July 2, 1870.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
9 
and hopelessly helpless till their constituents had 
placed a majority on their side to enable them to 
arrange matters better, and thus to save the Society 
from being entirely in the hands of the London 
tradesmen, who form but a small minority of its 
members ? 
This is a conclusion which might be drawn from 
a more careful examination of the published infor¬ 
mation than that which you have offered us, and not 
unlikely to be arrived at by the provincial pharma¬ 
cists, if party spirit is fostered by such one-sided 
writing being allowed to appear as official matter. 
The truth is, that the country members of the 
Council do not feel that their distance disqualifies 
them for the acceptance of committee work, for they 
have accepted the same ; they now have elected one 
another to work along with their London brethren 
in all the committees; they have elected every coun¬ 
try member of Council to at least one committee, and 
two of them—Mr. Abraham and Mr. Edwards—to 
-as many as foiu* committees each; they have ar¬ 
ranged the times of meeting of the committees, so 
that a frequent attendance of the country members 
will not be impracticable; and, though their pre¬ 
sence will always involve twice as great a sacrifice 
as is required to be made by those residing within a 
cab drive of Bloomsbury, it is an injustice to con¬ 
demn them before they have had a trial. 
May I ask why Mr. Deane is mentioned among 
those who are geographically unable to attend ? un¬ 
less it be to mislead those, if there are such, who do 
not know that Clapham is an easy omnibus ride 
from Bloomsbury Square. And may I ask why an 
unfair view of the attendance of London members is 
given by drawing attention to those who have been 
many times present, and omitting to notice those 
who have been absent so often as to show that the 
.geographical qualification is no guarantee of regula¬ 
rity ? 
I sought to justify this omission on the ground of 
your remarks having reference to members of the 
new Council only, but this I find is not the case, as 
the number fifteen applies to Mr. Mbrson, who is not 
on the present Council. Then, in the hope of yet 
justifying the omissions, I expected to find then the 
names of founders of the Society,—men who are 
willingly acknowledged to have earned their laurels 
and their ease, and would be gladly seen at a meet¬ 
ing without constant attendance being expected of 
them. But against tills. Sir, I find the first name 
you have thus omitted is that of Mr. Ince, who has 
been called to the library committee seventeen times, 
and has attended it only once. 
I can, therefore, come to no other conclusion than 
that you have picked out the good numbers, with 
the intention of implying that residence in London 
ensured good attendance, and omitted to notice that 
the London list also included two attendances in re¬ 
sponse to twenty-one summonses (Ince), two attend¬ 
ances in response to thirty-four summonses (Orridge), 
and six attendances in response to thirty-one sum¬ 
monses (Squire), because these facts detract from 
the apparent strength of your position. One would 
think that the first of these names, so intimately as¬ 
sociated with ethics, should have prompted a fairer 
statement of the case. I can only imagine that 
some unfortunate circumstance disturbed your usual 
cool judgment when you wrote tills article, or you 
could not have offered to your provincial friends 
the information that the Council is not a Young 
Men’s Mutual Improvement Association,—a piece of 
information which a day’s reflection would, no doubt, 
show you is both uncalled for and offensive; nor 
could you, as editor of a scientific journal, have 
penned a sentence implying that Mr. Brady is less 
worthy of our respect in consequence of Ills pursuit 
of natural history. 
Barnard S. Proctor. 
11, Grey Street, Newcastle, June 24 th, 1870. 
TO THE READERS OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
I wrote the Leader entitled “ An Age of Progress.’’ 
It has excited undue praise, but there are some who 
take exception to the statements it contains. 
It struck me that it might prejudice the Editor of 
the ‘Pharmaceutical Journal’ were he supposed to 
be the author. The only part he has had in the trans¬ 
action was to tone-down, modify, and materially im¬ 
prove my sentences, to their great advantage, I see 
not one syllable I wish to retract or alter: in obe¬ 
dience to Journal usage the article was not signed, a 
circumstance I regret. I define the word Council to 
prove that it is an assembly for deliberation and not 
at all for discussion. I object to reporting its pro¬ 
ceedings for reasons I have given so often that I am 
afraid of their repetition. Amongst them are. First, 
conclusions are arrived at, in the main, by conversa¬ 
tional means, perfectly legitimate but unadapted for 
publication. Secondly, the actual work is done in 
Committee, and it has happened to myself and others, 
that in order not to be eternally present before the 
board, or to gain the reputation of being heard for 
much speaking, I and others have used the friendly 
services of a councillor to bring forward our particular 
Resolutions. In that case, a gentleman in the Coun¬ 
try, wishing to know his man and give his vote, is 
led into error. A sign post is an excellent institution 
but it is desirable that it should not point the wrong 
way. Thirdly debates do arise occasionally. I have 
accurately described them as a storm passing over 
otherwise tranquil waters. These of necessity often 
involve personal matters which it would be most 
unwise to reveal. Their publication would sow an 
abundant harvest of ill-will, misunderstanding and 
estrangement. 
But this is not the point about which I am called 
in question. I have stated the truism that neither 
as I could direct the home affairs of a firm in Man¬ 
chester, neither can those residing at a long distance 
from the metropolis conduct home London business. 
Fearing however that this paragraph might be mis¬ 
interpreted into a slight passed on our Provincial 
friends, the identical sentence was submitted to the 
President and met with Iris approval. Desiring to 
make assurance doubly sure, I added, that these 
very persons w r ere amongst the utterly best men of 
our Society. Was it possible to take more care? 
Could sentences be more guarded? Moreover the 
directors of this Journal and other Editors know with 
what elaborate trouble I prepare my press commu¬ 
nications. Easy writing is never read. Two gen¬ 
tlemen in another periodical have ventured on a 
description of the same affair, namely the character 
of the Election. One, formerly a member of Council, 
(not myself) supplied the materials; the Editor did 
the text. Betw r een them, they termed the transaction 
of the month of May, “Reaping the Whirlwind.” 
With them, I regret the non-election of Mr. Williams. 
