362 
EIGHTEEN. HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SEYEN. 
means, the trust and approbation of the public ; but it has a more extended 
field of operation bequeathed to it by those enlightened individuals who com¬ 
menced its work. They associated themselves together (so says the Charter) 
“ for the purpose of advancing chemistry and pharmacy, and promoting an 
uniform system of education of those who should practise the same ; and also 
for the protection of those who carry on the business of chemists and druggists;’’ 
and whereas, according to the opening words of the Pharmacy Act, “it is ex¬ 
pedient for the safety of the public, that persons exercising the business or 
calling of Pharmaceutical Chemists in Great Britain, should possess a competent 
practical knowledge of pharmaceutical and general chemistry and other 
branches of useful knowledge,” the members of the Society have always inter¬ 
preted these expressions to apply to the whole body of dispensing chemists, and 
endeavoured, as far as in them lay, by liberal concessions, to be granted in the 
event of the examinations being made compulsory, to bring all pre-existing 
dispensers into one body, assured that a present sacrifice would produce ultimate 
success alike to pharmacy, pharmaceutists, and the public. That this is no 
sudden outburst of liberality we will presently show ; but we first proceed to 
consider the other party to the transaction, as a further corroboration of our 
opinion that the present is a fitting time for action. By “ the other party” we 
mean here those who by common consent have for some time been called the 
“ outsiders.” 
In speaking of those gentlemen who have not hitherto deemed it wise or de¬ 
sirable to assist in our work, w^e have in this Journal always studiously avoided 
anything which might savour of personality or recrimination ; and if, in our re- 
marlts now on a change of feeling which seems to have come over a section of 
them, we have to allude to things which are past, we beg that such allusion may 
be regarded as a necessity, and not a matter of choice. It must be almost su¬ 
perfluous to say, that when two parties have to come to an understanding, there 
can be no greater hindrance to success in arriving at it than a feeling of distrust 
or antagonism between them. Now such a feeling has undoubtedly influenced 
some of the parties to the present question. It has been stated openly, there¬ 
fore it would be folly to ignore the fact, that the Pharmaceutical Society was a 
clique, only seeking its own aggrandisement, and desirous of subjecting the 
whole trade to its authority. That the Society has accomplished its own suc¬ 
cess—aggrandisement, if you will—we are proud to admit, or, using a stronger 
term, to assert; but the first and third charges we utterly deny. Beyond the 
subjects for examination, and those are according to the general instruction of an 
Act of Parliament, the Society .^exercises no more control over the conduct of 
its own trade than it does over the trade of a horse-dealer. For exclusiveness, 
be it remembered that the Council, on the first passing of the Act, opened its 
door so wide as to give ground for long and expensiveTitigation, and since that 
time has had no power, even if it had the will, to admit members on any other 
terms than the right of qualification according to the Act. 
Now at this time it happens that some of those who have been loudest in de¬ 
claiming against the Pharmacy Act, have come forward to propose its extension; 
and those who two years ago would have persuaded Government to institute a 
second Society, now desire that all chemists and druggists should be united in 
one body. And what hinders ? "VVe will not go into the question of what has 
hindered. If all are of one mind,—and looking at the proposals of the Phar¬ 
maceutical Society, made twelve months ago, on the one hand, and the resolu¬ 
tions of the chemists and druggists at Manchester, as published in the ‘ Chemist 
and Druggist ’ of December 15th, on the other,—we are really puzzled to find 
a fair answer to the question. 
It is true indeed, as our contemporary states in his able remarks on “The 
Manchester Meeting,.” “ that the Executive Committee of the United Society 
