PUBLIC OPINION ON THE TWO BILLS. 
605 
knowledge of the nature of drugs and medicines in general use, with their doses,’ and 
empowers the establishment of a roving commission throughout England and Wales for 
the purpose of examination. The former\neasure submits the bye-laws embodying its 
proposed examination to the approval of the Secretary of State; the latter leaves it a 
matter of discretion for those to whom such a duty or responsibility may be entrusted. 
Sir Fitzroy Kelly’s Bill proposes to ensure public safety without undue interference with 
trade ; Sir John Shelley’s measure unduly interferes with trade without ensuring public 
safety. Registration and what the Bill terms examination are, by Sir John Shelley’s 
proposal, made the basis for restricting the sale of drugs ; whereas the sale of drugs is 
not affected by the Bill of Sir Fitzroy Kelly further than the compounding of prescrip¬ 
tions. Were the 18th section of Sir John Shelley’s Bill, setting forth restrictions and 
penalties on the sale of poisons, included in that of Sir Fitzroy Kelly, we believe that a 
measure eminently entitled to public support would be the result. We would fain hope 
that such may be the case, and that this long-desired measure of protection may at length 
be conceded. It is satisfactory to know that both Bills have been referred to a Select 
Committee. The debate in the House was, on the whole, as temperate as might have been 
expected from those advocating rival measures. It must be gratifying to the Pharma¬ 
ceutical Society that such deserved honour and praise were rendered to its exertions by 
all who joined in the discussion. We venture to hope that the measure it has proposed 
may be practically adopted, even though in some non-essential particulars its provisions 
be modified ” 
From the 1 Medical Tunes and GazetteApril 8 th. 
“We will venture to repeat here the objections which we have felt it our duty, on 
behalf of the English general practitioner, to make to these Bills. The existence of a 
grievanceor of danger to the public from incompetent dispensers is not proved nor probable. 
Even if it were proved, it could not be remedied by Act of Parliament. The good objects of 
the Bills can all be better obtained by voluntary effort without a Bill. The exclusive 
privileges it is proposed to confer may be highly inconvenient to the public. The re¬ 
striction to certain persons of the right of ‘compounding the prescriptions of duly- 
qualified medical practitioners,’ makes the whole affair seem ironical, so far as public 
safety is concerned, because it clearly leaves the field open, and gives virtually legal 
sanction to unduly-qualified medical men who shall prescribe, and unqualified person¬ 
ages who shall dispense, their prescriptions. Literally it will come to this, that a man, 
who on an emergency shall make up a box of colocynth pills from a physician’s pre¬ 
scription shall be fined £5, whilst he may compound a drink from the receipt of a 
‘ botanist ’ or sell a box of Morison’s pills with the sanction and approbation of the law. 
Lastly, the habit of counter practice, and of consultations and prescriptions of chemists 
in their back parlours will increase and multiply, and the regular practitioner be starved, 
—all for the ‘ safety of the public.’ 
“There are, in London alone, hundreds of M.R.C.S. and L.A.C.’s, whose daily income 
is affected by this Bill. If any of them think about it as we do, we ask them to forward 
their names at once to the ‘ Medical Times and Gazette’ office, stating whether they are 
willing to wait on the framers of these Bills to discuss the matter. They must bear in 
mind that Sir F. Kelly and Sir John Shelley are well disposed to the Medical Profession, 
but take their tone in the present matter from the very able, energetic men who—small 
blame to them—desire to aggrandize the Pharmaceutical Society or the United Society of 
Chemists and Druggists, and to substitute the pharmaceutical chemist for the general 
practitioner. But if our medical brethren are silent now, it will be in vain to grumble 
hereafter.” 
From the ‘ Saturday Review, , April 8 th. 
“It seems strange that it should be found difficult to obtain for the British public 
protection against the dangers which arise from the sale of medicines by persons utterly 
ignorant of their qualities and effects. But there are formidable obstacles arising, on 
the one hand, from the reluctance of chemists and druggists to be taught anything, and, 
on the other, from the fear entertained by some medical practitioners that they may be 
taught too much. The apothecaries were originally, as their name signifies, nothing 
more than keepers of general shops, like those which still exist in country places, for 
the sale of everything from laudanum to a pair of boots. Afterwards they became more 
VOL. VI. 2 u 
