212 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [September 10, 1870. 
THE BETTS SUITS AGAIN. 
Mr. Betts appears to share with the British 
soldier his proverbial characteristic of not being 
able to perceive when he is beaten; for, as will be 
seen from a letter in our correspondence columns, 
that persevering litigant is again returning to the 
charge, and notwithstanding the decision of the 
late Vice-Chancellor James, reported in this Jour¬ 
nal some weeks ago, he is about to resume Iris cru¬ 
sade. We understand that Mr. Betts will not 
accept the adverse and condemnatory judgment of 
the Vice-Chancellor, but that he will appeal to 
the Lord Chancellor, and perhaps to the House of 
Lords. If he should not succeed in either quarter, 
it is difficult to conceive what further steps Mr. 
Betts may not take, but doubtless his inventive 
capacity would even then be equal to the occasion. 
If, however, he should succeed in obtaining a judg¬ 
ment in liis favour, he will have obtained a means of 
levying patent royalty, which, if not quite novel, 
would be at least out of date, and sufficiently unu¬ 
sual in modern times to afford an interesting case 
for those who concern themselves with the working 
of the patent system. 
How r ever, the general facts of the case are too well 
known to need further mention, and beyond comply¬ 
ing with the request of our correspondent to publish 
his letter, it is not our intention to deal with the sub¬ 
ject. We must nevertheless take this opportunity 
of correcting a misapprehension that might arise 
from, and be suggested by, certain remarks of Mr. 
Betts at the late trial as to the position of the Phar¬ 
maceutical Society in regard to this litigation. It is 
not in any w r ay a case between Mr. Betts and the 
Society, nor has it ever been; indeed, the Society 
has nothing to do with the matter. Many of its 
members, no doubt, are among the vast number of 
those who were either attacked or threatened by Mr. 
Betts, and for that reason only the Society, as a body, 
sympathizes with the defence offered to his attack, 
not only by members of the Society and druggists 
generally, but also by the great mass of grocers, oil¬ 
men, wine merchants, or any other traders who sell 
bottles covered with capsules. 
The Central Working Committee of the Associa¬ 
tion for Giving Relief to the Sick and Wounded in 
the present war, has really determined to send out 
six surgeons “whose expenses will be paid, though 
their services, in other respects, will be gratuitous,” 
and a Correspondent of the Medical Times and Ga¬ 
zette commenting on the fact, remarks that, in other 
words, a committee representing the charitable por¬ 
tion of the wealthiest community in the world, pro¬ 
poses to exercise their charitable feelings at the ex¬ 
pense of the six young men in question, whose toil 
and risk will go unrewarded. From inquiries we 
have made we are enabled to state that this is not 
a correct view of the case, The Committee has not 
contemplated engaging surgeons or paying for ser¬ 
vices rendered by professional men, its action being 
limited to accrediting competent volunteers w r ho may 
be disposed to give their services gratuitously. There 
are many reasons to induce surgeons especially to 
embrace this opportunity of doing good service in the 
cause of humanity, and there does not appear to be 
any just ground for complaining of the course taken 
by the Committee. 
But, though this is a case entirely exceptional, 
we may in a general way take the opportunity of 
expressing our opinion that the practice of render¬ 
ing “honorary services” in professional matters 
is, as a rule, both vicious and sophistical. It too 
often happens that those who render “ honorary ser¬ 
vices,” and affect to be superior to the rule that the 
labourer is worthy of his hire, do so in reality with 
the object of some ulterior advantage to themselves. 
In such cases “honorary service” is but a sham and 
a device, by which those who happen to have means 
to admit of their practising it, may gain an unfair 
advantage over others who are less fortunately cir¬ 
cumstanced in that respect. As a case in point we 
may refer to the late proceedings of the British As¬ 
sociation Sewage Committee, which, after collecting 
a large sum of money to enable its members to con¬ 
duct an important public inquiry, has become im¬ 
pressed with the idea that the services of its mem¬ 
bers must be “ honorary,”—the result being that the 
members of the Committee finding themselves re¬ 
duced to the alternative of working at their own cost 
or not at all, most of those who previously took an 
active part in the work to be done, have been de¬ 
barred from continuing their labours. It yet remains 
to be seen what, under these circumstances, is to be 
done with the money collected from various towns 
throughout the country, and what may have been the 
object of collecting that money, if the functions of 
the Committee were to be “honorary!” 
There seems to be still some unpleasant feeling 
lingering in Edinburgh, consequent upon the selec¬ 
tion last year by the British Association of Liverpool 
in preference to that city as the place of meeting for 
1870. This has been shown lately by a letter which 
has appeared in the Glasgow Daily Herald relative 
to the announcement in a contemporary of the pro¬ 
bable selection of Sir William Thompson as the next 
president. That journal, alluding to the saying at¬ 
tributed to Sir R. Murchison, that no person lower 
in the scale than a “ live duke” would be sufficient 
to bring together a large meeting of the British As¬ 
sociation in Scotland, remarks, “ Sir Roderick may 
probably remember how far his prescription was suc¬ 
cessful when it was tried; and if he will help us to 
have the meeting in Glasgow, -with Sir William 
Thompson in the chair, we will try to show him the 
reverse of the medal.” 
