THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION AFFECTING PHARMACY. 
559 
of protecting the interest of the apothecaries by maintaining the ignorance of 
chemists and druggists, than these three lines, and we advise our medical 
contemporary to cast about for some better means of effecting his object. 
We would even venture to refer him to the debate in the Medical Council, 
which happens opportunely to have taken place during the past month. He will 
find that when Dr. Aclancl proposed the appointment of a Committee to watch 
the progress of the two Pharmacy Bills, and consider the general question of 
medical practice by Chemists and Druggists, no member of that enlightened 
assembly, which governs and protects the profession, ventured to suggest the 
u old-world ” means of prevention which he recommends ; on the contrary, 
the qualification of dispensers is as much insisted on by the Medical as by the 
Pharmaceutical Council. 
An extract from the Minutes of the proceedings of the Council (which will be 
found elsewhere in this Journal) sets forth the general view taken of SirFitzroy 
Kelly’s Bill, and more particularly enters on this question of counter practice, 
proposing an addition to the 17th Section (which now declares that no provisions 
of the Act are in anywise to interfere with the vested interests of medical 
practitioners) of these words:—“ or to entitle any person registered wider this 
Act to practise Medicine or Surgery , or any branch of Medicine or Surgery .” 
W e are bound to pay all respect to the complaint brought against us in this quar¬ 
ter, and, although we think the grievance somewhat overstated, we are compelled 
to confess that it is not entirely without foundation. In some districts, inhabited 
by the poorer classes, the druggist is too often appealed to for medical advice, 
and often compelled by circumstances to give it; but, as a practice, we are as 
anxious as our medical brethren to check this, and the gentlemen of the Medical 
Council bear testimony on our behalf in this matter. The ‘ Lancet ’ asks us 
to give some pledge of our willingness to restrict our trade to its proper limits, 
and we presume the clause proposed by the Medical Council for insertion would 
be regarded in that light. Agreeing with it in principle, we could not object 
to its introduction, if Parliament offered no objection ; but on this point we 
feel somewhat doubtful, because it is the Lam which speaks in an Act of Parlia¬ 
ment, not the subject , and pledges are not usually given therein. Each branch 
of the profession must set up its own landmarks, and seek power from the Le¬ 
gislature to protect them. We at once acknowledge the justice of this, and feel 
the duty that devolves on us to prevent by the moral influence of our Society 
an interference with matters for which we are not qualified, either educationally 
or legally. As proof of this we may refer to the 8th section of the Pharmacy 
Act of 1852, in which the nature of our examinations is set forth, and in which 
will be found these words:— 
u Provided always , that such examinations shall not include the theory and 
practice of Medicine , Surgery , or Midwifery. ” But we cannot be made the in- 
hibitive power on both sides ; that would be contrary to the custom of legisla¬ 
tion, and about as reasonable as to ask that the College of Surgeons should pro¬ 
secute one of its Fellows for prescribing in a purely medical case. We ask for 
power to protect our own boundary from encroachment by unqualified persons, 
and we should be equally glad to see a like power given to the higher Medical 
Boards for their special defence. 
This, indeed, is a matter on which there should be no misunderstanding ; it 
has been too much the fashion to regard doctors and druggists as natural 
enemies, but that fashion has been much changed during the last twenty years, 
and chiefly, we believe, by the influence of the Pharmaceutical Society, which, 
by bringing these “natural enemies” together, has shown both how necessary 
they are to each other. 
2 n 2 
