May 27, 1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS 
951 
the Society, was coaching 1 the hill through the other 
House. He says,—“ 1 think that the clause framed hy 
the noble lord may ho modified with advantage before it 
is submitted to the House. On this subject I have re¬ 
ceived a letter from a gentleman of much practical expe¬ 
rience, and I will read it to the House. He says, ‘ I find 
that Lord Redesdale retains his faith in the poison-bottle, 
and intends to propose it again on the third reading of 
the Pharmacy Bill, adopting that which I certainly be¬ 
lieve to he hy far the most distinctive bottle ever used. 
But the more I consider his lordship’s proposition, and 
the more I think of the value pertaining to special bottles 
of any shape when used according to the discretion of 
dispensers who understand their business, the more im¬ 
pressed I become with the impolicy of specific enactments 
concerning them. I have already told your lordship 
that most chemists in London use distinctive bottles for 
dangerous articles and external applications; they have 
done so for the last six or seven years, the practice gra¬ 
dually increasing. I have also said that the use of those 
bottles should ho restricted to such articles. Now I 
presume the words “poison” and “poisonous” in the 
proposed clause must he construed according to clause 2. 
If so, we should he prohibited from using such bottles 
for every medicine not in the schedule ; and I need 
scarcely say the schedule does not contain a sixth part 
of tho dangerous preparations daily passing through our 
hands. I should not think now of selling laudanum in 
any other than a poison-bottle ; laudanum is not in the 
schedule, consequently I must, if tho amendment pass, 
discontinue that precaution. I Icnow Lord Redesdale 
thinks it is the inconvenience of the compulsory enact¬ 
ment which actuates tho Pharmaceutical Society in re¬ 
sisting his proposal, but I can assure you most honestly 
that they are anxious, both hy example and recommen¬ 
dation, to promote his views, and really apprehensive that 
his amendment would prevent their- doing so.’ ” The 
objection to that was, to a stiff, hard and fast rule for the 
adoption of a certain bottle at the will and pleasure of 
Parliament, without affording us an opportunity of con¬ 
sidering- how far it was applicable. I am not going to 
argue much in favour of the details of these regulations. 
What I want to contend for is, that we are under a bond of 
good faith to comply with the Act of Parliament, and pass 
such resolutions as we, with our knowledge of the busi¬ 
ness, know to be sufficient to carry out the intentions of 
Parliament and secure the public, whilst, at the same time, 
we do not impose any impediments to the carrying on 
of our business. I think I have shown it was tho intention 
of Parliament to impose upon us the obligation to prescribe 
such regulations; that penalties were to bo imposed on 
those who broke the regulations; and, if so, the language 
of the Act of Parliament would be perfect nonsense if 
they never wore prescribed. I think I have shown you 
that that was so understood at the time throughout 
tho country, and that it was so understood and accepted 
here as the signification of those clauses and the debates 
in Parliament. It is a question, therefore, as it seems 
to me, very much of good faith. As men of honour, as 
men of business, and as prudent men who are anxious to 
conserve that which we have been thirty years building 
up, the honour, the reputation and the influence of this 
Society, which has already checked much crude legisla¬ 
tion that would have been of tho greatest possible in¬ 
jury to us; in order that we may maintain that influence 
for the future as tho protector of tho trade, I say we 
must not now do that which would sacrifice our reputa¬ 
tion, which would put us in the position of breakers of 
pledges, because I can conceive no consequences which 
would be more disastrous than the Nemesis which follows 
societies or individuals who do not keep good faith. I 
cannot see, Sir, how we, as men of honour, can depart 
from the negotiations which were conducted on our 
behalf by the Council and by those who more especially 
represented tho Council. I do not see how wo can repu¬ 
diate the signification of that letter, which I take to be a 
guarantee that it would bo safe to leave the carrying 
out of tho intentions of Parliament to this Society. It is 
a very proud privilege, a great distinction, to have been 
associated with Parliament in making laws for our own 
government. As somebody has said, it is much better 
that we should have a hand in making our own laws, 
than that they should bo framed by persons who do 
not understand our position. We have been told by our 
Council that they did give those pledges. It is evident 
that the Privy Council understood them to do so, and 
they now call upon us to fulfil our guarantees. But 
another thing is said, and that is, that if that pledge was 
given it was given in excess of authority. I profess to 
know something about Parliamentary business. There 
are few sessions in which I am not in Parliament, cither 
promoting bills or opposing bills; and I confess that, I 
should bo much astonished if those for whom I acted did 
not feel bound by pledges given in their behalf. Can a 
Society go up en masse ? It is against the laws and 
liberties of England to do so. We are bound to depute, 
our Council, and they depute their representatives; and 
what their representatives assent to, in obtaining privi¬ 
leges of great importance, is binding upon us. For good¬ 
ness’ sake do not let us begin, when we are thirty years 
old, to be breakers of pledges. I do not want to look at 
tho consequences, for the fear of consequence is a low 
motive ; but if it can be shown that we, with our eyes 
open, have undertaken this, then, I say, that whatever 
the consequences, coate que codte, let us carry out what 
we have undertaken to do. But I am content to rest 
upon consequences, and their advantageous or disad¬ 
vantageous effect; and upon that point the only tan¬ 
gible thing I have heard is, that if we prescribe these 
regulations, it will inevitably lead to inspection, and 
all the inconveniences and annoyances which flow from 
it. I regard inspection as odious to Englishmen, and 
there is nothing on earth that I should be more anxious 
to contend for than my own independent action. But 
I have looked through this Act of Parliament, and I find 
that under it there are no powers for inspection , and that it 
cannot he imposed upon us. If we prescribe these regula¬ 
tions, I defy an inspector to come into my place, or 
I will guarantee to kick him out if he does. What aro 
tho provisions of clause 15 of the Act F—that whoever 
shall fail to conform with any regulation, and so on, 
“ shall for every such offence be liable to pay a penalty,” 
and so on. Let me ask how those penalties aro to bo 
recovered F—by tho action of tho Registrar only. But 
what are the consequences provided we do not pass these 
regulations ? We exasperate the Privy Council. The 
Privy Council tell us in so many words that they will 
seek further legislation. It is no longer Mr. Lowo and 
Mr. Bruce : but the Chancellor of the Exchequer and tho 
Home Secretary, who, throughout tho passing of this Act, 
showed themselves most jealous of giving to a voluntary 
association any control. He was the man who said that 
Parliament ought to take security that we would fulfil 
our undertaking. But he said something more than that. 
A Membek : How long is he likely to bo in office F 
Mr. Giles : I do not care to attempt to answer that 
question. Mr. Lowe, with characteristic pertinacity, 
says, with reference to clause 2, “ I shall move to leave 
out tho words 1 the Council of the Pharmaceutical So¬ 
ciety of Great Britain (hereinafter referred to as tho 
Pharmaceutical Society) may from time to time, by reso¬ 
lution, declare that any article in such resolution named 
ought to bo deemed a poison within the meaning of this 
Act.’ The object I have is this:—It is desirable that 
the public shall know the number and names of the 
poisons against which regulations have been made. 
The Arsenic Act is published and put in force, and you 
will want somebody to prosecute under this Act, and 
certainly tho Pharmaceutical Society will bo a most un¬ 
fit body. The Act ought to be placed under the cure of the 
police and in the hands of a department of the Govern- 
* ment, and certainly not left in the hands of those who 
8 C 4 
