506 
PROPOSED LEGISLATION AFFECTING PHARMACY. 
Dr. Edwards said that he had received a printed copy of a requisition from 
the United Society of Chemists and Druggists , urging the necessity of incorpora¬ 
ting that body with the Pharmaceutical Society. 
To my very great astonishment, in the ‘ Chemist and Druggist ’ of the 15th 
inst., I find a letter from Dr. Edwards, to the effect, that he was not faithfully 
reported in the Journal, and that the requisition he referred to at the Liverpool 
Association meeting was the selfsame requisition which was advertised by the 
Council last month, which we debated on the 17th inst., and which I had, as 
Honorary Secretary to the requisitionists (Pharmaceutical Chemists), forwarded 
to the Council. 
Your readers, on comparing the requisition advertised in your last number 
with the report given at the same time of the meeting of the Liverpool Associa¬ 
tion, will see that there the former does not bear the construction placed upon it 
by the Liverpool reporter. 
I have only to add, that the requisition originated neither with the Council 
of the Pharmaceutical Society nor with the United Society, but is entirely an 
independent expression of opinion on the part of the requisitionists. 
I am, Sir, yours obediently, 
30, Buckler sbury, March 21 st, 1864. B. B. Orridge. 
PROPOSED LEGISLATION AEEECTING PHARMACY. 
TO THE EDITOR OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Sir,—Will you excuse my calling your attention to a statement in that first- 
class Journal the ‘Medical Times and Gazette,’ February 13, 1864, in my 
opinion as erroneous as it is unjust to the intelligence of the main body of the 
trade. “ It is a matter of daily observation that any intelligent, neat-handed 
lad, or woman of ordinary education, can be taught to dispense accurately and 
well in three months.” Now I am not a member of the Pharmaceutical Society, 
but am an advocate for the examination of all those who have the responsibility 
of dispensing medicines, and don’t like to see our body treated thus without a 
remark in reply ; neither do I see the very great harm the writer seems to dread 
being done if our business was raised from a trade to a profession, even though 
the line of demarcation between the pharmaceutical chemist and the practitioner 
in medicine who keeps an open surgery and shop were rendered more inappreci¬ 
able in the eyes of the public. The fact asserted in the preface of the new 
Pharmacopoeia, that the manufacture of most chemicals has of late years been 
transferred from the pharmaceutical chemist to the chemical manufacturer, does 
not render it any the less incumbent upon dispensers to know their composition, 
and the very fact of their manufacture having been so transferred should only be 
looked upon as another cause or reason for examination ; for if each chemist had 
to make his own chemicals it would be certain he knew their composition, but as 
he has not to do so, the fact should be ascertained by compulsory examination 
before he is allowed to dispense such substances. Trusting this may call your 
attention to the article referred to, if you have not already noticed it, 
I am, etc., yours truly, 
John Ruddock. 
Sir,—Doubtless you will have noticed the castigation your respected Journal 
has received from the pen of your contemporary ‘ Medical Times’ last week. 
But, notwithstanding the severity of his sarcasm, we ought to thank him for 
