LEGISLATION AFFECTING PHARMACY. 
Mr. Heathfield, in reply, stated that as early as the seventeenth century it had been 
proved that a pressure of 30,000 lbs. on the square inch had caused a reduction of volume 
of about one-twelfth, which had been since corroborated, by the experiments of eminent 
philosophers ; and alluding further to Mr. Parr’s remarks, Mr. Heathfield stated that there 
was a difference between the compressibility of water and its well-known reduction in 
volume by the decrease of temperature. 
Mr. Appleby Stephenson, in proposing a vote of thanks to Mr. Heathfield, spoke in 
'eulogistic terms of the value of the paper. 
The vote -was seconded by Dr. Tatham, and carried unanimously. 
Mr. J. H. Atherton, F.C.S., then read his second paper on the ‘ British Pharmacopoeia.’ 
Mr. Heathfield, in proposing a vote of thanks to Mr. Atherton, alluded to the prac¬ 
tical value of these papers. He thought it reflected great credit not only on the pro¬ 
moters of the Society, but on the gentleman who undertook to get up papers of such 
practical importance, which not only required a considerable amount of time and trouble, 
but also of study. He regretted that time would not allow of much discussion, but he 
must say as a manufacturer of considerable experience, that the processes in the Phar¬ 
macopoeias had no practical value. * 
Mr. Parker having briefly seconded the vote of thanks, which was carried unanimously, 
the meeting terminated. 
LEGISLATION AFFECTING PH ABM AC'Y.—MEETING OF CHEMISTS 
AND DBUGGISTS, DUDLEY. 
An adjourned meeting of the chemists and druggists of Dudley and its vicinity was 
held in the lecture hall of the Mechanics’ Institution on-Thursday, April 7th. The meet- 
ting was again presided over by Mr. E. Plollier, pharmaceutical chemist, Dudley, and 
between twenty and thirty chemists were present, including Messrs. Alsop, Bell, Bishop, 
Bradley, G. B. Bradley, Bache, Gare, Johnson, Jones, Horton, Nicklin, Nock, Owen, 
Roberts, Booker, Swinerton, Tomkyss, Tunley, Voce, Wilshaw, White, etc. Letters 
were read from Messrs. Bagott, Thompson, Bew, Kearns, Geary, and others, expressing 
regret at being unable to attend, and of their entire sympathy with the objects of the 
meeting. The Chairman said that they had then met in accordance with a resolution of 
the previous meeting, and a promise on his own part to summon them again together 
when anything definite was known, either as regarded the proposed Medical Act, or the 
result of the special meeting of the Pharmaceutical Society. As to the first, he was glad 
to say that the medical council had abandoned all further legislation, and had thus left 
the field open for the action of their own body. One good, if no other, had arisen from 
the agitation of the proposed enactment of the Medical Council, it had brought the 
chemists and druggists again to act together for one common end, and if this were done 
unitedly, and with an earnest and sincere purpose to elevate and advance, as well as to 
oppose any interference with their trade, he had no doubt it would result most advan¬ 
tageously for the general interest. The Medical Council had recognised the necessity of 
a proper educational status on the part of those who prepared and dispensed medicines, 
and thus by implication that it was neither wise nor just to leave this to be done by igno¬ 
rant and pretending persons. It was seeing this, but still wishing that legislation, as to 
their own educational standing, should be in their hands rather than in that of another 
body, which had led others as well as himself to conceive that an opportune moment had 
arrived for bringing the matter strongly before the Pharmaceutical Council, and that 
a successful application might now be made to Parliament for an extended and amended 
Pharmacy Act. Accordingly, a requisition had been presented to the Council, signed by 
about 300 members, including something like 80 examined ones, thus showing that this 
important portion of the Society did not look upon the motion with that jealousy which 
it has been supposed they would have done. A special meeting was held on the 17th of 
March, when it was resolved, by a large majority, in a very influential and intelligent 
meeting, that such an Act should at once be applied for. Anticipating the probability of 
such a conclusion, the Council had prepared a rough draft of a proposed bill, the heads 
of which were read over, and would be found, together with the account of the meeting, 
in the previous month’s ‘ Pharmaceutical Journal.’ And if any amongst them, for the 
sake of the admirably-written articles and general information it contained, in regard to 
