July 29, 1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
09 
Chemists, by much labour and self-sacrifice, have placed 
themselves above the condition which could alone justify in¬ 
spection. Why should Parliament be asked to deal with 
them as if they had done nothing, and to treat their self¬ 
elevation as a punishable offence ? 
Glastonbury, July 2bth, 1871. T. Mathew. 
Sir,—I am not a little surprised at the manifesto you pub¬ 
lish from the pro-regulationists. I confess I feel somewhat 
at a loss to account both for its existence and for its appear¬ 
ance after the withdrawal of the Bill. That the minority 
should seek by a movement in ambush to get an advantage 
over the majority, is an act not so graceful as we should have 
expected from the great names connected with it. 
The inherent errors and evident want of consideration ob¬ 
servable in the circular, mark it as one of the mistakes so 
often committed in haste to be repented of at leisure. 
But why is it published ? A mistake of that kind should 
be only grieved over and forgotten. Then why is it pub¬ 
lished? Can it be an open declaration of war? If so, it 
would appear that the right hand of the pro-regulationists 
has forgotten its cunning. But whatever be the character of 
the proceeding, it is evident that we must keep in working 
order the organization which was necessitated by the in¬ 
difference previously shown by a majority of the Council to 
the opinions of a majority of the Society. 
It may be that a reform in the government, if not a revo¬ 
lution in the constitution of our Society, will spring from the 
•continued disposition of a section (an influential section, lam 
willing to admit) of metropolitan pharmacists to oppose the 
general body of the trade upon political questions. 
Barnard Proctor. 
Grey Street, Newcastle, July 2Qth, 1871. 
Sir,—May I beg the favour of your inserting the following 
•correspondence in the next number of your Journal ? 
171 , Sigh Solborn, John Carr. 
July 22nd, 1871. 
63, Piccadilly, Manchester, 
July 21 st, 1871. 
Sir,—I think it is fair to you, as well as just to the Asso¬ 
ciation I represent, to inform you that I have been repeatedly 
•questioned, and an explanation has been frequently sought 
•from me, to account for the strange inconsistency in your 
voting since your election to the Pharmaceutical Council. 
In your letter of the 14th of March you consent to be 
nominated as a candidate by the “ Chemists’ Defence Asso¬ 
ciation you likewise approve of its object, and offer to sub¬ 
scribe to its funds. In consequence of this agreement of 
•opinion, you were nominated, and your election to the Phar¬ 
maceutical Council was duly secured. Notwithstanding this 
honourable and definite arrangement, you have on every 
occasion recorded your vote in favour of compulsory poison 
regulations, and against the Society taking any part in 
preventing the ‘Amended Pharmacy Bill’ becoming law. 
If you have changed your views, and are now convinced that 
compulsory poison regulations are necessary, it is only equit¬ 
able that you should resign your seat, as you were returned 
to the Council for the specific purpose of opposing such 
unjust and unnecessary restrictions. 
Please to consider this correspondence as subject to publi¬ 
cation. Awaiting your reply, 
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 
Robert Hampson, ILon. Sec. 
John Carr, Esq. 
(Reply.) 
171, Sigh Solborn, London, 
July 22nd , 1871. 
Sir,—In reply to your letter of the 21st instant, I beg to 
decline any explanation of my votes at the Council-table of 
the Pharmaceutical Society. I sit at that board to exercise 
<nnd act according to my judgment and the best interests of 
the Society. 
You say I must consider our correspondence as subject to 
publication, and I have therefore no hesitation in informing 
•you that I shall myself publish it in the next issue of the 
Pharmaceutical Journal. 
I remain, Sir, yours truly, 
John Carr. 
To R. Hampson, Esq. 
In addition to the foregoing correspondence, the following 
has been forwarded to us by Mr. Hampson:— 
63, Piccadilly, Manchester, July 24 th, 1871. 
Sir,—Your reply of July 22nd is duly to hand. I certainly 
expected some explanation to account for the breaking of the 
pledge given in your letter accepting the nomination, but I 
will not lengthen this correspondence by any further comment. 
I am content to leave the facts as revealed in these letters to 
the verdict of honourable men. 
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 
Robert Hampson, Son. Sec. 
P.S. I have, this morning, sent the whole of the corre¬ 
spondence for publication in the next issue of the Pharm. 
Journ. 
London, 171, Sigh Solborn, March 14 th, 1871. 
Sir,—In reply to your letter, I beg to say I shall have no 
objection to be nominated as a candidate at the next election 
of members for the Pharmaceutical Council, by the Defence 
Association. I entirely agree with them in resisting the un¬ 
just and unnecessary restrictions the majority of the Council 
are anxious to place upon us, and should have joined you, but, 
as a member of Council, think it better to be quiet for the 
present; at all events, if it is requisite, I shall be happy to 
subscribe to the objects of the Society. 
I may mention I have nominated Mr. E. Smith, of Tor¬ 
quay ; he is an intelligent person, and would make a most 
useful member of Council; he has promised to serve, if 
elected, and is totally opposed to the majority of the Council 
on this matter; he has taken great interest in the question, 
and has published one or two papers on the Storage of 
Poisons in the Journal. 
I remain, dear Sir, yours truly, 
John Carr. 
Robert Hampson, 
Son. Sec. to the Chemists' Defence Association. 
Sir,—May I request the favour of your inserting the en¬ 
closed correspondence in the forthcoming number of the 
Journal? 
Perhaps I may be allowed to state that I have not pre¬ 
viously had any correspondence, either directly or indirectly, 
with the Chemists’ Defence Association. 
July 2oth, 1871. Edward Smith. 
(Copt.) 
The Chemists' Defence Association, 
63, Piccadilly, Manchester, July 21s£, 1871. 
Sir,—The members of the “ Chemists’ Defence Association,” 
and those generally who have opposed the enactment of 
further compulsory poison regulations, have expressed much 
surprise, and some indignation, at the support you have 
given to the members on the Pharmaceutical Council who 
are in favour of further legislative enactments of a restrictive 
character. 
The following is a quotation from a letter received by me 
from Mr. Carr, dated March 14, 1871:— 
“ I may mention I have nominated Mr. E. Smith, of Tor¬ 
quay; he has promised to serve if elected, and is wholly op¬ 
posed to the majority of the Council on this matter; he has 
taken great interest in the question, and has published one or 
two papers on the storage of poisons in the Journal.” 
In consequence of this definite guarantee of Mr. Carr’s, 
your name was with perfect confidence included in the list of 
candidates put forward by the Chemists’ Defence Association, 
and without a doubt your election was secured thereby. 
As I presume that you have changed your views on the 
question at issue, I do not see how you can consistently, or 
in common fairness, continue to occupy your seat at the 
Council, knowing as you do, that you were returned to sup¬ 
port views directly opposed to those you now entertain. 
Please to consider this correspondence subject to publica¬ 
tion. Awaiting your reply, 
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 
E. Smith, Esq. Robert Hampson, Son. Sec. 
(Copy.) 
Torquay, July 22nd, 1871. 
Sir,—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your commu¬ 
nication of yesterday’s date, somewhat imperiously, on behalf 
of your Association, calling upon me to resign my scat at the 
