CORRESPONDENCE. 
Persons having seceded from the Society may be restored to their former 
status on payment of arrears of subscription and the registration fee of the 
current year. 
Those who were Associates before the 1st of July, 1842, are privileged (as 
Founders of the Society) to become Members, and by virtue of membership to 
be registered as Pharmaceutical Chemists. 
Pil. Ipecac, c. Scilla .—To the Editors of the Pharmaceutical Journal,—Gentlemen,— 
Will you permit me, through your Journal, to call the attention of prescribers and dis¬ 
pensers to the fact, that the proportion of opium in pil. ipecac, c. scilla, given under 
the former article in the B.P., is not correct, but relates only to the sum of the ingre¬ 
dients before the addition of the excipient, as the following will show :— 
Pulv. ipecac, co.T0 = 0T opii. 
Ammoniacum.033 
Scilla.0-33 
Opium 01 in.166, 
i.e. 1 in 16f, or, as the Pharmacopoeia has it, 1 in 16^ nearly. Now add to this the<?. s. 
theriaca, and it will, of course, reduce the opium below this proportion. In fact, I have 
three samples before me, prepared by different hands, containing—1 in 17|, 1 in 18£, 
and 1 in 19^ 1 Only a few days ago I was requested to send a patient 8| grains of the 
above pill; the prescriber remarking at the same time, “ That will be rather more than 
grain of opium. I am desirous my patient should not have less.” Here, it is evi¬ 
dent, the prescriber was guided, in apportioning the dose of opium, by the Pharmaco¬ 
poeia, the incorrectness of which I have endeavoured to point out.—I remain, Gentlemen, 
your humble servant, A Modified Man. 
“ Foreign Honours .”—To the Editor of the Pharmaceutical Journal,—Sir,—The fol¬ 
lowing fact is, I think, worthy of a place in the records of the Society. Mr. William 
Field has recently been admitted “Pharmacien ” by the “ Ecole Superieure de Pharma- 
cie ” of the University of Paris, having passed the last of four examinations on the 
20th February of this year. He is, I believe, the first M.P.S. (dating from 1853) who 
h s succeeded in these examinations, which, besides being in a foreign language, are 
both lengthy and difficult.* I enclose my card. I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, 
M. P. S.— London , May 17<A, 1869. 
Pharmaceutical Chemists and Members. —To the Editors of the Pharmaceutical 
Journal.—Gentlemen,—It has been a matter of great surprise to me to find in the 
Journals, both for April and May, a number of names of “ Chemists aud Druggists 
registered under the Pharmacy Act, 1868,” elected members of the Pharmaceutical 
Society. In common with many of my fellow-members of the Society, the difference 
between the two titles I am quite unable to distinguish, so far as their individual influ¬ 
ence on the public is concerned. The only distinction I can ascertain between each class 
of members is, that one is allowed to put over his establishment “ Pharmaceutical Che¬ 
mist,” the other “Member of the Pharmaceutical Society.” Now I ask (and I venture 
to predict I am expressing the sentiments of many of my brethren), will the former title 
inspire more confidence than the latter ? Will a man be considered more competent to 
fulfil the onerous duties of a “Chemist ” bv being a “ Pharmaceutical Chemist ” than bv 
being a “Member of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain”? I think not. 
Who amongst the public knows, or cares to know, which of the two men has, by hard 
study and great cost of time aud capital, passed the rigid and honourable examinations, 
and duly qualified himself for the title, and the one who has obtained it by paying two 
guineas to the Society without being examined ? The two titles, then, are practically the 
same. I will quote my own instance. I entered business in 1867 (before the passing of 
the Act); I was then an Associate of the Society, and had a specie jar in my window with 
* The viva voce examination is held in public, in a hall at times densely crowded. 
