Oeiffi.r 12, 1872.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
293 
Clje |ij)ann;ic£titit;il Journal. 
-♦-- 
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 12 , 1872 . 
Communications for this Journal, and books for review,etc., 
should be addressed to the Editor, 17, Bloomsbury Square. 
Instructions from Members and Associates respecting the 
transmission of the Journal should be sent to Elias Brem> 
ridge, Secretary , 17, Bloomsbury Square . W.C. 
Advertisements to Messrs. Churchill, New Burlington 
Street, London , W. Envelopes indorsed “ Fharm. JournT 
THE NEW ADULTERATION ACT. 
We are glad to inform our readers that the ques¬ 
tion raised by our correspondent “ Pharmaceutist,” 
in the Journal for September 28, has now been 
decisively answered. The question was essentially 
a legal one; and though there might at first sight 
appear to be some reason for supposing that the 
word “ medical ” in the Act would render the 
Pharmaceutical Chemist or the Chemist and Drug¬ 
gist ineligible for the appointment of analyst, it is 
satisfactory to find that the interpretation of this 
term, not only by the Society’s solicitor, but also by 
the highest legal authorities, has, as a matter of law, 
resulted in sustaining that view of the case which 
we have already enunciated as regards the qualifi- 
■cations necessary for the office of Public Analyst, and 
the fitness of pharmacists to perform its duties. 
In accordance with the advice of Messrs. Flux 
a case was submitted to the Attorney-General, 
the Solicitor-General, and Mr. Langley, with a 
most satisfactory result, as will appear from the 
following:— 
“3, East India Avenue, Leaden hall Street, London, E.C. 
October 8th, 1872. 
“ To the President of the Pharmaceutical Society of 
Great Britain. 
41 Dear Sir, 
“ As to the Appointment of Analysts under the 35 
and 36 Viet. cap. 74. 
“ An opinion of the Attorney-General, the Solicitor- 
General and Mr. Langley has been obtained by us upon 
a case framed to raise the points lately suggested re¬ 
garding the eligibility of Pharmaceutical Chemists and 
Chemists and Druggists for the office of Analyst. 
“ The case referred to the Statutes of the present reign, 
15 and 16 cap. 56 ; 21 and 22 cap. 90; 23 and 24 cap. 
-84 ; 31 and 32 cap. 121 ; and 35 and 36 cap. 74. 
“ Of the question submitted and of the opinion a copy is 
annexed. 
“ The authority of the opinion must set at rest all 
doubts,—it must be considered clear that Medical Practi¬ 
tioners are not in any favoured position with regard to 
the appointment, and that any Pharmaceutical Chemist 
or Chemist and Druggist, or other person who in the 
opinion of the appointors possesses ‘ competent medical, 
chemical and microscopical knowledge,’ may lawfully 
be appointed to the office of Analyst. 
“ We are, Dear Sir, 
“ Yours truly, 
“ Flux and Co.” 
Question. 
“ Whether the words medical, chemical and microscopi¬ 
cal knowledge in the Act 35 and 36 Yict. cap. 74 must be 
read and construed to limit the choice of analysts so that 
only duly qualified Medical Practitioners can be appointed, 
or whether the question whether the elected person does 
possess competent medical, chemical and microscopical 
knowledge is not one of fact to be considered by the 
appointors (subject to the approval of the Secretary of 
State) without reference to any register of Medical Prac¬ 
titioners or Pharmaceutical Chemists or Chemists and 
Druggists or the roll of membership of any body of 
Microscopists. 
Opinion. 
“ We have considered this case and the Acts of Parlia¬ 
ment referred to in it, and we are of opinion that the 
words “medical, chemical and microscopical knowledge” 
in the 5th section of the 35 and 36 \ r ict. cap. 74 are not 
to be construed so as to limit the choice of Analysts 
within that section to duly qualified Medical Practi¬ 
tioners only. We are further of opinion that the 
second branch of the question submitted to us must be 
answered in the affirmative. 
“ J. D. Coleridge, 
“ G. Jessel, 
“ A. G. Langley. 
u 1th October, 1872.” 
We think the thanks of the pharmaceutical botty 
are due to our correspondent for having distinctly 
stated the doubt that had suggested itself to him, 
inasmuch as it might, if passed unnoticed, have prac¬ 
tically resulted in the prevention of the appointment 
of pharmacists to the office of analyst under the new 
Adulteration Act. 
We may mention, as a fact within our knowledge, 
that the possibility of the term “ medical ” being 
interpreted as restricting the appointment to medical 
practitioners had been recognized in other quarters, 
and for that reason gave rise to remonstrances while 
the Bill was before the House. 
THE RECTIFICATION OF THE REGISTER. 
The important notice given by the Registrar in 
tliis week’s Journal, is one to which we would call 
our reader’s special attention, for it offers points of 
interest not only to those persons who are warned 
that their names will in a short time be struck off the 
Register of Chemists and Druggists unless they 
communicate with the Registrar, but also to every 
person who has a claim to be upon that Register. 
As this is the first time that it has been thought de¬ 
sirable to publish a List of those names which would 
require to be struck off’ the Register in compliance 
with the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, 
it may be well to recapitulate the steps that have led 
up to the present result. About two years ago, the 
Registrar w r as instructed by the Council of the Phar¬ 
maceutical Society to issue a circular in reference to 
certain details in the working of the Pharmacy 
Act, 1868, to every person whose name appeared 
on the Register. A large number of these cir¬ 
culars, although addressed correctly according to 
the Register as it then stood, were returned through 
the Dead Letter Office. Shortly afterwards, and on 
more than one occasion, attention was called in these 
columns to this imperfect state of the Register with 
