36G 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS, 
[November 9,1872, 
®nnmti<ms of % fjjariraftuiiral jtetttj. 
MEETING OF THE COUNCIL. 
November 6£A, 1872. 
MR. A. F. HASELDEN, F.L.S., PRESIDENT, IN THE CHAIR. 
MR. W. SCOTT BROWN, VICE-PRESIDENT. 
Present—Messrs. Atherton, Betty, Bottle, Frazer, 
Greenish, Hampson, Hills, Owen, Radley, Sandford, 
Savage, Schacht, Shaw, Stoddart, Sutton, Ur wick anc. 
Williams. 
The minutes of the previous meeting were read anc 
confirmed. 
North British Branch. 
Mr. Frazer reported that the furnishing of the offices 
of the North British Branch was being proceeded with 
under an estimate which he considered very moderate. 
The President reported that the coroner of Norwich, 
who had been communicated with, in accordance with 
the resolution passed last month, had acknowledged the 
receipt of the Secretary’s letter, and stated that he had 
no power to direct the prosecution of any person for such 
an offence as that alluded to, unless a verdict of murder 
or manslaughter were returned by a jury. 
The letter was ordered to be entered on the minutes. 
Appointment of Analysts under the New 
Adulteration Act. 
The President submitted the opinion of the Attorney- 
General, the Solicitor-General and Mr. A. G. Langley on 
this subject, which has already appeared in this Journal 
at p. 293. 
Appointment of an Examiner. 
The. President said the next business was to elect an 
Examiner in the place of Mr. Bird, whose retirement was 
previously reported. Five gentlemen having been no¬ 
minated, a ballot was taken, resulting in the election of 
Mr. William Martindale, of University College Hospital. 
It was then resolved that Mr. Martindale’s name be 
submitted to the Privy Council for approval. 
Three members of the Society having paid their ar¬ 
rears of subscription, together with the subscription for 
the current year, were, upon payment respectively of 
a nominal fine of one shilling, restored to membership. 
A former associate was also restored on payment of 
arrears and a fine of one shilling. 
Election of Members. 
The following Registered Chemists and Druggists were 
elected Members of the Society:— 
James, Kirby .Beverley. 
Priest, Edward Raven.Cromer. 
In addition to the above, the name of a lady was 
proposed by Mr. Hampson, and seconded by Mr. 
Urwick, for election to membership of the Society, she 
being a registered chemist and druggist. 
Mr. Bottle asked under what section of the Act or 
what clause of the bye-laws it was proposed to elect a 
lady to membership. 
Mr. Hampson said he considered that the 18th section 
of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, made the applicant eligible 
as a member. The word “his” in that clause, as in 
many others, evidently was synonymous with “ her.” 
A lady applied for membership and was refused three 
times in 1869, on the ostensible ground that she was not 
in business on her own account at the time she applied. 
He thought it very desirable that this matter should be 
definitely settled; the lady whose name he had proposed 
was on the Register ; he understood 6he was in business, 
she had been mentioned to him by a medical man of 
some standing, and she had been properly proposed and 
seconded, and he conceived it was their duty to elect her 
as a member. Having already decided on admitting 
lady students to the lectures, it was very probable 
that they would hereafter pass the Major examination as 
pharmaceutical chemists, and seek to become members, 
and therefore he wanted the Council to be consistent and 
admit those whom he considered properly qualified to 
membership. 
Mr. Sutton inquired if this lady was really in business. 
Mr. Williams said she was not. She was dispenser 
to a hospital for women. 
Mr. Hamfson said he had understood she was in 
business; at any rate she was on the Register. 
Mr. Sandford said that as Mr. Hampson had referred 
to a former case, he begged to say that it was not en¬ 
tirely on the ground that the lady in question was not in 
business, that her application was rejected; but 
because there was a feeling amongst the members of 
Council that they did not want ladies as members. The 
non-election of a lady to membership would be no reason 
at all why ladies should not be registered as pharma¬ 
ceutical chemists. This was a private Society, entirely 
apart from the Register, and it was for them to decide as 
a Society whether they wished to admit lady members 
or not; and in fact whether a lady should occupy the 
presidential chair. For if ladies were admitted to mem¬ 
bership, they could of course be elected as members of 
Council. 
Mr. Hampson : Certainly. 
Mr. Sandford said he should oppose the election of 
ladies, for the reasons he had given. 
Mr. Owen thought the Council ought to be consistent. 
They had just passed a resolution to admit ladies to the 
lectures and classes, and he did not see how they could 
deny them the privilege of becoming members. 
Mr. Savage said that on the previous occasion to 
which reference had been made, he had certainly voted 
against the election of the lady, simply on the ground 
that she was not in business on her own account. At 
the same time, while he did not object to ladies receiving 
the educational advantages of the Institution, he saw no 
necessity to elect them to membership. 
Mr. Betty said this this was a matter which required 
very careful consideration. He could not compete in 
gallantry with Mr. Hampson, and was not prepared on 
such short notice to decide on so important a matter. 
Theirs was a voluntary Society, and they could elect 
whom they pleased; and he feared they might find them¬ 
selves in a false position if they adopted this principle. 
The Edinburgh University had admitted Miss Jex 
Blake to some of the privileges of the University, and 
now they could not get rid of her. 
Mr. Williams suggested that the decision of the 
question should be postponed for the present. 
Mr. Brown thought they ought to know for certain 
whether this lady was in business or not. In the ab¬ 
sence of any definite information, he should advise the 
postponement of the question. 
Mr. Williams said there was no doubt that the lady 
was not in business for herself. 
Mr. Brown remarked that in that case he should vote 
against her election. 
Mr. Savage said he should take the same course, and 
for the same reason. 
The President said he remembered the case before 
referred to, when he voted against the election of the 
.ady on the ground that the founders of the Society 
never contemplated the admission of ladies to member¬ 
ship, nor did the framers of the Pharmacy Act, or the 
words “ or her ” would be inserted after the word “his ” 
in the various clauses. 
Mr. Schacht also advocated a postponement of the 
matter in preference to a decided rejection of the claim 
at present, which seemed likely to be the case if the vote 
were pressed. He did not think the matter should be 
;reated in a jocular spirit, nor did he see any reason for 
