394 
PHARMACEUTICAL LEGISLATION. 
13 out of 19 ; at Ipswich, 11 out of 1G ; at Bath, 20 out of 30. From Hull 
the final return is not yet received, but the Local Secretary says that he has 
already obtained thirty signatures and will have many more. The Local 
Secretary at Liverpool states that he has already obtained 180 signatures, and 
expects about 25 more ; while the whole number of druggists in the place, after 
deducting widows, absentees, etc., does not much exceed 220. We might add 
a further considerable list of places where the majority have signed, and we 
have, on the other hand, but a small number of places where the majority have 
refused to sign. In these latter instances the reasons given for such refusal are 
often founded upon a misapprehension of the effects the Bill would produce 
if passed into law. Some think the Bill would legislate only in favour of 
London druggists, and ask why druggists in the country are to be injured, as 
they would be, if village shopkeepers were prevented from selling medicines in 
common use. Of course, we can only say, in answer to these objections, that we 
are not aware of any provisions in the Bill that would operate more favourably 
for those living in London than for those in the country, and there certainly is 
nothing that would prevent country shopkeepers from selling ordinary domestic 
medicines, "which we are aware are frequently supplied to them for that pur¬ 
pose by chemists in the neighbouring towns. A free discussion of the subject 
will tend to dispel such erroneous notions as these, and to remove prejudices 
which are found to prevail in certain localities, and to militate against the ex¬ 
pression of the favourable opinion which in most other instances appears to be 
entertained. 
Among those who have carefully analysed the Bill and well considered its 
provisions, there are two classes of objectors ; those, on the one hand, who think 
it is not sufficiently liberal, and who would propose to put all existing druggists 
upon an equal footing, cutting off at once from the Pharmaceutical Chemist the 
advantage he derives from his past exertions and present position ; and those, on 
the other hand, who think it is not sufficiently restrictive, because it leaves the 
sale of drugs and medicines that are not compounded from the prescriptions 
of medical practitioners just as it exists at present. The Council, happily 
have taken the middle course between these two extremes, and this appears to 
Lave met the views of a large majority of the members of the trade ; for it must 
be observed that the appeal has been made, not merely to Pharmaceutical Che¬ 
mists, but to the whole body of chemists and druggists. We have much pleasure 
in referring to the reports—which will be found elsewhere—of meetings of the 
trade at Edinburgh, Liverpool, Nottingham, Southampton, etc. The statements 
made at these meetings, coupled with the returns to which we have just alluded, 
and those to which we referred last month, must surely convince the most scep¬ 
tical that the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society, in the course they are 
pursuing with reference to this subject, have the confidence and support, not 
only of their own constituents, but of the bulk of chemists and druggists 
throughout the country. They have proposed a measure which it is believed is 
sufficiently stringent to effect what is contemplated in the elevation of the body 
of chemists and druggists to a standard of adequate qualification, and is at the 
same time free from any tendency to exclusiveness that would operate unjustly 
towards existing interests or in any way to the prejudice of the public. That 
the Council are actuated by a feeling of liberality towards those of their brethren 
who have hitherto held themselves aloof from the association with which the 
Bdl originates, may be inferred from the resolution—which will be found else¬ 
where—rehting to the examination of chemists who have been for some years 
established in business. The Council have surely done all that could be desired 
in justification of their impartiality; nor can we think that any further conces¬ 
sions could be made in the direction of liberality without detriment to the 
'Cause. But in some instances objections are urged against the Bill because it 
