952 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[May 27, 1871. 
•will live by the sale of poisons; if that be so, the restric¬ 
tions imposed will be of little value.” The Home Se¬ 
cretary says, “ I shall support the amendment, for I 
desire to enlarge the powers of the Privy Council, who 
have already a medical department. The clause as it 
stands will restrict the powers of the Privy Council, and 
I see no advantage in doing that.” What have we to 
expect if we wilfully let pass this opportunity of settling 
this question in a rational manner F I say these regu¬ 
lations are such as ought, apart from law or anything 
else, to be adopted by every conscientious man, by 
every wise man, who wishes to lay his head on his 
pillow with a feeling of satisfaction and security. I say 
what is likely to be the consequence if we lose the pre¬ 
sent opportunity F Why, we are told that we shall 
have application for further legislation. That applica¬ 
tion will be made to persons who will feel their sagacity 
and foresight complimented by our breakdown, and will 
be exceedingly glad to impose the strictest regulations 
upon those whom they regard as a recalcitrant and 
obstinate body of men, and they will come down with 
all the force of that hostility which we are so anxious to 
avoid. Sir, I beg to move as an amendment to the 
resolution, “ That, by virtue and in exercise of all powers 
and authorities granted under the provisions of the 
Pharmacy Act. 1868, in this behalf, the Pharmaceutical 
Society of Groat Britain do hereby prescribe the follow¬ 
ing regulations for the keeping, dispensing and soiling of 
poisons, and resolve that the same be submitted to her 
Majesty’s Privy Council for their consent.” (The Regu¬ 
lations proposed were the same as the Recommendations 
proposed by the Council for voluntary adoption : see p. 
949.) 
Mr. Baldocic (Norwood) said : Mr. President and Gen¬ 
tlemen,—I have much pleasure in seconding the amend¬ 
ment. I shall not say much on the subject, because I feel 
quite certain, from the ability with which Mr. Giles has 
dealt with the question, I should be very little able to add 
anything which will influence the meeting in favour of 
the amendment, but I fully agree in what he has said. 
Those gentlemen, however, who intend to oppose this, or 
propose any further amendment, should not forget what 
took place in 1868 and the two previous years, when 
Pharmacy Bills were brought in by Sir Eitzroy Kelly 
and by Sir John Shelley. On those occasions, we lost our 
Bill because we met with factious opposition from with¬ 
out,—the parties I refer to being, then as now, unwilling 
to be led in any way by the Council of the Pharmaceu¬ 
tical Society, which has done so much for the whole 
body during the last thirty years. The Bill which we 
might have had on that occasion, if it had not been for 
the opposition, was, I think, far more suited to our 
requirements than what we got in the following year, 
and we nearly lost that because there were no poison 
regulations in it. When Parliament gave us that Act, 
it was with the express understanding that it was to 
contain poison clauses, and much delay was caused on 
this account. Numerous meetings of the Society and of 
the Council took place, and ultimately the Bill was 
passed in its present shape. Coming, then, to the re¬ 
commendations which have been proposed to us, it cer¬ 
tainly seems to me, as I said in the letter which ap¬ 
peared in last week’s Journal, that all opposition to 
them ought now to cease. No doubt it would be very 
objectionable in some cases to keep drug bottles under 
lock and key,—in the wholesale trade, for instance; but 
when we are simply asked to make the poison vessel dis¬ 
tinguishable by the sense of touch,—whether it be any¬ 
thing which shall prick our fingers, or a spring upon the 
lid, or any other means,—I think the remedy is in our 
own hands, and could be easily applied by every one. 
The only fault I find with the poison schedule is, that it 
is so limited in its character. The poisons in the sche¬ 
dule are very few, and the more numerous they are the 
better for us, because, although to a certain extent it 
will increase the difficulties with which we have to deal, 
it would, on the other hand, confine the sale of poisonous 
articles to qualified men instead of leaving it so largely, 
as at present, in the hands of persons who are now not 
legally responsible for their acts in the same degree. 
The only objection made against these provisions is that 
they do not apply to medical men; but what have we 
to do with legislating for medical men F They, like us, 
are under the authority of the Privy Council, and are 
subject to all sorts of pains and penalties if they neglect 
their duties. We certainly fight under their banner, for 
they are a superior body to us, and, do what we can, we 
are not able to coerce them in any way any more than 
they can coerce us. We complain very justly that many 
of them dispense their own medicines, but that is totally 
beside the question now before the meeting, and has 
nothing whatever to do with it. If they choose to dis¬ 
pense their own medicines, and make a mistake and 
poison any one, they are quite as amenable to the law as 
we are. The question has been asked whether, if we 
pass these resolutions, they will become compulsory; 
and, if compulsory, whether they will involve a system 
of inspection. I take it they will not, and in both cases 
cannot. For who is to inspect us F Certainly not the 
police, as Mr. Giles said; we want a more intelligent body 
than they are. I take it, it will depend upon whether any 
accident occurs. If we pass these regulations, and make 
them compulsory, and any accident happen, we shall 
be then asked, “Have you or have you not complied 
with these regulations F” And if f you have, that will bo 
a sufficient answer to the charge; but, if not, you will 
incur the penalties mentioned in the Bill. I have great 
pleasure in seconding Mr. Giles’s amendment. 
Mr. Vizer : May I be allowed to ask a question, be¬ 
cause I think it is very important that the meeting 
should understand clearly the position in which wo 
stand F I came here this morning with the full determi¬ 
nation that, as far as I was concerned, this discussion 
should be conducted in as calm and quiet a spirit as pos¬ 
sible ; but I want clearly to understand the nature of 
the amendment which is before the meeting, because it 
seems to me that it is a repetition of the resolution 
which was moved from the chair, with the addition 
simply that it be made compulsory. If such be the case, 
I cannot understand that that is an amendment unless the 
amendment consist in the fact of the regulations being 
made compulsory, which, I think, is a question we have 
already settled. The Council has settled it. 
A Member : It is this meeting that has to settle it. 
Mr. Vizer : The views of the whole meeting and of 
the trade are, I believe, against compulsion. We are 
not come here to-day to put a collar round our necks 
which last year we very distinctly refused to wear. If I 
understand the amendment aright, and we are asked to 
pass a vote for compulsory regulations, I do not think 
we need discuss it long. I shall be glad if the Chairman 
will tell us whether we are to divide upon the question 
whether these regulations are to be compulsory or not. 
The Chairman : As I take it, this is an amendment by 
Mr. Giles on the original motion of the Council. It 
is quite competent to Mr. Giles to propose such an 
amendment, and it is also quite competent for any other 
member to propose a further amendment after that. If 
this amendment of Mr. Giles should pass, there can be 
no doubt, I think, that the recommendations or regula¬ 
tions will then become compulsory. 
Mr. Brown (Manchester) : I rise to a point of order. 
I shall certainly maintain that the amendment of Mr. 
Giles is no amendment at all. I should like to have the 
opinion of our solicitor upon that point, and I am sorry 
he is not present at this moment in order to answer it. 
But I appeal to any gentleman who has had experience of 
public meetings whether this is an amendment. I main¬ 
tain it is an original motion, of which notice ought to 
have been given, and it ought to have been proposed as 
a substantive motion, and seconded in due form. Then 
it would have been in order. 
