768 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[March 25, 1871. 
MEETING OF CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS IN 
LONDON. . 
A Meeting of Chemists and Druggists, which had been 
convened by a circular, for the purpose of discussing the 
proposed Poison Regulations in anticipation of the Annual 
Meeting of the Pharmaceutical Society, and considering 
what steps were desirable in reference to them, was held 
on Monday last, March 20, at the Freemasons’ Tavern, 
Great Queen Street. 
On the proposition of Mr. Vizer, seconded by Mr. 
Bland, the chair was taken by Mr. S. C. Betty. 
The Chairman, having read the circular calling the 
meeting, said the object of the meeting was to consider 
the compulsory regulations submitted by and through 
the Pharmaceutical Council, and to determine what ac¬ 
tion should be taken in reference to them. On previous 
occasions it had been the salutary custom of the pharma¬ 
ceutical body to pay all deference to, and acquiesce in 
any proposals or resolutions emanating from its Council, 
which had thus been practically acknowledged to be not 
simply a body of delegates, but of gentlemen elected to 
sit in council, and to initiate those measures which their 
professional experience dictated as requisite for promoting 
the good-working of pharmaceutical institutions; but 
these sympathizing and co-acting conditions were liable to 
become developed into mistrust and opposition by w T hat 
was open to the suspicion of being a foreign element in 
their governing body. In such a case, questions would 
arise of vital importance to the wmll-being of pharma¬ 
cists, forcing themselves upon their most serious con¬ 
sideration,—such an occasion he believed was the pre¬ 
sent one. And whilst giving all credit to the Pharma¬ 
ceutical Council for a desire to do what it considered a 
duty urged upon it, perhaps by a feeling of conviction, 
certainly by a chivalrous sentiment of plighted honour, 
they were fain to raise a wider issue, and now when the 
Council challenged a verdict, to argue this question, not 
in the light of a compact to which they were no parties, 
but as one between chemists and druggists, on whom these 
compulsory regulations would fall, and the public in 
whose interests they were proposed. The resolutions of¬ 
fered for acceptance would, from their nature, elicit such 
practical arguments and illustrations as a knowledge of 
every-day business would suggest. He would anticipate 
them but briefly. They might labour at the onset under 
the disadvantage of appearing to advocate a narrow or a 
selfish policy. The exhaustive debate that must ensue on 
this question, would, he doubted not, entirely dispel such a 
notion. Every speaker w r ould be able to state that he now 
adopts some plan in the storing of poisons, which, being 
voluntary, must, in his case, be practical and effective. An 
argument had been deduced from this practice. It was 
said that a custom so prevalent must have some merit to 
recommend it; it was instigated by a motive to do what is 
morally right, and we cannot logically object to a law that 
only puts such a moral obligation in a substantive form. 
But they pleaded to be as diligent in the discharge of their 
public duties as is any other body in the State; that penal 
laws should be enacted to meet conditions of a proved ne¬ 
cessity ; above all, that unless they are consonant with the 
public feeling of what is right and just, by being indis¬ 
criminate in their operation, such laws degenerate into 
dilettante legislation ; and, in view of attempts at such 
legislation, it was their duty to defend, as best they could, 
the interests and social rights of the trade. Their suc¬ 
cessors would otherwise censure those who consented to 
Or promoted the Pharmacy Act of 1868, justly upbraiding 
them that they left this sting coiled up in the provisions 
of the Bill. At the time of the passing of the Act, 
chemists and druggists thought, after the numerous 
hostile motions (and some had no other object than to 
render its operation impossible, and thus strangle the 
Bill) had been defeated by formal voting at the time 
they were proposed, that all the contemplated statute- 
Rafeguards which could, consistently with the scope of the 
Bill, be imposed upon us, had been exhausted: otherwise* 
attempts would have been directed to obtain some miti¬ 
gation of those cumulative penalties that would attach to 
other and undefined regulations. They behoved the- 
essence and the intention of the Pharmacy Act to be 
educational; they did not assert that accidents could bo 
wholly avoided solely by a previous technical education, 
but they did assert that the thorough theoretical and 
practical training now demanded, begot an intimate ac¬ 
quaintance with the nature of their trade articles, and en¬ 
abled them, so far as human foresight and intelligence 
permit, to be the guardians of the public safety. The 
present law permitted the shirking of no obligation at¬ 
tached to their calling. They invited all aid in recom¬ 
mendations which they might systematize, and they were 
confident that the discussion and decision of this ques¬ 
tion would prove how little the Pharmaceutical Society 
was unmindful of its duty to public demands or to the 
great body of chemists and druggists. 
The first resolution was proposed by Mr. Collins, 
seconded by Mr. Urwick, “ That in the opinion of this 
meeting the advanced educational qualification of che¬ 
mists and druggists as provided by the Pharmacy Act of 
1868, together with their personal and legal responsibili¬ 
ties, render any ‘ compulsory’ regulations for the storing 
and dispensing of poisons unnecessary and undesirable 
and, as a protection to the public, illusory. And this 
meeting affirms that, whilst it would regard any well- 
digested ‘recommendations’ upon the subject with at¬ 
tention and respect, it pledges itself to oppose most 
strenuously the proposed ‘compulsory’ regulations of 
the Pharmaceutical Council.” 
Mr. J. R. Collins, in presenting the resolution for 
acceptance, said that it had been most carefully drafted 
so as to embody objections to compulsory poison regula¬ 
tions which must be patent to all who are engaged in 
the trade. Time was when the qualifications of che¬ 
mists and druggists might with justice be challenged; 
when many, if not most, of those calling themselves 
chemists knew but little of chemistry, or of the nature 
and properties of the drugs they were daily compound¬ 
ing. Among such a class of men “regulations” might 
have been useful; but for thirty years many present, and 
many now no more, had laboured to improve the tech¬ 
nical education of their brethren, till at length, in 1868, 
what had been voluntary effort was rendered compul¬ 
sory by the Pharmacy Act, which provided that no per¬ 
son should, for the future, carry on the business of a 
chemist and druggist without having given evidence of 
fitness to the satisfaction of competent examiners. Surely 
this was the best kind of protection, both for themselves 
and those who employed them. For ill-informed men 
mechanical contrivances might be necessary, but scarcely 
for the educated and well-informed. Mind must be supe¬ 
rior to matter; and sand-paper, angular bottles, fluted or 
plain, could not compare as a protection to educated in¬ 
telligence. To enact that poisons of all kinds should be 
sent out in particular bottles must end in confusion, as no 
legislation could prevent these poison bottles from being- 
used for different purposes. The resolution affirmed 
compulsory regulations to be unnecessary ; upon those 
who affirmed the contrary must the burden of proof rest. 
Was the Council prepared to say they were necessary ? 
Did not its “Reasons” rather show that it was im¬ 
pelled to take action by the provisions of some “ secret 
treaty” of which they knew nothing, and therefore could 
not be bound by ? They were free to repudiate condi¬ 
tions which had not been communicated to them. The 
assumption that Clause 1 of the Pharmacy Act com¬ 
mitted them to accept compulsory regulations for the 
“ keeping, dispensing and selling poisons ” was a delu¬ 
sion ; it merely enacted that, should the Pharmaceutical 
Society think such regulations necessary, the Privy 
Council was authorized to render such regulations com¬ 
pulsory and legally binding upon all concerned. From 
the nature of their business they were habitually careful* 
