THE PHARMACY BILL. 
375 
u 
Commercial Drug Hall;” “ Apothecaries’ Hall;” “Medical Establishment;” 
W-’s Medical Establishment:’’ “Y- 
Drug and Chemical Establish¬ 
ment “ Laboratory,” etc. It is quite unnecessary to argue that if a restric¬ 
tion were placed upon these designations, the same ingenuity would find abun¬ 
dance of others under which to carry on the trade, especially when there was 
the further inducement to do so, which would follow a restriction not at present 
prohibiting the title of Chemist and Druggist. 
You do not believe “ that the retail sale of drugs could be profitably conducted 
if separated from dispensing, unless under exceptional circumstances.” Had 
you expressed the conviction that dispensing the prescriptions of legally quali¬ 
fied medical practitioners was a branch of business quite unimportant to nine- 
tenths of provincial druggists, you would have better expressed the general feel¬ 
ing of the country. There is not one country druggist in a hundred who could 
live by his dispensing. There is not one in a hundred who could not live almost 
as well as at present without it. Evidence of this may be found at Bloomsbury 
Square by those who are desirous of arriving at the truth. One day last sum¬ 
mer, when examining a candidate under the Minor examination, I was led to 
ask if he ever saw any dispensing; he replied, “ Yes; they made up prescrip¬ 
tions sometimes.” The form of reply induced me to ask, “How often?” To 
which he answered, “ About one in the week.” This did not astonish me, 
knowing, as I do, how frequently country towns have many druggists and no 
physician. I did not pursue the matter with other students who passed through 
my hands, as I had not this argument in view at the time; but no doubt a 
similar tale would have been told by others from the provinces. 
I quite agree with you in thinking that “ it was important in framing the 
Bill, and submitting it in a tangible form to those who will be most immediately 
affected by it, and whose expressed opinions will have much weight with the Le¬ 
gislature, that it should contain as few debatable points as possible ;” but I do 
not agree with you in thinking that “ in this the Council have been eminently 
successful.” 
I have not succeeded in convincing my fellow-members of Council that some¬ 
thing better than the proposed Bill could be accomplished, and probably accom¬ 
plished with less difficulty than the Bill in its present form; and in retiring 
from the governing body, I wish to convey to my electors that though I have 
not been successful I have not been unthinking in this matter. I have objected 
to the Bill in its present state because I think it will leave the public unpro¬ 
tected, and the practice of the drug trade almost unaltered ; because it will still 
leave the necessity for a Poison Bill, and the probability of our having to oppose 
poison bills of an impracticable or obnoxious character. I have objected to the 
Bill because it is felt to be unfair towards some of those who do not belong to 
our Society, registering them on a list inferior to that occupied by the members 
of the Pharmaceutical Society,—the distinction being nominally, but not really, 
one of qualification, the inferior register containing many able and well-informed 
men, and the superior containing, as it unavoidably will do for years to come, 
the names of some who, as far as regards qualifications, are unworthy of the po¬ 
sition. Thus it will at once do an in justice to the public and to the non-phar- 
maceutical members of the trade. 
Besides the objections to having the Bill passed in its present form, there are 
objections to having it brought forward in its present form ; because it is likely 
to rouse the opposition of those w r ho belong to the United Society or to no 
society, because it will be wanting in that sympathy which a poison bill would 
meet with, both at the hands of the Legislature and the public, and because it 
gives some grounds for the assertion that it is a selfish measure, having party 
objects in view. Nothing is so sure to deprive us of public sympathy and sup¬ 
port as an apparent desire to pass a public Bill for our own purposes. 
