40 
PHARMACEUTICAL LEGISLATION. 
bers, as it is indisputable that the public would make no distinction between 
the two. 
I would therefore suggest that the present Founders and Members be called 
“ Fellows,” and the chemists and druggists proposed to be admitted by the 
Act, be enrolled as Members, say not of the Pharmaceutical Society, but of 
the Royal College of Pharmacy. Now is the proper time to make the change. 
There is something in a name, and the young student of Pharmacy would 
have a goal in view, which it would be his pride to reach. 
I would also propose that the newly-admitted Members should be eligible 
for the Fellowship on passing the Minor Examination, but that all future 
students, to obtain that honour, must pass the usual Minor and Major 
Examinations. 
I remain, Gentlemen, yours, etc., 
54, Stanhope Street, Liverpool. J. Thompson, M.S.D. 
TO THE EDITOR OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Dear Sir,—Although perhaps rather late in the day, I beg most strongly to 
protest against one particular clause in the new Pharmacy Bill, which I have 
not seen as yet taken up. I allude to the 4th Clause. Now I don’t so much care 
about letting in the chemists of full age to the Society, if we can get a good 
Pharmacy Bill through their co-operation, though that would be somewhat of 
a damper to us younger folks, unless there is some higher title, such as that of 
Fellow, as suggested by a correspondent in your Journal of this month. But 
to let in a lot of young fellows who are too lazy to qualify themselves to pass the 
examinations, just because they happen to have been apprenticed to the trade 
for two years, is, I maintain, utterly unjust and unfair to us, the examined 
apprentices. For myself, I should be eligible for election under this Act (having 
been apprenticed over two years), but my colleague in apprenticeship, who has 
passed the Classical Examination, but has not as yet served two years’ appren¬ 
ticeship, and such as he, would not be eligible, and I maintain this state of things 
is not as it ought to be. I do not believe that there are any apprentices so 
mean as to wish to creep in in such a niggardly manner,—and certainly there is 
no need to conciliate them if there are, as they could not offer much opposition 
to the Bill. I would much rather see the apprentices left out of the question 
altogether, and let them pass the examinations, if they mean to be chemists and 
druggists; but certainly, if any are let in without, those who are Registered 
Apprentices ought to have the preference. You will oblige by inserting this in 
the next number of the Journal, as I have not seen this part of the subject 
treated of before. 
Yours respectfully, 
68, Hiyh Street , Guildford, May 1 6th, 1867. Charles Fryer. 
TO THE EDITOR OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Sir,—I shall feel obliged if you will kindly allow me space to suggest a few 
alterations in the present Bill, which I believe will meet with the approval of 
all parties, inasmuch as chemists and druggists will, in the event of it becoming 
law, have as great an interest in the matter as the present members of the 
Society. Taking the Bill as it now stands, any one passing the Minor Examina¬ 
tion would have the privilege, whenever he pleased, of becoming a Member. 
Now this is perpetuating the titles of Member of the Pharmaceutical Society 
and Pharmaceutical Chemist, the difference between which will never be un- 
