432 
TRANSACTIONS OR THE PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY. 
with you in heart, and earnestly hope for the success which will surely follow the indi¬ 
vidual action of the society. I remain, dear Sir, yours truly, 
Edmund Holt. 
Hon. Sec. U. S. C. and D. Manchester District. 
Mr. C. BiLOtt, Secretary of the United Society of Chemists and Druggists. 
(Correspondence.) 
11th January, 1867. 
Dear Sir,—Will you kindly inform me whether the reply of the Council of this So¬ 
ciety to the communication which you sent me from a meeting of chemists and druggists, 
held at Manchester, on the 23rd November, of which you were chairman, and which was 
reported to have been numerously attended, has been put before the persons by whom 
the Eesolutions in your communication were passed ? I ask this, because I see by the 
‘ Chemist and Druggist ’ of the present month, that a letter was read at the meeting of 
the Executive Committee of the United Society, on the 10th instant, from a Mr. Holt, of 
Manchester, expressing the disapproval, not of the chemists and druggists who sent the 
Resolution to this Society, but of the “Committee of the Manchester District of the 
United Society,” and that steps were at once taken to discredit in every possible way, 
not even excepting misrepresentation, the proposals and suggestions put into the hands 
of the Government by the Pharmaceutical Society. 
I am, dear Sir, faithfully yours. 
To W. JBowker, Esq., Manchester. Elias Bremridge, Secretary. 
Deansgate, Manchester, January 22, 1867. 
Dear Sir,—Absence from home has prevented me from replying earlier to your letter. 
The meeting held here, of which I was Chairman, was a meeting of chemists and 
druggists; the majority present were not members of the United Society. It was a 
large and influential meeting of the trade in Manchester and the districts for many miles 
around this city. Speaking candidly, I believe Mr. Buott was the main instrument in 
promoting the meeting, but it was distinctly understood that it was a meeting indepen¬ 
dent of the United Society. 
The Resolutions passed were unanimous, and were sent to the United Society as the 
best parties to present them to the Pharmaceutical Board, as they had already commu¬ 
nicated with that Society ; since that, I have not seen the reply sent by your Board to 
the United Society. We have had no public meeting here since the one you allude to. I 
believe there has been a Committee meeting since, which I could not attend. 
Yours sincerely. 
To Mr. Bremridge. Wm. Bowker. 
January 23, 1867. 
Dear Sir,—Enclosed is a copy of the Resolution of the Council on the 22nd instant, in 
reply to the Resolutions of the Manchester meeting of the 23rd November last, of which 
you were Chairman. 
I send also a copy of the note to the Executive Committee of the United Society, ac¬ 
companying the Resolution, and specially requesting that it might be sent to you. 
The resolutions passed at Manchester, and the reply will necessarily appear in the 
Society’s Journal and Transactions in the ensuing month; and, as action has been taken 
by a section in Manchester in reference to that reply, as referred to in my last, I would, in 
justice to the chemists and druggists who attended the meeting of the 23rd November, 
and with a view of exemplifying the unfair course adopted, ask permission to publish 
your note to me of yesterday’s date. 
Having so far taken a public and prominent part in the proceedings, I must leave it 
to 3 mu to decide whether any or what further steps you may deem necessary to take so 
as to bring the opinion of the Council of the Society before the chemists and druggists 
in your district. 
For your guidance, I enclose copy of Resolutions passed by the Bath Chemists’ Asso- 
sociation, and I believe these would be the opinions of the majority of unbiassed chemists 
throughout the country. Waiting the favour of your reply in course of post, 
I am, dear Sir, faithfully yours. 
To Wm. Bowker, Esq., Manchester. Elias Bremridge, Secretary. 
