MEETING OF TIIE LIVERPOOL CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS. 
129 
It would be perfectly voluntary on the part of the chemists and druggists to apply for 
memberships, and in order to do that they must pass through the door of the Major 
Examination. It was also open to them to become Associates of the Society ; but it was 
proposed to throw open the Benevolent Fund to the entire trade, whether belonging to 
the Society or not. 
Mr. Smith, of Great Howard Street, said, it was not his intention, when he entered 
the meeting, to offer any observations on the Bill, but as criticism had been invited he 
would say a word or two in reference to it. A bill, it appeared, was about to be pre¬ 
sented to the House of Commons for the purpose of protecting the trade generally. 
That he believed to be a good provision, and one very much needed; but as a member 
of the United Society of Chemists and Druggists he deprecated such an attempt to rule 
the majority; and the manner in which it was attempted would, in his opinion, prove 
entirely futile. The Pharmaceutical Society numbered, he believed, about 3000, and the 
number of chemists and druggists in Great Britain was 30,000. 
Dr. Edwards said, the Registrar General’s returns only gave about 6500 in the trade 
altogether. 
Mr. Mercer said he believed that the number of chemists and druggists was from 
6000 to 7000, and that a great number of the members of the United Society of Chemists 
and Druggists belonged also to the Pharmaceutical Society. 
Mr. Smith continued remarking that he could not see why chemists and druggists 
should be registered as chemists and druggists, and not have the same privileges as the 
Pharmaceutical Society. Why not extend the hand of fellowship at once? Dr. 
Edwards had said, unity was strength, and so it was. He (Mr. Smith) was of that 
opinion too, and unless united action was taken by the Pharmaceutical Society and the 
United Society of Chemists and Druggists, their bill would never be passed. He would 
ask one question, Was it intended that all chemists and druggists who did not enter 
their names on the register should be debarred from practising as chemists and druggists ? 
Was it intended that it should be retrospective ? 
Dr. Edwards : The registration will be compulsory. 
Mr. Smith: Then in my opinion—and I think the same opinion will be held by 
a great many chemists and druggists—such registration is not consistent with British 
law and British equity. 
Dr. Edwards said a similar provision was proposed by the United Society of Chemists 
and Druggists. 
Mr. Smith said, yes, but he believed the United Society of Chemists and Druggists did 
not even intend to exclude apprentices from the rights and privileges of being chemists 
and druggists. In his opinion, no Act could come into operation within five years, and 
apprentices in business had a right, he thought, to similar privileges. He hoped the 
Pharmaceutical Society would extend their hands as freely and frankly as possible in 
order to do that which had been wanted for years to protect the public and protect the 
trade generally. 
The Chairman wished to know in what way Mr. Smith wished the Pharmaceutical 
Society to extend the hand of fellowship ? 
Mr. Smith replied, to extend it to all chemists and druggists who were not members 
of the Pharmaceutical Society, and who were, to a great extent, as well educated and as 
well qualified as many who were now registered pharmaceutists. There were many 
pharmaceutists who were not so by examination, but through a privilege which was 
given some years ago to “ outsiders,” who were admitted on paying a fee of £ 5 . 
Such privileges were taken advantage of; and therefore, so long as there had not been 
a compulsory examination in every instance, he thought it would be an act of injustice 
to “ outsiders ” now to compel men to pass on examination who had been in business 
perhaps for many years—men perhaps of the same amount of practical experience as 
those registered as pharmaceutists. He thought it was a narrow way of doing it; it 
was not sufficiently generous. If the “ outsiders ” wanted to come forward and join the 
Society, he saw no reason why they should be deprived of the designation of pharma¬ 
ceutists. 
Dr. Edwards : That is to go back twenty years, and make a fresh start. 
Mr. Mercer, in moving a vote of thanks to thb Chairman, said he was only sorry 
that gentleman’s duties had not been more arduous. He (Mr. Mercer) should certainly 
like to have heard the different clauses of the Bill criticized more closely than they had 
