THE PAST AND THE FUTURE. 
669 
jeets, and we trust the Council will spare no effort to pass it into law at the 
earliest possible opportunity. 
We are, Sir, yours respectfully, 
Charles Boorne, Bristol. 
John Boucher, Bristol. 
Isaiah Bourdas, jun., London. 
W. H. Bell, London. 
H. B. Brady, Newcastle. 
!Michael Carteighe, London. 
Robert Elliott, Gateshead. 
H. S. Evans, Liverpool. 
Samuel G-ale, London. 
R. VV . Giles, Clifton. 
W. H. Holroyd, London. 
Walter Holgate, Liverpool. 
Joseph Ince, London. 
John Mayfield, Leeds. 
C. R. Quiller, London. 
Richard Reynolds, Leeds. 
J. Robbins, London. 
G. F. ScHACHT, Clifton. 
William Smekton, Leeds. 
C. Symes, Birkenhead. 
Frederick Tibbs, London. 
Charles Umney, London. 
Alfred Utley, Liverpool. 
Edwin B. Vizer, London. 
THE PAST AND THE FUTURE. 
to the editor of the pharmaceutical journal. 
Sir,—Now that there seems every probability of a more perfect union 
amongst all classes of Cheraisrs, Pharmaceutists, and Druggists, which, it is to 
be hoped, will result in a more comprehensive scheme of self-government and 
inherent power, it may not be amiss to fairly examine the questions, “ Why 
has the Pharmaceutical S ciety hitherto failed to draw within its fold the bulk 
and majority of those practising pharmacy?” How comes it, that so few 
(about 2000) amongst us are members, when so many are, even now, after 
frequent concessions at different times, “outsiders”? 
It may be said, that the hotter class of Chemists have joined the Society, and 
this, to a certain extent is, doubtless, true ; yet there are many highly educated 
men who still hold aloof from us, and so long as this is so, the Pharmaceutical 
Society cannot hope to make any very decided progress. In short, the Society 
has not been sat sfactoiily successful on the voluntary principle, and compulsory 
measures can only be taken with the assistance of non society men. 
So far as I can understand the matter, and looking at it in a broad light, 
there are two reasons why this is so. 
1. The failure, on the part of the public, to understand and appreciate the 
value of the title “ Member of ihe Pharmaceutical Society.” 
2. The failure, on the part of the Chemist, to find any perceptible or real 
advantage, eiiher to his position or business, from the use of the title. 
With regard to the first of these reasons—it is an indisputable fact that the 
public, as a body, do not attach any particular value to the words, “ Member of 
the Pharmaceutical S'lciety.” Hereai d there we find one who partially under¬ 
stands it, but even this one thinks it somewhat strange that in many towns the 
leading chemists do not possess this distinction, and, naturally enough, at once 
assumes there can be very little meaning in it. The general public have a very 
hazy notion of the Society : some imagine it to be (as the word Society implies) 
a Sort of brotherhood, or free-and-easy club, with a subscription of a guinea or 
so a year, and an annual dinner; others, again, imagine it to be a species of 
trades-union, possibly to keep up retail prices, and keep down the salaries of 
assistants, etc., and other cognate matters— ergo., a society to be avoided at all 
hazards ; but few, very few, have the least glimmering of the pride and ambi¬ 
tion that cheers the heart of the true pharmaceutist. 
The second reason may be regarded merely as a consequent, or corollary, of 
