£0 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[July 8,1871* 
“ public advantage ” for the sake of which the 
“ monopoly ” was granted. 
In the foregoing remarks we have considered ac¬ 
cidental poisoning more especially as a subject of 
general interest than as one specially affecting phar¬ 
macists, because “ public safety ” is the reason urged 
in favour of the proposed regulations. 
The contention for regulations on that ground does 
away with the objection we once incidentally made to 
the argument, that the regulations should not be made 
compulsory, because medical men would be exempt 
from that compulsion. We believe that argument 
to be fallacious as regards the narrower question, 
whether regulations should be made compulsory for 
pharmacists, for if regulations are to be contended 
against from that point of view, we should prefer to 
see it done on the more rational ground that—as 
regards pharmacy—they are not necessary. But 
whenever the imposition of poison regulations comes 
to be treated as a measure of public safety, it is no 
longer a mere question concerning pharmacy, and 
regard must be had to all sources of danger— 
medical as well as pharmaceutical. 
It might have been supposed that, after all the 
discussion on poison regulations, the real points at 
issue would be understood ; but that is not the case, 
and it was until no small surprise we recently read 
the statement that one of the two tilings evident from 
the interview with the Vice-President of the Privy 
Council was, that that body conceived it “ to be a 
duty devolving on them to insist on the necessity of 
poisons being sold under certain well-defined regula¬ 
tions .” The italics are ours, and they serve to show 
what strange misconceptions are possible. Surely it 
is not now necessary for the Privy Council or the 
trade, or even the public, to be told either that 
poisons are legally sold under certain well-defined 
regulations, or that there is no question at issue 
respecting the sale of poisons under the Pharmacy 
Act of 1808. 
There are no doubt several questions still to be 
be considered as to the illegal sale of poisons, in¬ 
teresting and important to both the public and phar¬ 
macists, and to these we hope soon to have an -op¬ 
portunity of referring. At present, however, there 
is no moot point concerning the sale of poison, and 
since it is always desirable during a period of con¬ 
flict to have the points at issue clearly defined, it 
may not be superfluous to say that the disputed 
question is one solely as to the keeping and dispensing 
of poisons ,—in other words, whether regulations 
require to be made compulsory on pharmacists, and 
whether they are to be the only persons subjected to 
penal restrictions in this respect. 
Postscript, Friday Evening .—In consideration of 
the interest that must be felt as to the proceedings 
in Parliament when the second reading of the Phar¬ 
macy Bill came on, it has been deemed proper to 
postpone the issue of the Journal sufficiently to 
admit of a report being published. This will be- 
found at page 34. 
We are also enabled by this delay to state that 
certain amendments which Mr. Forster expressed his 
willingness to introduce into the Bill, were submitted 
confidentially to the Council at its last meeting, and 
that after prolonged consideration the Council re¬ 
solved, by a majority, that the suggested amendments 
did not permit the withdrawal of opposition to the 
Bill. This had been communicated to the Bight 
Honourable Mr. Forster and to Mr. W. M. Torrens,. 
M.P., who had given notice to move that the Bill be 
read a second time three months hence, and when 
the Bill came before the House at 1.15 this morning, 
Mr. Torrens proposed that for convenience, and in 
consideration of the altered views of the Govern¬ 
ment, the second reading of the amended Bill should 
be taken then on condition of Mr. Forster consent¬ 
ing that the discussion on the merits of the Bill should 
be deferred until it was in Committee. This course 
was objected to by the House on principle, and at 
the suggestion of Sir H. J. Selwin-Ibbetson, it was 
agreed that the amendments introduced by the Go¬ 
vernment should be placed on the paper so as te 
afford opportunity of their being circulated through¬ 
out the country and considered by those interested- 
We are consequently enabled to publish the Bill in? 
its amended form. (See page 35.) 
Referring to our previous remarks as to the object 
of the original Bill, it seems desirable to point out 
that the misconception on this head appears to be 
more general than we had supposed when those re¬ 
marks were written ; for Dr. Dalrymple, in ex¬ 
pressing his regret at finding such a strong opposition 
to the Bill, singularly enough stated that the prin¬ 
ciple involved in the Bill being read a second time- 
was that a right existed to put certain restrictions on r 
the sale of j)oisons. In point of fact, however, re¬ 
striction of the sale of poisons was not the maim 
object of the original Bill. Neither would the 
amended Bill affect the sale of poisons otherwise- 
than by extending the provisions of the Pharmacy 
Act of 1868 to surgeons keeping open shops .for the' 
sale of poisons, and thus placing them, in this re¬ 
spect, on the same footing as druggists, who have- 
been for nearly three years subject to a law specifi¬ 
cally regulating the sale of poisons. 
The circumstance here referred to is alone suffi¬ 
cient to show the need of time for the due consi¬ 
deration of the proposed measure, and we venture 
to hope the attitude of Mr. Forster, who lias; 
charge of this measure, may be taken as an earnests 
that the ultimate result may be satisfactory to all 
parties. 
In any case his introduction of amendments, until 
the object of meeting objections to the Bill by drug¬ 
gists, would seem to show there is little fear of a 
