ON THE CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS BILL. 
69 
35. Are you of opinion that the safety of the public requires that some measure 
should be resorted to for securing competence, and a sufficient degree of knowledge on 
the part of persons becoming chemists and druggists ?—I am, decidedly ; I think it is 
as important, and perhaps more important, that it should be, than even with reference 
to the practice of medicine. It is as important to have medicines served by compe¬ 
tent persons as to have them prescribed. 
36. Now, independently of some measures which you have pointed out in your evi¬ 
dence, enabling those dealers to distinguish, by a kind of bottle, and so forth, as to the 
nature of the different substances or articles in which they deal, what measure should 
you be disposed to recommend to secure a competent degree of skill and knowledge 
and experience in the chemist and druggist, who has either to deal with poisons or 
poisonous substances, or to make up the prescriptions of medical men ?—I think on 
no account should there be allowed the practice you have described, of either retailing 
drugs of a dangerous nature, or to make up medical prescriptions, except under the 
restriction of an examination. I would not have the examination too severe, or make 
it too close, but it should be such a practical examination that a man should be able 
to state, when drugs are put before him, what they are and their uses, and should 
know them ; he should also be examined in his knowledge of Latin, and be able to in¬ 
terpret the weights and measures, and to translate freely. 
37. I will not trouble you with any question as to the precise nature and extent of 
the examination; but are you, from your knowledge, experience, and also from the 
attention you have given to this subject, perfectly satisfied that public safety requires 
that some such test should be applied by some kind of. examination for persons who 
are permitted to carry on the trade of chemists and druggists ?—I am strongly of 
that opinion. I have an objection myself to having medicine made up by persons I 
describe, unless I know something of the locality, and the person who is the druggist. 
38. And you express that opinion, as regards dealing with drugs of a dangerous 
character, and the making up of the prescriptions F—I do ; I apply that observation to 
both. 
Sir John Shelley.~\ 43. I think the substance of your evidence goes to this : that you 
think, as far as it can be done, it would be advisable that all persons, not only selling 
the poisonous ingredients, but selling drugs also, should pass some kind of examina¬ 
tion ?—No, I do not go quite to that extent. 
44. Perhaps you will explain to the Committee P—-For instance, I see no harm in 
unexamined persons selling Epsom salts and articles of that sort; but I say, with re¬ 
gard to all drugs or medicines "which are likely to affect life, there should be restric¬ 
tion. I would not restrict the selling of castor oil or Epsom salts. I cannot draw 
the distinction between a poison and a medicine, but I can point out, from my experi¬ 
ence, what has caused death during the last thirty years. I coidd suggest to you what 
I believe would create a great amount of safety, if restrictions were placed on certain 
articles. 
45. And you would be anxious to bear in mind, not to interfere unnecessarily with 
trade generally ?—I would : I should say unexamined persons might be allowed to 
sell such articles as are now sold in warehouses ; sulphur, and articles of that sort. 
46. In what way would you draw the line between the person in the village who 
would be permitted to sell the common things which you admit may be sold without 
any restriction, and the persons you would define as chemists and druggists, and who 
would have the sale of things other than absolute poisons like arsenic, morphine, and 
so on ?—I should prefer, as a condition of legislation, that some date should be fixed, 
after which all dealers in drugs should undergo an examination. The observation 
made as to Epsom salts is that one need not unnecessarily interfere retrospectively 
with a trade that has grown up and been established many years for the supply of 
country places; I think you could do it without injury to the trade, and with benefit 
to the public, by fixing a date after which all dealers in drugs must undergo an exami¬ 
nation. 
47. That would be prospectively ?—Yes. 
63. Will you be good enough to read that list?—I may tell you that in France 
there are nineteen articles prohibited: that is, putting the vegetable alkalies as one 
article. These substances were prohibited by the law of 1850, which the present Em- 
