THE TWO BILLS. 
493 
same ostensible object of testing the qualification of chemists and druggists. 
There would necessarily be a tendency to competition between two such 
boards, and there might be some underbidding with a view to business, which 
would not contribute to the accomplishment in the most satisfactory manner 
of the objects for which such examinations are established. This objection 
was successfully urged against the Bill introduced some years ago by Lord 
Derby, and we believe it especially applies to one of the Bills now before 
Parliament. 
In Bill No. 2, registration and examination are made the basis of a propo¬ 
sition for restricting the sale of drugs, such as cannot be expected to be re¬ 
ceived with much favour by a legislature recognizing the principles of free 
trade. The dealers in drugs in England and Wales, or rather a section of 
them,—the very men who up to the present time had refused to assist in the 
efforts which have been made by their brethren to improve the qualification 
of those engaged in the business,—now modestly ask that they should be 
allowed to “ regulate the qualification of chemists and druggists,” and for 
this purpose they propose that the sale of drugs should be limited to them¬ 
selves and those whom they may choose to license for the purpose. They 
propose to elect a Council and appoint a board of examiners, with a very 
elastic programme of examination, and then they will not allow any one to sell a 
pound of sulphur or an ounce of cream of tartar without a license from their 
board or from ours. We wish for no such restriction, because we consider 
it to be unnecessary, unreasonable, and unjust. It is a method of re¬ 
gulating the trade in drugs which we think the Legislature will be slow to 
sanction. 
Pharmaceutical Chemists, it appears, would be allowed by the framers of 
this Bill No. 2, to sell drugs without the necessity of being examined by the 
Chemists and Druggists’ Board,—a most considerate and liberal concession 
certainly, especially when taken in connection with clause 16, by which they 
are deprived of the power of recovering debts that may be due to them for 
such sales, unless they be registered under the Chemists and Druggists 
Act. 
It would be easy to demonstrate in other respects the unreasonableness and 
impracticability of this measure, but we cannot think it is necessary to occupy 
any more space in doing so, feeling assured that what we have said will suf¬ 
ficiently show the great superiority of Bill No. 1 over No. 2. The one is a 
safe, moderate, consistent, most liberal, and, as we believe, perfectly efficient 
measure,—a measure that would contribute to the safety of the public without 
infringing any rights, interfering with any vested interests, or violating the 
recognized principles of legislation in this country ; while the other is a mea¬ 
sure of stringent restrictions which are directly opposed to free-trade prin¬ 
ciples, an attempt at the usurpation of power by a body who are not entitled 
to its exercise in the manner proposed, and a crude and undigested mass of 
inconsistencies, which, if carried into law, would disgrace the statute book. 
