THE CHEMISTS OP SALISBURY. 
439 
according to bis own ideas of the exigencies of his position. It registers the 
non-member on payment of a fee, and leaves him in peace to carry on his labours 
as before, or to pass the examination, and join the Society if he chooses. 
The bill of the United Society, as interpreted by Mr. Buott, is an undignified 
clamour for a monopoly of the sale of certain articles; a humiliating declaration 
that we are unable to withstand the competition of uneducated men, such as 
u hucksters,” grocers, etc., without protective laws. It also contains a provision 
for electing council, who are to have the power of dictating regulations for shop 
arrangements, etc.,—certainly a most irritating attempt at meddling legislation. 
Such a measure is certain to meet with the defeat which it deserves, but the 
attempt to introduce it will reflect discredit on the trade. 
The above is a summary of what I said at the meetings, and I have taken 
this opportunity of expressing my opinion of the rival bill, as my conduct at the 
two meetings appears contradictory, and requires some explanation. 
I am, Sir, yours respectfully, 
Alexr. Kinninmont. 
THE CHEMISTS OF SALISBURY. 
TO THE EDITOR OE THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Dear Sir,—As the Local Secretary for this city, it has devolved on me during 
the past week to send the “Pharmacy Act ” to my brother chemists for perusal, 
and likewise the paper for their signatures, approving its contents. 
The Council solicits an expression of opinion on the said proposed u Act 
I am glad, therefore, to be able to report, that all my brethren, whether mem¬ 
bers of the Pharmaceutical Society or not, readily attached their names to the 
document, and expressed their satisfaction that at length there was a prospect 
of legislative action in behalf of ourselves as well as the public. Permit me, 
Sir, to add, that all legislation on the question should include these two—the 
interests of our trade or profession, and the safety of the public. I have re¬ 
gretted to see to what an extent this fact has been lost sight of in the abundant 
discussions of the last few years. Just as the true interests of employers and 
employed are o?ie, and any divergence from this rule will sooner or later entail 
mischievous results, so, I take it, the true interests of the public as purchasers, 
and of ourselves as vendors, whether of scientific ability or the mere retailing 
of drugs, etc., is one and the same. 
This principle of mutual welfare, whilst applicable to trade as a whole, lias 
a special bearing on ourselves, for ours is a business essentially of confidence. 
Society, in the long run, will give its preference to that man whose character 
and trade arrangements desire their confidence. It is because the interests 
of both are preserved, that I cordially approve the scope and design of the 
“ Pharmacy Act.” 
But it is a source of regret that a more cordial spirit of co-operation does 
not exist amongst ourselves as chemists and druggists. We present another 
illustration of the sad truth, that “ a man’s foes are they of his own household.” 
Our greatest difficulty will not be the House of Commons or the nation, but our 
divided position before them both. 
The u Pharmacy Act,” so far as I can see, has been framed in a spirit of safe 
yet generous concession to those who are without our ranks. How the door 
could, in justice to those who had entered in previous years, or with a due 
regard to the safety of the public, have been thrown open wider, I do not see. 
I had hoped this spirit of conciliation would have been frankly reciprocated 
