794 
ANNUAL MEETING. 
it must be remembered that the Pharmacy Bill was accepted through a Poison Bill. 
Por years they had been trying to get something in the shape of a recognized status. 
They had tried all sorts of means to get a distinct qualification under an Act, but 
could not do so, and never would have got it except through the agency of a Poison 
Bill. The public cared nothing about the educational status of chemists, but simply 
wanted protection in the matter of poison. There was a grand fight between the So¬ 
ciety, as represented by the Council, on the one side, and the Government, as repre¬ 
senting the public, on the other ; and the Pharmacy Bill was a compromise. They 
did not come, therefore, as a Council and ask the meeting to sanction certain things 
which they thought would be good for leading West End houses, but they came in 
fulfilment of -what they considered an actual bond to which they had pledged them¬ 
selves. lie objected, as much as possible, to every regulation about poisons being 
put in the Bill; and he might go further, and say he objected to every clause which 
contained these regulations, and would have done all he could to keep them out alto¬ 
gether. But he found that, in that way, they would not get the Pharmacy Act passed 
at all. In proposing these regulations, therefore, they had brought forward what 
some gentlemen seemed to consider a very formidable list. But it was, in fact, 
simple to a degree. It gave as much latitude as possible to the members ; whereas 
in every Poison Bill which had been brought forward, there were long lists of restric¬ 
tions much more annoying than anything now proposed. All these things were ad¬ 
mitted to be good, if a certain amount of trouble were taken. The whole question 
was narrowed to this. The trade said they declined to be trammelled with any regu¬ 
lations at all. But, on the other hand, the Council said, “We are bound to submit 
certain regulations to you.” The question was, were they powerful enough as a body 
to keep out any regulations of the sort which might be brought forward in any other 
Act of Parliament, if public excitement were aroused by a series of the Palmer poison 
cases. If they could be quite sure of that, then they might be right in refusing to 
adopt these rules ; but he very much doubted it. They would certainly be told by 
the Government of the day, “You had a fair opportunity of considering this question, 
but you did not even propose an adjournment to analyse the thing, and see how it 
worked and in that way they would put themselves, he thought, in a very unfortu¬ 
nate relation to the public. He, thereftme, recommended them to adopt these mild 
alternative regulations, rather than run the risk of having some much more stringent 
ones imposed upon them. 
Mr. Squire said he had endeavoured through life to keep as much as possible to 
one principle. He had always been of opinion that precautions with regard to the 
shape of bottles were not so safe as labels. He remembered quite well when Mr. 
Bell and himself were examined before the Committee of the House of Lords, one 
gentleman brought down in his pocket one day a three-cornered bottle, and asked if 
that would not do very well for a poison bottle. “ Oh,” said Mr. Bell, “ Crosse and 
Blackwell have patented that for pickles ; we should have to pay them for a licence.” 
Mr. Bell was then asked why he did not do such-and-such things ? and his reply was, 
“ I would never put up a fence unless it could be a secure one, because people would 
lean against it, and fall into the water.” Before they adopted these recommendations, 
therefore, they ought to be thoroughly satisfied that they would be a secure defence 
to the public; and if they were, no doubt they would be readily adopted. It might, 
perhaps, be well, after the subject had been so well ventilated, that the question should 
be adjourned, in order to see if any other regulations would be accepted by the Go¬ 
vernment as a security to the public ; and he certainly thought some of the provisions 
were not as perfect as they might be. Perhaps, on further consideration, they might 
be improved, and rendered les3 annoying to the trade, whilst giving equal or even 
greater safety to the public. 
Mr. Nicholson - said there was a very animated debate in the House of Lords on 
the passing of the Pharmacy Bill when the question of distinctive bottles was brought 
forward, and unmistakably rejected. To show the difficulty of working the third 
rule, with regard to liniments and lotions, he might mention that he had very re¬ 
cently seen a poison bottle from a Regent Street house filled with sal volatile. 
Mr. Hucklebridge thought the Society would incur a very heavy responsibility if 
they rejected these regulations without being prepared to put anything in then* place. 
