April G, 1872.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
819 
the meeting where the Council had so far yielded to external 
pressure as to propose recommendation s for voluntary adop¬ 
tion instead of compulsory enactment; and from the signa¬ 
ture of Savory and Moore being appended to the circular by 
which Mr. Sandford endeavoured to make the members of 
Parliament believe that the amendments to the proposed bill 
had completely removed the objections to it (see Journal, 
July 22nd, 1871). Of course, all who signed that circular are 
responsible for the assertion that the proposed regulations 
were highly conducive to public safety, and were practised 
in the best-regulated establishments ; yet, when respectfully 
invited (August 19th, 1871; p. 159) to show, m some few de¬ 
tails, how they overcame some of the anomalies and difficul¬ 
ties which had frequently been pointed out, not one of the 
hundred and twenty was found willing to give the informa¬ 
tion which should have been valuable to the trade at large, 
and smoothed the way to an ultimate settlement of a long 
•disputed point. 
Until the appearance of Mr. Giles’ letter, I intended 
simply to consider the bearing of these observations and vote 
accordingly, without saying anything to influence the votes 
of my neighbours; but since he has offered for the guidance 
of voters general considerations which do not satisfy my 
judgment, I am induced to make such additions as appear 
to me to have more weight. 
I have endeavoured to avoid saying anything likely to be 
•offensive to Mr. Savory, with whom my transactions have 
always been most agreeable; but it is one of the difficulties of 
provincial voters that, in the event of a candidate not being 
a writer to the Journal, his views are necessarily almost 
unknown. 
Barnard Proctor. 
Heiccastle-on-Tyne, April lsf, 1872. 
Sir,—I have no desire to reopen the discussion on the 
Poison Regulations, but as Mr. Giles has thought proper to 
impugn the action taken by the Defence Associations in re¬ 
ference to the election of Council last year, I wish to remark 
that since that question was the point on which the election 
turned, and the great majority of the trade was opposed to 
the enforcement of those restrictions, it was a matter of im¬ 
portance that the opinions of the candidates should be known, 
and the practice he complains of was of necessity adopted, 
seeing that the electors could not become acquainted with 
“ qualifications ” by any other means. 
I would also remind the members that although the ques¬ 
tion of compulsory regulations has been in abeyance since 
the withdrawal of the Pharmacy Act last year, it has pro¬ 
moters out of the Society, and supporters in; and if brought 
forward again, our only hope of successfully resisting its en¬ 
forcement is to be careful in sending men to the Council 
who will meet any ^attempt at such vexatious and unjust 
legislation with the most determined resistance. 
Mr. Giles speaks of a “ faction list,” but I would be glad 
to know whether he considers it a more factious proceeding 
for a committee to put out a list of candidates acceptable to 
the majority, or for an individual member to attempt to en¬ 
force compulsory regulations on the trade at the annual 
meeting when they had been withdrawn by the Council, and 
when many persons who would have opposed them stayed 
away, believing;the question settled; or for another member 
to obtain the signatures of a few London and provincial firms 
to a document “presuming to point out that all objections 
had been removed,” and sending it privately to members of 
Parliament, asking them to support a Bill which the majo¬ 
rity of the Council, and all the provincial associations, were 
endeavouring to the utmost of their power to prevail on Par¬ 
liament to reject. 
As to the proportion of London representatives, I do not 
think any of us would object to their number being increased 
if they were men who understood and would care for provin¬ 
cial interests; but, unfortunately, with but few exceptions, 
their thoughts have not been our thoughts, and their wishes 
not our wishes, consequently, we have been obliged to send 
those who do know our wants and will uphold our interests; 
whilst the question of a man’s locality seems to me of little 
importance if he be a suitable and able representative, neither 
do I see any very great objection to the “ election of two mem¬ 
bers of Council from the same provincial city,” if their qua¬ 
lifications be otherwise good. 
I do not care to urge the special claims of Lancashire to 
fiend three members to the Council, more especially now that 
by the retirement of Mr. Woolley the number is reduced to 
two; but I think it will be allowed that, if wealth, popula- 
tion, industry, and influence are taken into account, Lanca¬ 
shire is quite as much entitled to send three representatives 
as that corner of the kingdom in which Torquay, Weymouth, 
and Bristol are situated, is to send a similar number, or the 
South Coast, including those three towns, to send five. With 
regard to the double representation of Manchester, which 
has been a grievous thorn in the side of so many, and of 
which Mr. Giles says, “ we all know the means by which it 
was accomplished,” I venture to tell him that there are not 
six people out ot Manchester why are acquainted with all 
the circumstances by which it was brought about, and he 
certainly is not one of the number; and I say further, that 
it was neither sought for by the Manchester chemists, nor by 
the candidates themselves. 
As regards Mr. Savory’s candidature, I have only to say 
that as far as I am concerned, individually, I should be glad to 
see him elected ; but I cannot help thinking that his success 
would have been more promoted had his nominator refrained 
from advocating his cause, for if there is one man less likely 
than another to influence the constituency in favour of any 
candidate, it is Mr. Giles. 
W. Wilkinson. 
Cheetham Hill, Manchester. 
Sir,—May I be allowed to ask in what school Mr. Giles 
studied logic, or by what mode of reasoning he comes to the 
conclusion that whilst it is highly irregular and undesirable 
for a body of gentlemen to unite in seeking to promote the 
election of certain others, whose views on pharmaceutical 
politics they publicly make known to the constituency, it is 
yet perfectly justifiable for one solitary individual, whilst 
deprecating the proceeding in others, himself to have recourse 
to strikingly similar means in order to secure the election of 
a personal friend P 
Mr. Giles evidently approves of the system which he 
denounced in spite of himself, the last clause of the first 
paragraph of his letter embodying the very idea to the 
fullest extent ; for, apart from advertising the views of candi¬ 
dates, it is self-evident that an overwhelming majority of the 
constituency must be totally ignorant even of tiie names of 
many of the gentlemen, until they annually receive the list 
from which they are called upon to select their representa¬ 
tives, how then can they choose men of “ known qualifica¬ 
tions ” without being previously informed ? 
If Mr. Giles will forgive the liberty, I would venture to 
paraphrase the clause, to which I refer thus—“ Let us hope 
that these efforts to secure a true representative Council may 
not long need repeating, but that for the future our members 
may be permitted to exercise their own choice of men, by 
having the qualifications and views of candidates upon the 
leading questions of pharmaceutical politics clearly made 
known beforehand by the gentlemen themselves, which alone 
will afford the best guarantee for the proper election of 
Council.” 
Edwin B. Yizer. 
63, Lupus Street, Belgravia South. 
April 3rd, 1872. 
Early Closing. 
Sir,—I have read with much pleasure the letters on the 
above subject which have appeared recently in the columns 
of the Journal. Seeing, however, that you deem it un- 
advisable to publish the opinions of all your correspondents, 
I should not have troubled you but for the reason that, 
having had my own period of daily labour shortened during 
the past four months by an hour and a half per day, I thought 
it might interest some of your justly dissatisfied correspon¬ 
dents to know how I attained that desirable end. Early in 
the spring of 1871, a petition was presented from the assist¬ 
ants and apprentices to all the chemists and druggists in 
this neighbourhood, requesting their signatures to an agree¬ 
ment to close their respective places of business not later 
than 8 o’clock p.M. 
Only five, however, of the six chemists could be induced to 
concede to this request, the sixth not being able to see how 
any possible good could accrue from the adoption of the plan; 
and hence, for the time, our object was frustrated. In the 
winter, however, prompted by our all-but success in the 
spring, and by the simultaneous adoption of the nine hours’ 
