THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[May 27 , 1871. 
35 G 
not have an inspector sent into onr shops without a 
fresh Act of Parliament, and wo have every reason to 
"believe that the Pi ivy Council would he satisfied with 
the regulations we have proposed, which might he easily 
carried out. As Mr. Squire said, you may take one course 
or you may take all three courses ; with that elasticity we 
should not interfere in any way with the easy carrying- 
on of business. Here we have an opportunity of doing 
this, and now we say, no, we will not do it. If ever 
inspectors are appointed, we shall have to thank those 
who have drawn attention to the subject by their oppo¬ 
sition. "We do not say the regulations are bad, but it is 
a sentimental grievance that we should have them at all, 
therefore wo throw it up entirely, and let the Privy 
Council go to Parliament. You know quite well what 
Parliament will do. There is a sample of what they would 
have done in 1857 and in later years. And I think that 
is evidence enough to show what Parliament will do now; 
because remember that with an active medical officer on 
the Privy Council, he will urge on his representatives in 
the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and the 
Government will go to him for advice on all these ques¬ 
tions. He has before him all the details of poisoning cases 
and all the accidents that happen in business, and you 
cannot say that these things arc unnecessary. If you say 
so, the answer is, we are told that in the best houses 
they are all adopted, therefore, how can you call them 
unnecessary P I heard a gentleman say this morning 
that he was utterly astonished at the opposition to these 
regulations; that he knew some twenty shops in the 
country where no precautions were taken, and where 
all the poisons and other drugs were huddled together 
indiscriminately. Now, remember it is not when a man 
is going to use strychnine that he wants to be reminded 
that he has strychnine in his hands, it is when he is 
going to use some innocent medicine such as James’s 
powder, and he by accident gets hold of the strychnine 
bottle, it is then he wants to be reminded by some simple 
means that he has not got James’s powder in his hand. 
And you are not bound to use the same precaution with 
every poison. I may tie strychnine over with a leather 
cap and be more careful with it than with a morphia 
bottle. I say nothing now about the honour of the 
thing, because I consider that is perfectly established. 
Mr. Giles has most correctly stated the feeling and the 
understanding there was at the time of the passing of 
our Act. I have heard it objected that it was a tacit 
understanding. Sir, there must be tacit understanding 
when you are on business like this. Mr. Giles tells you 
what happens always in getting Bills through Parlia¬ 
ment. I was to a great extent authorized to treat with 
the members of Parliament and with the Government in 
the proceedings with regard to this Bill, and I am per¬ 
fectly satisfied that I did not in any way neglect the in¬ 
terests of the Society. If any man battled with the me¬ 
dical officer of the Privy Council, I did, and in all but one 
thing I beat him, that one thing I always felt ashamed 
of, it was that he succeeded in bringing in poppies; 
that one thing I could not get over. It was the last 
thing, and I think Lord Granville went into the House 
rather in a hurry, or that might have been excluded 
also. I mention that to show you that I have not 
been the obsequious servant of Mr. Simon. Ho would 
never propose anything to me which would be derogatory 
to this Society. Mr. Giles alluded to the debates which 
took place, and I will not go further into this point. I 
will pass that over and confine myself to the question of 
piolicy. I say it is policy for us to adopt these regula¬ 
tions in the form in which Mr. Giles proposes. Some 
people speak of breach of faith in proposing this amend¬ 
ment. I say it is no such thing. Last year it was pro- 
posed that these recommendations should be adopted for 
twelve months; they have been on their trial for twelve 
months and more. They were submitted to you last 
year, and you have all had an opportunity of trying 
them since, and there has not been a valid objection to 
one. But if there were, it is quite open for this meeting 
to amend them in detail. If you do not like tying over, 
use some other means, you can amend them in any 
manner you like in detail; but j ust admit the principle 
that we are a part of the Government, that we are 
pledged, and that it is not only that we are pledged, but 
that it is our interest to act in accord with the Go¬ 
vernment and not in antagonism. I do therefore most 
sincerely trust that you will vote for the amendment of 
Mr. Giles. 
Mr. Wade : I think we may all take it for granted 
the Council are willing to adopt the views of the trade, 
and more especially of their own members. If such is 
the case, I would just take you back to the last annual 
meeting, when the resolution come to was, not that we 
did not require or would not take such regulations, 
but that which we distinctly stated, and which has since 
been endorsed, was, that these regulations that were put 
forward were not of a consistent character, and it was 
not desirable to have them compulsory. If such was 
the case, I would ask the Council whether they have 
learned from the trade during the past twelve months 
what is their opinion, and what is the opinion of their 
own members. I do not wish to mention intimidation, 
or to say a word about storms that may be created ; but, 
having once expressed an opinion, I think, when that 
has been done in a calm and deliberate manner, the 
Council maybe fully justified in altering the opinions 
they had formed, and studying the wants and desires of 
their constituents. I am not one to blame, but rather 
to honour and respect the course which has been taken 
by our late worthy President, and I shall, as long as I 
have the pleasure of knowing him, honour him for the 
course he has adopted. It is a great pleasure to me to 
acknowledge what he has done for the trade, although I 
have differed from him many times, but still it has 
always been my desire to hold him in high honour; 
and, although I differ from him now, still there is not 
an act which ho ever committed which redounded 
more to his honour and credit than his resignation. 
Still, while I admit this, I must oppose Mr. Giles’s 
amendment. At the same time, I cannot support the 
resolution of the Council. I say so for this reason. I 
consider it a most insidious amendment. I think it has 
been brought down after the sense of the whole trade 
and of all our members has been taken in every part of 
the country,—after that opinion has been expressed by 
deputation and memorial, and it has been virtually 
acknowledged. After that a letter comes to you on the 
4th of May, which ought to have been published in the 
Journal. We ought to have been made acquainted with 
that, which may be called a threat, an intimidation sent 
from the Privy Council office. If there is anything dis¬ 
honourable I consider it is Mr. Giles’s amendment, be¬ 
cause I do think that that which the Council have put 
forward was an act of honour. They attended to the 
wishes of their constituents ; they saw that during the 
past year the trade had made up their minds upon the 
point, and, with commendable good sense, they attended 
to those wishes, and put forward these propositions in 
form of recommendations rather than regulations. I 
beg you not to go back from that course of action. If 
you do not wish to create distrust, but to make out¬ 
siders feel that this Society has but one interest, and that 
interest only the interest of its members, do not pass 
Mr. Giles’s amendment. It comes in at the last hour 
when we are not prepared, the idea having gone abroad 
that we were not to have any opposition of this kind. 
The idea was, that we wpre to carry something which 
should meet the views of the Privy Council, and not be 
compulsory on ourselves. If the Council in their deli¬ 
berations have come to the conclusion that these reso¬ 
lutions they have adopted are likely to be in accordance 
with the spirit of the Act, why do we hear so much 
I about want of honour and breach of faith ? Is it likely 
that your Council, composed of men of honour, would 
