PHARMACEUTICAL LEGISLATION. 
91 
tual talk of honour tends to nauseate the mind, and prostitutes the significance 
of the word, reminding us of those fair and frail creatures who are wont to 
talk much of their honour and virtue to make a certain proportion go a long 
way. 
I will, however, if it will save Mr. Mills one pang, promise him not to enter 
the Pharmaceutical Society under any new Act; I will join it as a Pharma¬ 
ceutical chemist if, as a fellow-pharmaceutist, he will aid me in making our 
Society what Jacob Bell projected, and if he will secure for us a claim indi¬ 
vidually as well as collectively to public esteem. 
The former object we shall obtain by bestowing a filial devotion to our Coun¬ 
cil, and securing the allegiance of the trade to its future action. 
The second it will be for Mr. Mills to gain. He can do so by now enun¬ 
ciating more manly principles, and ceasing to act in public the undignified and 
noisy role of a modern Xantippe. 
Truly yours, 
S. C. Betty, 
Member of the Executive Committee of Chemists and Druggists. 
1, Park Street, Gloucester Gate, Regent's Park, London. 
TO THE EDITOR OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Dear Sir,—“Stare per antiquas vias” appears to be the hope of Mr. John 
Mills, “ cum multis aliis ; ” but let me assure them, in the kindest manner pos¬ 
sible, that unless they are content to move with the age, they will inevitably be 
left high and dry, stranded on the rock of fifty years ago. 
Mr. Mills, it appears, stumbles at and objects to the assumption of the term 
“ Member of the Pharmaceutical Society,” by those who will be admitted by the 
proposed Bill. Frobably the public will not be able to discriminate between 
that title and the one of “ Pharmaceutical Chemist; ” but I suppose the public 
can discern the distinction between “ Member of the Pharmaceutical Society” 
and “ Member by examination of the Pharmaceutical Society.” If so, (and I 
don’t think any one disputes it, or why should examined members constantly 
use the latter term?) that disposes at once of Mr. Mills’s objection. 
The points in dispute between Mr. Mills and Mr. Betty will not, I imagine, 
suffer by being left in the hands of the latter gentleman. 
Possibly , “ if the country were thoroughly canvassed,” the majority would 
decide as recently did certain country clerical members of a University ; but I 
hope better things of our country members. 
I trust sincerely that the Council will continue to use their every endeavour 
to procure the passing of the proposed Bill, and that Mr. Mills and his friends 
will, however reluctantly, be compelled to acknowledge that advancement is 
decidedly preferable to stagnation—so nearly allied to retrogression. 
Yours, 
A Major Associate. 
TO THE EDITOR OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Sir,—I was not aware that the proposed Pharmacy Bill would dispossess any 
existing Pharmaceutical chemists of the title; but I gather from the letter of 
Mr. A. C. Wooton (in the July number) that such is likely to be the case, for 
he says, “ Many will lose the reward which they laboured so hard in their 
younger days to obtain.” 
I have always understood that the Pharmaceutical Society was founded with 
