494 PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY AND CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS. 
the “ upper ten thousand,” and we can, perhaps, imagine that there may be ten. 
thousand persons in this kingdom, or might have been when patricians and 
plebeians were more widely separated than they are now, so far removed from 
the ordinary cares of life as to be indifferent on many things nearly concerning 
the “ peoplebut it is beyond imagination that there can be an “ upper ten 
millions ” who can be indifferent to the common weal; and that would be about 
the proportion, as regards the population of Great Britain, that the Pharma¬ 
ceutical Society bears to the whole chemists and druggists. Pharmaceutical 
Chemists are chemists and druggists like unto others in all that regards their 
interest in the trade; an interference with pharmacy by the Medical Council, 
or any other authority, would be as objectionable to them as to the smallest 
druggist who can fairly claim the title—perhaps more so,—and it is for that very 
reason that the Pharmaceutical Society has worked for the last quarter of a 
century, regardless of time, trouble, and treasure, to elevate the whole trade to 
such a position that its own members may be chosen, and claim to be chosen, to 
undertake the duties of such management as is declared to be necessary now. 
And if in doing all this the Pharmaceutical Society has gained the confidence of 
the Government, the higher branches of the medical profession, and the public, 
should it thereby forfeit, or has it forfeited, the goodwill of the men whom it 
has advanced ? We assert fearlessly that the Pharmaceutical Society does more 
fully represent the “trade” than any other association. The very fact of the 
means provided by the trade for this work is a proof of it. 
It concerns us to uphold the Council and Local Secretaries as well as the 
Society. We cannot avoid remarking on the gratuitous insult which was offered 
to both by one of the deputation from the United Society to Sir George Grey, 
who talked of the “ misrepresentations"' which had been used to obtain signa¬ 
tures to the recent memorials. Some correspondence from Walsall bearing on 
this subject will be found in another part of this Journal. lie did not venture 
to describe the misrepresentations, but we do venture to describe his accusation 
as slanderous and untrue. The publication of the Bill, drawn by the Council of 
the Pharmaceutical Society, preceded the issuing of the memorials from Blooms¬ 
bury Square, and there was no representation made that any deviation from 
that Bill was contemplated. Chemists and Druggists, whether Pharmaceutical 
or not, were asked for an expression of approval, and they gave it, much more 
heartily we think than their soi-disant representatives expected or approved. 
Sir George Grey was informed that Sir Fitzroy Kelly’s Bill demanded “ that 
persons should have a knowledge of Latin , Botany , Materia Medic a, Pharmacy , 
and Chemistry but that Sir John Shelley’s Bill only required an examination 
as to “ the nature and doses of medicines, \ and an ability “ to read prescriptions 
with ease and accuracy .” The former must certainly be the science of Materia 
Medica, with some Pharmacy and Chemistry, if not Botany ; and the latter, 
we think, necessitates an acquaintance with the language in which prescrip¬ 
tions are written. Wherein, then, lies the great difference which makes one 
examination oppressive, and the other altogether acceptable? Perhaps in the- 
presumption that the United Society, which "was formed without any reference 
to education, may be expected to make their examinations so complete a farce 
that they will afford neither safety to the public nor honour to the examined. 
The Pharmaceutical Society is next charged with a desire to arrogate for its 
members a superiority which only exists in name. If the gentleman who said 
this will take the trouble to read the Bill, he will find the Pharmaceutical 
Society is bound to give the same trading titles to all who shall pass its examina¬ 
tions, whether connected with it or not; and the enactment of Sir John 
Shelley’s Bill would no more abolish the distinction between “ Pharmaceutical 
Chemists” and “ Chemists and Druggists” than does Sir Fitzroy Kelly’s. 
If anything can perpetuate a division—or, if no division exist, create one— 
