140 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[August 12,1871 
sively thus,—“ I say it is specially unfair, and I use the 
word with due consideration, to many country gentlemen, 
who are as deeply interested in this question as we are, to 
push the question of this amendment to a vote. So strongly 
do I feel upon this point, that if the amendment is pressed 
I may move the adjournment of the meeting.” 
The venerable Mr. "Waugh spoke with great warmth upon 
the attempt “ to steal a march,” and concluded by begging 
that the amendment might not be passed. Mr. Randall was 
equally emphatic upon the impropriety of attempting to pass 
such a resolution at a meeting which had received no public 
notice of it. With such expressions from honourable oppo¬ 
nents there can be no doubt as to the merits of the point in 
question. It is not for me to gauge the allowance due to 
those regulationists who, in the heat of argument, failed to ( 
see the limitation thus imposed; but some such allowance 
might be claimed for them, which is not due to the deliberate 
and repeated attempt to represent the vote of the Annual ; 
Meeting for something which it was not. This misrepresen¬ 
tation of the fact had been employed towards the Right 
Hon. W. E. Forster, and is reproduced in Mr. Sandford’s 
circular of July 10. What can that cause be that requires 
such suppressio veri and suggestio falsi ? I have now made 
good my late charge of employing ‘"'questionable means” so 
far as one argument is concerned. 
Mr. Sandford has attempted to prove too much. He re¬ 
minds one of the devoted fox-hunter, who argued for his ; 
favourite sport that “the men liked it, the horses liked it, 
the dogs liked it, and it wasn’t quite proved that the fox j 
didn’t like it!” That there was no such special liking in the 
House of Commons for the Pharmacy Bill was sufficiently 
shown by the statement of the Daily Neivs, that its with¬ 
drawal w r as received -with general approbation. 
As Mr. Sandford fears a state of “intolerable terrorism” 
as a consequence of our present simple form of representa¬ 
tive government, it is only just to his forethought to say that 
he had anticipated its incompatibility with such paternal 
rule as he seems to think best for us. In the original Bill of 
1868 a coup d’etat was attempted, which would have changed 
the basis of the Society’s government; and it was very late 
indeed when public attention was called to the fact that the 
Bill allowed to that 80 per cent, of the members belonging to 
the provinces just one-third of the seats at the Society’s 1 
Council, whilst two-thirds were reserved for those who pos- | 
sessed the many graces consequent upon living within ten 
miles of the General Post-Office. The local secretaries 
stepped in at this critical period, and the revolutionary at¬ 
tempt was quietly thwarted; but whenever our representa¬ 
tive system is discussed, this fact deserves record. I do not j 
hesitate to say that the existence of various Associations, ! 
formed specially to agitate questions of trade policy, is a j 
great evil; but at present it is a necessary one, and tire con¬ 
stitutional corrective lies in the annual elections. It is more 
difficult to suggest a remedy for a representative who feels j 
“terror” of his constituents. 
I have been sometimes asked by opponents of the late Bill | 
why we should not accept it, and freely use our power of 
amending schedule A, so that it should embrace only a few 
undoubted “ poisons ” ? This is a very natural question, and 
the answer suggests new aspects of the subject. The reason 
why a sweeping reduction of schedule A would be impossible 
is, that it would practically destroy the prohibitive power of 
the Act of 1868. Where that Act forbids a man to use a 
particular title, it is of very little consequence, for probably 
the words “medical hall ” over his door would bring him 
more pence. But when the Act forbids him to sell anything 
comprised in schedule A, its reality and the intention of Par¬ 
liament to coniine the sale of powerful medicines to a quali¬ 
fied class of men is shown. Suppose that you interpret 
schedule A as not including paregoric elixir (although that 
medicine has constantly caused the death of infants), the 
effect is to throw open the sale of paregoric elixir to every 
huckster in the kingdom, and thus defeat the intention of 
Parliament. It seems hardly credible that Mr. Sandford 
should, by treating paregoric elixir as not being a poison . 
within the meaning of the Act, have contributed to defeat; 
one great object of Parliament. As to the fact that ■we are I 
all left in a state of doubt whether paregoric elixir is a legal; 
“poison,” and whether fines of £5 belong to it or not, I can 1 
only say that any future Bill open to such doubts will be 
quickly seen through in the House of Commons, although it 
may not be transparent to those who are wilfully blind. 
Leeds, August Slit, 1871. Rich. Reynolds. I 
Sir,—Having carefully perused the interesting work by 
Sir Charles Bell ‘On the Hand,’ commended to me by Mr. 
Sandford, I am unable, although “we find every organ of' 
sense, with the exception of touch, more perfect in brutes- 
than in man,” to entertain “ the opinion of Anaxagoras, that 
the superiority of man is owing to his hand;” therefore I 
will, with your permission, endeavour to state more succinctly 
w hat I did mean in my former note. It is a great misfor¬ 
tune that theorists and men of great scientific attainments 
are apt to describe the common sense of ordinary men of 
business as “nonsense;” and as the “good deal of nonsense”' 
that “has been talked” came chiefly from those who had 
only the practical knowledge of their business to guide them,. 
I atn not surprised at any contempt with which their utter¬ 
ances are regarded. I doubt not the majority of your readers* 
understood that the education at the Square required by the- 
Examiners w'as the check I alluded to, and the only kind, 
needed to qualify a man to carry on his duties. If not, how 
is it mechanical arrangements, alarm bells, etc., are not in¬ 
cluded in the studies ? It was stated by Mr. Forster that 
regulations would not be requisite, if all were educated up to< 
the pharmaceutical standard. 
Hr. Greenhow, in his report, considered the examinations- 
“as practical as possible,” and the President in his report at 
the last Annual Meeting read:— 
“ I have, in conclusion, only to repeat what has already- 
been implied in my Report, that, in my opinion, the exami¬ 
nations of the Pharmaceutical Society are of such sort, and 
are conducted in such manner, as to constitute a sufficient 
guarantee to the public with regard to the qualifications of' 
persons admitted to register under the Pharmacy Act, 1868.”' 
This is the check which all friends of the Society have been.- 
striving to establish; but if the new signification is to be- 
accepted, then a different order of intellect wall be required,, 
and probably a new “ Bell scholarship” will be instituted, by 
which the sense of hearing would act as the sentinel of the brain.. 
In concluding with the following remarks, I believe I shall 
not be the first, by some hundreds, who have uttered similar- 
“nonsense.” That it is not to be wondered at, if those not 
of the trade should seek to bind on others mechanical substi¬ 
tute? for intelligence, but that those among ourselves, who- 
are educated, should themselves endeavour to be chained up¬ 
as dangerous individuals, and should provide their own fetters,, 
seems an attitude at once humiliating and unaccountable. 
August 8th, 1871. John Wade. 
Sir,—A word or two in reply to your editorial note in- 
reference to the orthography of my letter to Mr. Smiths 
Writing hurriedly, and under pressure of many duties, I. 
may have carelessly transposed some of my letters or mado 
some mistake; but is it not a needless function for you to> 
exercise to call attention to errors of this kind occurring in 
correspondence ? 
A word to Mr. Smith. This gentleman does not meet my 
charges, but takes refuge in impeaching my orthography- 
This doubtless indicates Mr. Smith’s orthographical eminence,, 
and demonstrates his innate gentlemanly nature and unusual: 
refinement of disposition. 
63, Piccadilly , Manchester, Robt. Hampsox. 
August 8 til, 1871. 
IV. F. C. —A formula for composition powder has been, 
given before, vol. i. p. 457. 
“ An Apprentice and Stibscribcr” ha 3 not sent his name- 
and address. 
A. B .—Macmillans. 
“ Veuve:’— ( 1 .) No. ( 2 .) No. _ 
Owen Jones. — (1 ) The practice is not illegal. ( 2 .) The re¬ 
tailing of poisons by r an unregistered person would be against 
the law, and the sale of poisons insufficiently labelled would 
be an additional offence. 
M. P. S. —Those persons who passed the “ Separate Exa¬ 
mination for Chemists in business ” were not supplied with 
diplomas similar to those awarded to successful candidates in 
the Major Examination. 
Communications, Letteks, etc., have been received from 
Mr. G. Brownen, Mr. R. Newall, Mr. J. Thompson, Mr. J. 
J. Thomas. Mr. A. W. Gerrard, Mr. Macmillan, Mr. R. 
Chessall, Mr. T. Griffin, Mr. W. R. Rednall, Mr. A. W. 
Bennett, Mr. W. H. Wilcox, Mr. J. Horsley, Mr. W. Wil¬ 
kinson, Mr. Fairlie, Mr. Postans, G. R. C., “Minor Exam.,”' 
“ One of the Candidates,” “ Galvanic,” “ An Apprentice.” 
