504 
THE TWO SOCIETIES. 
3. “ That to obviate this difficulty, it is desirable some qualification should 
be named, upon which future legislation may be based ; and this Committee, 
in correspondence with the Central Committee, pledges itself earnestly to 
consider this subject before the next meeting of Parliament.” 
This was the origin of the Chemists and .Druggists’ Bill Ho. 2, and it will 
serve to explain the objects for which it has been introduced. It has, no 
doubt, enabled them to add to their list of members, but we deny that even 
at the present time they have anything like 2000 bond fide Chemists and 
Druggists on their list. 
If they have 3000 members paying an annual subscription of five shillings, 
we ask what has been done with the proceeds of these subscriptions ; for, al¬ 
though each item is but a paltry pittance, the aggregate amount ought to be 
somewhere. It is not sufficient that they publish an array of names with little 
or no means of identifying the individuals, and nothing to show what has 
been done, and when it was done, to justify the appearance of such names in 
the list. We have tried to analyse this list, but find it a hopeless task to do 
so to more than a small extent. We can discover, however, that it is not a 
list of bond fide Chemists and Druggists, but contains the names of persons of 
all ages, both sexes, and various occupations, including printers, soapmakers, 
ironmongers, cabinet-makers, perfumers, Italian warehousemen, quack doc¬ 
tors, distillers, vinegar-makers, solicitors, etc. etc.; and, besides these, as if 
to justify more fully the character of its authors for powers of mystification, 
there are a certain number of anonymous entries, such as Gr. F. (B. F.); a 
Friend, etc. There are, it is true, the names of a few respectable Chemists 
in the list, some of whom are as much surprised to find their names there as 
we have been to see them, and they say they have done nothing more to jus¬ 
tify it than having at some former period given a small donation to the 
agent to appease his solicitations ; but in this case, as in that of the Church, 
“ once a parson always a parson and thus, after a lapse of years, by dint 
of much touting, the list may be swelled up to a respectable length. We 
may apply to it the definition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the 
word deputation—“ A noun of multitude signifying many, but not signifying 
much.” 
Until the present time we have avoided making any direct allusion to the 
United Society or their proceedings. There are among them those whom we 
recognize as brethren, and for whom we feel the respect due to fellow-workers 
in the same cause and occupation, with many feelings and interests in com¬ 
mon. We regret to find ourselves in a position antagonistic to such, and 
especially to find that their names are used to give the semblance of respect¬ 
ability to a list that cannot be otherwise viewed by those who are acquainted 
with the facts of the case than as a most unreal representation of even a 
section of the bond fide Chemists and Druggists of this country. We should 
have been glad to have been spared the duty of referring to this subject, but 
the present circumstances of the case demand that we should state the truth 
and the whole truth, as far as we know it. 
