September la, 1871.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
239 
Comsptima. 
*** A r o 'notice can be taken of anonymous communica¬ 
tions. Whatever is intended for insertion must be authenti¬ 
cated by the name and address of the writer ; not necessarily 
for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. 
The Examinations, North British Branch. 
Sir,—Will you allow me to ask Mr. Mackay on what 
grounds the Board of Examiners in Edinburgh, at the exami¬ 
nation on the 18th July, 1871, placed before the candidates 
for the Preliminary precisely the same questions that had 
been circulated throughout the country by the London Board 
at the general examination in the preceding January and 
April ? The questions in Latin, Arithmetic and English, to 
which I refer, were also published in the Journals of Jan. 21 
and April 22, 1871. 
“One who has Passed.” 
The Council op the North British Branch of the 
Pharmaceutical Socibty. 
Sir,—Had I anticipated that my remarks upon the conduct 
and working of this Council were to enter the breasts of Mr. 
Mackay and some of his friends with such bitterness, I cer¬ 
tainly would have hesitated before I entered on this discus¬ 
sion. As it is, however, I cannot see that there is any cause 
for regret being expressed or exhibited in regard to the 
matter, either by one party or another. Burns, in one of his 
thoughtful moments exclaims, “ Oh! that we could see our- 
sel’s as others see us,” snd I think our Edinburgh friends 
might do worse than endeavour to have a little of the insight 
the poet so much desired. They seem to think that because 
the late Mr. Jacob Bell decreed that a self-elected council 
should be established at Edinburgh, and that because they 
have gone on undisturbed in their own quiet way for twenty 
years, this state of matters should continue to exist, and, like 
Tennyson’s ‘ Brook,’ “ Plow on for ever.” 
It may have been all very well in those early days when 
the members of the Society in Scotland were a mere handful, 
and mostly confined to the Scottish capital, and when few 
took any active interest in the Society; but now that its mem¬ 
bership is extending far and wide, and these taking a much 
deeper interest in its affairs, I maintain that it is time some 
steps were taken to extend the influence and usefulness of 
the “North British Branch;” and I am glad at the acknow¬ 
ledgment Mr. Mackay has made, that some such scheme is 
lurking in the brain of some of the members of Council. I 
only hope that it will not be long until we have Mr. Mackay’s 
fair promises of amendment realized, and this scheme before 
us for discussion. 
I do not intend, at this time, to enter into the details of 
Mr. Mackay’s elaborate and eloquent epistle. I observe 
others have taken up the matter, and I shall leave it to them. 
I may, however, say, that my object in opening up the ques¬ 
tion is as much for the common good of the Society as any of 
Mr. Mackay’s past efforts have been; and I repeat, that I 
have not done so out of jealousy, or desire to accuse unwit¬ 
tingly, or even to lower in the estimation of the members the 
great efforts Mr. Mackay and his friends have made in past 
years to raise and uphold the status of the Society. I am 
confident of all this, and I believe I would be wanting alto¬ 
gether in that generous nature which characterizes our race, 
did I not acknowledge it. At the same time, I hold that 
since the passing of the Act in 1868,—and I say it without 
fear of contradiction,—the representatives of this Council 
have not acted towards the Scottish pharmacists in the man¬ 
ner they should have done, from their position and standing. 
In conclusion, Mr. Mackay accuses me of misapprehension. 
I find, however, I am not alone in this; the idea of having 
Examining Boards in all the large towns is an old theory, 
and which, to my mind, has been exploded long ago, I there¬ 
fore could not argue for anything of the kind. 
A word to Mr. Kinninmont. He has endeavoured to blow 
hot and cold in one breath; he is a man of peace, however, 
and abhors warfare, unless when there is real necessity for it; 
and being for many years back a member of this Council, 
although he has seldom taken an active part in its proceed¬ 
ings, he possibly considers there is no need for the present 
discussion. J. M. Fairlie, 
St. George's Cross, Glasgoxo, September 12th, 1871. 
Prescription Writing. 
Sir,—In the very serious case of Mr. Wall, whose death 
was caused by an overdose of morphia, it is stated in the 
medical evidence that there was great carelessness undoubt¬ 
edly on the part of the chemist. Another doctor said that, 
although he should not have made the blunder, yet it was 
quite possible that a person might have made a worse mis¬ 
take, as the writing of the prescription was very bad. These 
remarks induce me to ask the question, why do medical men 
write so carelessly and illegibly? The dispensers are at a 
loss frequently to make their prescriptions out satisfactorily. 
In my experience, extending over forty years and upwards, 
I have had prescriptions brought to me to prepare so difficult 
to decipher, that not even all the doctors in the town could 
make them out, and they have left me to use my own discre¬ 
tion as to their preparation. It will be admitted by those 
engaged in this onerous duty that we are often placed in this 
position, whereas there ought not to exist the slightest doubt 
in such matters. 
I hope these remarks may meet the eyes of those they are 
intended for. 
September 12th. M. P. S. 
Homoeopathic Chemists. 
Sir—May I be allowed to protest in the pages of the Phar¬ 
maceutical Journal against the late judgment of the 
Council in the case of Messrs. Gould and Wyborne ? I think 
that the gentlemen who voted against Mr. Williams’ motion 
would have done better to have remembered the maxim, “ In 
necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus charitas.” 
When gentlemen go up for the examinations, they are 
never asked whether they are homoeopaths or no, but are 
simply passed according to their merit, and it is very hard on 
homoeopathic chemists, who were in business three years be¬ 
fore the Act, if they be debarred from the same privileges as 
their allopathic confreres. 
As to Mr. Groves’ argument, “ the booksellers and others,” 
agents for homoeopathic medicines, do not, as far as I am 
aware, dispense doctors’ prescriptions, but simply sell the 
phials of medicine ready done up, and therefore would not be 
eligible under the Act. Also Mr. Groves, in thus despising 
booksellers, apparently forgets the many allopathic chemists 
in the country who are Italian warehousemen. 
H. Edmonds. 
20, Bishop’s Hoad, September 12th, 1871. 
Sir,—I fear that Mr. Groves and those members of the 
Council who supported his opposition to the admission of 
Messrs. Gould and Wyborn as members of the Society, on 
the ground of their being homoeopathic chemists, will be hor¬ 
rified to learn that their laudable endeavours to preserve the 
purity of the Society, and to prevent its contamination by 
the homoeopathic heresy, have been vain and fruitless, and 
that we are already infected by the plague. 
I know one homoeopathic chemist who is not merely M.P.S., 
but is also pharmaceutical chemist; and not only so, but 
having allowed his subscription to lapse for several years, 
paid up his arrears in 1868, and was restored to membership 
by a vote of the Council. Now, whether it was that the Coun¬ 
cil at that time was more liberally disposed, or that his here¬ 
tical opinions were not known, or that Mr. Groves was not 
there to protect the purity of the Society, or that his having 
taken the disease after arriving at years of discretion, affected 
the decision, I cannot say, but he was reinstated, and con¬ 
tinues to be a member, no one molesting him or questioning 
his right to be so. 
Without, however, entering into the question of right, I 
believe that as a matter of policy Mr. Groves and his friends 
have made a grave mistake in refusing to elect Messrs. Gould 
and Wyborn, for it should be remembered that if homoeo¬ 
pathy be true, it will succeed in spite of all the opposition 
they can offer; and if not true, it was very unwise to give it 
a fictitious importance by refusing two of its professors ad¬ 
mission to the Society, and thus, to a certain extent, making 
martyrs of them. 
The discussion shows also in a remarkable way how men’s 
prejudices influence their judgment. In the poison regula¬ 
tion case, “may” is held to mean “must;” whilst in the pre¬ 
sent instance, “ may,” which is as nearly “ shall ” as possible, 
is interpreted as meaning “you may do just as you please. ’ 
Surely if the former is a positive duty, the latter is equally so. 
Besides, when we remember that in future no one can 
