PUBLIC OPINION ON TIIE TWO BILLS. 
r,03 
practise it, however, some check seems desirable. The Committee suggest that this 
object may be attained, in some measure, were the following clause to be added to 
Section 17, viz. 
“ Or to entitle any person registered under this Act to practise medicine or surgery, or 
any branch of medicine or surgery.” 
The members of the pharmaceutic body would thus have constantly before them the 
sentiments of the Legislature as to the principles on which the Pharmacy Act was 
founded. 
The Committee have reason to believe that the Council of the present Pharmaceutical 
Society have every desire to discourage the practice of medicine by its members. They, 
therefore, apprehend that no opposition would be made to the addition of such a clause. 
The Committee call attention to the fact that the Bill proposes to confer on the whole 
body of chemists and druggists the right of dispensing and selling medicines without 
any control on the part of the Government, except such as is exercised under the 
Pharmacy Act over registered Pharmaceutical Chemists. The medical profession has not 
been so dealt with in the Medical Act. The Medical Council is properly restricted in 
its action by the Medical Corporation and Universities, and is also controlled by the 
Privy Council. They submit that the whole profession of pharmacy ought to be sub¬ 
jected to some control. 
The Committee recommend that the above observations should be laid by the Presi¬ 
dent before the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the Chairman of the 
Select Committee on the two Bills. 
Signed on behalf of the Committee, 
Henry W. Acland, Chairman. 
PUBLIC OPINION ON THE TWO BILLS. 
From the 1 Lancet ,’ April 1st, 1865. 
“The question of qualification and registration of chemists and druggists is fast assuming 
a settlement. Two Bills have recently been presented to Parliament with a view of 
defining and regulating their position, and of limiting to competent and known men the 
sale of drugs and chemicals. Legislation on the subject is beset with many difficulties. 
These difficulties chiefly rest in the apparent conflict of the proposed schemes and the 
principles of free-trade in matters of general, we might almost add necessary, consump¬ 
tion. These difficulties we believe to be more imaginary than real. Laws which afford 
general protection must, in some respects, exercise a restriction. The principle of both 
Bills goes no further than this—that only those recognized by them will in future be 
permitted to trade in commodities of a nature which pre-argues the necessity of caution 
in their distribution. Heretofore the efforts of the Legislature to avert the danger 
resulting from the use of certain materials have been directed chiefly to the materials 
themselves as instances arose exemplifying the peril of unrestrained traffic in them. 
Thus, the sale of arsenic is regulated by the 14 Yict. c. 13. To prevent accidents from 
gunpowder or other explosive substances, their manufacture and storage are controlled 
by the 23 & 24 Yict. c. 139. The storage of petroleum is governed by the 25 & 26 
Viet. c. 66. These measures are, to a certain extent, examples of Government inter¬ 
ference and restriction in the manner of trade and manufacture when the general 
welfare of the public is brought into competition with the personal interests of the few. 
Public safety is thereby reduced to a matter of police. It has been long felt that the 
absence of legislation to limit to competent men the sale of drugs and chemicals of at 
least a known character, was an omission that could not be safely permitted to continue. 
It has been argued that any measure partial in its provisions would be practically of 
little real service; and any Act absolute and general would be oppressive. So many 
drugs and chemicals enter largely into the daily consumption of the artisan, mechanic, 
and housekeeper, for the practical purposes of their art, manufacture, or establishment, 
that to limit their sale or separate them from the ordinary articles of trade purchasable 
at the general dealer’s, it is affirmed, would be productive of public inconvenience, and 
an undue curtailment of commerce. We admit that in theory many arguments may be 
