March 25, 1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
765 
in which he had deprecated the continuance of the 
governing power in the hands of any section so small 
as the Pharmaceutical Society. He did not find fault 
with them availing themselves of the privilege; they 
were in perfect order, they having a right by law, as 
the governing body, to pursue what course they thought 
proper. The chemists and druggists had pledged them¬ 
selves to abide by any regulations which the Pharma¬ 
ceutical Society should pass, therefore it was not so 
much against the Pharmaceutical Society as against 
themselves they ought to complain, in having put con¬ 
fidence in man. They had an opportunity some years 
ago, when the Bill was before the House, of resisting it, 
and they had the power in their own hands. As non- 
pharmaceutical chemists, as they were often called, 
although many of them understood pharmacy and prac¬ 
tised it as much as some, the present was only the first 
instalment arising from such a course of procedure. He 
would object to memorializing the Pharmaceutical So¬ 
ciety, as they had taken no notice of the registered che¬ 
mists ; they were governed without being consulted, they 
were not represented on the Council, although they had 
a claim to have seven out of twenty-one, and he ques¬ 
tioned whether there was one registered chemist on 
the Council. It was contrary to British liberty and to 
British legislation that men who were not represented 
should be legislated for, without being consulted in the 
slightest degree, and asked to submit to any law they 
wished to make. He objected to the resolution proposed, 
as their remedy was in the House of Commons; he should 
propose that a memorial against the regulations be drawn 
up and sent to the Privy Council. 
Mr. Atcester seconded the amendment. 
The Chairman - said he did not see how they could 
approach the House of Commons on the subject; no 
doubt the Medical Council had moved in the matter 
through Mr. Simon, and it was with the Council of the 
Pharmaceutical Society we had to remonstrate, but he 
did not care what course was adopted so long as the pro¬ 
posals were upset. 
The amendment was then put, and only three hands 
held up for it, it was declared lost. The original motion 
was then put and carried. 
Mr. Myers proposed “ That whilst chemists generally 
would doubtless welcome, and, as far as possible, adopt 
any suggestions tending to lessen the risk of accident, 
this meeting is of opinion it is practically impossible to 
lay down any rigid rule applicable to all establishments 
alike, with respect to the keeping, selling and dispensing 
of poisons, and the enactment of such a law would seri¬ 
ously trammel and increase the responsibility of che¬ 
mists and druggists without leading to greater safety on 
the part of the public.” 
Mr. II ollin gsworth seconded the resolution, which 
was earnestly supported by Mr. A. Smith and carried. 
Mr. Smith moved “That this meeting considers it 
would be an act of great injustice and severity to the 
chemists and druggists of England and Scotland should 
the proposed regulations be enforced upon them, whilst 
surgeons, veterinary surgeons, and dispensaries are ex¬ 
empted, and would expose the public to greater danger 
from varying customs, than if no such unwise attempt 
been made.” This was seconded by Mr. Barlow, sup¬ 
ported by Mr. Gales, and carried unanimously. 
Mr. Earle proposed the following resolution: “That 
this meeting deeply regrets that the Council of the Phar¬ 
maceutical Society had not decided to take the sense of 
the trade prior to the Annual Meeting, as suggested by 
Messrs. Woolley and Brown,” which was seconded by 
Mr. Akester, and carried unanimously. 
Mr. Stan in g moved “ That assistance be given to the 
Defence Association by subscribing to its funds,” which 
was seconded by Mr. Smith. 
Mr. Gales objected to the subscriptions being sent to 
the Association at Manchester, and moved an amend¬ 
ment, that they be sent to the United Society of Che¬ 
mists and Druggists, which, not finding a seconder, the 
original motion was put and carried. 
A hearty vote of thanks to the Chairman closed the 
meeting. 
MEETING IN LIVERPOOL. 
A Meeting of the Chemists and Druggists of Liverpool 
was held at the Royal Institution on Thursday evening, 
the 16th instant,— 
“ To consider the proposed compulsory regulations for 
the keeping, storing and dispensing of poisons.” 
It was moved by Mr. Abraham, and seconded by Mr. 
Alered E. Tanner, that Mr. Edward Davies, F.C.S., 
take the chair. 
The Chairman said he had been invited to preside, 
not being affected in any way by the question for dis¬ 
cussion, and, therefore, unbiassed in his opinions. The 
meeting, though called by the Council of the Chemists’ 
Association, was not connected therewith, but the reso¬ 
lution would be the voice of the chemists and druggists 
of Liverpool. 
The Secretary read the circular convening the meet¬ 
ing ; the proposed compulsory poison regulations ; and 
several letters of apology from those not able to attend, 
each of which expressed strong protests against legis¬ 
lative interference. 
Mr. Redford said that he had taken the course which 
had resulted in the present meeting being convened 
from a sense of duty, but he thought it must be a matter of 
deep regret to all who sympathized with him that they 
should be compelled to take up a position of seeming oppo¬ 
sition to the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society, and to 
the proposed “ poison regulations.” He thought this was 
a false and painful position to be placed in, and he shrank 
from the unpleasant but pretty certain fate of being 
misunderstood by the Society, by the public and the 
Legislature. He therefore felt it necessary to protest 
against inferences that might possibly be drawn by any 
parties, that in wishing to make a stand against aggres¬ 
sion upon the rights and liberties of the trade, he and 
those who felt with him were actuated by any feelings 
of hostility to the Pharmaceutical Society, or were op¬ 
posed to the voluntary adoption of wise poison regula¬ 
tions. It would be gratuitous to commend the Society, 
and idle to attack it, as the legal guardian of our trade 
qualifications, whose imprimatur was indispensable to 
the status of all who should enter the profession. But 
an attitude of defence now was justifiable, and, he main¬ 
tained, must be assumed. It was said that ten thousand 
of the trade were “ outsiders,” and were unrepresented, 
and so without voice in the Society’s counsels. This 
large body of Englishmen had feelings, opinions and 
rights which, if hurt, ignored, or invaded must drive 
them into a position of defence. The qualifications of 
the Council for framing “poison regulations,” and the 
weight of their recommendation, were probably indis¬ 
putable. Perhaps the “ regulations ” were unexception¬ 
able ; without conceding that, however, he thought that 
was not the question now. He would not dissuade any 
man from adopting safeguards which commended them¬ 
selves to that man’s judgment, but he contended strongly 
for freedom. “ Lot our judgments,” he said, “ be free 
and unfettered; throw on us all the responsibility you 
can heap, and compel us to pass crucial educational 
tests of the severest examinations of any college in Chris¬ 
tendom, but spare us the ignominy of being compelled in 
addition to adopt artificial material expedients to obtain 
an imaginary immunity from accidents, which it has 
been one great aim of our education to secure,'and which 
that education is the only good and safe means of secur- 
ing.” , 
He said he believed that, as a body, the chemists and 
druggists of the country did not need this compulsory 
measure, and that it was impossible to prove the preamb e 
