THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[May 24, 1873 
944 
referred only to matters of detail, but others involved 
questions of some importance. It was for the meeting to 
express its opinion and to suggest any amendments ; but 
unless some principle were violated, it was very desirable 
that no alteration should take place, as it would cause 
considerable delay and inconvenience. They had been 
very fully discussed in Committee and at the Council, and 
he believed they would be found in accordance with the 
best interests of the Society. 
Mr. Giles, suggesting that the alterations should be 
-considered seriatim , 
The Solicitor read or described the various altera¬ 
tions. 
Mr. Giles, with reference to section 4, clause 1, relating 
to the alteration of bye-laws, said he did not raise any 
objection, and he was aware that similar provisions existed 
in many other societies, but he was not quite sure whether 
it might not be useful to afford members outside the 
Council an opportunity of initiating a new bye-law if they 
desired. 
The Solicitor said there was no alteration in this 
respect. 
Mr. Giles said he was aware of that. He only threw 
out the remark for consideration at some future time. 
Mr. Giles asked with regard to section 10, clause 12, 
whether the certificates referred to were certificates of 
qualification to be granted by other bodies. 
The Solicitor said only as regards the Preliminary 
examination. 
Mr. Giles said he might take that opportunity of say¬ 
ing that he hoped the Council would not lose sight of the 
desirability of dissociating themselves as much as possible 
from that Preliminary examination. It was not the 
object of the Society to constitute itself an examining 
body in literce humaniores, but they should confine them¬ 
selves as much as possible to technical matters. 
The Solicitor having concluded reading the alterations, 
Mr. Hampson said : Before the motion is put I must 
■claim the liberty of moving an amendment, as follows :— 
“ That the altered Bye-laws be approved and confirmed, 
save and except clause 16, section 10.” 
I am exceedingly sorry to have to oppose this bye-law 
again, but I have opposed it, and I hope to oppose it until 
it is thoroughly exterminated, for the simple reason that 
it is not legal. I am warranted in that opinion by legal 
authority which I have obtained ; I will read the section 
of the Act, 1868, clause 6, which is as follows :—“All such 
persons as shall from time to time have been appointed to 
conduct examinations under the Pharmacy Act, shall be, 
and are hereby declared to be Examiners for the purposes 
of this Act, and are hereby empowered and required to 
•examine all such persons as shall tender themselves for 
examination under the provisions of this Act.” Now, 
there the Examiners are “required;” there is no option; 
and under this clause any one can come up, of course, un¬ 
less this bye-law passes; then it will stand in the way. 
There are other reasons besides legal reasons, but I think 
I ought to state this also with reference to the legal 
•opinion that our own solicitor distinctly affirmed before the 
Parliamentary Committee, and I do not think I am com¬ 
mitting any breach of privilege in stating boldly my opi¬ 
nions. I believe what occurs before the Parliamentary 
Committee and comes to the knowledge of the Council 
becomes, or ought to become, open to all the members. 
On these grounds, I say again, I do not think I am guilty 
•of any breach of privilege in referring to this opinion, and 
I must again state what our own solicitor’s opinion was. 
Mr. Elux distinctly told us that it was illegal, and that 
we had no power to cause an interval of three years to be 
placed between one examination and the other. If that 
opinion be correct we have no right to pass this bye-law ; 
if we want to bring about such regulations let us go to 
Parliament and get the alteration in a straightforward 
way. I maintain that this is not a straightfoward way 
of making the alteration, it is opposed to the statutes, and 
I say it is unjustifiable to press it forward in this way. 
But besides that there is something to be said on the 
general question. I think it is very undesirable to make 
these hard and fast lines, and no evidence has been brought 
forward to show that they are necessary. The old bye-law 
has stood for a long time, and I believe it has borne good 
fruit. Why should we interfere in this manner, and say 
that a young man, a candidate, shall not pass his examin¬ 
ation when it is most convenient to him. Why should we 
say a young man should not pass in two years or two and 
a half years ? But this bye-law says no, you shall pass your 
examination at a certain time; that is to say, there shall be 
an interval of three years. Besides that there is another re¬ 
striction in this bye-law. It affirms that any one entering 
the trade shall be three years with a chemist and registered, 
or engaged for three y ears in dispensing prescriptions. If this 
bye-law passes it will be constantly evaded, and besides that 
the three years with a chemist is no guarantee whatever. 
In the majority of shops even in the metropolis, the great 
centre of pharmacy, it would be no guarantee of capacity 
or practical training. Is it not patent to us all that num¬ 
bers of tradesmen do not make any of their own prepara¬ 
tions, but buy them all, and their stock is on their shelves ? 
How, then, would a candidate obtain the knowledge of 
pharmacy ? Again, the subjects of examination are all 
practical subjects. You have botany; surely, if there is 
any practical subject in the world it is botany; and the 
examiners ought to be able to tell whether a candidate 
knows anything of botany pr not. So with dispensing— 
is it not possible to test the capacity of a dispenser in 
compounding emulsions or pills ? There is scarcely a per¬ 
son in the room but would be able to tell in five minutes 
whether a man knew his business or not. Again, coming 
to chemistry, the new regulations impose increased strin¬ 
gency in the examination, giving the examiners the power 
of testing the candidates in their knowledge of chemistry, 
and all this is in a practical direction. Therefore I say 
there is no necessity for this term of apprenticeship. On 
these grounds, and especially on the ground of illegality, I 
must oppose this bye-law. Only this morning I received 
an opinion from a barrister on this question. He says : 
“ It seems clearly contrary to the 6th section of the 
Pharmacy Act, 1868, which requires and empowers the 
examiners to examine all persons who shall present them¬ 
selves. The proposed bye-laws would restrict this gene¬ 
rally;” and he goes on to confirm this statement, and to 
say that it must be contrary to law. Why need we go 
and do things illegally ? Have the examiners become so 
worthless that we must step out of our way in this sur¬ 
reptitious manner—I use the word advisedly—to press 
tins bye-law on the Society? I believe the members 
generally scarce know what will be the consequence. 
Already there is a difficulty, as we have heard mentioned 
this morning, in getting assistants, and this will only be 
another barrier in the same direction. When evidence is 
brought forward to show that such a change as this is 
necessary, it will be quite time for us to consider whether 
we shall go to Parliament in a straightforward way and 
obtain a modification of the statute. 
Mr. Urwick seconded the amendment, simply on the 
ground that it was a departure from the principle of the 
Act. The Act clearly pointed out the examiners’ duties, 
viz., to examine every person who presented himself. It 
was the duty of the examiners to test the qualifications of 
the candidates. This new regulation would be putting 
a clog upon young men in compelling them to wait three 
years when they might be ready in two years or a little 
more. He opposed the alteration. He considered the 
bye-law ought to be in every respect in conformity with 
the statutes. 
Mr. M. Carteighe (London) was much astonished to see 
two gentlemen, members of the Parliamentary Committee 
and of the Council coming forward, and one of them 
bringing rival lawyer’s opinions, and asking the meeting 
not to accede to the proposition, which appeared to have 
been carried by a very large majority of the Council. 
Did they suppose that the other members of the Council 
