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.

    21/258 page 11
    publications, and the exertions of this same Pharmaceutical Society. I believe it has had great influence here in London. l 27. Do you consider that the improvements, for the reasons you have given, are 128. But not sufficiently to satisfy you without the assistance of some such measure as is contemplated by this Bill ?—We in science are never satisfied with one chance if we can get two ; if we can improve our chance, we like to do so. 129. I understand you to say that you do not contemplate that any measure of this kind should give an exclusive right to chemists and druggists to carry on their profession ; you do not indulge any hope of seeing a monopoly ?—That is a question for a statesman to answer rather than myself. 1 see great difficulties there, and with my interest for the advancement of pharmaceutical science, I should deprecate greatly any clause in the Bill which would give or would appear to give a monopoly in the trade. 130. How then would you prevent the recurrence of the difficulties of which you now complain ?—They could not be prevented at first; we must take it with an allowance. 131. In fact, that case which you complain of, where in your recent visit you found the widow of a chemist, with a child in her arms, dispensing drugs, could not be prevented and would not be prevented by such a Bill as this ?—Allow me to say that that incident was in 1830, in my former visit as censor ; this year I have not met with anything so gross as that. 132. But there is no reason why you should not, and it could not be prevented ? —No, unless there was a system of continual inspection, which would shame them. J33. Is the frequency of the inspection limited by the Act under which you visit ?—No, it is not limited. 134. With whom does the frequency of the inspection rest ?—With the censors of the College of Physicians. 135. Is there any reason why it should not be exercised more frequently?— The great and predominant reason is, that at this end of the town we are busy with other matters, and it requires the better part of a day, which cannot be spared by four physicians, all in practice at this end of the town, more frequently than two or three times in a year ; the term in the Act by the by is, that once in a year at least it should take place. 136. Is that carried out strictly ?—There are three or four visits in the year. 137. Mr. Farrer.~\ Can you inform the Committee what proportion of the practising chemists are subject to this inspection ?—Those only within the city of London, within Temple-bar and the East-end. 138. What is the per-centage inspected ?—That I cannot tell you. All those within the city of London are liable to it; we pounce upon them unexpectedly. 139. But the number is uncertain?—The number is uncertain. 140. That case of the woman and the child is an exceptional case?—It is an exceptional case. 141. In the course of your experience have you ever met with any instance of similar grossness ?—Not with a widow with a baby exactly, but with a boy left in charge of the shop, or an ignorant assistant, a case equally gross. I would rather have trusted the woman with the baby than some of the boy assistants. 142. Would you not be afraid, that in the event of your prescriptions being taken to persons whose business was managed by boys and young people, the compounding of the drugs might be such as to damage your professional character ? —Certainly. 143. I understand you to say, that you are not in the habit of recommending your patients to take your prescriptions to any particular dispensing chemist ?— Never. 144. Mr. Hindle?/.] But would you feel the same particular delicacy in recom- mending your patients to take a prescription to a member of the Pharmaceutical Society?—If every chemist was a member I should say, “Take it anywhere; you are safe.” 145. But if they were not all members, would you feel any delicacy in recom- mending them to take it to such a member of the profession, because all you want is to secure its being compounded by a person of education and competence? There might be a person in the next street who was a chemist bv instinct, by °-42. b 2 v taste. J. A. Wilson, Esq.. M. D.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3