110 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[August 5,1871. 
of each meeting of Council should he issued in the next 
following number of the Journal, it was 
Moved by Mr. Sandford, seconded by Mr. Edwards, 
and 
Resolved—That the Report of the Transactions of the 
Council be in future published in the next following 
number of the Journal, after the meeting of the 
Council, but that the Joumal may, on those occa¬ 
sions, be issued on Saturday morning, instead of 
Friday as heretofore, if necessary. 
Mr. Groves drew attention to a paragraph in Mr. 
Simon’s Report to the Privy Council, a copy of which 
will be found at page 109 in this Journal. 
The Report and Recommendations of the Parliamen¬ 
tary Committee having been read, it was 
Resolved—That they be received and adopted. 
Moved by Mr. Carr, seconded by Mr. Smith,— 
Resolved—That the Registrar be instructed, and is j 
hereby authorized, to erase from the register the name 
of Anthony W. Johnson. 
On the Report of the “ Special Committee appointed 
to direct the operations of the Society in communicating 
with the Local Secretaries and Members upon the sub¬ 
ject of opposing the Bill” being read, 
Mr. Betty said he desired to present the Report of 
this Committee and to wind-up the matter. They had 
prepared a scheduled list of the names of the towns, and 
the number of chemists and druggists in the district, as 
far as they could be obtained, with the number of signa¬ 
tures, and when the petitions were signed, in what pro¬ 
portion they were signed; also stating what Members of 
Parliament were communicated with, and in some in¬ 
stances the answers received from those gentlemen. He 
thought this might be published, and preserved for fu¬ 
ture reference as an index both of the feeling of the 
country on the matter and as a guide to action which 
might be hereafter taken. The number of petitions pre¬ 
sented through the means of the Local Secretaries was 
191. The first column showed the number of chemists 
canvassed in those districts, and the second column i 
showed the number of signatures. The information, 
however, was not quite so full and complete as it might 
have been in all cases. But, with these exceptions, the 
returns might be considered very complete, and the gene¬ 
ral result was that five-sixths of those who were can¬ 
vassed or asked to append their names to the petition 
had done so. He might also state that their action was 
not so thorough as had been anticipated at first, as there 
had been spontaneous action taken in many places, and 
other agencies at work, by means of which 107 other 
petitions were presented to the House of Commons from 
country Associations. For instance, in Manchester they 
only had 135 signatures out of 359 who were entitled to 
sign: but there were two or three other petitions from 
Manchester, which would account for the circumstance. 
He did not know that the Committee had anything else 
to report, but he wished to ask permission of the Council 
that the letters received by Local Secretaries from Mem¬ 
bers of Parliament and forwarded for the information of 
the Committee should be returned to them, with an ex¬ 
pression of the thanks of the Council for their prompt 
and ample replies to the circular. 
The President said the names of many of the towns, 
with the numbers of the signatures, had been already 
published in the Journal. 
Mr. Betty said a complete list had not yet been 
printed, but the whole need not be republished. Still, 
he thought it would be well to publish a resume, and 
also to state the fact that 107 other petitions had been 
presented, showing the feeling of the country on the 
subject. 
Mr. Sandford asked if the list were perfectly accurate 
with regard to the first and second columns. 
Mr. Betty said the committee had been bound by the 
returns of the local secretaries themselves, and he had 
gone through the addition of the different columns twice 
and believed it to be correct. 
Mr. Sandford said he understood that in the case of 
Bristol, the figures of the first column had been omitted 
in the published report of the return. 
Mr. Betty said the number put down in the first column 
was 100 and the number of persons who signed w’as 45 ; 
seeing that so few r signed the Bristol petition he considered 
that there must be some error in the returns, especially 
as he had information from another source, and he 
thought he would make further inquiries before filling 
up the first number. He afterwards filled in the figures 
in pencil, not having a pen and ink at hand, and ho 
supposed the printer did not feel himself justified in 
adopting them. He intended to write to Mr. Stoddart 
and explain the matter. 
Mr. Groves said with regard to the value of these 
petitions, he might mention one instance. He asked a 
local secretary what ho was doing in the matter, and 
was told that he had desired his young man to write 
letters to the local representative : but on beginning to, 
argue the question with him, he confessed at once that 
he had not read the proposed regulations and knew 
nothing whatever on the subject. 
Mr. Smith said he knew another case in which the 
petition would have been quite the reverse had the mat¬ 
ter been properly explained. 
Mr. Sandford said several such instances had been 
brought to his knowledge ; in fact, he had a large mass 
of correspondence on the subject. The truth was that 
many who sent up petitions really never considered the- 
amendments at all, but signed a petition against the Bill 
as it stood in its original form. There was not the same- 
alacrity to publish the amendments which there was to 
publish the Bill. 
Mr. Atherton said ho did not see the object of this dis¬ 
cussion. 
The President said ho did not think any notice should 
bo taken in the Committee’s Report of the petitions sent 
up irrespective of its action and through other channels.. 
Mr. Betty said he merely suggested it should be men¬ 
tioned for general information; and really it referred to 
the same matter; and in several instances the Committee 
would have acted, but found they had been forestalled. 
Mr. Edwards did not think they could regard what 
had been done by other parties. 
Mr. Betty said he could easily effect his object by 
writing a private letter to the ‘Journal,’ stating the fact. 
He merely wished the members to be enlightened upon it. 
It was then moved by Mr. Betty, seconded by Mr. 
Atherton, and 
Resolved—That the letters addressed to Local Secre,- 
taries and others, forwarded to the “ Special Commit¬ 
tee for directing operations in connection with the late- 
Pharmacy Bill,” be returned to them by the Secre¬ 
tary, accompanied with the expression of the thanks, 
of the Pharmaceutical Council for their prompt and. 
ample replies to the Committee’s circular. 
Moved by Mr. Atherton, seconded by Mr. Betty, and. 
Resolved—That a copy of the foregoing resolution be- 
forwarded by Mr. Bremridge to each Local Secretary. 
REPORTS OF THE BOARDS OF EXAMINERS.. 
England and Wales. 
July , 1871. 
Candi- 
Candi- 
Candi- 
dates 
dates 
dates. 
Examination. 
examined. 
passed. 
failed. 
Preliminary... 
.... 287 
199 
88 
Minor . 
.... 60 
26 
34 
Major . 
.... 19 
12 
7 
Modified . 
40 
24 
16 
406 
261 
14& 
