558 
THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION AFFECTING PHARMACY. 
bears to the whole body of Chemists and Druggists, and the way in which it 
liad performed its duty to the public in carrying out the Pharmacy Act of 1852, 
And of those who followed him in the discussion not one attempted to controvert 
his statements. Even Sir John Shelley himself, who was to move the second 
reading of the “ Chemists and Druggists Bill No. 2,” bore handsome testimony 
to the good which had been done by the Pharmaceutical Society, expressing an 
earnest hope that it would go on in its old course, and, although chemists and 
druggists might be more easily qualified under his Bill, that they, or at least 
very many of them, would not rest contented until they had achieved a higher 
position by registration as Pharmaceutical Chemists under the Act of 1852. 
And when Sir George Grey, in answer to the appeal of Mr. Roebuck, rose to 
state the views of Government on the question, he at once affirmed the great 
principle that if there were to he examination , that examination might he safely 
entrusted to the Pharmaceutical Society. He took no exception to any provi¬ 
sions of Bill No. 1, but was anxious to extend its operation to the sale of dan¬ 
gerous drugs as well as dispensing, and restrictions on selling being proposed in 
Bill No. 2 he thought it better that both Bills should be referred to a Select Com¬ 
mittee, which would at the same time consider the respective claims of the two 
societies from whom they emanated. Although we believe that had Sir Fitzroy 
Kelly pressed his measure on the House without reference to such a committee 
the majority would have been with him, we do not for a moment regret that he 
assented to the Home Secretary’s suggestion. The discussion of that day did 
infinite service to our Society, and the investigation “ upstairs ” will greatly ex¬ 
tend that benefit. 
Following on Parliament, the press has devoted space to the consideration of 
the two Bills, generally with the same tendency ; and even ‘ Punch ’ seemed 
delighted at the chance of indulging his natural hilarity in describing the dia¬ 
logue betwixt “ Kelly ” and “ Shelley.” 
Our subject is a special one, and one on which the “Medical Press” may be 
supposed to speak with some authority and claim to attention. We have 
therefore read with much interest the articles which have appeared in the 
medical journals, particularly that in the 4 Lancet ’ of the 1st ult., and com¬ 
mend it to all our members. 
But doctors differ, sometimes it is to be feared from mere rivalry, and on 
this case we find the 4 Medical Times’ utterly at variance with its great contem¬ 
porary, as to the desirability of educating chemists and druggists. We saw an 
advertisement, put forth the other day by a general practitioner, wishing to find 
a new place for his faithful 44 Buttons ,” who besides cleaning boots and shoes, and 
doing a little stable-.work, could he well recommended as a dispenser! And when 
we remember that it was last year stated in the ‘Medical Times’ that a few weeks’ 
practice would make any 44 neat-handed woman ” or lad into a trustworthy 
compounder of physic, which should carry relief, but may carry death to suffer¬ 
ing humanity, we are not quite at a loss to imagine the class in whose interest 
the editor writes ; it is the class mentioned in the able article which appeared 
in the 4 Saturday Review ’ of April 8th ; a certain section of medical practi¬ 
tioners, who having marked the aid given by the Apothecaries’ Act of 1815 to 
members of their own order, to elevate themselves by trenching on the ground 
formerly occupied by physicians, now tremble lest a similar uprising should oc¬ 
cur among chemists and druggists if they be 44 taught too much.” The ‘Satur¬ 
day Review ’ traces the course of the apothecaries, and conclusively disposes of 
the objection in the following brief sentence :— 
“ This, however, is a matter which concerns only a fraction of a class, while 
it concerns society that nobody should meddle with medicines who does not un¬ 
derstand their properties .” 
Pages of argument could not more perfectly show the injustice and impolicy 
