THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[July 1, 1871. 
12 
those now demanded is, that their limits he clearly de¬ 
fined. Now the Poison Schedule of the Act of 1868 
has no fixed boundary. It comprehends by the frequent 
use of the term “ and its preparations'’ between one and 
two hundred drugs ; and with regard to the less potent 
of these preparations great diversity of interpretation 
and practice exists. Were the words taken literally, 
there is the absurdity of branding as poisons such re¬ 
medies as cough lozenges. On the other hand, leading 
members of this Society have declared that (supported 
by a legal opinion obtained by the Privy Council) they 
do not regard such a remedy as paregoric elixir to be a 
poison within the meaning of the Act. The uncertainty 
of the chemist is shown by the fact that the British 
Pharmacopoeia distinctly classes the above under the 
preparations of opium. (It contains 2 gr.' of opium to 
each fl. oz.) The schedule of substances called “Poisons” 
by the Act of 1868 was drawn for the very different 
purpose of preventing the uncontrolled purchase by the 
public of substances which might be used recklessly or 
for illicit purposes. 
“ 5. That the Government does not recognize such re¬ 
gulations and penalties as a matter of State necessity, is 
shown by further evidence besides the argument that it 
now only seeks to apply them to chemists whilst exempt¬ 
ing the still larger body of medical practitioners. We 
allude to an Act passed in the last session of Parliament, 
intituled ‘An Act to Regulate the Sale of Poisons in 
Ireland,’ and in this Act no mention whatever is made 
of regulations for either storing or dispensing poisons. 
“6. We must exercise the practical acquaintance with 
the subject, recognized by Parliament as belonging to 
our Society, by expressing our serious apprehension that 
the manner in which the Act proposes to carry out its 
object is fraught with great danger. The proposal to 
legalize certain ‘poison bottles,’ which a body of 10,000 
men must use, and which they must explain to the 
public as being an absolute indication of danger, whilst 
the medical practitioners of the country will not use this 
danger-signal, would almost inevitably lead to a series 
of fatal accidents. We must solemnly place upon the 
promoters of the Bill this responsibility. Again, in the 
matter of fixing a particular day on which the circum¬ 
stances which were legal on the previous day should be¬ 
come illegal and subject to penalty, we submit that 
hasty destruction of existing arrangements would in 
many cases follow, and that the gradual process now 
extending itself is much safer. Had there been any 
urgency in the case, we should have been prevented 
using, as we now feel it proper to do, the argument 
that, in relation to this subject as to religion, morality, 
public health, and many other questions, penal legisla¬ 
tion is the weakest of the agencies that can be used to 
promote a good object. 
“7. We have preferred to consider the merits of the 
question first, reserving until now the necessity alleged 
to be imposed by the Act of 1868. The feeling exhi¬ 
bited by our members at the present time contrasts with 
the absence of any objection in 1868 to the permissive 
power expressed in clause 1. This shows that no com¬ 
pulsory construction of the clause was then recognized 
by either of the members of this Society, or by the che¬ 
mists and druggists generally; under any circumstances 
the latter, and much more numerous body, had no part 
in any communication which occurred in 1868, and may 
claim that the case be considered on its merits. We 
feel deep anxiety as to what would be the result of Par¬ 
liament imposing upon our body this measure. It would 
wound deeply the esprit de corps which is so valuable in 
elevating.the tone of a body of men with serious respon¬ 
sibility; it would leave the sense of suffering under an 
unequal and unjust application of control; it would em¬ 
bitter greatly our relations with a large portion of the 
medical profession, and would be a most unfortunate 
•commencement of our connection with the medical 
•officer of the Privy Council. As bearing upon the 
question of public health, our body comprises a very 
large amount of trained knowledge of chemistry avail¬ 
able for the further service of the State in many ways in 
relation to the purity of air, water, sanitary reform, the 
adulteration of food, etc. 
“ We now leave our case in your hands, and earnestly 
trust that you may be satisfied that the Recommenda¬ 
tions already issued, emphasized so much as they will 
have been by the matter coming before Parliament, will 
justify you in relying upon our disposition to promote 
the systematic storing and dispensing of powerful reme¬ 
dies, and in withdrawing the present Bill. 
“ We are, Sir, 
“ Your most obedient Servants, 
“ Signed pursuant to a Resolution \ 
of and on behalf of the Council I “A. F. IIaseldex, 
of the Pharmaceutical Society of ‘ President .” 
Groat Britain , ) 
The subject of tho Pharmacy Bill was discussed at 
some length. 
The Council then adjourned until after the interview 
of the Parliamentary Committee with the Right Hon. 
W. E. Forster. 
On re-assembling, Mr. Flux was requested to draw up 
a Report of that interview, and it was 
Moved by Mr. Hills, seconded by Mr. Sandford— 
That the Reports of the interviews held on Monday 
and this day with the Right Hon. W. E. Forster 
on the Amended Pharmacy Bill be printed in the 
Journal after having been submitted to him, and 
his consent obtained thereto. 
For — 
Messrs. Hasclden, Hills, Sandford and Williams. 
Against — 
Messrs. Betty, Brown, Greenish and Reynolds. 
The numbers being equal, the chairman gave tho cast¬ 
ing vote in favour of the motion. 
Mr. Bottle did not vote. 
The Reports are therefore published in pursuance of 
the above resolution, see page 13. 
Moved by Mr. Reynolds, seconded by Mr. Betty— 
That the memorial now forwarded to the Right Hon. 
W. E. Forster be printed, and a copy forwarded on 
Monday to every Local Secretary, and that a copy 
bo sent to every member of the House of Commons 
not later than Tuesday. 
For — 
Messrs. Betty, Brown, Greenish, and Reynolds. 
Against —* 
Mr. Sandford. 
Messrs. Bottle, Haselden, Hills and Williams did not 
vote. 
The motion was therefore carried. 
The following petition was ordered to be presented :— 
To the Honourable the Commons of Great Britain and 
Ireland, in Parliament assembled, 
The humble Petition of the Council of the Pharmaceu¬ 
tical Society of Great Britain, 
Showeth, 
That whereas a Bill intituled “ An Act to Amend the 
Pharmacy Act, 1868,” has been passed through the House 
of Lords, and is now before your Honourable House, 
that the said Act contains provisions which will inflict 
grievous annoyance and injury on chemists and drug¬ 
gists, and that such provisions are in no wise necessary 
either for the safety of the public, or for the due carry¬ 
ing out of the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1868. 
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your 
Honourable House will refuse its sanction to the said 
Amended Act, or postpone its consideration, to enable 
