120 
the Pharmaceutical journal and transactions. 
[August 5,1871. 
“ It is not difficult to see that if I had been constituted of 
that plastic material of which dummies and delegates are 
commonly made, the Chemists’ Defence Association would 
have proved itself pretty identical with its Hon. Sec.; hut 
now, the Association finding itself in a false and untenable 
position, is anxious to place the onus of its false step on the 
shoulders of its unfortunate Hon. Sec. 
“ Need I point out, Sir, how neatly you have impaled your¬ 
self on the horns of a dilemma ? Either your former letter 
was authorized by your Association or it was not. If the 
affirmative be true, then you stand convicted by your second 
letter; but if the negation be true, then as an honourable 
man and a gentleman you are bound promptly to withdraw 
the letter, with its misleading official appendages, and tender 
a suitable apology. 
“ I must remind you that I before refused to enter into 
correspondence, simply because you were acting as the repre¬ 
sentative of an Association having no authority, and conse¬ 
quently no locus standi, and for this very same reason I am 
still unable to cori’espond with you touching the other 
matters alluded to in your letters, so long as the words Hon. 
Sec. are appended to your name, or your communications 
headed with a list of some self-constituted committee. 
“ I again repeat my readiness and willingness to reply to 
any courteous communication from any gentleman. 
“ This correspondence will be published. 
“ Yours, 
“Edward Smith. 
CC R. Hampson, Esq., Hon. Sec. to the 
“ Chemists’ Defence Association.” 
“ The Chemists’ Defence Association, 
“63, Piccadilly, Manchester, July 29 th, 1871. 
“ Sir,—The false issue you attempt to raise in your letter 
of the 28th inst. is both evasive and irrevelent, and is scarcely 
worthy of notice. 
“ I distinctly affirm in my preceeding letter that this corre¬ 
spondence is strictly unofficial, or, in other words, that I 
have not been instructed by the Executive Committee either 
to begin or carry on this correspondence. Yet, to suit your 
own special purpose, you impugn the veracity and honour of 
the Executive Committee of the Chemists’ Defence Associa¬ 
tion, and likewise my own, by calling in question my affir¬ 
mations. 
“ I shall not reaffirm my statements, as it is of very little 
consequence whether you beleive or doubt them. 
“In nearly all my correspondence in reference to matters 
pertinent to poison regulations I have used the printed note- 
paper headed with a list of the Executive Committee, and 
have signed myself Hon. Sec. Hence I used the same note- 
paper in writing to you. 
“ It is likewise certainly true that ‘ the members of the 
Chemists’ Defence Association, and those generally who have 
opposed the enactment of further compulsory poison regula¬ 
tions, have expressed much surprise and some indignation at 
the support you have given to the members of the Pharma¬ 
ceutical Council who are in favour of further legislative 
enactments of a restrictive character.’ 
“I simply stated this fact with others; as, for instance, 
the guarentee your friend Mr. Carr gave for your opinions 
on the poison regulation question, and your consequent ap¬ 
pearance with him on the successful list, as an excuse suffi¬ 
cient for troubling you with my letter of July 2lst. 
“ It appears, however, useless to continue this correspon¬ 
dence, as you are not disposed to give a gentlemanly credence 
to my statements; and as you show no willingness to assign 
any reason for voting contrary to the just expectations of the 
majority of the constituents who returned you to represent 
them on the Pharmaceutical Council at a most important 
crisis, I shall not therefore reply to any further communica¬ 
tion you may make. 
“ I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 
“ Robt. Hampson, Hon. Sec. 
“E. Smith, Esq.” 
(Copt.) 
“ 8, The Strand, Torquay, 
July 31, 1871. 
“ Sir,—I have this morning received your note of the 29th. 
“ Yours, 
“Edward Smith. 
“E. Hampson, Esq., Hon. Sec. 
<c Chemists’ Defence Association, Manchester 
The Council op the North British Branch op the 
Pharmaceutical Society. 
Sir,—Although very much occupied with the arrangements^ 
connected with the approaching Conference meeting here, 
I feel it would be unjust to myself and others did I not reply 
to a letter which appealed in your Journal on Saturday last, 
from Mr. Fairlie, of Glasgow, headed “The Council of the 
North British Braneh of the Pharmaceutical Society.” 
I am the more disposed to notice this communication 
because I find something like a threat, or at all events a hope- 
expressed, that at some future time the constitution and 
history of this Council may be discussed. 
I understand that your correspondent has not been many 
months a member of the Pharmaceutical Society, which, to 
my mind, explains much of what he ha3 stated; for, had it 
been otherwise, he must have observed, for many years past, 
that an Annual Meeting of the Society has taken place in 
Edinburgh, at which a Report from this very Council was 
read, approved, and sent to London for publication. At the- 
same time, by the decision of these meetings, composed of town 
as well as country members, the Council for the next year 
was duly elected, as well as the other office bearers of the 
Society in Edinburgh. If Mr. Fairlie will take the trouble 
to obtain sight of a few of the back volumes of our Journal, 
he will find, usually in the May number, an account of those- 
meetings, and a list of the gentlemen composing the Council, 
from which he will observe, that the oldest and best known 
pharmacists are among the number; and although we have, 
as he will see, been honoured more than once by the presence- 
of some of our Glasgow friends at these very meetings, our 
regret has always been, that we have failed to induce more of 
our country friends to be present. 
One word as to the origin of “ the high-sounding title.” 
In 1852, when the PharmacyAct passed, there was a clause- 
giving Edinburgh an examining body, with the same power 
and jn’ivileges as the examiners in London,—a fact which will 
be made apparent on reference to the proceedings already' 
referred to, for one portion of the business each year was to 
nominate the members of the Board of Examiners in Edin¬ 
burgh, and these were forwarded to London for confirmation 
by the Privy Council. The names comprising this Board will, 
speak for themselves. At the time of the passing of this Act,, 
and to enable the new machinery to be fairly set a-going, the- 
late Mr. Jacob Bell very kindly paid Scotland a visit, and it 
was at his suggestion that the Council was elected, the name 
bestowed, and the operation of the North British Branch 
ever since continued. A museum and library have both been 
in existence since then, and belong to the parent Society,, 
while the Council referred to have had funds regularly sent 
from London, with which to carry on the business of the So¬ 
ciety in Edinburgh. In other words, the North British 
Branch of the Society here has always had a different position 
to that of any other iocal association in England, Scotland, or 
Wales, and will, I hope, continue to do so. 
Pharmaceutically, Glasgow has been for many years asleep, 
and no one rejoices more than I do at the awakening which 
has taken place; and from whatever cause this has arisen, I 
can honestly say, go on and prosper. But, with all due defe¬ 
rence to the energetic secretary of the West of Scotland De¬ 
fence Association, I must ask him not to censure or insinuate 
where there is no real foundation for doing the one or the 
other. As previously stated, the name of the local Council 
here has been long known and its existence understood; and 
it must be distinctly remembereGl that there was no pretence 
made to mislead in regal’d to the opinion of this Council as to 
the poison regulations, beyond what was expressed in the 
minute, a copy of which, at the request of the meeting, I 
simply sent to London. John Mackay, Hon. Sec. 
Edinburgh, July 31s£, 1871. 
H. FdlJcer .—There is little doubt that, as you suggest, the 
word is a misspelling of “ Origanum.” 
A. Pickering .—We have received your letter, but we are 
unable, from want of space, to insert the communications of 
private individuals with Members of Parliament. 
Communications, Letters, etc., have been received from 
Dr. Procter, Mr. J. Borland, Mr. Fairlie, Mr. M. C. Cooke,. 
Mr. Dymond, Mr. Leay, Mr. G. Harvie, Mr. W. H. J. Shaw,. 
Mr. H. J. Walker, Mr. J. T. Jones, Mr. R. Nevvall, Mr. J- 
Thompson, Mr. J. J. Thomas, Mr. E. W. Giles, W. N. G. L.„ 
W. F. C., G. E. C., “ Gramme.” 
