424 
THE GARDENING WORLD. 
May 16, 1SCS. 
Letters to the Editor. 
Pharmacy Acts Amendment Bill. 
To the Editor of The Gardening World. 
Sir,—T here are certain aspects of this measure which are 
open to criticism by those who honestly differ from its provisions, 
and I shall be greatly obliged if you will enable me to briefly 
refer to them through the medium of your valuable paper. 
The second clause, which makes provision for the regulation 
of the sale of poisons, is evidently directed against any and 
every firm and company except individual registered chemists 
and druggists. I fail to see why the restriction upon “ any com¬ 
pany, firm, co-partnership, or body of persons,” should be so 
stringent as they are intended to be, or why an already existing 
monopoly should be strengthened in the way suggested. It is 
seriously proposed to make it unlawful for any person, company, 
firm, co-partnership, or body of persons to sell or to “ negotiate ” 
or “ participate in the sale by retail of any poisons at or upon 
any place other than an open shop registered.” Is a traveller 
or other agent, to be forbidden negotiating an order for paint, 
sheep dip, weed killer, or insecticide from an agriculturist or 
nurseryman ? Surely that would be an unwarrantable inter¬ 
ference with the liberty of the subject which the Legislature will 
decline to sanction. The well-known, case of the Pharmaceutical 
Society v. White at once occurs to one in this connection. White, 
a nurseryman and seedsman, received an order at his shop for 
weed-killer, which he transmitted to a manufacturer, who sup¬ 
plied the customer direct, White receiving a commission for 
forwarding the order. The Court of Appeal affirmed that White 
was the agent or “ pipe ” or “ channel ” through whom the order 
was sent. Surely that is common sense ; and it would be against 
the trend of modern legislation to endeavour to prevent such a 
transaction being perfectly legal, or that persons who take orders 
in the same way as White should be deprived of their commis¬ 
sion. 
Then, again, the powers proposed to be conferred upon the 
Pharmaceutical Council as regards the regulations to be made 
for the registration of shops and persons are such as would be 
more prolerly discharged by a public department than by 
officials of a body that would naturally be prejudiced in a certain 
direction. Grave injustice might probably be done to indi¬ 
viduals by the removal of their names from the register, under 
regulations which by the Bill it is intended to leave in the 
hands of such council. 
Clause 5 proposes to make it compulsory for all shops or build¬ 
ings which are registered to be separately rated toi the poor. 
This seems quite superfluous. What sanctity attaches to the 
poor rate assessment it is impossible to conceive. Surely it has 
no connection with the sale of poison or medicine! As everybody 
knows, it has been quite a common occurrence in recent years 
for palatial hotels, coffee taverns, and theatres to be erected, the 
lower rooms of which adjacent to the streets are let out sepa¬ 
rately as shops. The usual practice is for the entire building 
to be assessed to the poor rate, and for the shop rental to be 
independent of rates. Why disturb the existing state of tilings ? 
Registration should suffice. In the case of the Army and Navy 
or Qivil Service Stores, where the chemists’ department is only 
part of one particular floor, it would be most difficult, if not well- 
nigh impossible, to fairly estimate what the assessment should 
be for so many square yards of floor space. 
Clause 7 seems unreasonable and unjust. It would really re¬ 
quire that directors of stores in which there is a chemists’ depart¬ 
ment should themselves be qualified chemists, although such 
department be under the superintendence of a registered chemist 
and druggist. Of what possible benefit could it be to the public 
—what extra protection would they Teceive—should such a pro¬ 
vision become law? Is a director, forsooth, to test the strength 
and quality of all the drugs which the company sends out as a 
qualification for holding office ? Hitherto the possession of busi¬ 
ness capacity and a substantial holding of shares have been 
considered the necessary qualifications ; but if this newly in¬ 
vented one is to be insisted upon, the range of choice for such 
directors of such stores will be greatly restricted for no sound 
reason whatever. 
It would be obviously unfair for directors to be limited in the 
manner proposed. It might as well be argued that those who 
guide the destinies of life assurance societies should be medical 
experts or skilled actuaries; or that those who control 
breweries should be trained judges of malt or hops. From the 
point of view of quality of medicine or kind of poison dispensed, 
the public do not care two straws who the directors of a company 
are. If they are served and provided for medicinally by a duly 
qualified chemist restrictions upon directors will not give greater 
protection than they now possess. If a whole board of directors 
were to be registered as chemists and their registered dispenser 
sold some poisonous compound to an individual through whose 
carelessness or design such compound brought about a fatality, 
what possible connection could such directors have with so unfor¬ 
tunate a result? Mr. Bailey, M.P., may well describe Clause 7 
as a “ very unreasonable condition.” He might have added 
“ absurd.” 
To conclude, the restrictive nature of several of the provisions 
of this Bill is such as to make it highly probable that it will 
meet with strong opposition on the part- of all those who, while 
desirous of fully protecting the public, decline to continue, 
much less extend, the monopoly already possessed by chemists. 
A Privy Council Departmental Committee has recently reported 
in favour of breaking down the monopoly and legalising the sale 
of poisonous compounds under proper restrictions by other than 
qualified chemists, where they are required for use in connection 
with agriculture, horticulture, or sanitation; such poisonous 
compounds to be sold only by licensed persons, in sealed 
packages, as received from the manufacturers, properly labelled, 
and subject to the regulations to be made by the Privy Council. 
The object of the Pharmaceutical Society in promoting this 
Bill is only for the benefit of chemists and druggists. This is 
shown by the reports of meetings of chemists held in all parts of 
the country. 
The Legislature should act not in the interests of individuals, 
but for the convenience and benefit of the public. The day 
has gone by when monopolies can be maintained. 
Thos. G. Dobbs, 
Traders in Poisonous Compounds for Sec. and Solicitor. 
Trade Purposes Protection Society, 
24, Sansome Street, Worcester, May 6th, 1903. 
Trenching and Ridging Stiff Soils. 
To the Editor of The Gardening World. 
Sir,— We have heard so much about trenching and the London 
bed of clay lately in your much amended journal that we almost 
crave to have a few days’ nod in it, especially when one can tickle 
it up with a fork in preference to the spade, as in Kent. 
Perhaps, like the proverbial Scotchmen—and clay—we should 
stick down south, and never find our way back again. However 
much we may differ, we must agree to differ. One thing is cer¬ 
tain, stiff soils are productive of heavy crops of bricks—if you 
stick a brick plant on it—slugs, snails and back aches, as well 
as most excellent crops of vegetables, if rightly tackled. 
Objection in the past, as in the present, has been taken to Mr. 
Beckett’s mode of procedure in turning the bottom soil on the 
top. But the great vegetable exhibitor at once disarms his 
critics by a saving clause in the addition, of suitable ingredients— 
presumably to encourage seed germination, thereby giving the 
young radicles a, start to help them pierce through the top plastic 
layer, into more congenial, nourishing soil; otherwise a goo:l per¬ 
centage of seed would not germinate, and those doing so would be 
liable to rot off at the collar. 
Winter versus spring.—To thoroughly cope wich stiff soils give 
me autumn and winter preferably, and providing it is fine over¬ 
head, no matter how wet and saturated the soil, work proceeds 
apace. Experience teaches that the more surcharged with 
moisture the greater the disintegration of particles, when the 
frost comes and goes. The work is done before our good friend 
commences and frosty power is on the wane. Besides, soils, 
straw, winds, etc., when dry, are non-conductors ; therefore im¬ 
mune to the action of frosts. 
We have practically two plots here, both resting on a 6-foot 
bed of solid yellow clay. One has been rendered porous, light, 
and friable by the addition of road scrapings, flue dust, and 
peat, and is invariably left until spring before being dug, and 
providing manure could be got well down, would now seldom re¬ 
quire digging, as, the atmospheric pressure of 14 lbs. to the 
square inch is sufficient to penetrate far enough to sustain the 
roots of most vegetables, in such light soils. 
The other plot is the opposite, having been thus left for the 
legumes, and the Editor knows about these. Indeed, we com¬ 
mence preparing the soil before the crops of these are all off. 
Early in November we practise what Mr. Blair does not believe 
in, viz., ridging. Well, Sir, is not rough digging a modified 
form? Is there a greater, or less, exposure of surface than 
smooth digging ? Does the diameter exceed the circumference l 
Perhaps Mr. Blair will explain some day what distance apart 
his ridges were, where frost does not break through nor pene¬ 
trate, and where the centres refused to be broken up. 
In the management of stiff soils here I have had three times 
seven years, and winter preparation and ridging have ever 
proved their salvation. B. B. 
May 2nd, 1903. 
