612 
LETTER FROM MR. EUOTT. 
Permit me, Sir, in concluding this hurried letter, respectfully to address a 
word of remonstrance to those gentlemen who constitute the Pharmaceutical 
Council. They would have Parliament believe that their Bill is produced out 
kindness for their non-pharmaceutical brethren. Every Member of Parliament 
who has read the bitter tirades put into the mouth of Dr. Brady and Lord 
Elcho, and repeated with increased venom in the ‘ Standard ’ newspaper, will, 
as sensible men, receive such a profession with incredulity, and find a more pro¬ 
bable, but less creditable motive for their zeal. 
Am I doing them injustice? Are they really sincere? Can it be possible 
they are only evidencing their love for their non-pharmaceutical brethren by 
abusing them ? Seriously, do they desire to conciliate them ? I will try to be¬ 
lieve it. Then let that Council cease at once to insult them by ranking them 
with the low grade of huckstering druggists who belong as much to the Pharma¬ 
ceutical Society as to the United Society, which, they must admit, represents 
the intelligence, the respectability, and the energy of the non-pharmaceutical 
chemists of the country. Do they wish the non-pharmaceutists of the country 
to promote the usefulness, the prosperity, the dignity of the Pharmaceutical 
Society, as the collegiate institution of the trade ?—then let the wise counsel of 
Mr. Procter, Mr. Yizer, and Mr. Reynolds prevail in the eleventh hour, and a 
friendly smile and a willing hand be extended to the United Society, and all may 
yet be well. 
I am, Sir, your obedient Servant, 
20, New Ormond Street , W.C ., C. Buott. 
April 20, 1865. 
[We willingly comply with Mr. Buott’s request to insert the foregoing letter. 
If, in his interview with Sir George Grey, he had stated that the charge of mis¬ 
representation which he brought against our local secretaries was merely founded 
on inference, his accusation might have passed unchallenged. Every man is 
entitled to his own judgment, and by different minds the same effect may be 
traced to different causes. We do not wonder that an effect so startling as the 
expression of approval of the Bill prepared by the Pharmaceutical Society by 
members of the society which Mr. Buott represents, should be ascribed by him 
to /my cause but the right one. Mr. Buott may talk of “ moral impossibilities ” 
and “ inevitable conclusions ,” but these are not evidence; and, when speaking of 
a charge founded on such a basis, we cannot do better than adopt the expression 
he himself offers us, that u an accusation affecting the reputation of others , un¬ 
supported by evidence , is slander and untruth.' 1 ' 1 
As to the “facts” which Mr. Buott produces, we still say they do not prove 
his case, and still deny that any deception was used. The Bill itself accompa¬ 
nied the memorial, and if, on reading it, men could not understand it, or if they 
chose to sign without reading it, the fault was their own; and as to “ repudia¬ 
tion ,” we have taken some pains to ascertain where it occurred and are unable 
to do so. —Ed. Pharm. Journal.] 
We have received a communication from Mr. Slugg, of Manchester, in reply to some 
observations by Mr. Richardson, which appeared in our last number. Mr. Slugg depre¬ 
cates the language used by Mr. Richardson, and observes, “ I did not sign both petitions; 
I did not admit that I had, and it is nowhere stated that I made such admission. I can¬ 
not but express my surprise that a gentleman, who writes F.C.S. at the end of his name, 
should think so loosely, and read so carelessly, as not to perceive the difference between 
an admission to have signed a memorial to the Pharmaceutical Council, and an admis¬ 
sion to have signed two petitions to Parliament. I did admit that I had done the former, 
