9 8 
THE ACT TO AMEND THE PHARMACY ACT OF 1868 . 
Section 5 amends Schedule F. of 1868, by adding the address to the name 
of the purchaser in the second column of the register to be kept of the sale 
of poisons. 
Such, then, are the provisions of. the new Act, and it will be seen at a 
glance that all of them tend to restore the Act of 1868 to the form in which 
it was originally proposed by the Pharmaceutical Society. So far as the 
medical profession is concerned, it is a virtual restoration of the words 
“ medical practitioner ” vice the word “ apothecary ” substituted for them 
in the House of Commons last year. The exemption of the members of the 
Hoyal College of Y eterinary Surgeons, is but a repetition of the exemption 
in the old Clause 16, and the addition of the holders of certificates from the 
Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland, is but a necessary extension for 
Scotland, where such persons are numerous, and about whose qualifications 
there is no doubt. 
Of the relief to assistants, few will dispute the justice, as it was absurd to 
suppose that an accidental absence from retail establishments during any por¬ 
tion of the three j r ears immediately preceding the 31st of July, 1868, should 
disqualify a man who had perhaps served twice the required time previously 
dispensing as the Act requires; moreover, the introduction of that word 
« immediately ” was an extension of the Act of which no one could ever trace 
the origin. 
The third section is by far the most important of all. It contains no 
change, but a very clear and concise rendering of the regulations to be ob¬ 
served in dispensing as distinguished from ordinary selling, and it may not be 
uninteresting to trace its progress. Dr. Brewer imagined that any mixture 
containing a poison as one of its ingredients, however minute in quantity, 
could not be legally sent out without bearing on its label “ the name of the 
article and the word poison ,” notwithstanding the mixture might have been 
prescribed by a physician, and might be properly directed as to instructions 
for use. Section 17 is a very long one, having been added to in many points, 
by many hands, in the House of Commons, and it is perhaps difficult to go 
from end to end of it with a clear conception of its requirements and exemp¬ 
tions ; nevertheless a careful consideration will show that the doctor’s opinion 
was erroneous. We need not tire our readers here by arguing this point, 
the more especially as the amendment sets the question at rest completely, and 
we are thankful to Dr. Brewer for giving so good an opportunity of removing 
. all ambiguity. His proposed amendment was in these words :— 
“ Hothing contained in Section 17 of the said recited Act shall apply 
to any medicine dispensed under the prescription in writing of any legally 
qualified medical practitioner, provided such medicine be dispensed by any 
person qualified according to the provisions of the said Act, and be distinctly 
labelled with the name and address of the seller, and the ingredients thereof 
be entered, with the name of the person to whom it is sold or delivered, 
in a book to be kept by the seller for that purpose.” . 
To this exemption, on the face of it, there seemed little or no objection, 
but that it would throw doubt on the exemption already provided in Sec¬ 
tion 17 for all medicines dispensed by persons registered under the Phar¬ 
macy Act, as well those for which the written prescription of a legally quali¬ 
fied medical practitioner was in the hands of the dispenser as others. 
Those who are practically engaged in compounding medicines must be 
perfectly aware of the mischief which would have arisen from such a one¬ 
sided amendment. To say nothing of the compounds daily put together from 
“ family recipes,” copies of prescriptions, and even verbal instructions, it 
would be sufficient to point out the difficulty of identifying the prescription 
