HC Deb 31 July 1862 vol 168 cc1061-3

Order for the consideration of Lords' Amendments to Commons' Amendments to Lords' Amendments read.

On Amendments made by the Lords to Clause 2 (Exemptions from serving on Juries),


said, he understood the Amendments to be a second re-insertion by the Lords of Amendments twice struck out by the Commons. Medical men, whether physicians or surgeons, were properly exempted from service on juries. He did not see that the same convenience applied to pharmaceutical chemists. It had been urged that inconvenience might arise in the country from the absence of the pharmaceutical chemist. His reply was, that on application being made by a chemist so circumstanced, no Judge of Assize would ever turn a deaf ear to it. He moved to disagree to the Lords' Amendments.


, on the contrary, thought the House ought not only to agree to the Amendment, but to include in the exemption the United Society of Chemists and Druggists in England and Wales; and if the forms had permitted, he should have proposed a Motion to that effect.


said, as he Lords' Amendment had been moved by Lord Wensleydale, who had devoted much attention to the subject, he hoped it would be agreed to.


remarked that the Commons differed from the Lords with regard to the exemption of veterinary surgeons and pharmaceutical chemists, one of which they had struck out while they retained the other. Physicians and surgeons were properly exempted, on the assumption that it was their individual skill that was required, and that this could not be supplied by any substitute. But with regard to the chemist, every one knew that prescriptions could be made up by a skilled assistant. If the pharmaceutical chemist were now admitted to exemption, next year a claim would be urged on the part of a large party of chemists not pharmaceutical.


said, he had heard no reason against the exemption, and in the interest of the poor, whose prescriptions were made up by this class of men, advocated this exemption.


adhered to the opinion which he had before expressed and upon which the House had acted—namely, that the case of the pharmaceutical chemist did not fall within the principle upon which medical men enjoyed this exemption. If pharmaceutical chemists were exempted, there would be still stronger grounds for exempting chemists and druggists in small country towns.


supported the exemption, which would only carry one step further, in favour of a very limited class, the immunity already granted to medical men.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth insist upon its disagreement to so much of the Lords' Amendment in page 1, line 13, as their Lordships insist upon.

The House divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 45: Majority 33.

Resolved, That this House doth not insist upon their disagreement to so much of the said Amendment upon which the Lords insist, and agree to the consequential Amendments made by their Lordships to the said Bill.

House adjourned at Eight o'clock.