830 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[April 13,1871. 
view; but I may say at parting that it has puzzled 
me sorely to discover why there should ever have been 
anything approaching to personal contention. The ques¬ 
tion was one on which men were quite entitled to differ, 
but it was one to be settled solely by the votes of the So¬ 
ciety, not by the Council, who would only have presented 
the regulations to the Society with a 'recommendation 
that it would be wise and politic to adopt them rather 
than bring the Pharmaceutical Society into antagonism 
with the public as represented in Parliament. 
“ George W. Sandford. 
“ 47, Piccadilly, April 10, 1871.” 
W e have also received from the Honorary Secre¬ 
tary of the “ Metropolitan Chemists’ Defence Asso¬ 
ciation” a copy of the circular addressed to Regis¬ 
tered Chemists who “ have no vote at the meetings 
of the Pharmaceutical Society,” together with a 
tatement of the resolutions passed at the meeting 
held on the 20th ult., and a memorial for signature 
and presentation to the Pharmaceutical Society—at 
the annual meeting in May—expressive of disap¬ 
proval of “ compulsory legislative enactment” in 
regard to regulations for the Storing and Dispensing 
of Poisons. However, the opposition to the Phar¬ 
maceutical Society suggested by this memorial is no 
longer possible even in appearance. We congratu¬ 
late the Association that in this respect its occupa¬ 
tion is gone, and that there is no longer any need to 
publish the memorial. 
Tlhs is also, to a great extent, the case as regards 
the meeting at Glasgow on the 3rd inst.; but we 
publish that report, since it illustrates the sore 
grievance ot “medical druggists,” already mentioned 
in oui last number as having attained most serious 
proportions in that city. Here would, indeed, seem 
to be a i ery fitting opportunity for exercising the 
regulatfv e action of the Privy Council. Tliis griev¬ 
ance is one which merits the attention of the whole 
trade, and it is sufficiently general to call for the 
endeavours of all pharmacists to put an end to it. 
There is one point in the circular of the Metro¬ 
politan Chemists’ Defence Association that we can¬ 
not omit to notice, and that is the reason assigned 
tor considering it advisable to prepare a memorial 
viz. that Registered Chemists have no vote at the 
meeting of the Pharmaceutical Society by which 
their views may be recorded. We have but recently 
pointed out ■ that this disability is not a grievance 
but yohmtary; while, at the same time, it is one 
v Inch affords room for suspecting indifference to the 
general interests of the trade. 
We hope the experience now gained of the disad¬ 
vantage attending it, may be the means of inducing 
members of the trade to avail themselves of tlieir 
capability of legitimately influencing the action of 
the Society, rather than by spasmodic efforts of 
association which cannot be altogether without a 
show of hostility. 
W e may perhaps the more reasonably urge the 
adoption of this course, since there is a belief that 
the application of compulsory regulations will yet be 
attempted, and, as suggested by Mr. Sandford, per¬ 
haps by those who understand the matter less than 
the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society. 
Ante, p. 771. 
M e are glad to see a prompt disposition to aban¬ 
don contention on the subject of regulations, and 
have no doubt Mr. Wilkinson’s letter, published in 
another column, will open up a discussion that will 
be useful in defining the form the recommendations 
of the Society should take. Judging from the gene¬ 
ral feeling of respect for the Society entertained by 
the trade at large, we believe that, with proper 
management, its recommendations in regard to the 
storing and dispensing of poisons would effect all 
that could be desired. 
We have been requested to call the attention of 
members of the Pharmaceutical Society to Section I. 
Clause 10 of the Bye-Laws, which provides that all 
subscriptions shall become due on the 1st of January 
in each year, and that the names of Members who 
have not paid their subscriptions before the 1st of 
May shall be omitted from the Register certified by 
the Council at the Annual Meeting. Those who fail 
to conform with this rule would thereby become dis¬ 
qualified from taking any part in the proceedings of 
the Society at the approaching annual meeting. ° 
It is sometimes amusing to observe the ignorance 
of people in matters which they are presumed to 
have thoroughly mastered. Here is a good illustra¬ 
tion. The Austrian United Society of Apothecaries, 
in a petition against free trade in pharmacy, ad¬ 
dressed to the “ Reichstag,” bases some of its argu¬ 
ments upon the state of pharmacy in those countries 
where no restrictions whatever are enforced. They 
gravely inform their Parliament that in London, 
among 3000 dispensing establishments, not more 
than twenty enjoy or deserve public confidence, and 
that people often pass three or four hundred druggists’ 
shops before they come to one where they like to have 
their prescriptions made up. True, these enviable 
twenty shops are described as establishments on the 
most gigantic scale, each of them employing as many 
as thirty dispensers. This wonderful information, 
no doubt as new to our readers as to ourselves, 
leminds us of a statement made in the Prussian 
Chambers some seven or eight years ago by Herr 
vox Kucke, one of the then leading statesmen of the 
country. In a debate on the same subject, viz. the 
introduction of free trade into the practice of phar¬ 
macy in Prussia, Herr von Kucke after proudly, 
but not less justly, dwelling on the high status of the 
German pharmacist as compared with that of his 
foreign brethren, went on to say that in England 
the vastly superior education of the German apothe¬ 
cary was fully recognized by the general public, and 
that, as a matter of fact, the shortest way for London, 
pharmacists to gain public confidence was to placer 
a board in their windows with the inscription, 
“ Deutsche Apotheke ”—German qdiannacy. It 
may be interesting to notice that in the course of’ 
this debate, it was argued against free trade that 
the value of the existing pharmaceutical establish¬ 
ments in Prussia represented a capital of 72,000,00ff 
thalers, about ^£11,000,000, which the State would 
be bound to pay to the owners before the introduc¬ 
tion of free trade. 
