443 
ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, EDINBURGH 
At a meeting of the College, held recently, there was read an opinion by Mr. A. 
R. Clark, advocate, in regard to the operation of the Pharmacy Act, of which the follow¬ 
ing is an excerpt:—“I am of opinion that the memorialists and their licentiates are 
legally qualified Apothecaries within the meaning of the Pharmacy Act, and that they are 
entitled to keep open shop and to dispense medicines. The Pharmacy Act is not of 
universal application. By the sixteenth section it is enacted that it shall not extend to, 
or interfere with, the business of any ‘ legally qualified apothecary.’ The question, there¬ 
fore, is, whether the memorialists and their licentiates are within the exception. They 
hold a diploma which authorizes them not only to practise as surgeons, but also to 
‘ exercise the office of a pharmaceutist.’” 
THE NEW PHARMACY ACT. 
A numerously attended meeting of the Chemists and Druggists and Pharmacists of 
the town was held in St. George’s Hall, Bradford, on Tuesday night, Dec. 22nd, to take 
into consideration the position of the trade in relation to the Pharmacy Bill passed last 
session, which will come into operation on the 1st January. Mr. F. M. Rimmington was 
requested to take the chair, and the following resolution was unanimously agreed to :—■ 
“As the Legislature has imposed great restrictions and onerous responsibilities upon 
those following the business of chemists and druggists, this meeting is of opinion that 
it is desirable the members of the trade form an association for the purpose of acting 
with greater unity; for discussing such matters as may arise affecting the interests of 
the body, and for promoting the study of such branches of science as are requisite for 
assistants and apprentices, to enable them to pass the necessary examinations of the 
Pharmaceutical Society.” A committee was appointed to consider the best means of 
carrying out this resolution, and another meeting will be held to receive the report.— 
Bradford Observer , Dec. 24. 
THE PHARMACY ACT AND THE RIGHTS OF MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS. 
We recently referred to the resolution taken at the last meeting of the Executive Com¬ 
mittee of the General Medical Council to take the opinion of counsel as to the probable 
interference of the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, and especially Clauses 1, 16, and 23, 
with the rights of registered medical practitioners under the Medical Act, to dispense or 
sell drugs used in the practice of medicine. We understand that the opinion of counsel, 
which has been received and circulated for the information of the members of the Exe¬ 
cutive Committee, affirms the rights of practitioners under the Medical Act, which pro¬ 
tects those registered under it from any interference on this score. The opinion of the 
Hon. George Denman has been taken by Mr. Ouvrv, upon a case elaborately stated, and 
he asserts decidedly that the rights of registered practitioners to dispense and sell medi¬ 
cines are in no way affected by the Pharmacy Act. We had already, some weeks since, 
received and promulgated the like opinion from a sound legal authority, in reply to a 
correspondent .—British Medical Journal. 
ACCIDENTAL POISONING BY OPIUM. 
Mr. Emsley, the borough coroner of Leeds, held an inquiry respecting the death of 
Elizabeth Scurrah, aged four weeks. It transpired that on Thursday evening the 
mother, the child being unwell, had given it a dose of paregoric, which she had obtained 
previously at Mr. Aldridge’s, druggist, North Street, for a child four years old. After 
taking the medicine the child became so ill that Mr. Seaton, surgeon, was sent for. 
That gentleman discovered that the child was suffering from the effects of opium, the 
essential ingredient of paregoric. Mr. Seaton’s efforts to save the child’s life were un¬ 
availing. In reply to the coroner, Mr. Seaton stated that it was dangerous to administer 
