792 
ANNUAL MEETING. 
which had been mentioned, where a lotion had been taken by mistake, because it was 
net put into a distinctive bottle. 
Mr. Urwick said that showed the effect of educating people, to fancy that every 
lotion must be put in a lotion bottle. 
Mr. Sandfoed said they had been trying to educate the public for sometime in this 
way, and it showed that the public were beginning to appreciate it. The responsibility 
of making some such regulations as these rested on the Society in a very serious way. 
He had been in communication with the Privy Council office respecting these regula¬ 
tions for the last twelve months, and when one gentleman spoke of being called upon 
suddenly to adopt them, he must have forgotten that they were all published three 
months ago in the January number of the Journal, when it was also announced that 
they would be submitted to the annual meeting. They had received certain privileges 
under the Pharmacy Act, so far that no one could now carry on the business of a chemist 
and druggist w ho w r as not registered by the Society, and as they had privileges under 
this Act, so they had duties to perform; and one of the first of these was to adopt 
some such regulations as were now proposed, and which had been declared to be good 
in themselves. [Several members expressed dissent from this.] He had not heard any 
serious objection taken to any one. But if one was objectionable, there were the other 
two to fall back upon. No doubt it was unpleasant to be bound to do your duty; 
but it must be remembered that there were many chemists who had not that high 
sense of duty and responsibility, and who w r ere not such educated men as those whom 
he saw before him. He, therefore, considered that such regulations ought to be passed, 
and that they should be compulsory alternatively in every shop where the business 
was carried on. If they did not do that, they would not be in a position to go to the 
Government and say they had kept faith with them. The Government were treating 
the Society with great confidence and liberality, and it had therefore a duty towards 
the Government to perform. In fact, their duty to the Government was to protect 
the public, and unless they made some such regulations as these, the duty would not 
be performed. 
Mr. Manet (Southampton) maintained that there was not a chemist in the room 
who would not and did not do all lie possibly could to carry out the Poison Bill to 
all intents and purposes. But he was perfectly persuaded that it could not be carried 
out in wholesale warehouses or cellars where large stocks of oxalic acid, and other 
articles of that description were kept. 
Mr. Saneford said he had forgotten to mention, in reference to what had been said 
about keeping morphia and paregoric lozenges, that he had never yet labelled 
paregoric as poison, and he felt that he was perfectly justified. He should never put 
paregoric into the poison cupboard, or treat it in any way as a poison. 
Mr. Waugh, amid much laughter, said he was surprised to hear their late Presi¬ 
dent, after telling them the duty they owed to the Government, state plainly that he 
deliberately violated the Act; but he supposed lie did so because his common sense 
told him that he could not label these things “poison,” unless he put it “Poison by 
Act of Parliament.” 
Mr. Betnoles, of Leeds, said he believed the object of bringing this matter forward 
was to ascertain what was the general feeling of the members of the Society; but 
there might be other means, besides the voices of those present, for ascertaining that. 
It was a very remarkable thing that the Journal recorded six memorials presented 
from six leading towns, every one protesting against these regulations, and represent¬ 
ing fourteen meetings held specially for the purpose. With regard to his own town, 
the subject had been fully discussed and carefully canvassed, copies of the regulations 
having been printed and circulated; and also the objections which had been raised 
to them. The matter had been thoroughly gone into, pro and con., and the result 
was a memorial, with 10(5 signatures against the adoption of these rules, there being 
only one refusal to sign it. He might, therefore, say that the chemists of Leeds were 
unanimous in deprecating such a course of action. They had had four months to 
consider, and certainly what Mr. Edwards had said had rather convinced him that 
the case which the Council had to present was worse than he thought it before. He 
had heard a great many vague threats about the Privy Council, but they only put him 
in mind of the way in which some people talked to children about a black man, who 
would carry them off if they did not behave themselves. A challenge had been 
