July 15,1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
50 
Cmcsjmtatc, 
* * 
* 
Xo notice can he taken of anonymous communica¬ 
tions. Whatever is intended for insertion must he authenti¬ 
cated by the name and address of the writer ; not necessarily 
for publication, hut as a guarantee of good faith. 
The Amended Pharmacy Bill. 
into committee, come out in a form scarcely recognizable to 
any of us. Perhaps some logical mind, in committee will 
urge that a medical man is the best judge how he shall con¬ 
duct his business, another that if any are to be under this 
Act, why not all,—hospitals, dispensaries, private surgeries? 
\V e as a body declare that regulations which we objected 
to for ourselves are not more acceptable because imposed 
upon others. We have not yielded to the tempter, who says 
in effect, You think my proposals evil, but now you can more 
gracefully yield to my solicitations, for I have the same in¬ 
tentions towards your sister. We reply, that acquiescence in 
Sir,—Mr. Forster will ask the House of Commons on Mon- such a proposal, and for such a reason, would only add to the 
day nest to vote the principle of the Bill for the amendment family disgrace. 
of the Pharmacy Act. There is time to say a word on this 
principle and the form of procedure adopted by the Govern¬ 
ment on this occasion. 
The intention of the Pharmacy Act. 1868, we may all agree 
at the outset, was to ensure the public safety. On its spirit, 
or mode of fulfilling that intention, the Privy Council and 
our body are of opposite opinions ; the former stating that it 
should be carried out by mechanical arrangements, whilst 
we insist that the spirit of the Act is educational, and attains 
its result by educating chemists for their business. On this 
point Mr. Forster agrees with us; having stated to the first 
and second deputations of the Council that if all chemists 
The Government, catering for support to its Bill, has 
sought by such a proposition to disarm the opposition of 
chemists; and a letter recently sent to members of the trade 
shows that these means have not proved wholly unsuccessful. 
The poison bottle is cast overboard,—what policy can guide 
the Privy Council ? A short time since it was insisting that 
the public safety demanded the adoption of such a bottle; 
now it leaves the public safety to shift for itself without it. 
Did it find that, like its proposal to regulate the dispensing of 
poisons in single doses, it would not quite do ? or is it that, 
failing to secure that amount of support it calculated upon in 
the House of Commons, it now comes forward, having re¬ 
possessed the same educational qualifications as the gentle- adjusted its Bill, dropping the bottle on one side and picking 
men present, no regulations would be necessary. He also up the surgeons on the other? We are told these conces- 
-stated at the last interview that he had answered a letter 
received from Mr. Schacht to the same effect. 
On these repeated assertions we found the justice of our 
claim for non-intervention. It is a narrow issue, and we 
raise it on the question. We are daily adding to our ranks 
those only who give proof to our examiners and to the Go¬ 
vernment assessor of their fitness for their calling, and will 
sions are proposed by the Government as a compromise to 
answer our objections to some details of the Bill. The time 
for compromise would have been more gracefully chosen 
before the threatened defeat of the whole measure; and if 
compromise be the right principle upon which to act, until 
how recently has the Privy Council been wanting in it? 
The fact is, our great strength in this conflict has been the 
not this legislation permanently affect them? The Bill, as disapprobation of such attempted over-legislation by a Govern- 
first drawn by the Privy Council, was pressed forward in the 
House of Lords with all the momentum of a Government 
measure. The first intimation the Council received of such 
a Bill existing was a summons to attend a special meeting 
ment department entertained generally by the members of the 
House of Commons. We watch very jealously in this country 
any attempt at bureaucratic government. The powers of 
the Privy Council are great, and for that reason are the more 
for the purpose of considering a Bill which had been read a jealously watched; otherwise, following the natural tendencies 
second time in the House of Lords the previous evening. of unelected bodies, its irresponsibility would lead it into 
This was an act of injustice to the Pharmaceutical Couucil, abuses not inconsistent with its name, which would cause it to 
and one of discourtesy to the Peers, inasmuch as discussion become in time the Star Chamber of the nineteenth century, 
on the second reading was balked. Inter alia, the Lords ; It is only an inexpressible awe for any communication from, 
were not permitted to be informed of the attempted design the Privy Council that can explain the attitude taken by pre- 
by the Privy Council to impose upon the trade, by a side-wind, ceding Councils. They have proved to be made of very 
that peculiar bottle which in 1868 they had formally con- squeezable materials—swayed now by those letters from the 
demned, and which Lord Salisbury had freely attacked as 1 Privy Council Olfice, now by the opposition of their consti- 
involving a principle of legislation alien to the spirit of laws 
which should prevail in this country. 
A Bill started so unfairly could not escape rude checks in 
its course. It was found to be merely a Bill of pains and 
penalties, so unable to endure the touch of criticism, that 
when brought face to face with public opinion the Privy 
Council was fain so far to alter its provisions as to virtually 
constitute it a new Bill. Thus the House of Commons judged 
when it met the motion for the second reading by cries of 
withdraw ” too general to be disobeyed by the Minister. 
The House of Lords had thus, by listening to the represen¬ 
tations of Government, sanctioned by their vote a Bill which 
tuents, now proposing to the Privy Council regulations for 
storing poisons, now at the bidding of that body adding the 
poison bottle; then proposing these regulations to the trade, 
then voting them as recommendations; and, lastly, at the 
annual meeting not concealing their desire, if they did not 
vote, for giving these regulations the force of law. They 
have been actuated by the policy of making things pleasant 
all round; but, like the old man and his ass, they have “ tried 
to please everybody and pleased nobody.” 
Strengthened by the confidence and support of the great 
body of our trade, the present Council has dropped this 
india-rubber policy. The only pressure they should answer to 
its authors were compelled within a month materially to is that of public opinion; and so long as that speaks in favour 
1 of an opposition to the principle of this Bill, so long ought 
they to endeavour to destroy it, by every means their office 
affords. 
S. C. Betty. 
change. Not a considerate or respectful manner of treating 
that assembly! Mr. Forster says such a course is notun- 
usual ; and we say perhaps the great suspicion and the hos¬ 
tile votes that assembly has so repeatedly of late bestowed on 
Government measures may be read by the light of this 
transaction. 
The Government having thus, in the face of Mr. Forster’s 
expressed opinion, disregarded the spirit of the Act, 1868, 
viz. that the calling of a chemist and druggist is a respon¬ 
sible one, and those following it should be educated to fulfil 
its duties, has floundered in a sea of difficulties. In attempt¬ 
ing to remove anomalies which were inherent to their Bill, 
their amendments, or, more properly, then* new Bill, violates 
the spirit of the Act which they allege it supplements. Of 
what offence has the medical profession been guilty that both 
the Act of 1868 and Dr. Brewer’s Amended Act should be 
violated? In these Acts clauses specially exempt medical 
men from interference; the present Bill seeks to impose upon 
them the present and all future regulations which the Phar¬ 
maceutical Council and the Privy Council may deem proper 
to impose; and, although the present Bill restricts its opera¬ 
tion to those keeping open shops, it may, if allowed to go 
The Report op the Special Committee. 
Sir,—In the Journal of July 8th you publish the returns 
forwarded by local secretaries as to petitions against the 
Pharmacy Bill. Under Brighton I find it stated, number of 
chemists and druggists in town 52, and number of signatures 
obtained 52. 
If this is intended to convey the impression that all the 
Brighton chemists signed this petition it is, as far as I am 
concerned, incorrect. I am a Brighton chemist, and neither 
have I, nor do I intend, to append my signature to such a 
document. 
In inserting these lines in your next number, you will 
greatly oblige 
J. Schweitzer. 
[*** These returns were furnished by the Committee.— 
Ed. Phabm. Journ.] 
