4B8 
THE MEETING OF CHEMISTS AT GLASGOW. 
of our own Society would be gratified by the addition of a handsome sum to the 
six thousand pounds now in hand for benevolent purposes. 
Energetic action, in short, by the Council in reference to this point would, it 
may be reasonably thought, add largely to both the popularity and usefulness of 
the measure. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 
O. 
London, January 24, 1885. 
THE MEETING OE CHEMISTS AT GLASGOW. 
TO THE EDITOR 07? THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Sir,—The ‘ Chemist and Druggist ’ for this month contains a report of a 
meeting held in Glasgow, which is calculated to lead those who were not present 
to attach an importance to it which it is very far from deserving. 
The facts are these :—After the meeting in the Trades Hall here, report of 
which appeared in the Journal for this month, Mr. Iluott issued circulars for 
another in the Globe Hotel, calling personally on many of the trade and invi¬ 
ting them to attend. The result was a meeting consisting of twenty-five per¬ 
sons, employers and assistants; no great proportion out of a trade which numbers 
over three hundred members in this city. 
After Mr. Buott had delivered the speech as reported, the chairman invited 
those present to express their opinion. No one seeming likely to come forward, 
he called on me to give my ideas on the subject; and it is amusing to see how 
the reporter, in condensing a discussion between Mr. Buott and myself which 
lasted more than an hour, lias eliminated almost everything that could tell against 
the United Society and its Bill, or in favour of the Pharmaceutical Society. 
Four persons voted for my amendment, that no bill is necessary. Desirous 
of ascertaining how many were in favour of the Pharmacy Bill, I wished to put 
a second amendment. This was, of course, out of order, and caused Mr. Moffat 
to make the remark, in the most friendly spirit however, u that I was confused 
from having sustained the whole discussion during the evening.” Mr. Buott 
did not object to the second amendment being put, but a vote was not taken as 
the meeting considered that this would be irregular. 
Mr. Taite’s motion was then put to the meeting, when eight voted in its 
favour, the real majority of the meeting declining to vote. Mr. Buott addressed 
them, saying that he could not understand how gentlemen could refrain from 
giving an opinion one or other and that since the United Society had put itself 
to the expense of sending him down, he would not like to leave without some 
more definite result of his visit. It was in vain—the thirteen remained im¬ 
movably silent. I do not wish it to be inferred, however, that these would have 
voted for the Pharmacy Bill. “ Carried by a considerable majority ” looks well 
in a printed report, but a statement of the numbers, eight against four, somewhat 
diminishes the effect. 
Trusting rather to the gradual spread of education, for the elevation of our 
profession, and expecting sounder results from the continued efforts and example 
of the Pharmaceutical Society than could be obtained by any legislation, I was 
more anxious to defend the Society than the Pharmacy Bill, as I consider this 
was forced upon the Society by the threatened interference of the Medical 
Council. 
If Parliament should think an Act of this kind imperatively called for, let us 
have the Pharmacy Bill by all means, as it is the only feasible measure yet 
brought forward. It interferes with the rights of no other trade, requires only 
the education of the individual, and permits every man to manage his business 
