETIRING PRESIDENT, DR FRANKLAND, F,R,S, g?onbolr : PRINTED BY A. P. BLUNDELL & Go., 26, GARLICK HILL, E.C. -1880. LIST OF OFFICERS 8: COUNCIL FOR 1880, PRESIDENT. F. A. ABEL, C.B., F.R.S., $c. VICE-PRESIDENTS. JAMES BELL, F.C.S. E. FRANKLAND, Ph.D., D.C.L., F.R.S., &c. W. N. HARTLEY, F.R.S.E., F.C.S. E. J. MILLS, D.Sc., F.R.S. T. REDWOOD, Ph.D., F.C.S. H. E. ROSCOE, Ph.D., F.R.S. TREASURER. C. R. ALDER WRIGHT, D.Sc., F.C.S. ORDINARY MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. JOHN ATTFIELD, Ph.D., F.C.S. F. A. MANNING, F.C.S. DUGALD CAMPBELL, F.C.S. W. ODLING, M.A., RLB., F.R.S., &c.MICHAEL CARTEIGHE, F.C.S. G. H. OGSTON, F.C.S. WILLIAM DITTMAR, F.R.S.E., F.C.S. F. J. &I.PBOE, F.C.S. A. DUPRE, Ph.D., F.R.S., F.C.S. JOHN PATTINSON, F.C.S. R. J. FRISWELL, F.C.S. J. EMERSON REYNOLDS, JI.D., J. H. GLADSTONE, Ph.D., F.R.S., $c. M.R.I.A., F.C.S. GEORGE GORE, LL.D., F.R.S. G. J. SNELUS, F.C.S. C. GRAHAM, D.Sc., F.C.S. J. SPILLER, F.C.S. P. GRIESS, Ph.D., F.R.S., $c. A. NORAIAN TATE. C. W. HEATON, F.C.S. C. MEYMOTT TIDY, XB., F.C.S. DOUGLAS HERMAN, F.C.S. R. V. TUSON, F.C.S. C. T. KINGZETT, F.C.S. A. VOELCKER, Ph.D., F.R.S., &c. J. W. KYNASTON, F.C.S. R. WARINGTON, F.C.S. SECRETARY. C. 3:. GROVES, F.C.S. INSTITUTE OF CHEMISTRY OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. REPORT OF COUNCIL. As at the preceding Annual General Meeting, the Council has again to c,ongratulate the Members on the increasing prosperity of the Institute.At the time of the last meeting there mere on the Register 341 Fellows, and 53 Associates, whilst at the present time there are 370 Fellows, and 54 Associates, besides 1 Fellow who has recently been elected, but not yet formally admitted, making in all 425 Members. Three Candidates have been admitted to the Associateship of the Institute, and two who were Associates have passed to the grade of Fellow, so that there is only an increase of one in the number of Associates at present on the Register. During the past year we have lost one Fellow by death, Mr. T. Wills, the Chemical Secretary to the Society of Arts, and two Fellows have resigned.The increase in the number of Members must be looked upon as decidedly satisfactory, considering that the regulations under which candidates are admitted are now so much more stringent than in the preceding year ; the thorough and searching examination in practical chemistry which is demanded of Candidates for the Associateship has, for the present, limited the number who have taken the necessary step to qualify for that grade. One of the two prizes of 350 offered by the President for original investigations involving gas analysis, has been awarded to Mr. Leonard Dobbin, for his research on “Some Reactions of Tertiary Isobutylic Iodide,” which has been accepted by the Council as sufficient and satisfactory evidence of training in practical chemistry to entitle him to the Associateship.The numerous applications with reference to the qualifications necessary to obtain admission to the Institute, are evidence that the advantages to be derived from organisation amongst pro- fessional chemists are more and more appreciated, and this is especially the case with the younger members of the profession. The small number of candidates who have hitherto presented themselves for practical examination would seem to indicate that the chemical student does not usually devote sufficient time to the attainment of a sound knowledge of analytical chemistry; there can be no doubt, however, that the thorough preliminary training required to pass the practical examination now imposed by the Institute as a condition of obtaining admission as Associate, will induce students to prolong the period of study, and to pay more attention to the various branches of exact analysis.A Meeting was held in February last immediately after the Annual General Meeting for the purpose of considering the alterations in the Articles proposed by the Council, which alterations were carried unanimously. The Members will recollect that the greater number of the changes introduced were for the purpose of avoiding the confusion arising from the manner in which the terms “ Member ” and “Fellow” were used in the original Articles of Association. As the Articles stand at present, every chemist who has been formally admitted is a Member of the Institute, and is entitled to vote at all meetings, but Associates are not eligible as Officers or Members of Council.Conferences have been held since the last Annual General Meeting, at which the subjects discussed were :-‘‘ The Adulteration of Food,” (‘The Relations of the Chemical Profession to Public Sanitation,” that on the Adulteration of Food occupying two evenings. These meetings hare been so successful hitherto, that the Council has decided to continue them. It is a matter of regret that the great body of the members of the Institute in the provinces cannot attend these nieetings and thus have an opportunity of taking an active part in the discussions ; but, in order to obviate this difficulty as far as possible, it has been decided to print the paper which forms the subject of discussion, and circulate it amongst the Members some time previously, so as to afford those who reside aFay from London and cannot attend the meetings, an opportunity of forwarding to the Secretary any remarks they may desire to make, which can then be read at t’he meeting.It was also thought that this step would give Members an opportunity of carefully considering the subject before the meeting, and thus facilitate the discussion. A Parliamentary Committee has been appointed, whose business it is to watch over any Bills which may be brought forward in Parliament which may concern the chemical profession, and to call the attention of the Council to any which they deem likely to affect the interests of the Members of the Institute.R’egotiations with the Pharmaceutical Society are pending for the alteration of the clauses in the Pharmacy Act which restrict the use of the title of “Chemist” to those registered under that Act, in the event of any amendment of the Act being brought into Parliament. One of the two prizes of 350 each, offered by our retiring President, Professor Frankland, for “The best original investiga- tion involving gas analysis,’’ still remains to be awarded. Dr. C. Meymott Tidy has also offered a prize of S25 for the best, original investigation on “Special Reactions of the Alkaloids, and their Separation froin Organic Mixtures.” These prizes are open, not only to Associates, but to all persons, except Fellows of the Institute, who shall before the 31st December next, have qualified themselves for the Associateship iu all respects short of passing the prescribed practical examination, and the Council has decided to accept successful competition for these prizes in place of such practical examination.The Institute is again indebted to the President and Council of the Chemical Society for the use of their rooms during the past year. INSTITUTE OF CHEMISTRY OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT' AA'D BALAATCE SHEET, lsr JANUARY 1879.FROM TO 31s~ DECEMBER, €7 l"i 2 ;e s. rl. $ s. (1. Cash in hand, Jan. 1,1879 .... Printing, Stationery, and Postage ......138 9 2 Balance in London and Westminster Advertisements ..........96 18 6 Bank, 1 Jan., 1879 ....365 19 3 Rent, Office, and Miscellaneous Expenses .. 90 12 4 --373 10 5 Examiners' Fees .......... 15 15 0 17 Entrance Fees at Five Guineas. . 89 5 0 Salaries and Wages ..........190 18 0 1 ,, at Two Guineas .. 220 Law Charges ............ 34 4 10 Life Compositions ...... 45 3 0 Purchase of Consols ..........356 6 4 136 10 0 Cash in hand 31 Dee., 1879 .. $1 1 8 283 Fellows' Subscriptions ....593 5 0 Balance in London &.Westminster 47Associates' ........49 7 0 Bank, 31 Dee., 1879 ....292 17 10 642 12 0 293 19 6 Interest on Consols ...... 44 1 3 Examination Fees ...... 10 10 0 $1207 3 8 $1207 3 8 gLssds. gizrbilitics.31 December, 1879, Cash in hand.. %293 19 6 31 December, 1879 ..........None. 1, ,, S1350, 3 "I, Consols. FREDERIC JAS. M. PAGE, Audited and found correct, Sonaarset House Terrace, Jan. loth, 1880. JOHN SPILLER, London, W.C. JOHN RI. THONSON. PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS. DR. FRANKLANDsaid: You hare heard the Report of your Council and the Financial Statement of our Treasurer, and I think you will agree with me that they are both eminently satisfactory. We have, on the year, an increase of upwards of 30 Members, and our income has exceeded our expenditure by some $277. Three years have not yet elapsed since the draft scheme for this Institute was laid before the Organisation Committee, when a Sub-Committee was appointed to take all necessary steps for our incorporation, when the names of 48 chemists were added to those of the Committee, and when the first Officers and Council xere elected.Many obstacles had still to be overcome be'fore the incorporation of the Institute was accomplished seven months later; and at the first annual general meeting, two years ago, only 225 Fellows had joined the Institute. To-day me have an aggregate of 425 Ililenibers, consisting of 371 Fellows and 54 Associates, a number which the Chemical Society had not attained before its twenty-third anniversary. The mere number of our Members, however, so far from being a subject for congratulation, might be one to be deplored if a strict investigation of the qualifications of candidates for admission had not been maintained. By lowering our standard we could, doubtless, have doubled our numbers, but this would have been to forego the essential object of the organisation-the guarantee that consulting and analytical chemists are duly qualified for the proper discharge of the duties they undertake.An inspection of our Register will, I think, convince you that your Council has fairly effected a separation of the competent from the incompetent members of the chemical profession, and although there are some practising chemists of eminence whose names we should like to see enrolled in our list of Fellows, it is satisfactory to know that their number is very small. The period during which they can be admitted under the provisional regulations is now rapidly drawing to a close, for, after the 2nd of October next, no one can, 10 by the Articles, enter our body, either as a Fellow or Associate, without first passing the prescribed examinations.It is, therefore, desirable that our Members should use their influence to bring in those few competent chemists who may, from one cause or another, be still unattached to the Institute, for it is evident that the existence of obviously competent professional chemists outside our organisation will be a source of confusion to the public, and will tend to lengthen the time before Membership of this Institute mill be considered to be as essential to the practice of chemistry, as are the corresponding badges of competency in the professions of law and medicine. In my own individual experience as a teacher of chemistry, I find manifested amongst students, and especially amongst the better class, a continually increasing interest in the Institute ; and I know, at the present time, many students who are under-going special training for the Associateship.But the objects and advantages of the Institute are not patent to everyone ; there are no popular developments of our functions, we have no journal, we have not hitherto enjoyed much notice from the Press, and we do not even hold any public meetings. Indeed, it would be con- trary to our principles to push ourselves into notice with the object of adding to our numbers; but it is, therefore, all the more necessary that our professorial members should bring the Institute under the notice of their students, encouraging them to prepare for admission to the Associateship; for, by so doing, they would not only be contributing to the elevation of chemistry as a profession, but also to the better education of chemical students in general; since the training prescribed by us in theoretical and analytical chemistry, physics and mathematics, with incentives to original investigation, is precisely that which is necessary for all competent chemists, whether professional or professorial.It should never be forgotten that the paramount function of our Institute is the registration of trained chemists competent to undertake the investigation of the various problems which arise in ever increasing numbers in connection with the applications of our science to the Arts, Public Health, Agriculture and Technical Industry ; and the publicatwn of this Register in such a manner as to bring it to the notice of Government Departments, Boards of Health, Public Sanitary Aukhorities, Manufacturers, and others who require the aid of chemical experts.But there are other subsidiary functions incumbent upon us of no small importance ; amongst these are watchfulness of such legislation as is likely to affect our body, and, secondly, the cultivation of professional ethics and good fellowship by the holding of Conferences for the discussion of questions arising out of the practice of our profession. Since incorporation, our Parliamentary functions have not had many demands made upon them, but the Conferences on “ Trade Certificates,” ‘‘The Adulteration of Food,” and ‘‘The Relations of the Chemical Profession to Public Sanitation,” have excited much interest amongsii our Members, and the reports of the Discussions have no doubt been very useful as means of interchange of opinions on the subjects treated of.Valuable suggestions for the utilisation of the Institute in other directions have been made from time to time, and probably some of these mill ultimately be acted upon; but, as they involve the expenditure of considerable sums of money, they should be undertaken with deliberation and caution, for it behoves us, at the outset of our career, to practice strict economy. We may at any moment be involved in Parliamentary or legal pro- ceedings ; these are, of course, very costly, and our power for good in connection with them will be very much in proportion to the amount of our investments and the balance at our bankers.Much of our ultimate success in winning due recognition for the Institute, will depend upon our steady accumulation of capital, and I consider it, therefore, a very fortunate feature in our present position, that the current expenses are so moderate. Thanks to the hospitality of the Chemical Society, we are rent free; most of the work is done without remuneration, and our chief outlay is incurred in the performance of that most im-portant function, the printing, advertising and distribution of our Register.12 Our present position may, therefore, be thus summarised. We have as many competent members as we could hope to extract out of the general mass of professional chemists, our finances are in a flourishing condition, our standards for admission are as high as the scientific training in our schools and universities will allow, the Register of our Members is annually put into the hands of those who are in the habit of resorting to the aid of professional chemists, and there is every reason to hope that the influence and progress of the Institute will be no less satisfactory in the future.

ISSN:0368-3958    

DOI:10.1039/PG880040B001

出版商:RSC    

年代:1880

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

INSTITUTE OF CHEMISTRY. OF GR,EAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. REPORT OF A CONFERENCE OX WHAT SHOULD BE THE RELATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CHEMISTS TO EACH OTHER, TO THEIR CLIENTS AND TO THE PUBLIC IN LEGAL CASES? Held Friday, February 2Ot4 1880. SDlKbDlt : PRINTED BY -4.P. BLUNDELL -Bt Co., 26, GARLICK HILL, E.C. 1880. INSTITUTE OF CHEMISTRY. ABSTRACT OF PAPER BY MR. WILLIAM THOMSON, F.R.S.E., FORNING THE SUBJECT OF THE CONFERENCE, WHAT OF PROFESSIONALSHOULD BE THE RELATIONS CHEMISTS ANDTO EACH OTHER, TO THEIR CLIENTS IN CASESTO THE PUBLIC LEGAL ? IN bringing this subject before the Institute of Chemistry, I cannot do more than propose certain important questions for discussion by the Members, which I trust may receive their deliberate consideration, so that at some future time, the principles of action which should be adopted under certain conditions in which professional chemists are called upon to act, may be referred to, as precedents for their guidance ; for there is no doubt that if this Institute is to hold the position towards professional chemists which the Medical Council holds towards the members of the medical profession, such questions must be discussed by the members as soon as possible.In this way a, code of etiquette, 14 which the members of this Institute would be morally bound to hold towards each other and towards the public in general, might be framed, which would tend to raise our profession in the esteem of the general public.The members of our profession who are placed in the position of being required to give evidence in legal cases in which chemistry, or rather science generally, is involved, must have been occasionally struck with the want of respect shewn by some judges towards scientific evidence, and with the not un-common popular remark that scientific men can be got to swear to anything. It must be obvious, then, that unless some clear understanding exist among chemists as to their duty towards the public and towards themselves, me shall not improve our position in the eyes of the outside world. With these remarks I will propose the first question for dis- cussion, viz :-Is it, or is it not, right that a professional chemist should act the part of an advocate in his client’s cause? or, to put it in other words, should a professional chemist act truly and impartially as a judge, and give his unbiassed opinion, or should he strive by all the devices in his power to uphold the side of his client, even if he be in the wrong ; and throw obstacles in the way of eliciting the true facts of the case, which can often be done successfully, even when the substantial facts are clear beyond all doubt to the scientific men engaged.It seems to me highly important that this question should be thoroughly discussed by the members of this Institute, because I have known chemists who seemed either undecided on the matter, or were clearly of opinion that it was right and proper for them to act as advocates in the discussion of scientific questions in Courts of Law.I do not mean to say that there is not some plausibility in the idea of allowing scientific men to act the part of advocates, so as to lay all the facts in favour of each side before the judge who has to discriminate between them, but, as Dr. R. Angus Smith remarks in an able and thoughtful paper upon this subject, read before the Society of Arts, “We can listen to the barrister using as tools the interests and feelings of men, and moulding thein to his purpose, but we stand aside from a man who twists the expression of natural law for his own interest, as from one who, before his eyes, has neither the fear of God, nor the love and admiration of nature”; and I think it must be admitted that the proper sphere of a scientific man is that in which his mind is kept EH a delicate balance that he may be able to elicit facts and results clearly and honestly without looking beyond as to what influence these facts will have.I believe that if due consideration be given to this subject, the large majority of the Members of this Institute will agree with me in saying that the position of a professional chemist in regard to all quescions submitted to him, should be that of a judge, and that an unbiassed opinion should be given without the slightest regard as to whether that opinion is or is not favourable to his client’s case. To carry out this principle rigidly, it would often be necessary for the chemist to explain clearly to the defendant or plaintiff in any action, before the scientific investigation is commenced, that he will act in a perfectly unbiassed manner in giving his opinion, because a considerable section of the public is under the impression that a scientificman should uphold or condemn anything to order, if he be paid for it.It often happens that commercial men hold the most erroneous opinions on Scientific questions in which they may happen to be interested, and then, if their scientific adviser agrees with them, he is forthwith held in esteem, but if, on the contrary, he should happen to disagree with them, he is at once regarded as incompetent. There is, I believe, a distinct demand for the services of scientific advocates, and it remains to be .seen whether this Institute as a body, will, or will not, approve of their Members supplying that demand.On the other hand, it is not my opinion that the scientific men who oppose each other in legal cases, at all events in the large ‘majority of them, do so dishonestly. The sense of honour of those engaged in our profession is certainly as high as that shewn by those of any other profession, but the 16 difficulties which they have to encounter to avoid supporting, and the temptations to slipport, the views of their clients, rather than to investigate with a determination to give an un-biassed report, is very great, and if it seem to you desirable that such difficulties should, as far as possible, be overcome, it might be well to consider if any means can be taken to prevent as far as possible the clashing of scientific evidence in Courts of Law.First, then, with regard to the question, as to whether it is desirable that the clashing of scientific evidence in legal cases should as far as possible be avoided. If we consider the legal cases within our knowledge which have depended for their decision mainly on scientific evidence, we must be satisfied that most of them depended on the correct answers to questions which were answered by the one side, yes! and by the other side, no! and it thus devolved on the counsel and judges, who usually know littIe or nothing about science, to decide between this antagonistic evidence, as to what was correct, or rather which side appeared to be speaking the whole truth, and which did not.Surely this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs, and such a controversy usually casts discredit upon our profession. That questions should be discussed in open court at enormous cost to the country and to the litigants, without much hope of a thoroughly satisfactory solution, and which might be conclusively decided by a few experiments or quan-titative determinations in the laboratory, seems equally strange and absurd. That the odium of this state of affairs generally falls upon the heads of the scientific men engaged, and injures their reputation, cannot be doubted ;and yet in the majority of these cases, the scientific man cannot be held to be responsible by those who understand the real position of affairs. Litigants, as a rule, are very anxious that their opponents should know as little as possible about their mode of attack or defence, and solicitors almost invariably desire that their case should only be known when it comes before the Court; hence it is, that chemists of the highest standing often give evidence which they would not have given had they known all the facts of the case previously.17 Two chemists may work at the same thing, each for the opposing litigants, with a view to get an honest result, or form an unbiasscd opinion, and may arrive at contradictory conclusions, each being in favour of his own client ;if, however, these chemists were to meet and compare results, it is probable that the one would be able to point out weak points or fallacies in the arguments or processes of the other, and it is not unlikely that a few minutes’ discussion of this kind would in many cases settle the scientific point of difference, and the legal points hinging upon these facts might then be left to be dealt with by the Court.The arrangements at present in existence are not very favoiirable for eliciting straightforward scientific evidence in Courts of Law, but it seems to me that a very slight alteration in the present system would give the best possible results, and that is, that the scientific witnesses engaged on the opposing sides should compare the evidence which each has obtained, and join issue as far as pos- sible on all the important $acts of the case, make further ex-periments, if necessary, and ultimately dram tip a joint report leaving the points upon which it is found impossible for them to agree, to be considered by the Court along with the nctud facts which have been admitted by both sides.This course would generally simplify matters, it would save the time of the Court, and mould, as a rule, produce evidence giving the facts directly as far as they can be obtained ; the points of difference, if any, between tlie Scientific men, on the opposing sides, might then be clearly stated and subsequently discussed by the Court. It would be necessary, under those conditions, that no scientific evidence should be admissible in Court by a litigant, unless he had pre- viously laid it clearly before his opponents, the plaintiff being required to take the initiative.This might be done in writing, and the defendant’s reply made in writing ; but, better still, the scientific witnesses should meet, discuss the questions at issue, and draw up a joint report. I will then, wit11 your permission, proceed to consider the question, whether it is desirable, with a view of avoiding, as far as possible, unseemly clidh1g of scientific evidence, that steps 18 should be taken to bring this matter fully before the Members of this Institute. The mode which I have pointed out, with a view to prevent as far as possible, the clashing of scientific evidence in Courts of Law, may be considered unsatisfactory by some members, as it may possibly hare the result of offending their clients, and depriving them of fees which they otherwise might have had, but this is surely a narrow-minded view of the matter.When the members of our profession come to be regarded generally as men of the highest honour, many cases would doubtless find their way into their hands for settlement which otherwise would be waived, owing to the tremendous costs which a law suit under the present system involves, or settled by a small payment out of all proportion to the actual claim. There are, however, cases where opinion and not fact is in question, and in which it seems to me right that scientific men should appear against each other to show the judge, or those who have to decide the question, the two scientific opinions, and the facts upon which they are based.In the Medical profession, it is not considered etiquette that one medical man should expose the ignorance, incapacity, or carelessness of another to his patient. I would ask you to consider the question, whether any such code of etiquette can be established among professional chemists, and, if so, whether it is desirable to do so ? If two chemists make contradictory reports on the same thing, what is the course to be pursued ? it seems to the casual observer that one must be wrong, and thus the reputation of our profession is more or less injured, but I would suggest that something can be done to reassure the outside world in the actual power of our science, even if one of its representatives rjhould, in a weak moment, give a wrong opinion or result, and that is, that the one chemist should write to the other explaining the circumstance, and allow him, who has been in error, to retract his report, or that when contradictions prove to be only apparent and not real, he should make such an explanation as will satisfy the mind of 19 his client.If this is not done, each chemist may endeavour to proye to the mind of his client that he is right, and probably each will be quite successful, especially if he should agree with his client’s peculiar whim; still chemistry, looked upon as an exact science, must clearly suffer in public opinion from such contradictions.There can be no doubt that it is to the. interest of each individual member of our profession to be as careful as possible, when giying a report upon anything, and, at the same time, to avoid as far as possible any disagreement in the results. Various methods have from time to time been suggested of having scientific judges, scientific juries, scientific counsel, and the like, but I agree with the opinions expressed by Dr. Sngus Smith, that such plans are not practicable. Judges are gentlemen of high and general culture with minds trained to receire and deal with facts of any kind, scientific or otherwise, and if a scientific man is of opinion that the facts which he has to lay before a judge or jury are so intricate that neither will comprehend them, I think no clearer proof is necessary of his inability to understand them himself. As to scientific counsel, it is clear-that if a man has had some scientific and a good general education, he mill deal with any questions in science quite as well as, or better than, the purely scientific man.I have seen a suggestion to the effect that a jury, to consider a scientific question, should be composed of twelve men, one half of whom should represent two distinct sciences, and the other half two trades or bnsinesses; but it is evident that such a combination would not form a workable committee to decide scientific questions. The true sphere of scientific men in Courts of Law is as witnesses in which their scientific opinions may aid the judge or jury in arriving at a decision, but where in almost all cases, other questions have to be considered, which, although not scientific, are often of the greatest importance, THEPRESIDENT: Before beginning the business of the evening, allow me to express to you the high appreciation I feel of the honour done me by your having placed me in the position of your 20 President, I feel strongly that you might have made a wiser choice by selecting from among you one more intimately connected with the subjects with which this Institute deals, and associated with the interests you desire to foster.But I do feel con- scientiously that I have earnestly endeavoured to do the best in my power to promote the objects of this Institute, and as you have been so good as to place me in this high position among yourselves, I shall, I assure you. work assiduously in its interesks.The question which has been brought before you this evening through the medium of Mr. Thomson’s paper, is certainly to Fellows of this Institute one of very considerable importance. It is one which must have engaged the serious attention of all chemists who have been engaged in giving evidence in Courtns of Law. It, however, involves several points upon which it may be difficult to arrive at a dispassionate conclusion. I doubt whether even those among us who haye had very great experience in Courts of Law, will be in a position to express a decided opinion on some points touched upon in the paper, or which may have suggested themselves to us in considering our position in reference to our clients, and to the judges and juries whom we have to advise and to assist in arriv- ing at a just decision.I confess I feel a little doubtful whether in more than one discussion we should arrive at any thing like a definite conclusion in some important points connected with this subject, At the same time, it is useful to talk these matters out among ourselves, and this I conceive is our desire this evening. We can have no wish to impart into the discussion any personal questions, and although it may be difficult in dealing with the subject entirely to avoid such matters, I hope it will not be impossible so to do. Mr. Thomson’s paper having doubtless been perused by those present, I would ask you now to let us proceed to discuss the subject, by taking simply as our starting point the question at the head of the paper, which appears to me to be at the root of the whole subject, namely,-What should be the relations of professional chemists to each other, to their clients, and to the public in legal cases ? If we adopt this course, I think we may hope that some gentleinen who have had great experience of‘professional duties connected with legal matters will give us the benefit of their views, and so aid us in arriving at some practical conclusions.I would ask our former President, Dr. Frankland, as his time is limited, and as your former President, to be the first to favour us with his views on the general question.DR. FRANKLAND:I feel very strongly the difficulties sur-rounding this subject, and to which our President has alluded, and having only read the paper superficially, I hardly feel competent to respond to the invitation to open the discussion. The subject is indeed so important, and at the same time so difficult, that its introduction at so early a stage of these Conferences is perhaps to be regretted. The question, what should be the relations of professional chemists to each other in legal cases? has often presented itself to my mind, when I have been concerned in such cases. On the whole, perhaps, the relations of professional chemists to each other in this respect, are not unsatisfactory. In all but comparatively few cases within my experience, the chemist, in giving evidence before a legal tribunal or Par- liamentary Committee, does regard the dignity of his profession, and does not voluntarily cast a slight upon his professional brethren.But there are occasionally instances in which this regard for the profession is not so prominent as it ought to be. It is to be hoped, however, that such carelessness wiIl never occur where members of this Institute are concerned. Even in the case of chemists who may not belong to our body, I think it is very much to be desired that all unnecessary adverse criticism before the public would be better avoided. Of course it will occasionally happen that a, witness is compelled to contradict the opinion of' a professional brother, or to criticise adversely his analytical results ; but this unpleasant duty should always be done with the utmost tenderness and delicacy.If you notice the conduct of witnesses belonging to other professions, you will find that such disparaging statements are very rarely made. They occur, I fear, rather more frequently among chemists than among the members of other professions ; but it is to be hoped that even among chemists they will become rarer and rarer every year. They are no doubt fostered by the counsel engaged on each side, whose business it often is to make these experts contradict each other. But a chemical witness ought to be on his guard, and not allow himself to be led into statements of this kind, unless they form an essential part of his evidence.The author of this paper suggests that the chemists npon both sides should meet before the case is brought into court. There would doubtless be many advantages in such a proceeding ; but I fear under the present system of dealing with these cases, both before legal and Parliamentary tribunals, this suggestion could only rarely be acted upon. Much may be done, however, by the chemists on each side, putting themselves as far as they can in the position of those on the other side, and considering what mould then be their view of the question. Such a practice mould certainly tend to make their evidence come nearer to that impartiality which ought to distinguish it.I think more might be done in this direction than is at present accomplished. Accord- ing to our present mode of judicial investigation, the witnesses on each side are only permitted to take a partial view of the case ; they are not allowed to look at the subject all round; but are alniost compelled to confine their attention to one aspect of the case only. The witness ought however to try as far as possible to get acquainted with both sides, so as to make his evidence as fair and impartial as possible. But where important discrepancies do unfortunately occur, it is very desirable to refrain from unnecessarily exposing the errors ahich have, in your opinion, been committed by your opponents. This may be done without in any way interfering with the ends of justice.The imputation of motives to your opponents is quite inadmissible, and is worthy of the strongest condemnation. In most cases, discrepant results are capable of explanation by a few words, which would go a long way towards preventing the shock to the public which the apparent irreconcileable contradictions of scientific witnesses often produce. I think the introducer of the subject has rightly assigned the first place in his title to the relations of professional chemists to each other, because it is in this relation that progress and enlightenment are most urgently needed ; for I have never noticed on the part of 23 chemical witnesses any lack of zeal for their clients ; bat, on the other hand, the interests of the profession are, it is to be feared, Bometimes too much lost sight of in these forensic struggles.NO doubt professional chemists ought to do their best for their clients by giving them advice ; but they ought never to be betrayed into distorting the results of their experiments, or into giving an opinion not fairly warranted by facts. The relations of professional chemists to the public, open a very wide question, and I hardly know in what sense the author of the paper intended it to be taken. I think the public has a right to expect that a scientific man should found his opinions on facts ; should give his eyidence in a straightforward way, and especially with more certainty and precision than is generally the case with ordinary witnesses.The chemist ought to try to put his statements and opinions forward in such a way, as to impress the outside public with the fact that there is really something true and definite in scientific investigation, far beyond that which can usually be obtained in purely legal, or even in medical investigations. These are the only remarks that suggest themselves to me at the present moment. The subject is one that might well be brought before us on a future occasion. It deeply affects this Institute, and deserves to be taken in two or three separate divisions, so as to enable us to discuss it thoroughly. DR. VOELCKER:I hope the observations of Dr. Frankland will make the impression which they ought to do. I fiilly agree with every word he has expressed, and, in addition should like to allude to some other points which present them-selves to my mind in discussing this matter.Perhaps the best proof of the unpleasant position of scientific witnesses, and the personal inconveiiience which many of our true-hearted and most accomplished chemists feel in legal cases, is their reluct- ance to appear in the Courts of Lam, especially in a minor court, where the lines of courtesy are not so strictly observed as before Parliamentary Committees, or in the higher Courts of Chancery or Justice. Even there, I would suggest to all the members of this Institute, to observe the lines of strict politeness and general 24 courtesy. I remember not many years ago, in a case in the Rolls Court, the Master of the Rolls lost patience with the scientific witnesses, and expressed himself something in this way : “Well, gentlemen, I do not pay the slightest attention to what these chemists tell us.” That was not a pleasant observation to make ;but he went on to say, ‘‘We lawyers have the reputation of pitching into each other as occasion may present itself; but we do SO in a gentlemanly way, and not like these chemists, who attack each other in a most reprehensible manner.” That was not a pleasant observation to make either, and still less pleasant was it to listen to it.I feel, however, there was some truth in thestatement, although it was expressed rather harshly; and it is merely an example of the fact, that the laws of courtesy and gentlemanly conduct are not always observed by chemists.If we want to raise our profession in the eyes of the outside public, I ventnre to suggest, that if your facts are correct, they will speak for them- selves very much better than any reflection on the character, or the want of ability, on the part of your opponent. Another point,-the practice of prompting counsel. This matter, I am afraid, is sometimes carried on in a way not very reputable to the prompter. It is all very well, and often necessary, to have an experienced chemist sitting behind a counsel, to direct his attention to material points of fact, or to omissions or errors in the evidence of a scientific witness ;but to suggest to counsel catching questions,with the view of confusing a witness,is most objectionable.I think no member of the Institute ought to lend himself to act the part of prompter in this way. The author of the paper says that the position of a chemist in regard to questions submitted to him should be that of a judge ;now I should be very sorry to act as a judge. My position, I take it, is not that of a judge, but of a witness, whose sole duty it is to give truthful and straightforward evidence : whether the evidence be acceptable or not to his client, does not concern the scientific witness. His duty is to testify as to facts, and to express an opinion as far as he is able to do so ; but to act as a judge, would require him to sift the evidence. Now we have nothing to do with sifting evidence.Kor does it appear to nie 23 desirable that the chemists on both sides should meet and compare results. I think such a thing would be most objectionable. A chemist should rather avoid talking about the case in m-hich he is engaged. It is of course impossible to get a right idea of any subject without looking at it on all sides, and to weigh the evidence which may be given for, or against, a niatter in dispute ; but this is not the business of the scientific witness, but that of the jury, who hare to decide how much force or truth there is in the evidence of the scientific witnesses engaged on both sides, although I do not believe a chemist of repute would say what he knew to be untrue. If you were to discuss this matter among yourselTes, yo11 would form a court of arbitmtion, in which case I see no objection to refer a Gspute to a number of chemists, with a request to issue a joint report, but that is a different thing from the usual legal proceedings, and in such cases, I do not think it is wise to discuss the matter with, or even to allude to it in conversation with your op-ponent.My viev of the matter is, that when chemists are engaged in legal cases, they should simply act as truthful and straightforward Witnesses. If anything is withheld from them by their clients, it is sure to come out in the cross-examination. If a chemist is jealous of his reputation as a truthful man, he will not fence with a question that is put to him in cross-examination; but will just give his evidence whether it suits his client or not.I do not care if my evidence goes against my client,-that is for him to con-sider; I give him fair warning, and I always tell him,-if your case is not a good one, you had better go to somebody else. MR. HEATONremarked that there were two occasions on which a consulting chemist was bound to be impartial, when he was advising his client, and pointing out to him the strong and weak points of his case, and when he was giving evidence in court. At other times he might to some extent play the part of an advocate, and assist his client as much as possible. It was a mistake to compare the scientific witness with a counsel, inasmuch as the latter was not sworn, and was not supposed to be impartial. It was equally a mistake to assign judicial functions to him.His duty in the witness box was to answer questions as directly as possible, and without fencing, but not, as a rule, to volunteer evidence. If led too far during cross-examination, he must trust to the counsel on his side to set him right in re-examination. In fact, the guide of a scientific man on such an occasion, was fixedly his own conscience, and an English gentleman would not be likely to go far astray. MR. HOWARDsaid, that in watching the course of scientific evidence in some cases, it had struck him that a confusion in the minds of some Scientific witnesses betreen matters of opinion, and matters of fact, was a cause of their difficulties (as an example, in an assay of silver by weight, it is true that the weight of the button is a matter of fact, and involves no matter of opinion ; but, in even so certain a method of indirect analysis as the wet assay, the result is an induction from the observed facts, and, so far, a matter not strictly of fact).Of course very many of the best methods of analysis involve far more complex induction, and in many there is a possibility of errors in judgment; so that the conclusions derived from his results are, however certain they may be to the chemist, matters of opinion, and not matters of fact. It appeared to him that many of the harsh strictures against the chemical profession that were indulged in by some judges, arose from this confusion between fact and opinion.A judge was always extremely jealous of any opinion except his own, and the chemist should be careful to distinguish between his position as an expert and as a witness to matters of fact. The chemist should also remember, that although out of the witness box he may do all he can to assist his client, in the witness box he must merely tell the truth. It was no doubt very tempting to be an advocate rather than a witness ; but scientific men should train themselves to avoid a bias which may uncon- sciously prevent them telling the truth. MR. SIEBOLD: I believe that if the conduct of scientific wit- nesses in general were investigated, it would be found that chemists compare favourably with the members of other professions with regard to their truthfulness and conscientious tact in giring 27 evidence.No doubt, cases do occur in which a temporary con- fusion of ideas during cross-examination, or natural excitability, leads a witness to statements which do not bear strict scrutiny, and which, under other circumstances, he would not make ; but cases of this kind cannot be said to be confined more to one profession than to others. Instances of false statements deliberately made, and of misrepresentations arising from professional ignorance or recklessness, are fortiinately very rare among chemical witnesses, and where such occur, it may be hoped that the organisations of professional chemists now in existence will know how to deal with the offenders.As regards the question of the propriety of chemists to assume the functions of advocates, I feel sure it would be most undesi- rable to establish that practice. The more strictly a scientific witness confines himself to a clear exposition of the results of his investigation and their direct bearing on the case, the more creditable to himself and the more valuable to judge and jury will his services be. On the whole, I believe, professional chemists occupy a high position in the estimation of judges, juries, and the public at large, a position which, I doubt not, they well know how to maintain without requiring any rules to be laid down for their guidance. MR. HEWITT: I think the object the Council had in view in the promotion of this subject is one that deserves our support- that is, the raising the status of professional chemists and ad-vancement of their moral and scientific reputation.We may very well judge from the action that has taken place in other profes- sions that there are certain individuals who are termed (‘black sheep ;”we know of the glorious uncertainty of the law, of the ‘‘ras-cally attorney,” of the ;‘ unscrupulous advocate.” But there has arisen in these professions a sort of unwritten code of moral law which is regarded by all as a general rule of guidance. I believe that it is one of the objects of this Institute to develope this idea and to gradually form a code of moral conduct on the part of profes-sional chemists. I have had the painfu€ experience of being in a 28 Court of llam and of stnilding in the witness-box, and I can quite sympathise with any one placed in that position with coiinsel trying all they can to place him in R difficulty.I hare felt for the professional gentleman who in R recent case, when the judge did not understand the different names of the substance treated upon, asked him to call it by one name as he did not understand it by its aliases. I quite agree with the remarks which have fallen from some speakers about the distinction which must be drawn between facts and opinion. In reading over the paper, however, it struck me that the writer did not properly distinguish between science itself, which is of course perfectly certain, and the fallible interpreters of science.If we knew what m7as truth, and if our judgments never went wrong, we might assume this high tone ;but, in the present state of our knowledge, we ought to go into a case with a certain amount of humility. I think in this respect we ought to be very careful not to assume an infallibility which really does not belong to either side. For my own part, I think the chemist has to do his duty to his client as soon as he accepts the position of advising him. He must not forget, in the anxiety to be upright, that he is bound to do the best he can for his client just as a doctor is bound to do the best he can for his patient. At the same time it is very necessary-and I think we can do that-that we should not impute personal motives to the scientific witnesses on the other side.This is one great matter which scientific witnesses have to guard themselves against. The unfortunate fact is that every man is naturally desirous to win, and this feeling may bias his judgment, and if he wishes to do what is right he must allow a, certain amount of discount for his own feelings. I do not believe I ever saw a barrister, a solicitor, or a scientific man who did not wish to be on the winning side of the case. With respect to scientific witnesses, I have observed, that when a man steps out of his proper sphere he very often does injury to his client’s case. I saw a case where the advocacy of the scientific witness was so apparent, to the judge, that when, after the affidavits on both sides were shewn and the usual cross-examination was over, the scientific 29 witness for the plaintiff applied to be heard again and introduce new facts, the judge said he had formed his own opinion and declined to hear him further.This is a case in which the chemist defeated the object in view. With regard to prompting counsel, I may say that where a barrister, from want of knowledge or from some other cause, had failed to grasp the bearing of the evidence or had never reached the point desired to be brought out, the question arises how far is the chemist to abstain from prompting? think if in such cases the chemist were to neglect to prompt counsel he would be neglecting his duty to his client. Although I am not myself a professional chemist, I have thought it right to make these few remarks. I am a manufacturing chemist, and have to employ professional chemists, and to follow from the experiments in the laboratory the working of a large manufac- turing concern.I may relate you one special case which shews how easy it is for a chemist to err in opinion where the facts, or some of them, are undisputed. The case had reference to some cloth that had been sent out to India and found to be “faulty ” and gome of the pieces came back in the course of some months, with certain stains upon them. They were submitted to some scientific gentlemen who said they were stains produced by mildew. They mere brought to our laboratory and we also believed they were mildew. The question then arose how did the mildew come? The statement was made by the merchant abroad that they were sent out in an unfit state and improperly bleached, and in con-sequence of this the cloth was spoilt, and the merchant thought he had a claim against us.There was no dispute about the scientific facts of the case, but there mas every room for difference of opinion as to the cause of the mildew and the person to blame. The scientific adviser of the merchant thought it was due to faulty finishing on the part of my firm. We thought differently, a8 we held samples of the cloth that had been kept dry and were not mildewed. The question of liability was agreed to be left to arbitration, and when the pieces were brought from the warehouse in turning over the plaits of the cloth inside the laps we came upon the words I‘ damaged by fresh water.” It was mildew, and 30 arose, as the words shewed, not from any neglect on the part of the bleacher, but from the action of 'the water to which the cloth had been exposed in India.In this case it shews that had these simple words-not been written by some person in the laps of the cloth, an injustice might have been done to the bleacher or the manufacturer. MR.FBISWELL:I feel a diffidence in speaking on this subject, as it is one upon which I have not been personally engaged. Like Mr. Howard, however, I have paid considerable attention to the evidence given by scientific witnesses, and I think after what has fallen from many of the gentlemen who have spoken, it appears that the scientific witness is certainly apt to take upon himself the office of judge more often than they are inclined to allow, because it seems that a point of personal bias must always enter into the evidence more or less.Chemists, after all, are simply men, and we all of us wish the side we are engaged upon to win. Very likely this feeling may act with considerable strength upon a comparatively young and inexperienced man engaged for the first time. He must feel the temptation to put the most favourable view upon his client's case. The matter is an exceedingly diffi- cult one. I believe in most cases an action begins by affidavits, and I would suggest that where it is supposed scientific witnesses may be required, one side or the other, or both, might demand that scientific evidence should be called in when these affidaaits are prepared.The judge might then be empowered to decide on the prima facie evidence whether these witnesses should be called, and if they were, it would be at the instance of the court itself and not of the plaintiff or defendant, just as in certain divorce cases it is customary to order the Queen's Proctor fan independent barrister employed by the court) to intervene. If some such sug- gestion were elaborated, it might be necessary to have three chemists, one appointed by each side and one by the court ;these three independent chemists might meet and present a joint report. If some plan of this kind could be adopted I cannot but think that the interests of justice would be furthered and the interests of the chemical profession also.There is a vast number of cases in the 31 subject of which the chemist engaged has had very little ex-perience, and there may be some about which he knows nothing at all. He is thus placed in a very serious position if he is called in to advise in such cases, for of course he does not like to lose employment by refusing to appear. A more truthful result is therefore likely to be obtained Then scientific witnesses are called in like umpires or arbitrators to decide between two litigants, than if the former are placed like ordinary Witnesses in the witness- box. DR. DUPRE: When I first came over to England, I was rather horrified at the position of scientific men when called to give evidence; but since then I have altered my opinion, and I now believe it would be very dihult to devise a system better calcu- lated to bring out truth than the one at present employed.We must suppose that a scientific man is an honest man, and this ghould never be lost sight of, for no system would work with dishonest scientific witnesses. The object of the proceeding in a Law Court is to find out the truth, and if a man is engaged on one side, he knows well enough that men are engaged on the other side quite as good as himself, and any mistake he makes is sure to be found out. When a man has to go into the witness box, he has a much greater inducement to go thoroughly into the matter, so as to be able to answer any question put to him, and by this opposition of intellects, the truth has a much better chance of coming out than by three or four men getting a commission to draw up a report.Of course a chemist must go into the witness box with a perfect conviction of the truth of the statements he is about to make. If he fences or shirks the question, or is prepared to tell an untruth, the man is unfit for any profession. I ha\-e not had so bad an experience of scientific witnesses as some seem to have had, and it seems to me, that the chemist will come out of any ordeal quite as satisfactory as the member of any other profession. With regard to the assertion, that a man may be engaged in a case, and yet know nothing of the subject, I would advise such a man to have nothing to do with the case; but to tell his client,-I am rery sorry T cannot advise you ;but I can tell you who will do it for you,-go to so and so.A man whose sole view is not simply to make money would certainly act thus. As I said before, I think the present system is, on the whole, a good one, and it is not so easy as some imagine to devise a better. DR. STEVENSON: I endorse Dr. Duprh’s statement as to the advantages of the present system. On evidence given in a Court of Law, the judge, counsel, and jury may even put questions which may throw a new light on the subject, and a person in the position of a judge, looking at the evidence on both sides and forming an iinbiassed opinion of the question, is in a far better position than any number of scientific witnesses in a private chamber.I think the system of having viva voce evidence and cross-examination is a very great advantage indeed. With regard to the position towards the legal profession, we have heard it stated this evening that the desire of the barrister ia to puzzle the witness. As far as my experience goes this is rather a strong expression. More often the desire of the barrister is to elicit one side of the case and to obtain correct information. When a barrister endeavours to puzzle a witness he certainly does his case damage. A letter from PROFESSOR .!!TTFIELD was read by the SECRETARY as follows:-c( The code of chemical ethics in this country is yet unwritten ; but I believe that what amounts toacode already exists.Indeed, when did a number of educated English professional men, having interests in common, ever work more or less together without principles of honour guiding their conduct towards each other, towards their clients, and towards the members of the community generally ? Differ from each other scientific chemists certainly do, and must, so long as the working of any chemical law is obscure, and so long as there remains a chemical law unveiled to their vision. Nay, analytical and consulting chemists are but men, and humanurn est errare. But that they, more than most men, stand in need of canons of conduct, may safely be denied. If it is a common remark that scientific men can be got to gwear to anything,’ let it remain common, in company with all else that is common. What men cannot understand they too frequently affect to despise, or go to the other extreme and worship.Pro-fessional chemists as a class can afford to live down such common charges, knowing them to have, as regards the class, no foundation. While however chemists, in justice to themselves, cannot, I think, plead guilty to any larger proportion of ethical lapses than obtains in other professional bodies, the fuller publication amongst themselves of rules or practices of professional etiquette may perhaps be desirable. Hence the discussion of the subject may do much good, and could scarcely be more appropriately enter- tained than by the Institute of Chemistry.As regards the points raised, I do not see why any man, scientific or non-scientific, should be debarred from advocacy; always provided that he confessedly pleads as, and is recognised by all as occupying the position of, an advocate, In the world of men generally, it may be quite honourable to belong to this party or to that, The sin is in fighting under false colours. The man of research may adopt one line of conduct, the amateur another; but the chemist who has to live by his calling must honourably do what the public honourably demands. I cannot think that there is any ‘ distinct demand ’ worth naming ‘for dishonest scientific evidence.’ That the chemical advisers of opposing litigants should assemble with the object of deciding possible differences is, I think, imprac- ticable.That a client should know ‘the exact truth’ may be desirable. But who is to teach it? Who knows it himself? Chemistry is doubtless an exact science. And, doubtless, nature is largely governed by laws we term chemical, of which we know a few. But chemistry is one thing, what m-e know of chemistry is another. A client must perforce be content to get as near to the the exact truth as the current state of knowledge permits. Respecting the final question, I agree with Dr. Angus Smith, but think that law and justice would sometimes reap advantage were judges aided by scientific assessors.” MR.THOMSON,in reply, said : There are one or two points in the discussion which I propose to answer.The first is in reference to the words in my paper ‘‘Should a chemist act as a judge in 34 respect of any question brought before him for investigation.” This sentence has been misunderstood by some of the gentlemen who have taken part in the discussion. It was not whether the chemist should act its a judge to decide between the opposing litigants, that would be absurd ; what I meant to imply was, should the chemist investigate the matter placed in his hands with a view to arrive at the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and report to his client accordingly; or should he, as it has been expressed in the discussion, “do the best he can for his client?” The latter position seems to me quite untenable, and if chemists investigate with that end in view, they niust become to a greater or less extent advocates, and there will, under those circumstances, be little chance of their rising in the esteem of the public. A similar expression has been used by another gentleman, but in this case it was couched in the words “every man likes to win the case in which he is engaged ;” that expression was doubtless used thoughtlessly, the emulation among chemists should be, not simply to win their clients’ cases, but to arrive at the exact truth with reference to any questions placed before them, and if investigations are carried on in this spirit chemists will act best towards the real interests of themselves and their clients.One remark wm made to the effect that it was discreditable for one chemist to prompt counsel in the cross-examination of an- other engaged by the opposition. Under the present state of affairs I hold, that although prompting is exceedingly un- pleasant for the prompter, it cannot be considered in any degree discreditable. It not unfkequently happens that chemists endea- vour to gain their clients’ cases without carefully considering whether they are right or wrong, and if the scientific men opposed to each other, having carefully investigated the case, arrive at an unbiassed conclusion that their evidence is right, but that the counsel engaged is not able to comprehend the exact points of the case, then it is the bounden duty of the chemist to his client and to justice to prompt the counsel.If, however, the scientific men on the opposing sides could meet together previous to the hearing 35 of the case and draw up a joint report, or compare notes and discuss the questions at issue, the result mould clearly be in favour of the ends of justice being attained, and it would simultaneously increase the reputation and usefulness of every member of our profession. THE PRESIDENT: I think we have had a good illustration this evening of the usefulness of the discussions instituted by this Society. We have exchanged views upon a very important subject, and a consideration of the views expressed, appears to justify the conclusion, that there is no very great difference between the opinions of the speakers.There may be some among us who entertain somewhat different views regarding the functions which a chemist may exercise in addition to those of a witness, and whether some reforms are not desirable in reference to such functions. There is no doubt that when a chemist is engaged in cases which come before Courts of Law or arbitration, he has two distinct offices He has toperform the important duties of adviser or counsel up to the point of his appearance as a witness, when his functions change altogether. It is in the first instance his duty to advise his clients and labour for their interests as far as it is possible, as, for example, in the care to search out and grapple with every weak point in the case of his em- ployer and of the opponent ;but when he goes into the witness- box his duty is simply to deal honestly with matters of fact and to put forward cautiously and moderately those points in his evi- dence which are matters of opinion and not to flinch from speaking Ihe whole truth.I am perfectly sure that as long as we chemists faithfully act up to these broad principles, whether change be introduced into the method of dealing with chemical evidence or not, we may be perfectly certain we shall do our duty by them who entrust their interests to us. I congratulate you upon the useful nature of the discussion which has taken place, and believe it probable that on some future occasion we may resume it with advantage.

ISSN:0368-3958    

DOI:10.1039/PG880040B013

出版商:RSC    

年代:1880

数据来源: RSC