362 
GLASGOW CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS* ASSOCIATION. 
drum, thallium, and indium, had been discovered by its means since the year 1860; and 
surely, said the lecturer, “ judging from what has been already accomplished in such a 
short period, are we not justified in the idea that many of the old-established so-called 
chemical facts will be revolutionized by the new method ?” In vindication of that idea 
he traced the history of the discovery of the above-named new metals. The various 
processes necessary in order to obtain the different spectra were mentioned; so also were 
described the modes of examining any particular spectrum more minutely, as well as the 
means of registering the positions of the different spectral lines or bands. Having de¬ 
scribed the difference between the foregoing method and that branch of the subject de¬ 
nominated “ micro-spectroscopy,” the lecturer also adduced several interesting facts in 
proof of the great practical value of the latter mode, one especially in a medico-legal 
inquiry. 
At the close of the reading of the papers, the President invited discussion. Mr. 
Evans observed that he had listened with great pleasure to the papers which had been 
read. Mr. Hill’s paper had gone through a very difficult subject in a very concise way ; 
and he had shown clearly the weak as well as the strong points of the Pharmacy Act. 
A discussion then ensued, in which Mr. A. Balkwill, Mr. Herron, Dr. Prance, and others 
took part. In answer to questions, Mr. Evans said that in the next session of Parlia¬ 
ment something would probably be done with regard to dispensers in hospitals and per¬ 
sons of that class. Mr. Herron suggested that it would be well if the law were altered 
in such a way that a medical man should be obliged to put “ B. P.” on his prescriptions. 
Mr. Evans said the law was perfectly clear that the dispensing chemist was bound by 
the law to observe the British Pharmacopoeia, but there were cases in which he would 
have to use his own discretion, If he got a prescription dated 1864 he must not make 
it up according to the Pharmacopoeia of 1867. The responsibility then rested with the 
medical man and not with the druggist. 
During the discussion, Dr. Prance said there could be no doubt that the Society was 
of great use to the medical men, for he had often said that whatever skill a professional 
man might use in a case, it was unavailing if he could not get his prescriptions properly 
prepared with the best drugs. 
Votes of thanks were passed to Mr. Hill and Mr. Codd for their papers, and to Mr. 
Evans for his presence and the presents he had made to the Institution. 
GLASGOW CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS’ ASSOCIATION. 
A meeting of this Association, to which all having an interest in pharmacy were 
invited, was held in the Mechanics’ Institution, on Thursday, 9th November, for the 
purpose of hearing Mr. John Mackat, of Edinburgh, deliver a lecture in explanation 
of the Pharmacy Act, 1868. About four hundred gentlemen were present, many of 
whom were surgeon-druggists. 
Mr. Kinninmont, President, occupied the chair, and briefly introduced Mr. Mackay, 
who delivered the lecture, which is given at length in our report of the meeting at 
Edinburgh. At the conclusion, the President intimated that the lecturer would be glad 
to answer any questions, when Mr. Mackay underwent wbat is known in Scotland, 
during election times, as a “heckling.” Many of the questions were of a sensible nature, 
and put to gain useful information, others were evidently intended as puzzlers, such as 
give a correct definition of the word ‘persons,’ etc., the asking and answering of which 
were received with loud laughter. 
One medical gentleman, keeping open shop, cross-questioned Mr. Mackay at great 
length, particularly on the 16th clause, amidst considerable manifestation of feeling 
among the audience, which appeared for a time to have almost divided itself into two 
parties, surgeon-druggists and druggists proper. He replied with great tact and good 
humour to his questioner, and had much the best of it. He stated, as his belief, that 
Clause 16 would be repealed, or modified by a short Act to be brought in for that 
purpose. 
Mr. Kinninmont, in moving a vote of thanks, thought that surgeons having shops in 
Scotland were needlessly afraid of the working of Clause 16, as he believed that any 
judge would decide that a surgeon holding licence from his college to practise pharmacy 
was a legally qualified apothecary in Scotland. 
