May 24, 1873.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
931 
looking at my part of the country, if these things go on 
for a very few years longer, within the next ten or fifteen 
years the whole of the dispensing trade will go out of the 
hands of the chemists and druggists, and back into the 
hands of the medical profession, who at the present time 
have almost ceased carrying on dispensing at all. The 
result is very obvious. Unless some means are taken to 
place the trade in a position where a man can earn a 
living by it, it necessarily results that a man will not edu¬ 
cate himself for it; and in all the small towns (not to 
speak of the villages, for there are even druggists in the 
part of the country from whence I come), there will not be 
a druggist to be found at all, so that the medical men will 
resume the practice that existed forty or fifty years ago, 
and dispense their own medicines. I do not say, how¬ 
ever, that is a reason why I have risen to speak, but to 
urge upon the Council to devote their time to devising 
some scheme which will give to large towns, or to towns 
being the large centres of a district, a reasonable amount 
of money, and trust them at all events for a year or two 
to see if they produce good fruit, and if not, withdraw the 
grants. When you are sending papers to be answered 
categorically, it may give rise to considerable difficulty, 
and I do not much wonder that the loan of £10 was not 
taken. I believe many grants have been applied for, but 
several towns have said that they would not borrow £10 
for three years. I would press upon the Council to look 
that matter in the face, because it is a most serious one. 
I believe it is the greatest difficulty the Society has to 
contend with, namely, the education of chemists in the 
country. It matters little to me, perhaps, but the rising- 
generation will certainly feel it. 
Mr. Vizer (London) : I feel very great pleasure in 
rising this mox-ning, because we meet under such ex¬ 
ceptionally favourable circumstances, smiling faces around 
us on all sides, and no dark clouds in the future. The 
Report I look upon with great satisfaction, and I most 
heartily support it almost in its entirety. I would draw 
attention for a moment to the first paragraph, the sen¬ 
timents of which are highly gratifying. Those dark 
clouds of which our President spoke so graphically last 
night have all vanished away, and now we see peace 
reigning in our midst. But, sir, will you allow me to say 
that I receive that paragraph—forgive me for saying it 
—with very profound satisfaction. I am not going to 
stir up dirty waters, but, if we had asked the Council 
to have passed a vote of thanks to the Defence Associa¬ 
tions, which, for some two or three years, disturbed the 
equanimity of some of our friends, we could not have got 
a better vote than we have here,—the Council therein 
expressing the great advantage which has arisen from 
the different shades of opinion within that body. I there¬ 
fore, sir, tender the Council the thanks of the Defence 
Associations which have now passed away, and, let us 
hope, never more to return. I thank them for this ex¬ 
pression of satisfaction, because'—and I do not think any 
gentleman will contradict my assertion—the existence of 
those varied opinions upon the Council is decidedly owing 
in a very great measure to the efforts of those Defence Asso¬ 
ciations. I want to, Sir, ask a question which no doubt 
is easily explained, respecting the third paragraph. In that 
paragraph we find it stated that the number of members, 
associates, and apprentices of the Society has increased 90 
members and 170 associates. If I turn to the l'eport 
which was published in the February number of the 
Journal, I cannot make the two tally. I simply bring it 
forward, because I think some explanation is needed. 
According to this report, which I hold in my hand, the 
total number of pharmaceutical chemists in 1872 was 
31 less than in 1871, whilst the chemist and druggist 
members shows an increase of 80. By deducting the 
31 decrease of pharmaceutical chemists from the 80 
increase of chemists and druggists, I make 49 the 
absolute increase, instead of 90 as mentioned in the Report. 
Again, as regards the associates, I should make the num¬ 
ber 151 instead of 170; thus 87 associates in business 
and 64 not in business. The total increase of the 
Society according to that reckoning, taking in 31 appren¬ 
tices, would be 231 instead of 291, showing an error of 60 
in the Report. I state this not only for explanation, but 
also with another motive, namely, because it confirms an 
assertion which I made here last year, and subsequently in 
the pages of the Journal, that our strength as a society of 
pharmaceutical chemists was decreasing rather than in¬ 
creasing. I consider it is the duty of the Council to look 
into this matter, or otherwise the time will come when we 
shall have the unpleasant duty of recording the death of 
the last pharmaceutical chemist of the Society. Another 
point I should like to draw attention to is the prosecu¬ 
tions which have taken place under the Pharmacy Act. We 
see that several such have taken place in order to pre¬ 
vent the illegal sale and disposing of poisons. I am 
perfectly aware of the difficvdty with regard to that ques¬ 
tion. How far we can possibly prevent the sale of medicines 
by grocers and such like, is a question of great difficulty ; 
but, at the same time, I do think that in any alterations 
which may at some future day be contemplated by Act of 
Parliament, some provision ought to be made for towns 
over a certain population where a chemist could be sup¬ 
ported ; leaving small towns only where drugs might be 
procured at the grocers or elsewhere. But that we should 
all have to compete, as we do now with every oilman and 
grocer, does seem to me very hard. The paragraph record¬ 
ing the increase of the Minor examinations I entirely 
endorse. I only wish one thing, as has been expressed 
by other gentlemen this morning, that there was a brighter 
prospect before our young men, the rising generation of 
chemists, but unfortunately it is not so. The Benevolent 
Fund is cause for great satisfaction. I think it is one of the 
most satisfactory parts of the Report, and thoroughly gives 
an answer to the complaints which have been made recently 
in the Journal upon the distribution of that fund. We 
see clearly by the Report that there is a considerable in¬ 
crease in it, which shows the confidence the mem¬ 
bers of the Society have in the Council, and the 
way that fund is distributed. Reference has been made 
in the Journal to the idea of disposing of the annual 
subscriptions to annuitants. Such a process would be an 
utter absurdity. To imagine that we could distribute any 
proportion of the annual subscriptions for granting an¬ 
nuities would be, I take it, dangerous to this Society 
and most deceptive to those who received them. It 
has, however, been stated that the religious societies act 
on that principle. I admit that fact. But, sir, do those 
gentlemen, who advocate the distribution of our funds 
upon that principle, consider the analogy between the two ? 
There is not the most remote analogy. From what 
source do those societies draw their funds ? W hy, the 
wide world. They have subscriptions coming in from 
all parts of the world, whereas ours are limited to some 
8000 or 10,000 members supposing every member of 
the trade subscribed. Then, again, there is another 
objection. Those societies make no stipulation with 
their agents. At any moment they can discharge them. 
If we take in an annuitant we cannot give him notice to 
quit unless, indeed, we follow the King of Dahomey s ex¬ 
ample, and send him on a message to departed friends. 
Another objection is the amount of subscriptions to our 
Benevolent Fund. The total sum raised last year was 
only £1896 ; whereas, take four of the leading religious 
societies which support their dependents, lhe income of 
the London City Mission last year was £40,000, and 
that of the Pastoral Aid Society £4S,000. And if we 
go to a still larger example, the Church Missionary 
Society, or the Wesleyan Missionary Society, we have an 
income over £156,000 each. What comparison is theie 
between the two ? I therefox-e consider the Coxxncil hav e 
acted perfectly right in the way in which they hav e dis¬ 
tributed this fuiid, and heartily support the Council, 
and the l-eport which has ixow been lxioved. 
Mr. Mumby (Gosport): I do not propose to trespass on 
your time, but I wish jxxst to call attention to one fact j I 
