March C5,1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
769 
and needed neither whip nor spur to keep them straight; 
the liability to compensate the victims of carelessness was 
a terrible reality, which was always staring them in the 
face. It was marvellous how seldom mistakes occurred 
among them, showing how close w r as the supervision 
-exercised in their vocation. He thought the Council 
guilty of a moral cowardice in countenancing for a 
moment the idea that any other safeguard for the public 
was necessary ; and, how much soever they might regret 
it, they must endeavour to make such an impression 
upon the Council by the rustication of the advocates of 
-compulsion as would place that body more en rapport 
with the sentiments and interests of its constituents 
than it appeared to he at present. It was most insulting 
to them, as educated men, to he told that they could not 
he trusted to manage the details of their business, and 
that, in the interests of society, they must he hound by 
a chain of regulations enforced by penalties; that they 
should he subjected to inspection, whilst apothecaries, 
who probably supplied three-fourths of the compounded 
medicines consumed by the public, were to be let alone, 
presumably as being more trustworthy than themselves. 
He emphatically protested against such assertions or 
assumptions, and without egotism claimed for himself 
.and his craft that they were second to none in the 
practice of their art. They did not profess to be phy¬ 
siologists, anatomists, or physicians, but as pharma¬ 
cists they would yield precedence to none. He trusted 
he had succeeded in establishing the propositions laid 
down in the resolution ; and if so, he would ask most 
earnestly those present to give effect to their approval by 
attending the Annual Meeting in May, recording their 
votes in favour of the foes to compulsion, and most reso¬ 
lutely negativing root and branch the compulsory regu¬ 
lations which were sought to be imposed on them. There 
were ten thousand chemists and druggists who would be 
•equally affected with themselves by these regulations, but 
— not possessing the franchise—were unable to protect 
themselves as they were. As the mover of the resolution 
in 1868 which reconciled the differences between phar¬ 
maceutical chemists and chemists and druggists, and re¬ 
sulted in the Pharmacy Act, he felt specially bound to 
regard the position of those who had no votes; those who 
elect the Council should consider themselves as exercis¬ 
ing an important trust, and vote only for those candi¬ 
dates who on this question represented their views, and 
if both town and country were united, they would not fail 
to set this vexatious question at rest once and for all. 
Mr. Urwick, in seconding the resolution, said the re¬ 
gulations were uncalled for, and had never been sug¬ 
gested as necessary. If what Mr. Reynolds had stated 
was true that some of the articles on the subject were 
written by members of the Pharmaceutical Council, such 
conduct was disreputable. Chemists and druggists were 
qualified by education to conduct their own businesses 
without the interference of Downing Street. Every 
person had his own w r ay of conducting his business, and 
what was safe for one might be unsafe for another. He 
considered that self-interest was the strongest possible 
motive for carefulness. The Council in their “Reasons” 
.said that similar precautions to those recommended were 
probably adopted already, and it was asked why should 
they be objected to ? But he would ask if such were 
the case, where was the necessity for interference ? As 
to the statement that if adopted they would not be en¬ 
forced, that was mere child’s play. He considered that 
as a body, they were bound to set their faces against com¬ 
pulsory regulations. 
Mr. Page supported the resolution. 
Mr. Bland, speaking of the use of particular-shaped 
bottles, said there was no connection between the shape 
of such bottles and their contents. They were already 
used by perfumers and others, and he considered it would 
be impossible to educate the public to their use. 
Mr. Fitch said that a customer coming for a small 
-quantity of laudanum to a chemist and druggist, and 
being told that he must pay for a poison-bottle, would 
go to the apothecary where he could get it without such 
restriction. It had been said that the Pharmacy Act 
would give them a monopoly of the sale of poisons, but 
it had not been put in force. He knew of a barber’s 
shop where a large quantity of cantharides was dis¬ 
played in the window and marked for sale at Gel. per 
ounce. 
Mr. Lewis said that he had recently purchased for 
2d. at an oilshop, an ounce of oxalic acid, which was sold 
without name or label. 
Mr. Vizer wished it to be distinctly understood that 
the meeting had not been called to load the Council 
with abuse, but calmly to discuss this very important 
question. As in days gone by the members of the 
Society by examination had voluntarily expressed their 
willingness to give up privileges, which had cost time'and 
money, for the benefit of the trade at large ; so now they 
desired to raise their voices to protect the privileges 
which they enjoyed for the benefit of future generations. 
The first words uttered by the President at the last 
Annual Meeting were to this effect:—“ That the avowed 
objects of the founders of the Society were the ameliora¬ 
tion of the condition, and the elevation of the character, 
of those professing pharmacy; and the means suggested 
for carrying out these objects were, first, to unite the 
whole of the chemists and druggists into one body; and, 
secondly, to organize a system of education, and claim 
for the qualifications thus obtained certain privileges.” 
It seemed to him another clause might have been 
well added, viz. having brought the whole body of che¬ 
mists and druggists under their paternal wing, to 
strip them of every vestige of self-respect and moral 
responsibility, and to convert them into mere machines 
driven by “ official ” power. They were told by the Coun¬ 
cil that if they would acquiesce in these regulations “ no 
vexatious proceedings would be adopted to inquire into 
their observance.” If ever a Council betrayed weakness, 
it had been exhibited in such puerile utterances as these, 
—to tell us with one breath the resolutions must be abso¬ 
lutely compulsory, and with the next that although 
compulsory, nobody would desire to ascertain how far 
they were really carried out. What was that but to 
hamper and increase risk of accident to those desirous of 
obeying and faithfully carrying out the law; whilst 
those who disregarded all precautions now (if such 
there be) would snap their fingers at these most compul¬ 
sory regulations, and would go about their daily busi¬ 
ness unfettered, and far less liable to accident than the 
man whose mind was full of rules and laws to be observed 
at his peril F For his own part, if these regulations were 
forced upon them, he would hold up both hands for their 
being carried out under the strictest surveillance. The 
sale of poisons by grocers and oilmen was but an illus¬ 
tration of the point; the first clause of the Act restricted 
sale of such articles to chemists. Why was it, then, they 
found them sold without let or hindrance by grocers, 
but that the Pharmacy Act was not enforced ? He con¬ 
sidered it the absolute duty of the Pharmaceutical So¬ 
ciety to use means for preventing this disregard to law. 
They were told that should they meet with an accident, 
the law would regard them tenderly, whilst the utmost 
rigour of the law would fall upon the disobedient; he 
presumed, the law considered we paid annually dearly 
enough by the constant extra anxiety. Again, they were 
told the public -was clamorous for protection. This he 
distinctly denied as an untruth; that certain medical 
journals had contained unwarrantable articles he would 
admit, and considered it most unjust that the Pharma¬ 
ceutical Journal should reprint such without one word 
of comment in defence of their interest, but further than 
the columns of such not one word was heard; and, after 
an experience of over twenty years, he could positively as¬ 
sert he had hardly once been seriously asked by the public 
what precautions he used to protect them from danger 
Mr. Yizer then referred to the answer of Jacob Bell to 
