618 
THE ADMISSION OE MEMBEES 
tion the members of the Society during tlie first ten years of its existence an¬ 
nounced themselves as such ; but the Pharmacy Act set up and protected a 
new title, that of “ Pharmaceutical Chemist,” whereby men who had proved 
their qualification should thereafter be known, and in consideration of the 
great service done by the Pharmaceutical Society to the public, in promoting 
the education of dispensers, it was enacted that all who were then members 
should have the privilege of enrolment as Pharmaceutical Chemists, and 
they continue such during their membership. The “ Pharmaceutical Che¬ 
mists ” of the future, men who had passed the Major examination, might or 
might not, as they pleased, become members of the Society, but in any case 
they would hold the highest rank in the country as Pharmaceutists to the 
end of their lives. Accordingly, when exemption from juries was accorded, it 
was not to members of the Society, but to “Pharmaceutical Chemists.” It 
is not surprising perhaps that some men, who felt proud of the good achieved 
by the Society, should have continued to proclaim their membership ; but 
even Mr. Mills writes, “ at last after years of toil, Pharmaceutical Chemists 
have come to be regarded at least as men who know their business, and a 
large and increasing amount of confidence exists in reference to them.” One 
great mistake seems to be the notion that “ Pharmaceutical Chemist ” and 
“ Member of the Pharmaceutical Society” are convertible terms. Another, 
that the public cannot be brought to understand the diflference between 
them. 
If those who fall into these errors could have heard how completely the 
gentleman "w ho introduced the Bill of 1865 to the House of Commons, ridi¬ 
culed such an idea and deprecated the multiplication of titles, they would 
perhaps come round to the belief that the public generally would know the 
meaning of names in due time. 
Now as to the policy of the proposed concessions. It is very well known 
to those who took the most active part in promoting the Bill of 1865, that 
the want of success was not owing so much to the disinclination of the 
House of Commons to pass a restrictive measure as to the want of union 
among members of the trade who wmre to be regulated by it; and that want 
of union was caused entirely by the question of membership of the Society. 
Is it desirable still further to dela}^ perhaps for ever prevent, success by 
what the outsiders call illiberality .P The Council thought not, and it may be 
fairly argued that they had other reasons for their offer of membership to 
“ Chemists and Druggists.” 
When Mr. Mills quotes, in his letter, what the President said to one of the 
deputations, as to the struggles and early trials of the founders, the present 
prosperity of the Society, the advantage it had received from the late agita¬ 
tion, the fact of the members having nothing to gain by opening the doors, 
and that “ the^ ivere satisfied to go on 'prosjpering as of late,” we think he 
stopped short at rather an important point. We understood the Pre¬ 
sident to say i;i effect, “we might he satisfied,” etc., “ but we cannot forget 
the great object for which this Society was established, the uniform educa¬ 
tion of those who should practise pharmacy, and we believe that end can 
only be attained by the union of all Chemists and Druggists in one body.” In 
that matter wo sincerely hope the Presideiit did, as Mr. Mills says he might 
be presumed to do, express the opinion of the Council. It may seem incon¬ 
sistent for this Journal to ignore the title of “ Member of the Pharmaceu¬ 
tical Society,” but looking at all the facts of the case w e cannot avoid doing 
so, although we attach the greatest importance to membership, its duties and 
privileges. Of its privileges we need not speak ; but for its duties and their 
performance we look through the last quarter of a century, and wdiat do we 
findP We find in the beginning some half-dozen or a dozen men standing 
