September 9,1871.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
219 
hers, whether in England or Scotland, have the power of 
voting for the legally-recognized members of London Coun¬ 
cil, whether they reside on the one side of the Tweed or the 
■other; but there is not and cannot be a second or antago¬ 
nistic Council in Edinburgh or anywhere else; and if Scotch 
members generally were entitled thus to vote for the N. B. 
Branch Council, clearly our English friends would have the 
same right and privilege. But oiir constitution is purely 
local, and our doings and actings must stand for what they 
are worth. Courtesy and a desire to cultivate good feeling, 
have induced us to try and get our friends in the country to 
co-operate with us, but hitherto, I regret to say, with little 
success. 
The attempt made by your correspondent of paraphrasing 
the proceedings and actions of the Society in Edinburgh, 
may be considered by Mr. Fairlie as clever, but to my mind 
it is as ungenerous as it is unjust, while in some respects his 
statements are at variance with truth. When Mr. Fairlie is 
^ible to take museum, library, money grant, honour, and all 
from us, then Macaulay’s prediction will be near its fulfilment, 
only changing the site and seat of the savage from London to 
Edinburgh; while, to extend the simile, Arthur’s Seat may 
be expected to be seen as an ornament in front of the Glasgow 
Royal Exchange. As for the hundred and odd pounds so 
lavishly expended annually for so many years in Edinburgh, 
I am constrained to say it only exists in Mr. Fail-lie’s imagi¬ 
nation, and I would recommend him to examine bygone 
accounts, and wait the issue of the destination of the last 
grant made by the Society to its branch in Edinburgh, before 
he indulges in such a hasty and wild statement. It may, 
however, cause some surprise for Mr. Fairlie to know, that a 
strong feeling exists in the minds of many, that as in Edin¬ 
burgh there has really existed, and still continues to show 
■vitality, a part of such a powerful Society as the Pharma¬ 
ceutical, there ought to be an establishment more worthy the 
position and name of the North British Branch, and that 
possibly such feelings may yet find an outlet in some prac¬ 
tical form. 
With regard to your new and unnamed correspondent who 
•shrouds himself and his habitation under the letters “ 31. P. S.” 
let me say that when Mr. Bell came to Scotland about the 
1852 Bill, he paid a visit to Glasgow, and many still alive 
can testify to the stirring appeals which he made at a public 
meeting held there, for sympathy and aid, in the great and 
good work in which he was engaged. Let a review of what 
Glasgow has done since then in matters relating to pharmacy 
tell the amount of his success, and prove whether I was wrong 
in stating that for many years the Metropolis of the West 
has been in a state of lethargy. If “31. P. S.” knew in detail 
all the woi-k which “ Mr. Mackay and his Edinburgh friends” 
have had to do in their own locality during the same period, 
to uphold the character and standing of the Society, he would, 
I am 6ure, free them from the charge of having neglected 
Glasgow or any other town in Scotland. The fact is there 
ought to be neither recrimination nor jealousy. We are all 
handed together for one common good, and I can truly say 
it causes me personally very much regret, when attacks such as 
the present are made, for I have yet to learn to what extent 
Mr. Fairlie or his friends in Glasgow ax-e injured or aggi-ieved, 
by gentlemen acting for the Society of which they form a 
part, under a distinctive name, but not interfering in any 
way, with the pi-oceedings of members of the same Society, in 
any part of Great Britain, For I assert that the Local 
Council hei'e, under a name which they have now used for 
about twenty years, are fully entitled to meet, deliberate 
and decide on any matter connected with the Society; and 
having done so, to send up unchallenged to the Council in 
London such an expression of their opinion ; and this being a 
free counti-y, it is equally open to the committee of any other 
town to do the same thing. 
One word more to “ 3I.P.S.” To carry out his original idea 
■of moving the Board further west, in order to save young 
men their expenses in coming to Edinburgh, he must apply 
the same argument to all parts of the country, England, 
Scotland and Wales, and thus establish Boards, not in the 
west only, but throughout the length and breadth of the east, 
west, north and south. 
I trust our future conduct in Edinburgh will so commend 
itself to Mr. Fairlie, that he will be prevented from coming, 
torch in hand, with such fiery intentions as that of setting 
“ the heather on fire.” It is true we cannoi draw supplies of 
the cool element from the grand natural reservoir, Loch 
Katrine, but he may rest assured he will find plenty willing 
and able hands to assist in preventing the utter ruin of our 
Branch hei*e, by such a conflagration as he seems to threaten 
in the closing portion of his letter. 
Streathearn House, Crieff, John Mackay. 
4 th Sept. 1871. ______ 
Sir,—The letter of Mr. Fairlie, in last week’s Journal, con¬ 
tains statements as to the conduct and motives of our Edin- 
bui'gli brethren so directly at variance with my experience, 
that I feel bound to pi-otest against their being received as 
correct. 
During a long acquaintance with Edinburgh pharmacists, 
dating from 1853, I have never seen any evidence of the 
jealousy attributed to them by Mr. Fairlie, but have always 
found them earnestly desirous that our city should take a 
place in pharmacy in accordance with its rank and import¬ 
ance in the State, perfectly willing that examinations should 
be held here if necessary, and ready to aid in anything that 
might further our progress. 
No doubt the Council of the North British Branch is 
elected by Edinbui-gh membei-s, but the fact that three of its 
number belong to Glasgow shows that these elections are not 
influenced by a spirit of exclusiveness. 
In addition, Mr. John Mackay repeatedly ux*gcd us to 
endeavour to send a representative to the London Council, 
and when Mr. Frazer, of our city, consented to be a candi¬ 
date for the office, his nomination was at once welcomed in 
Edinburgh, and evei-y effort made to secure his election. 
Mr. Fairlie rightly says, that we have received nothing but 
kindness at the hands of our Edinbui-gh brethren, and I 
regret extremely that he should have allowed himself to pub¬ 
lish such charges against a body of men of whom he can com¬ 
paratively know so little. 
Alexander Kinninmoxt. 
G9, South Portland St., Glasgoic, September Gth, 1871. 
Poison Regulations. 
Sir,—Mr. Schweitzer, of Brighton, in his letter of the 28th 
ult., assumes that all who support Government interference 
in the internal arrangements of the drug shops of this 
country, act upon the much talked of “regulations” in the 
stoi'ing of poisons in their establishments; and that all who 
object to Government interference in the matter do so be¬ 
cause they are unwilling to act on such regulations in the 
conducting of their business. Mr. Schweitzer further assumes 
that the opposition to Government interference is confined to 
the pharmacists of the “ back streets of London and other 
towns.” When Mr. S. has proved these theories of his to 
be also facts, it will be time enough to discuss the arguments 
founded on them. 
Glasgow, September 2nd, 1871. Frazer and Green. 
Sir,—Last week Mr. Scliweitzei-, in the opening sentence 
of his letter, stated that the Brighton poisoning case was the 
immediate cause of its appearance, though, as he wisely 
makes no further reference to it, we have, I think, the right 
to claim his assistance in tracing the connection between 
cause and effect. I say wisely, because the Brighton case 
proves, if it proves anything, the small value of the legal 
safeguards of which he is so strong an advocate. On the 
evidence of good taste and good temper contained in his 
reference to “ back streets,” I need make no remark,—such 
insinuations can only harm those who make use of them, and 
are best left unanswered; but why should Mi-. Schweitzer attach 
so extravagant a value to the opinions of the gentlemen who 
represent the leading houses he mentions? That, indi¬ 
vidually, the views of many of them are entitled to great 
respect I should bo the last to deny, but that respect is in no 
way increased by the accidental circumstance, that they have 
the right to hide their identity under the signatures of his¬ 
toric firms; on the contrary, I think it may be fairly argued 
that this is a question on which their views are entitled to 
less weight than on many others connected with the trade. Is 
it not a fact that they carry on business under conditions, 
diffei-ing so materially from those of smaller concerns, espe¬ 
cially in poor neighboui-hoods, as to afford them no experi¬ 
ence on which to form a sound estimate of the difficulties and 
vexations which beset their less fortunate brethren ? As to 
the remainder of the letter, it is simply irrelevant. How 
often must we i-emind our opponents that it is not the sale 
but the storing of poisons that is under discussion ? Is it 
not strong evidence of the weakness of their case, that they 
