918 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[May 13,1871. 
Craspttee. 
*** No notice can be taken of anonymous communica¬ 
tions. Whatever is intended for insertion must be authenti¬ 
cated by the name and address of the writer ; not necessarily 
for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. 
The Forthcoming Election of Council. 
Sir,—I have received the enclosed circular from the Hono¬ 
rary Secretary of “ The Chemists’ Defence Association,” 
Manchester. 
No doubt all members of the Pharmaceutical Society have 
received a similar circular ; it puts forward a list of candidates, 
backed by the Committee, for election, and I must say I con¬ 
sider it a highly objectionable and ill-advised document,—its 
originators, no doubt well-meaning individuals, attempting 
a most uncalled-for interference with the free exercise of 
the elective rights of the Society. 
This proceeding is objectionable, because it attempts to 
create an imperium in imperio. It announces the existence 
of a supervising body, which endeavours to control the 
governing body of the Society. 
It is objectionable because it is impertinent. The Society 
has never delegated any powers to this Committee, nor asked 
it to select a list in its behalf—not being appointed by the 
■Society, it has no right to usurp the power of doing so, 
especially as it does so professedly to prejudge questions,—to 
warp the judgment and bind the votes of the future Council. 
It is objectionable, because there are always a number of 
undecided men ready to vote for any list rather than to use 
their independent judgment; doubly so, because these loose 
voters, being aggregated, are likely to swamp independent 
ones. It cannot be denied that the candidates named on 
such a list, if elected, are mere nominees of a clique, and 
that at any time they could be influenced by a vote of the 
Committee which put them in. 
Unless a counter list be issued this one may be carried, and 
if a counter one be issued it becomes a question of party 
snirit. and not as to the best men. 
The attempt is therefore most vicious in the sense of unsound 
and bad, and I trust the Society will not be led by the nose 
by wire pullers, but will prefer managing its own affairs, 
electing its own rulers,—men of known capacity and worth, 
—and then trust its affairs to their hands rather than to 
that of a Committee whose members, thinking they know 
better than the Council, are bent upon reforming it accord¬ 
ing to their own crude and conceited notions. 
F. P. Balkwill, M.P.S., F.L.S., etc. 
. Plymouth , May Uh, 1871. 
Sir,—The London and Manchester Defence Associations 
have united in issuing a circular, in which they recommend 
to the constituency the names of certain gentlemen for election 
to the forthcoming Council. 
The ground of their selection appears to be the views which 
these gentlemen are supposed to entertain upon the question 
ot “ poison regulations,” though as there are those amongst 
them who voted for the compulsory nature of these regula¬ 
tions, tlie.reason of their choice does not appear very clear. 
It is a misfortune that associations which have sprung up 
under special circumstances and for special objects, should 
attempt to direct events which have a wider significance; 
because, the compulsory character of these regulations being 
withdrawn and no ground of opposition to them being left, 
the claims of the various candidates ought to rest upon a 
broader basis than that of one question only, the significance 
of which has now nearly passed away. 
It should also bo^ remembered that other questions of im¬ 
portance to the welfare of pharmacy are impending, and that 
the very men required in the Council, the working members 
and the men elected as the representatives of provincial phar- 
macy, are those whom the combined associations would em¬ 
ploy the powers given them for other purposes to exclude 
from its debates. An examination of the statement of attend¬ 
ance of members of the Council on committees shows, that 
whereas 4 of the Associations’ favourites attended in all 25 
committees, the 4 gentlemen they seek to keep out of the 
Council attended 139, as follows:—• 
Atherton.8 out of 24 meetings. 
Brown.2 ,, 19 „ 
Mackay.6 „ 37 „ 
Woolley.9 „ 31 „ 
Total . . 25 „ 111 
Abraham ..... 14 out of 51 meetings. 
♦Bourdas.50 „ 63 „ 
Dymond.26 „ 37 „ 
Sandford.49 „ 80 „ 
Total . 139 231 „ 
There is one question of the utmost importance that the- 
associations fail to notice, viz. the admission of reporters to > 
and the publication of, the monthly proceedings of the Coun¬ 
cil. Had this measure been adopted by the Council a year- 
ago, we should not now be again in the dark as to the senti¬ 
ments of many members of the Council on other popular 
questions besides poison regulations; and it is probable that 
the opposition to these and to the proceedings of the Council, 
in respect of them, would not have proceeded so far or have 
been so productive of personal recriminations, had the con¬ 
stituency and their representatives, by means of the inevi¬ 
table criticism of the press, become better acquainted with, 
each other. 
Referring to the past action of the Council on the ques¬ 
tion of the publication of its proceedings, I find that at 
the meeting of Council, October Gth, 1869, the following - 
resolution was moved by Mr. Dymond and seconded by Mr. 
Stoddart:— 
“ That as the universally expressed feeling of the Anni¬ 
versary Meeting was in favour of the publicity of the pro¬ 
ceedings of the Council of the Society, it is expedient that 
its proceedings be fully reported in the Pharmaceutical. 
Journal, and that reporters desiring to represent other 
Journals be permitted, at the discretion of the Council, to be 
present, but that any portion of the proceedings which the 
Council shall declare to be unsuited for publication shall not 
be reported.” 
To this resolution an amendment was moved by Mr., 
rv—cr„>^nrWl hv Mr. Snuire- the obiect of which 
Ui * m 6 v - -j - - x ---... .. 
was to postpone and upset the resolution. The following-' 
voting then took place (see Journal, Vol. XI. page 255.) 
For the Amendment— Messrs. Abraham, Bottle, Bourdas,. 
Deane, Edwards, Haselden, Hills, Ince, Morson, Orridge^ 
Sandford and Squire. 
Against the Amendment —Messrs. Brady, Carteighe, Dy¬ 
mond, Savage, Stoddart, Williams. 
The motion, was therefore lost, and the amendment retain¬ 
ing the secret sittings carried. 
Again I find at the meeting of Council on June 1st, 187G> 
it was once more moved by Mr. Dymond and seconded by 
Mr. Stoddart:— 
“ That it is desirable at the commencement of the new 
series of the Pharmaceutical Journal, that the proceed¬ 
ings of the Council be more fully reported in that and other 
Journals, and that, under regulations, reporters be admitted 
to the meetings of Council.” 
To this resolution an amendment was again moved, but 
this time by Mr. Abrahams and seconded by Mr. Edwards,, 
the object of which was to quash the motion. The following 
voting took place 
For the Amendment —Messrs. Abraham, Atherton, Bottle,, 
Bourdas, Deane, Edwards, Evans, Groves, Haselden, Hills 
and Sandford. 
Against the Amendment —Messrs. Brady, Brown, Dymond,. 
Reynolds, Savage, Stoddart and Woolley. 
The motion was therefore again lost, and the amendment 
carried. 
These facts speak for themselves. Let us hope, at any 
rate, that the constituency will support those men who have 
so persistently urged and voted for the publication of the 
Council’s proceedings, and those who show by their attend¬ 
ance on committees a willingness to serve the Society’s in¬ 
terests. Michael John Ellwood. 
Leominster, May 8th, 1871. 
* Our correspondent is here in error. Mr. Bourdas is not 
a candidate for election.—E d. Ph. J. 
