650 
LIVERPOOL chemists’ ASSOCIATION. 
He said that there was great reason to be glad that a Bill had been prepared which 
had a prospect of being carried. Approving of much in it, there are features open to 
criticism. Thus the poison schedule is very incomplete, and he thought that unless 
it embraced a much larger number of poisonous substances, it would be much better 
to have omitted it altogether. If retained, all persons dealing in poison should undergo 
examination, as at present herbalists and many others lie under no restrictions such 
as would be imposed upon chemists. 
He objected strongly to the proposition to allow persons passing the Minor examina¬ 
tion to practise as chemists and druggists. Useful as that is to test the acquirements of 
those who work under the superintendence of a principal, it falls far short of what 
should be required from the responsible head of an establishment. For example, in 
the Minor examination no knowledge of doses is required,—an important point now 
that active principles are so much employed instead of the drugs themselves. JSor is 
the candidate required to distinguish between genuine and spurious drugs. 
He conceived that the highest standard attainable consistent with the proper know¬ 
ledge of all subjects connected with pharmacy should be set up, and that the pharma¬ 
ceutist or chemist should be rigidly required to possess a fairer knowledge of all such 
points in his profession as might afiect the dispensing of potent medicines to the 
public. It was not proper that any person should be recognised by law as qualified to 
dispense medicines and retail poisons who had not been proved by a high examination 
to be in all respects competent. 
Mr. Sharp also objected to the terms Chemist and Druggist and Pharmaceutical 
Chemist as being in their abstract meaning synonymous. He preferred the titles 
Licentiate in Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Chemist, as showing more clearly the 
distinction between those who have passed the several examinations, 
Mr. Shaw said that the proposed Bill contained clauses concerning which there would 
doubtless be considerable ditlerence of opinion. The proposed admission of chemists and 
druggists to membership of the Pharmaceutical Society would be severely criticized ; 
but, as the Association was not wholly composed of Pharmaceutical Chemists, but in¬ 
cluded chemists and druggists, and others not connected with the trade, he thought it 
undesirable to discuss the question at present. He would just allude to the poison 
schedule, and the clause in reference to it. In the Bill introduced by the Society in 
1865, there was no poison schedule, whilst in that of the United Society of Chemists 
and Druggists there was one, and he noticed that the present schedule was much shorter 
than that. He was under the impression that the Council wou'd have preferred to have 
had no poison schedule, but the decision of the Parliamentary Committee in 1865 was, 
that any future Bill should contain one. With respect to the operation of the clause 
requiring the placing of a poison label on all the articles mentioned in the schedule, he 
thought that it might compromise the dispenser, and was not sufficiently explicit in 
excepting poisons prescribed by the faculty. He alluded to liquor arsenicalis, prussic 
acid, and others even in a diluted form, which might be prescribed without instructions 
to label them poison. Would the dispenser feel himself at liberty to label them poison 
in all cases? and, if he did not, and an accident occurred, would he be exonerated from 
blame ? He suggested that it would be very desirable to have a rearrangement of 
the clause, so as to relieve the dispenser from this difficulty. Mr. Sharp had alluded 
to the insufficiency of the proposed examination of chemists and druggists under the 
new Act, but he (Mr. Shaw) considered that there was sufficient elasticity in the 
arrangement for the examinations to make them more stringent both as regards the 
Minor and Major. 
Mr. Abraham said he was one of those who doubted whether it was desirable, in the 
interest of Pharmaceutical Chemists, to seek for further powers, and he should very 
much regret if anything were done which would diminish the present value of the title, 
‘‘ Pharmaceutical Chemist.” To be a member of the Pharmaceutical Society was at 
present equivalent to that title, and to make such, without examination, all the present 
chemists and druggists, their assistants and apprentices, who chose, was, he feared, cal¬ 
culated to put the Society in a worse position than it occupied about the year 1852, 
Avhen chemists actually in business were last admitted without examination. He 
thought that every one should be distinguished by his proper title, and protected in 
respect to the use of that title, and not otherwise. He was sure that the change was 
proposed in the most liberal spirit, though he thought it impolitic, for the Council of the 
