August 5, 1871-3 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
119 
of about one hundred and twenty chemists. Simply because 
their names were at hand in the published list of local secre¬ 
taries, and they had, many of them, sent petitions to Parlia¬ 
ment against the original Bill. I deemed it right that these 
men should be put in full possession of the amendments to be 
proposed by Mr. Forster. Had time permitted, Mr. Reynolds 
knows well enough that I should have endeavoured, by the 
ordinary means set down in our bye-laws, to obtain a general 
meeting at which these amendments might have been fairly 
discussed. 
Mr. Reynolds does sometimes indulge in hard words, and, 
‘‘speaking advisedly ,” he says “the circular dishonestly assumes 
that its promoters were persons who recognized the faults of 
the original Bill.” Having drawn a long bow for this in¬ 
sinuation, he naturally thinks of a “ treacherous arrow”\ 
I forget whether Mr. Reynolds was present at the first 
Council meeting at which the Pharmacy Bill was discussed; 
if he was he may remember, and if he was not he may ascer¬ 
tain from those who were, that I was the very first person 
who drew attention to the objectionable part of the Bill, and 
that I was commissioned by my colleagues to communicate 
with the Privy Council and endeavour to obtain amendments. 
I can go even a little further than this and tell Mr. Reynolds 
that every amendment in the Bill was conceded most fully 
and fairly by the Privy Council, with the approval of Mr. 
Simon, on the representations of those gentlemen who went 
with me to amend, and not at the instigation of the opponents. 
Having gone aloft on his arrow and gazed “ with sorrow” (a 
little surprise also, perhaps) on the names of his adversaries, 
Mr. Reynolds deposits us in a “ new cave of Adullam ” ; pro¬ 
bably he would prefer the cave of Makkedah, for security’s 
sake, for the names of good men and true, men long known 
to their brethren as zealous and faithful friends of the Phar¬ 
maceutical Society, appear on that honourable roll, and will 
still command the confidence and goodwill of their fellow- 
members, notwithstanding the charge of “ treason ” preferred 
■against them by Mr. Schacht. 
Sir, when I look back to the narrow majority which the 
non-regulationists obtained at the annual meeting, I think we 
may still claim to represent our constituents, and I pass by, 
as unworthy of notice, the charge of Mr. Reynolds that I am 
seekin g “ by most questionable means and equally question¬ 
able allies” to enforce my wishes. 
I know Mr. Reynolds has strong views about representa¬ 
tive government, and I know that he was the first to intro¬ 
duce electioneering tactics into our Society; a course of con¬ 
duct which has deprived our Council of some of its best blood, 
.and threatens to set up a state of intolerable terrorism, if we 
may judge by the correspondence which appeared in your 
•columns last week between the Secretary of the “Chemists’ 
Defence Association ” and two members of Council. 
I will only point to one other subject, because it is one on 
which a good deal of nonsense has been talked. Mr. Wade 
says lie sees among the signatures the names of persons who 
formerly “protested against any check that did not emanate 
from the brain” What can he mean by this? Is not the 
sense of touch as much a servant or sentinel of the brain as 
the sense of sight? And is it beneath the dignity of the 
brain to have impressions conveyed to it through the fingers ? 
I commend ‘ Bell on the Hand ’ to Mr. Wade’s careful 
perusal. 
I am, Sir, 
Geoege W. Sandfoed. 
47, Piccadilly, August 2, 1871. 
Sir,—I rejoice with the majority of our fraternity that the 
Amended Pharmacy Bill has fallen (let us hope for ever). 
The Pharmacy Act of 1868 was pointed out by our great 
guns to confer immense advantages on the trade, instead of 
which it proves a snare; and in consideration of the innu¬ 
merable advantages derived from that invaluable Act we 
were to be screwed down a little tighter. But, thanks to 
• our Defence Associations, we have proved ourselves equal 
for the occasion. If it suits the fancy of a few West-End 
stars to erect elaborate poison cupboards, etc. etc., well and 
good; a very pretty ornament, no doubt; but let those alone 
who have no such mania; and, perhaps, in many cases can¬ 
not afford the expense of such useless furniture. 
Having had some years’ experience in good houses in dif¬ 
ferent parts of the country, I can fully enter into the feelings 
of our provincial brethren in so strenuously opposing the Bill, 
knowing it to be utterly impossible (particularly in agricultural 
districts) to conform to such regulations, even were they 
proved necessary. I therefore trust, should occasion require, 
we shall be found ready to defend our rights against the 
caprice of 120 elects. 
Islington. ( _ W. N. G. L. 
[The following additional correspondence between Messrs. 
Smith and Hampson has been forwarded to us by those gen¬ 
tlemen, with a request for its publication. Mr. Smith has 
called our attention to certain orthographical errors in one of 
Mr. Hampson’s letters to him, which errors likewise occur in 
the copy received by us. The letters are therefore printed 
exactly as forwarded to us by each gentleman. In the copies 
forwai-ded by Mr. Smith, the letters of Mr. Hampson are 
preceded by a list of the officers and committee of the Che¬ 
mists’ Defence Association.— Ed. Piiaem. Jouen.] 
(Corr.) 
“ The Chemists’ Defence Association, 
“63, Piccadilly, Manchester, July 2oth, 1871. 
“ Sir,—I am obliged for the prompt acknowledgment of 
my note, and, as your reply contains several important mis¬ 
conceptions, it is necessary for me to trouble you with another 
letter. 
“ Let me, in the first place, disabuse your mind of the mis¬ 
taken notion that the Chemists’ Defence Association has 
assumed any kind or degree of authority over the members 
of the Pharmaceutical Council, such authority resting only 
with the constituents. It has not, therefore, attempted to 
exercise any authority over you; neither has the Association 
presumed to call upon you to resign your seat at the Council. 
The letters I have written to Mr. Carr as well as to you are 
my own personal acts, and in no way authorized by the 
Association. I am at a loss to discover in my letter the 
imperious tone of which you complain. 
“ I simply call your attention to statements in reference 
to your nomination, about which, viewed in the light of your 
subsequent action, there hangs an unpleasant mystery. 
“Your friend Mr. Carr vouched for your opinion in his 
letter of March 14, 1871, on the question of the hour, hence 
your name was included on the popular list, and this un¬ 
doubtedly conduced to your election. 
“Can you wonder that there is much astonishment and 
some indignation manifested by many members of the Society 
who voted for you, when they found you voting in a most un¬ 
expected and incomprehensible manner, and directly opposed 
to the views they presumed and believed you entertained ? 
“If, with others, I have been so erroneously attributing 
to you‘a change of opinion respecting poison regulations,’ 
it is a very pardonable mistake, when I had the authority of 
Mr. Carr’s letter implicitly fixed on my mind. 
“ The only moral that I and others may gain from this un¬ 
pleasant experience is, that when the prosperity aud safety of 
the Pharmaceutical Society and the freedom of the trade are 
at issue, it will be well, at any future election, to be certain 
of the sentiments of those who are to be entrusted with the 
power of representation. 
“ I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 
“Bobeet Hampson, 
“E. Smith, Esq. “Hon. Sec.” 
(Copt.) 
“8, The Strand, Torquay, 
“ July 2 8th, 1871. 
“ Sir,—Your letter of the 25 th inst. reached me only yester¬ 
day the 27th, just as I was leaving home, and I did not re¬ 
turn iu time to reply the same day. 
“ I cannot but express my great surprise to find that your 
letter of the 21st was £ your own personal act, and in no 
way authorized ’ by the Chemists’ Defence Association. It 
seems to me that this is a very awkward way out of a very 
awkward position. 
“ The very first paragraph of your former letter distinctly 
says, 1 the members of the Chemists’ Defence Association 
have expressed surprise aud indignation;’ moreover, the 
words Hon. Sec. are attached to your signature. Surely, had 
the letter not been intended as an official document, there 
could have been no meaning in attaching these words to 
your name nor in heading your letter with ‘the Chemists’ 
Defence Association,’ as weli as with a list of executive com¬ 
mittee ; neither could there have been the smallest necessity 
for saying a word concerning the surprise and indignation of 
the members of your Association. 
