Report from the Select Committee on Pharmacy bill : together with the proceedings, minutes of evidence and index.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Pharmacy Bill.
Date:
1852
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Report from the Select Committee on Pharmacy bill : together with the proceedings, minutes of evidence and index. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    154/258 page 144
    G. Webster, Esq., M. D. 29 April 1852. the moment a charter of’ incorporation is granted to the physicians and surgeons in general practice. 2106. Then the same result would be obtained in the event of the Pharmaceu- tical Society being confirmed as a pharmaceutical body, and the Society of Apothe- caries merging into the medical corporation, which you desire?—It might. 2107. Would not that kind of arrangement answer the purpose of all parties, better than a prohibition to the chemists to introduce the improvement they desire, and the creation of a third medical corporation for those members of the pro- fession who already have two ?—I do not object to the pharmaceutical chemists having the management of their own affairs, and even to their having a charter of incorporation, as far as their own concerns are really affected. 2108. How could they have the management of their own affairs, if they are turned over to the Society of Apothecaries for examination in the mode you suggest? —I mean, they should become members and part and parcel of the society, and have the election of their own officers ; they should become, in fact, one body. 2109. Is it not the fact that the Society of Apothecaries, who were originally the dispensers of medicine merely, have become a medical body entirely; and have you not stated it as an objection to the Pharmaceutical Society, that you fear it will do the same thing P—The Society of Apothecaries is not altogether a medical body. 2110. They all practise as medical practitioners?—You are speaking of the incorporation, I understand. 2111. Yes ?—Very well; they are sellers of medicine at this moment, and super- intend the quality of drugs of certain medical men, their own members and licen- tiates practising in London, and within seven miles of it, I think. 2112. In the event of the amalgamation of the chemists w ith the apothecaries, do you not think that that would have a greater tendency to convert the chemists into medical practitioners than the plan which is proposed by this Bill, namely, the creation and the confirmation of a body which excludes medical qualification altogether?—I do not think so, if their own functions were properly guarded by stringent clauses, preventing their assuming the character of medical men. 2113. Supposing this amalgamation were to take place as you suggest, how would you provide for the case of those apothecaries who are at present qualified to practise as medical men? Would you make two classes of practitioners in one body corporate?—Supposing the amalgamation to take place, I am sup- posing also that the medical functions of the Apothecaries’ Society would cease entirely. 2114. Each member of the society having certain functions to exercise, accord- ing to your present statement, either these individuals must sink their present medical functions or must be excluded from the society?—You have used the word “member;” now a member of the Apothecaries’Society need not neces- sarily, I believe, be a licentiate of the Apothecaries’ Society; there are members now who were never examined ; they merely belong to the trading incorporation. 2115. You would then sever the licentiates altogether?—Entirely. 2116. But you are aware that the members have a vested interest in the capital of the Apothecaries’ Society?—Yres, and I would let them retain that as long as they think proper. 2117. Would you join the, chemists on to them ?—Yes. 2118. By what Act of Parliament could you compel persons, having property in an institution of that sort, to hand over a share of their property to others, who would be considered interlopers r—I would not so compel them ; they possess other functions, besides being merely a trading corporation ; by the Act of James the First, they have certain chemical (I may call them), and it may be pharma- ceutical, functions granted to them, by which they examine all those who are to vend and sell medicines. 2119. But if you are to throw chemists into that body, how could you separate the functions?—By a new Act of Parliament, somewhat similar perhaps to this Bill. 2120. If you object to any portion of the arrangement, except upon the ground that in your opinion there ought not to be two distinct bodies, and you wish to amalgamate then], and at the same time to create a new body, in what respect would you attain your object by sending the chemists to that bod}*?—I think it would be classing men properly together, who, as “members” of the Apothe- caries’ Society, are merely vendors of medicines, and superintenders of chemistry and pharmacy ; and on the other hand, the creation of a new incorporation for physicians and surgeons in general practice would also be giving them their proper status; but these are matters of detail which I think might easily be arranged. 2121. I am
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3