THE PROPOSED PHARMACY BILL. 
659 
possible to make up the medicine without obtaining the article from the said 
house. What is tbatP I call it medical quackery, or, at all events, annoy¬ 
ing ; and there is room to surmise the doctor and the chemist understand each 
other—a matter which is certainly unfair and unprofessional to others. 
Further, I would that there was more uniformity in our charges ; it is a 
source of great dissatisfaction often to our customers and ourselves. 'J'here 
is something very petty in dispensing medicine, as many do, without paying 
themselves for their time and skill; and I hope to see a scale of prices in 
accordance with tlie medicines prescribed put forw ard, so that there may in 
future be more uniformity, or approximation thereto, in our charges as 
regards mixtures of an ordinary kind, and others composed of nearly all tinc¬ 
tures or concentrated preparations. I tiiink by so doing our business would 
be more comfortably conducted, and the public more satisfied. 
I am, Gentlemen, 
Yours respectfnlly, 
April 23, 1867. M. P. S. 
THE PROPOSED PHARMACY BILL. 
TO THE EDITOR OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Sir,—I am only one of many who have expressed their disapproval of the 
policy of the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society in the proposed Phar¬ 
maceutical legislation. Those who have passed the examinations of the 
Society, spent their time and money with the object of obiaining a title, 
which, (as the Council represented) being a guarantee of efficiency, would 
gain for them a reputation, and raise them to distinction, by enabling them 
to stand out before the public as fully qualified practitioners in pharmacy. 
B}’^ such representations as these, myself and many others have been in¬ 
duced to brave the tiouble and expense of passing these examinations; in 
some cases the monetary question is rather a serious item : calculating ex¬ 
amination and lecture fees, loss and deficiency in salary for a few months, 
and other necessary expenses, my expenses amounted to about £50. I was 
most economical in my expenditure, and consider I succeeded at a small 
cost; some of my fellow-students assure me that it cost them £l00, and others 
£200. But now the Council are turning the cold shoulder to our in¬ 
terests, ignoring our claims, and virtually removing our titles, by making the 
distinction betw een the title of the Pharmaceutical Chemist and the supposed 
new^-corners so vague and insignificant, that the public can never be expected 
to realize nor recognize the difi’erence. Many Pharmaceutical Chemists now 
inscribe themselves over their doors, and on their labels, “ Members of the 
Pharmaceutical Society,” and in the opinion of the public the two will always 
be inseparably associated, “ A Major Associate ” correctly states that “ they 
(the public) will naturally imagine that as emhership is the highest dciiree 
granted by the Society, any man who is a Member of the Society is of course 
a Pharmaceutical Chemist.” You may with equal reason admit a man as a 
member of the Royal College of Surgeons, and not allow him to call himself 
a surgeon. 
1 am not a bigoted or prejudiced man, and willingly admit that all accom¬ 
plished chemists and druggists are not within the pale of the Pharmaceutical 
Society. There are many well-qualified chemists who have attained respec¬ 
table positions in the trade, w ho are connected wdth the United Society, or are 
w hat are termed outsiders, some of w hom w ould even grace the title of Phar¬ 
maceutical Chemists. Y'et there is a multitude of others (and I say it from 
