THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[July 8,1871. 
-34 
June 30.—Petitions against tlie Bill were presented 
from— 
Ambleside, by Mr. Jacob Bright. 
Birkenhead, by Mr. Laird. 
Carmarthen, by Colonel Stepney. 
Chesterfield, by Captain Egerton. 
Crosshills, by Lord F. Cavendish. 
Deal and Walmer, by Mr. H. A. Brassey. 
Doncaster, by Mr. Jacob Bright. 
Ealing, Acton, and Hanwell, by Viscount Enfield. 
Elgin, by Colonel Grant. 
Exeter, by Mr. Bowring. 
Ealmouth, by Mr. Eastwick. 
Flint and Holywell, by Lord R. Grosvenor. 
Folkestone, Hythe, and Sandgate, by Baron M. de 
Rothschild. 
Guildford, by Mr. G. Onslow. 
Hartlepool and West Hartlepool, by Mr. Ward Jack- 
eon. 
Haverhill, by Lord A. Hervey. 
Kirriemuir, by Mr. Carnegie. 
Kirton-in-Lindsey, by SnqM. Cholmclcy. 
Lewes, by Lord Pelham. 
Manchester and Salford, by Mr. Jacob Bright. 
Oldham and district, by Mr. Hibbert. 
Penrith, by Mr. N. Hodgson. 
Ripon, by Sir Henry Storks. 
South Shields, by Mr. Stevenson. 
Stourport, by Colonel Anson. 
Tiverton, by Mr. Denman. 
July 3.—In answer to a question from Mr. T. Cave, 
•whether the attention of the Government had been 
drawn to the numerous petitions that have been pre¬ 
sented against the Pharmacy Bill, and whether it was 
intended to proceed with the Bill during the present 
session,— 
Mr. W. E. Forster said the Government intended to 
proceed with the Bill during the present session, its 
■object being mainly to ensure that the first clause of the 
Pharmacy Act, passed in 1868,—which said there should 
he regulations for the keeping, dispensing and selling 
of poisons,—should be complied with. He was aware 
that several petitions had been presented against the 
Bill from chemists and druggists throughout the country, 
hut he hoped to be allowed to take the second reading 
on Thursday, with a view afterwards to go into Com¬ 
mittee, pro forma, and reprint the Bill with amendments, 
which, he believed, would meet the wishes of many per¬ 
sons connected with the trade. 
Petitions against the Bill were presented from— 
Barnsley, by Mr. F. H. Beaumont. 
Belper and Ripley, by Mr. R. Smith. 
Birmingham and neighbourhood, by Mr. Dixon. 
Bristol, by Mr. Morley. 
Cardigan, by Sir T. Lloyd. 
Leighton Buzzard, by Colonel Gilpin. 
Lyme Regis and Axminster, by Mr. Portman. 
Market Harborough, by Mr. Pell. 
Newtown, by Mr. Hanbury-Tracy. 
Otley and Ilkley, by Mr. Denison. 
Patrington, by Mr. Broadley. 
Perth (County of), by Mr. Parker. 
Poole, by Mr. A. E. Guest. 
Ryde, by Mr. B. Cochrane. 
Shrewsbury, by Air. Straight. 
■Southampton, by Mr. G. Gurney. 
Stoke-upon-Trent, by Colonel Roden. 
Tenby, Narberth, and Saundersfoot, by Mr. T. C. 
Meyrick. 
Warrington, by Mr. Ryland. 
Welshpool, by Mr. C. W. W. Wynn. 
Whitby, by Mr. W. H. Gladstone. 
Windsor, Eton, and Slough, by Mr. Eykyn. 
July 4.—Petitions against the Bill were presented 
from— 
Ashford, by Mr. G. Milles. 
Banff, Macduff, Porsoy, etc., by Mr. Grant Duff. 
Bamet, by Mr. H. R. Brand. 
Bromley and neighbourhood, by Mr. Mills. 
Cirencester, by Mr. Bathurst. 
Edinburgh, by Mr. M‘Laren. 
Gosport, by Mr. W. F. Cowper-Temple. 
Horsham and Crawley, by Mr. Hurst. 
Howden, by Mr. Sykes. 
Huddersfield, by Mr. Leatham. 
Leicester, by Dr. Brewer. 
Mansfield, Mansfield Woodhouse and Sutton, by Mr. 
F. C. Smith. 
Merthyr Tydvil and Aberdare, by Mr. Fothergill. 
Odiham District, by Mr. G. Sclater-Booth. 
Portsmouth, by Sir J. D. Elphinstone. 
Ramsgate, by Mr. Pemberton. 
Runcorn, by Mr. W. Egerton. 
Salisbury, by Dr. Lush. 
Tetbury, Northlead and Fairford, by Sir M. Hicks 
Beach. 
Ulverstone and Chorley, by Colonel Wilson Patten. 
Watford, by Mr. Cowper. 
Westminster, by Mr. W. H. Smith. 
July 5 .—Petitions were presented against the Bill 
from— 
Bedford, by Mr. Heron. 
Bushey and Rickmans worth, by Mr. H. R. Brand. 
Kendal, by Mr. W. Lowther. 
St. Ives, Camborne, Hayle and Penzance, by Mr. 
Magniac. 
Wolverhampton, by Mr. Villiers. 
July 6.— The Pharmacy Act (1868) Amendment 
Bill.—M r. W. E. Forster : I beg to move the second 
reading of this Bill. 
Mr. M‘Cullagh Torrens : As I understand, it will bo 
convenient that the Government should obtain the assent 
of the House for reading this Bill a second time to-night 
(no, no). If honourable gentlemen will favour me with 
their attention, I think I can satisfactorily explain why 
it is for the interest of those for whom they, as well as 
myself, are interested in this matter, that the course I am 
about to propose should be taken. I understand—in fact, 
I have reason to know—that the Government intend to 
bring forward a number of new clauses which may or 
may not in the estimation of the trade seriously affect 
their position. I think it is only fair that the country 
should know what these clauses are before we are called 
upon to discuss them (hear, hear). I have not the faculty 
which some honourable members seem to think they have, 
of being able to discuss clauses before they know what 
they really are. Having charge of this matter on behalf 
of a very numerous body of the trade, I am authorized by 
them to state that they prefer seeing the proposed new 
clauses before we come to discuss the Bill (hear, hear). 
If the right honourable gentleman who has charge of the 
Bill will consent that no discussion shall take place on the 
merits of the Bill until it is pi-oposed to go into Committee 
on the measure, I should think, for the benefit of those 
I so unworthily though sincerely represent, that we 
should not be called on to discuss it at this hour (quarter 
past 1 o’clock), which must be left uncompleted, however 
regularly conducted. The Government having changed 
their mind on some very important details of the mea¬ 
sure, it was but fair that we should know the nature of 
this altered Bill, and that time should be given (say ten 
days) for further consideration of the amended Bill by 
those interested in the country, before we are called on 
to pronounce an opinion upon it. 
Mr. B. Cochrane: I quite concur in what has 
fallen from the honourable gentleman the member for 
Finsbury. I know there is a large body of persons in 
the country who are deeply interested in this Bill. 
