THE PHARMACY BILL. 
23 
Thus, the country members comprise four-fifths of both the numerical and the 
monetary strength of the Society; but clause 20 would give as much governing 
power to 180 London members as to 1400 who live beyond the charmed circle 
of twelve miles radius. Is it seriously meant that one Londoner is as valuable 
to the Society as eight country supporters? Surely we are getting nearly to 
the equation,—“9 tailors^l man !” 
That clause 20 has what its framers supposed to be a raison d'etre is certain. 
This is the large amount of committee work thrown upon the London members 
of Council, and the laborious and valuable services to the Society thus rendered 
deserve the gratitude of all our members; per contra , let it be remembered 
that all the places of honour are ungrudgingly offered to our London brethren. 
But perhaps nothing is moft dangerous than a half truth, and it is not less a 
truth that representative government is a more healthy basis for corporations 
than a monopoly of governing power in a few hands. We have to reconcile 
these two truths, and no well-wisher to the Society can desire that any of its 
members should be indifferent to such a question. 
Let ten country members hold seats at the Council, and probably all parties 
will be satisfied. Our present country representatives cannot ignore the duty 
of preserving intact the quota of governing power which now belongs to their 
class, and thus, independently of the threat of extinction held over two of their 
number by clause 20, they must feel bound to claim that nine seats at least shall 
be substituted for seven in the Bill. 
Of course, the question might be treated in other ways. Seven country 
members of Council might have fourteen votes in a division, or four new mem¬ 
bers might be added to the Council. Again, electoral districts might be mapped 
out. 
But I feel no disposition to advocate any of these changes. Let us, however, 
maintain our present representative influence in the new republic of pharmacy, 
to the possibility of which country members have contributed a faithful and un¬ 
wavering support through times of doubting and discouragement. 
Yours respectfully, 
Richard Rf.ynolds, 
Leeds, June 19, 1868. 
TO THE EDITORS OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Gentlemen,—I have received a copy of a circular which I find has also been 
sent to the Local Secretaries throughout the kingdom. 
I confess that I read it with surprise and regret, that now—just as we seem 
to be on the point of attaining that for which we have struggled for many 
years, at a cost of time and exertion which none know but those who have 
borne the burden—the apple of discord should be thrown among us and the 
passing of the Bill, this session, be seriously endangered. Surely, if the pro¬ 
portion between town and country representatives is so unfair and unjust, it 
might have been found out before this ; the Bill has been before the public for 
months and not a breath of objection on this account has ever reached the 
Council until now, when “ its successful progress through the House of Lords ” 
is pleaded as a reason why we should examine its details. Most persons will 
think that its details should have been examined before , and that the fact which 
has prevented our success hitherto—the want of agreement among ourselves— 
would be a very dangerous thing to fasten upon it as it entered the House of 
Commons. 
