8 IS 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS 
[April G, 1872 
Craspnime* 
*** No 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 
or publication, but as a guarantee of good faith . 
Election of Council. 
Sir,—Having moved with some little prominence in the 
election of Members of Council last year, I am desirous of 
saying a word or two in reply to Mr. Giles’ remarkable letter 
in the Journal of March the 30th. 
In the first place, with an inconsistency almost sublime in 
quality, he deprecates all action likely to prejudice the 
“personal selection ” of the members, yet the mam object of 
his letter is to prejudice the minds of members against those 
who do not think with him, and to canvass through the 
columns of the Journal for a personal friend. So much for 
Mr. Giles’ consistency. 
I do not think there is a pressing need to defend the action 
of those who moved in opposition to further needless penal 
enactments for regulating the storage of poisons, and in 
opposition to a small party who would have accepted the 
new bonds with devout acquiescence. 
The majority of the members in an effective manner, un¬ 
mistakably expressed their will on this question, and the 
Bill was withdrawn. This majority was not a mere “ fac¬ 
tion,” as Mr. Giles asserts, but the intelligent preponderance 
of the voice of the members themselves, which afforded 
“ the best guarantee for the creditable direction of the 
Society.” 
What does Mr. Giles mean when he characterizes the 
members who thus moved in opposition last year “ as the 
most tumultuous element ” ? 
This species of misrepresentation will not mislead any one 
who understood the important issues of last year’s contest, 
neither will it serve his self-evident purpose, but will rather 
recoil with advantage to those he would unfairly stigmatize. 
I will not follow the example of Mr. Giles by offering an 
opinion upon any of the candidates for the forth-coming 
election. I have no doubt the constituency, alive to the 
exigencies of the hour, is quite able, and will also make a 
wise selection. 
Robert Hampson, 
Late Son. Sec. to the Chemists' Defence Association. 
London, April 2nd, 1872. 
Sir,—I am surprised to find in your last number a letter 
from Mr. Giles commencing with a protest against the 
advocacy of any candidate for the office of councillor on 
party grounds, and concluding by advocating the election of 
one of his own party. 
He professes to give us “ general considerations affecting 
the choice of Councilbut the only consideration of any 
weight he offers, is that there ought to be “ a sufficient pro¬ 
portion of London members.” 
I quite agree with him that it would much facilitate the 
management of the Society’s affairs if the greater part of the 
Council could be elected from London pharmacists who would 
fairly represent the interests and feelings of the majority of 
their fellow-tradesmen. But it appears to me that a metro¬ 
politan residence is a consideration entirely subordinate to 
their qualifications as men of known ability in the adminis¬ 
tration of public affairs, and as men known to be in harmony 
with those for whom they are to act. So much importance 
do I attach to these latter circumstances that I would even 
elect all from the provinces, if that were necessary to avoid the 
anomalous position lately occupied by the Council who were 
acting in opposition to the majority of the constituents. 
The little weight which I acknowledge attaches to Mr. 
Giles’ first proposition is totally wanting in his second. He 
objects to provincial towns sending councillors for a number 
of years in succession. 
Mr. Edwards of Dartford, Mr. Mackay of Edinburgh, Mr. 
Savage of Brighton, and various others have held seats in 
the Council for a number of years in succession, not that 
Dartford or Brighton had special claims, but that they were 
fortunate enough to have men of representative character 
and administrative ability who were able to devote time to 
the affairs of the Society. Nor can I see any reasonable 
ground for objecting to two members being sent from the 
same town; it is rather an advantage than otherwise that 
members be not entirely isolated, the opportunity for conversa¬ 
tion upon topics of interest between Council meetings is not 
without value in clearing up difficulties, and so saving the 
time of the meeting. If Mr. Stoddart and Mr. Giles were- 
both in office, that would not prevent me voting for 
Mr. Schacht; not that three councillors are required to give 
Clifton a fair representation, but that Mr. Schacht is well 
known for the qualifications which would justify his being 
elected to represent Clifton, Newcastle, or any other town. 
Mr. Giles is very unhappy in his objection to Liverpool 
and Manchester between them sending three members. If 
what I have already said were not a suilicient reply to hi& 
objection, we might, on his own principle, justify the appoint¬ 
ment. Lancashire, being one of the most populous counties- 
in England, should naturally send more members to Council 
than others. But it is unnecessary to say even this in justi¬ 
fication, for it is well known that Messrs. Brown and Woolley 
were not elected in consequence of Manchester requiring any 
special representation at Bloomsbury Square, but because- 
the provincial members of the Society felt that the London 
members of Council were not in harmony with their con¬ 
stituents, and Messrs. Brown and Woolley were elected to- 
represent the provinces. 
Mr. Giles also attempts to draw a parallel between the- 
Council and the Board of Examiners, but the difference is so- 
palpable as scarcely to require a reply; any one can see that 
science is acknowledged the same by all classes of the com¬ 
munity, but that politics and business interests vary accord¬ 
ing to the circumstances and neighbourhoods in which these- 
classes are placed. 
So much for the preliminary portion of Mr. Giles’ letter, 
nor do I find the conclusion any more satisfactory. 
When in the first paragraph he expresses a hope “ that 
members may be permitted to exercise their own choice,” the- 
exercise of which has never been interfered with, we can only 
suppose he means—uninfluenced by the public advocacy of 
any individual, or it may be, he would only object to such 
influence being used in furthering the interests of a party, 
but in this respect he is most unfortunate. While he can¬ 
not but see that as regards the coming election, he is the- 
first to break the rule he advocates as far as it relates to 
advocacy of individual claims, I can only suppose that he is- 
not aware how much his letter appears to onlookers to be- 
written for party purposes. 
Mr. Giles was conspicuous in the attempt to force the- 
compulsory observance of a code of regulations for the 
storage of poisons, which did not meet with general approval • 
this of itself should induce a careful inquiry into the merits of 
his nominee. The grounds upon which he recommends him 
appear to be, first, that he is a Londoner; second, that his- 
father was a president of the Society; third, that he was a 
fellow-student of Mr. Giles; and fourth, that he is the 
fortunate successor to a lucrative business of high repute. 
I would be sorry to think that these vrere the best recom¬ 
mendations that could be given to Mr. Savory, but they are 
such as Mr. Giles offers, and we have to consider if they are 
such as should induce us to elect him one of those who may 
have to pilot us through troublous times. 
Looking back to last summer, and considering the state¬ 
ments of Mr. Sandford, who may be regarded as the spokes¬ 
man of his party, we find him (August 5th) expecting—pro¬ 
bably hoping—that Parliament will come upon us again 
shortly with something more stringent, and, to us, more ob¬ 
jectionable, than the bill thrown out last session; and Mr. 
Sandford, no doubt, counting upon the assistance of the 
signers of the circular which he published in July 22nd, 1871, 
enabling him to carry the expected measure, as they hoped 
to have carried the late bill, in opposition to the wishes of the 
majority of the trade, it behoves us to elect such men as we 
have good reason to put confidence in. It will be remem¬ 
bered how much disappointment was felt by some provincial 
electors who voted for Mr. Carr and Mr. Smith in the expec¬ 
tation (was it a tacit understanding ?) that they would vote 
against the adoption of any compulsory regulations for the 
storage of poisons, yet claiming the right to vote the con¬ 
trary way as soon as elected. With this before us, we ought 
to have substantial grounds for believing that our candidates 
would vote in a satisfactory way should the great question of 
the past year again arise. 
Mr. Savory’s name not being known to us as a writer on 
pharmaceutical politics, we are obliged to draw such conclu¬ 
sions as we can from the position taken by his nominator at 
