Commons Sitting of 29 March 1865

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Sheep, &c. Protection (Ireland) [43]; Sheep and Cattle [57]; Chemists and Druggists [Sir FitzRoy Kelly] [78]; Chemists and Druggists [Sir John Shelley] (No. 2) [84], and referred to same Select Committee.
Committee—Small Benefices (Ireland) Act (1860) Amendment* [13].
Report—Small Benefices (Ireland) Act (1860) Amendment* [13].
Considered as amended—Married Women's Property (Ireland)* [60].
Third Reading—Mutiny*; Consolidated Fund (£15,000,000),* and passed.

SHEEP, &c, PROTECTION (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 43.]—SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR FREDERICK HEYGATE,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that it was not brought forward with any view to the protection of game, but in the interest of the tenant farmers themselves. Great damage and loss was occasioned to the owners of sheep in Ireland by the enormous number of dogs which were at large in that country. From the earliest period of the day to the latest period of the night, all parts of the country swarmed with dogs, and many of the people seemed to think it impossible to perform the ordinary functions of life without having a dog at their heels. The dog had been called the friend of man; that was true, and in that sense the people of Ireland would never want friends; but he thought that in this case, as in some others, they might say, "Save me from my friends." He could best illustrate his case by reading extracts from some letters he had received. One gentleman said it was of very little use that wolves had been destroyed, for in that country they had what was equally obnoxious, an enormous multitude of useless dogs. Another gentleman, who was a medical man, complained that in going his rounds to see his patients he could not do so with safety, being constantly subject to the attacks of these animals. A gentleman from Belfast wrote that half-starved curs roamed about the streets, and were very dangerous to children and old persons, and that he was constantly afraid of being attacked by these animals in the by-streets. The destruction of sheep that went on was hardly credible. Compensation had been demanded by the butchers of Londonderry
458
for the destruction of sheep in the town-parks, and it had been shown that in one district the butchers could not turn out their sheep in these parks, although surrounded by walls, without having them worried by dogs. A valuable Return had been moved for some time ago by the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell), which would give some idea of the damage done by dogs to sheep. It appeared by that Return that in 1861 there were no less than 8,809 destroyed by dogs. In 1863 the number of sheep reported by the police as having been killed by dogs was 7,324. This, however, gave little idea of the number of sheep killed, because the Returns only showed the number of which the police had cognizance. Keepers of sheep were placed under a peculiar disadvantage in consequence of this nuisance of dogs being allowed to exist without any remedy, and their position was greatly aggravated by the fact of the Poison Prohibition Bill, which received the assent of Parliament and the Crown last year. He would now call attention to the number of dogs supposed to exist in the country, and this in itself gave rise to a very curious calculation. By the Census of 1861 the number of inhabited houses in Ireland reached nearly 1,000,000. Now it would be a very low average indeed to allow one dog to each house. [An hon. MEMBER: More likely two.] Some hon. Member said that two dogs to each house would be a fairer average; but allowing only one to each house, that would give 1,000,000 of dogs in the country. Let the House but compare that number with the amount of live stock in the country. According to Mr. Donnelly's Agricultural Return there were 3,300,000 head of cattle and 3,056,000 sheep, and 1,000,000 pigs. So that taking those Returns to be correct, there would be nearly one dog to every 3½ head of cattle, and one dog to every three sheep, and one dog to every pig. Those who were in favour of the prosperity of Ireland would see at once that the number of sheep and pigs would probably be very largely increased if the number of dogs in the country was reduced. Now, it was evident from the fertility of its soil, and the mildness of its climate, that Ireland was peculiarly adapted to the rearing of sheep. It was, therefore, of the utmost importance to that country that every encouragement should be given to the rearing and feeding of sheep, and to the sale and manufacture of wool. It appeared to him

459
that his Bill would go far to effect those objects. He would, no doubt, be asked why he did not go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and request him to put on the assessed taxes in Ireland? Now, he believed that every one who alluded to the statistics which had been recently brought before the House, and which had been disclosed before the Taxation Committee of Ireland, must allow that this was not the time for putting any additional taxes upon that country. Even if it were otherwise, he was prepared to show that the result of the imposition of the tax upon dogs in Ireland would be too trifling to justify any experiment of the kind by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It appeared that the number of inhabited houses rated at £20 a year, which would be liable to the house duty, was only 30,000, and the number of horses not engaged in agricultural or other business, which would be liable to the assessed tax, was 33,000. The taxes, then, upon those two items, which formed more than a half of the English assessed taxes, would only amount in Ireland to £50,000 a year. What he proposed was rather in the nature of a registration fee than a tax. It might be said that it was a hard thing to put a tax or registration fee upon dogs in a country where there was no such thing as assessed taxes. But it should be recollected that in almost every country on the Continent power was given to each commune or municipality to impose a registration fee or tax upon dogs, in the interests of public health. In France the municipal councils were charged with certain duties with a view to the prevention of accidents arising from the multiplication of dogs, and in some cases very severe ordinances indeed were issued in reference to this subject. In May, 1845, for example, it was forbidden to allow more than a certain number of dogs to exist in a dwelling-house, by which the safety or the health of the inhabitants might be compromised. Neither were dogs allowed to go at large without muzzles, or without a plate attached to the neck of each dog, showing the name and abode of the owner. Pull directions were also given to the mayor of the town what to do in the case of a person being bitten by a mad dog. In France generally a tax was imposed upon dogs for the benefit of each commune—such tax not to exceed ten francs, nor to be less than one franc. In Belgium, by the law of 1825, which had been repealed but was subsequently re-
460
enacted, every dog was required to be registered, and commissioners were appointed to go round and inspect the different houses of the commune, with a view of compelling the enforcement of the law in this respect. The tax upon dogs in Belgium, as well as in the Grand Duchy of Baden, yielded a considerable revenue. Crossing the Atlantic, he found that in Massachusetts the inhabitants of each town were empowered to make such bye-laws as they thought necessary for their protection against the danger of dogs. Penalties not exceeding ten dollars were inflicted for offences against those bye-laws, and no person was allowed to keep more than two dogs. It was also required that every dog should carry a plate with the name of the owner and his abode inscribed upon it, and any dog without such an appendage might be killed. In Turkey it appeared there was no particular law against dogs, which swarmed in that country. The dogs, however, there acted the part of scavengers, and, curiously enough, it was said the disease of hydrophobia was utterly unknown. Now, his object was not to tax the country, but to impose such a registration fee as would have the effect of reducing the number of dogs. He proposed, too, that every dog should bear the name and residence of its owner. He did not think that the farmers of Ireland would grumble at a registration fee of 2s. 6d. on each dog. By an old law of George III. there was a tax of 10 s. placed upon sporting dogs, and 2s. 6d. for every other kind of dog. He therefore only proposed to go back to the old legislation of the Irish Parliament in imposing this registration fee of 2s. 6d. on each dog, subjecting any person who shall not register his dog to a penalty not less than £2 nor more than £5. He had been pressed to make certain exemptions in the case of sporting and other dogs; but he did not think it advisable to assent to any. It was in the interest of the farmers and of the public health and safety that he introduced this Bill. Now, as to sporting dogs, if they only compared his Bill with the charge imposed upon such dogs in England, the gentlemen of Ireland would find that they were very well treated. According to his Bill a gentleman in Ireland with forty couple of hounds would have to pay only £10 a year; whereas the English gentleman was compelled to pay £48 a year, or, in the event of a composition, £39 12 s. a year. He now came to the mode by which he pro-

461
posed to carry out the provisions of his Bill;—and here he knew he would be met with the objection that it would make the police unpopular in Ireland to impose this additional duty upon them. But if the people saw that the police were enforcing the law with impartiality in what was for the interest of the public, he could not for one moment believe that it would make the police unpopular. The same objection was raised when it was proposed to give the police the power of collecting the excise; but the result had been such that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that since that time the law against smuggling had never been so well enforced as now or the work better done. The objection he thought not worth considering. He proposed that every person keeping a dog shall give notice thereof to the constabulary, who were to enter it in a book kept for that purpose; the constable was to transmit annually a copy of the entries and account of fees to the Clerk of the Poor Law Union; and he proposed to remunerate the constabulary for their additional labour by assigning to them a portion—two-fifths—of the fees. He was not much experienced in drawing up Acts of Parliament, and he was therefore willing to leave it to the Chief Secretary for Ireland and other hon. Members to make such moderate provisions in the Bill, so that something was done to abate the nuisance, as they might consider necessary. Almost daily he had received a large bundle of letters, especially from tenant farmers, medical men, and the inhabitants of towns, in favour of a measure of this kind, and he hoped the House would legislate upon the subject in a manner so as to get rid of the evil complained of. A remedy had been required for some years past, but he delayed bringing in a Bill for the compulsory registration of dogs until after a similar measure had been passed for the registration of births and deaths in Ireland; not wishing that the registration of the former should precede a registration for human beings. He hoped the House would read the Bill a second time.
MR. BAGWELLseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Frederick Hey gate.)
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that every hon. Gentleman who had been in Ireland was aware that a vast number of dogs were allowed to prowl about that country,
462
and that they destroyed a large amount of property every year; indeed, the country was literally swarming with dogs. He believed that the Return moved for by the hon. Member for Clonmel was perfectly correct in stating that in one year alone 8,000 sheep were destroyed by dogs, that was no doubt within the actual number; and he particularly recollected that on one occasion the destruction of sheep was so numerous in Donegal that it was at first supposed to be the result of some systematic outrages against property, and the attention of the Government was called to the subject; but upon inquiry it was traced to the enormous quantity of dogs that were kept in the neighbourhood. The hon. Baronet had said that the number of dogs in Ireland might be taken to be 1,000,000; but he (Sir Robert Peel) considered there were a great many more; and if they calculated them as three to every two houses—which would be a fair calculation—there would be found to be between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 dogs in Ireland at this time. The hon. Baronet said he did not want to have the assessed taxes extended to Ireland; and, indeed, it was quite evident that to impose an assessed tax upon dogs only would not pay the Government, and, therefore, some other machinery must be invented for taxing them, in order to correct the crying evil which every one admitted. But he asked those who had read the Bill whether they thought it possible that Parliament would assent to its provisions? The hon. Baronet wished to throw the duty upon the constabulary, and he had made a joke about the registration of births and deaths in Ireland; but let any one suppose what the police would have to do in keeping the accounts relative to between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 dogs. They would not only have to register all the dogs in the country, but by the eighth clause they were required to be particularly careful not to register any puppy less than six months old. Now, the idea of the police going about the country with a veterinary surgeon, which he must do in order to ascertain the exact age of a puppy was ludicrous, because if they registered and charged for a dog under six months old they would become liable for some penalty themselves. He at once protested against the constabulary being so employed. He admitted the evil, but they must not attempt a remedy which would be infinitely more laborious than taking the census or collecting agri-

463
cultural statistics. The constabulary would be constantly registering dogs, going about from house to house in search of them, and then to have to ascertain their ages—duties which would render any public functionary in Ireland most unpopular.
SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, it was only intended to register the owner's names.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the constabulary would have to keep the books, and do all the necessary work. By the third clause of the Bill the money received for registration was to pass through the hands of the constabulary and the clerks of the Poor Law unions, but there was no effectual check provided with respect to the receipts and disbursements. He decidedly objected to that proposal. He should be happy to amend the Bill in Committee, but he thought it would be almost impossible to do so satisfactorily. He had turned his attention to the subject, assisted by the Inspector General of Constabulary, and the latter had submitted to him provisions for a measure which might meet to some extent the evils complained of. The heads of proposals were as follows:—That no person should be allowed to keep a dog without a licence, and was subjected to a penalty if he did so; the licence to be issued by the Inland Board of Revenue, and supplied by all the distributors of stamps and postmasters, the charge to be 2s. 6d. for one dog, 2s. for two dogs, and so on, and 5s. above a certain number. The licences to be in force for three years, and to be filled up in due form by the clerks to the justices of the petty sessions districts, who should register them in a book, for which they should receive a fee of 6d.; the licence to be signed by one or more justices of the peace, and the books to be kept by the magistrates' clerks open to the inspection of every one who wished to inspect them. The owners to be liable to a penalty for damage done by their dogs if they were allowed to go at large unmuzzled; and any one finding a dog within his field or enclosure was to be at liberty to destroy him, and the owner, if discovered, should be made liable for any sheep destroyed by that dog. [Sir FREDERICK HEYGATE said, the owner was liable under the present law.] In that case the provision would not be required, but it might be desirable to re-enact it if any new Bill were introduced. It was proposed that the penalties should be recoverable at petty sessions.
464
With regard to property destroyed by dogs, the owners of which were not known, he thought the value should be recoverable by grand jury presentment. ["No, no!"] These were simply suggestions with the view of meeting a crying evil, and he thought if a Bill to such effect were submitted to the House with the sanction of the Treasury, it would be far more likely to meet the evil complained of than the present Bill, which he could not support, and which he trusted the hon. Baronet would withdraw.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, there was no doubt that the subject was one of great importance to Ireland, but he could not concur in either of the propositions submitted to the House. He thought that the tax of 2s. 6d. for a dog was too small; in his opinion the amount ought to be 10 s. for the first dog, 5s. for the second dog, and 2s. 6d. for every other dog. He agreed in thinking that the eighth clause should be struck out of the Bill, for he would rather place a tax on a puppy than upon a grown-up dog, as a man with a grown-up dog might have an affection for it, and be willing to pay the necessary tax for keeping it. He felt great regret in not being able to support the present Bill, but he hoped the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland would introduce a measure on the subject after consulting with some individual more qualified to give an opinion in the matter than the functionary he had named.
MR. BAGWELLthought the Bill suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland would answer the purpose as well, if not better than the measure under consideration. Colonel White, a large farmer in Ireland, had written to him that he had forty sheep killed by dogs in one year, and that, having reason to believe that the dogs belonged to his tenantry, he assembled them and asked them to reimburse him for his loss, and, on their refusal to do so, informed them that he would allow no one of them to keep a dog unless he paid 5s. a year to the schools on the estate, the result of which was that he never afterwards lost a sheep. The right hon. Baronet objected to the Bill on the score that it would throw a great deal of work on the police; but there was every reason to believe that the registration fee would tend greatly to the decrease of dogs, and the consequence would be that very little work would have to be done

465
under the Bill. He objected to the employment of the constabulary in this matter. They were a highly respectable body of men, but as a police force he regarded them as a failure. If the present Bill were withdrawn, he hoped the Chief Secretary for Ireland would give a pledge to bring forward a measure on the subject.
LORD NAASsaid, that the nuisance resulting from the number of dogs in Ireland was almost indescribable. He knew that in his county at lambing season a farmer having twenty or thirty sheep was obliged to keep a man up all night watching them to guard against the depredations of these animals; and yet, in spite of all precautions, a great number were always destroyed by the dogs. The evil was admitted on all hands ["No, no!"] He should like to know who said "No." The dogs in his hon. Friend's neighbourhood must be of a different race if they did not attack his sheep and lambs. The chief objection taken to the Bill before the House was that it would impose duties on the constabulary which they would have difficulty in performing; but he had always observed that any attempt to place additional duties on the constabulary was invariably opposed by those having the direction of that force. He had himself proposed that certain revenue duties should be performed by the constabulary, and the gentleman at the head of the force was terrified at the proposal; but he had since seen cause to change his opinion, and admitted that the plan worked well. The constabulary performed their duties generally in an efficient manner, but the Chief Secretary for Ireland, when he wished it to be believed that the constabulary were already overworked seemed to be drawing too largely on the credulity of the House. The plan suggested by the Chief Secretary was a very fair one, and he suggested that the present Bill, when read a second time, should be postponed until after the discussion on the proposed Government Bill, and if the House sanctioned that Bill, the one now under consideration would not, of course, be proceeded with.
MR. SCULLYbelieved that the destruction of sheep in Ireland by dogs was greatly exaggerated, and objected to a different legislation on this subject being applied to Ireland from that which was in force in England and Scotland. Must there be a passport for a dog if it was transferred from one district to another? Again, how was a constable to tell that a
466
dog was of an age to require registering? Was he to examine its teeth—a process that might in some cases be attended with inconvenience to the examiner? Really, to make the Bill complete, they ought to have a registry of the births of all dogs; and as soon as a litter of puppies was born, a constable should be sent for to ascertain which of them was to be kept. In conclusion, he was glad that the Chief Secretary had acquitted the people in the county of Donegal of all blame for the destruction of sheep in the mountains. These poor persons had been persecuted, and in many instances utterly ruined, owing to the groundless accusations preferred against them. The hon. Member then moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read the second time that day six months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Scully.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. BRADYsaid, the police were in truth a standing army, and if they were to be employed in the duties cast on them by this Bill, they would become ten times more distasteful than they were to the people of Ireland, and believing the principle of the Bill to be exceedingly exceptionable, he would second the Amendment.
THE O'CONOR DONthought the general feeling was in favour of something being done to check the undue multiplication of dogs in Ireland. Such a proposal was intended as much for the benefit of the poor as for the benefit of the rich; for many small farmers were unable to keep their sheep in consequence of the ravages committed by dogs. He did not wish to interfere with the gratification which any man derived from keeping a dog, but against the loss of that gratification must be set the loss now occasioned to property from the excessive number of those animals. A system of registration would enable them to make the owner look after his dog, and more effectually to enforce against him his present legal responsiblity for the injury it did to other people. The only reason for making the constabulary the instruments for giving effect to the law, and also for conducting the primary registration, was that by the fees paid upon such registration they would have some interest in seeing that

467
the law was carried out. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland proposed that, instead of a registration under the constabulary, there should be a licensing system under the Board of Revenue or the clerks of Petty Sessions. But even under that plan, who were to see that dogs really were licensed? If the constabulary were to do so, then the objections urged by the Chief Secretary would equally apply to his own plan.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, the Bill afforded an excellent illustration of the system on which the legislation for Ireland was generally conducted. A local, exceptional, and temporary state of things was found to exist, and straightway they based upon it a universal and permanent law. In certain parts of Ireland there had been a great depopulation, and as a necessary consequence of that there was a great surplus of dogs. These animals, having nobody to look after them or claim them, ran about the country wild, doing occasional mischief. But that only happened in Londonderry. Donegal, and those districts where the people, having had their dwellings levelled, had emigrated, or had gone into the workhouse, or had died by the roadside; and how were they to get at and register such dogs, which really had no owner? Were the police to shoot them, or hunt them down, and bring them before a jury? No depopulation had taken place in his own county (Wexford), and he had not heard of a single complaint there on this matter. Because a grievance existed in a few places, why were they to punish the whole country? Under that Bill nobody could keep a dog for the protection of his sheep or cattle without registering it; but in England the farmer could keep farm dogs free of trouble or charge. It would be better that the English assessed taxes should be extended to Ireland than that the present measure should become law. There was no warrant whatever for such a Bill; nobody would think of proposing it for any other country but Ireland. The Bill could not, in his opinion, be altered so as to be acceptable to the House, and probably the best way of dealing with it would be to reject it altogether.
After a few words from Captain STACPOOLE,
SIR THOMAS BATESONbriefly supported the Bill, observing that he had only the other day received a letter from his steward informing him that he was
468
obliged to keep men on the look-out all night in order to prevent the destruction of his sheep by dogs, and he knew that many persons in the county Down had given up keeping sheep in consequence of the loss of them by the depredations of the dogs.
COLONEL DUNNEthought it was generally admitted that some legislative remedy was needed in this case, and he believed that in Committee it would be easy to amend such of the details of the Bill as required improvement. He thought the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland might devise such a measure if he would consult with the Irish Members on the subject.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he would vote with the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the House went to a division. If the Government said the constabulary were not fit to take charge of the working of that measure, he must accept that opinion; and that objection was fatal to the Bill. In England they taxed the dogs which had been kept in the preceding year, and they did that from the utter impossibility of taxing them prospectively. That fact, also, went to the root of everything in the present Bill, which required, as the first thing, that the owner of a dog should give a certain notice. In England they did not attempt to deal with puppies, but left them alone. By the Bill, every man who had a dog that was not registered was made liable to a fine of 5s.; so that if a man happened to have a number of bitches, it was easy to see to what cumulative penalties he might be exposed almost before he was aware of it. He knew nothing of the number of dogs or puppies in Ireland; but if legislation was needed on the matter, it would be much better to follow the English mode, which was recommended by long experience of the assessed taxes, and make people pay for the number of dogs they had the year before—a fact which could be got at, and which would equally serve their purpose. Was it intended that there should be a license to shoot dogs that did mischief? It was very questionable wisdom to encourage people to take the law into their own hands, and if there was to be a shooting of dogs it was possible that some other shooting might take place.
SIR FREDERICK HEYGATE,in reply, said he was surprised that the Chief Secretary should object to the police being intrusted with the duties which the Bill

469
would impose upon them, because he had] thought the right hon. Baronet's confidence in the force was very large. The county of Londonderry and many other places where large numbers of sheep had been destroyed by dogs were not at all depopulated, and it was quite an error to suppose that it was only in a very few exceptional and isolated districts that the evil against which the Bill was directed prevailed. The tenant farmers in many parts of Ireland had sustained serious loss from the ravages of dogs, and no effectual remedy for the evil existed. He was quite ready to agree to the proposal of the right hon. Baronet, if this Bill were now read a second time, to postpone going into Committee till the Government had brought in a Bill on the subject, and then both Bills might be considered pari passu.
SIR ROBERT PEELassented.
Question, "That the word 'now,' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2°, and committed for Wednesday 31st May.

SHEEP AND CATTLE BILL— [BILL 57.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. H. FENWICK,in moving the second reading of the Bill, stated that its object was to make the owners of dogs liable for injury inflicted by them on sheep and cattle. In fact, the Bill was one to assimilate the law in England with respect to injuries by dogs to sheep and cattle to that of Scotland and Ireland. At present there was no remedy as against the owner of a dog for injuries to sheep and cattle, unless it could be proved that the dog had been in the habit of worrying sheep or cattle, and there was often great difficulty in obtaining that proof. Such a law was obviously very absurd and unjust. The information he had received led him to believe that in almost every county in England very considerable injury was inflicted by dogs on sheep and cattle. In his own county, according to Returns received, there were no fewer than 962 cases of such injury to sheep alone, and in no instance had any compensation been obtained. The grand jury of the county, Poor Law Guardians, highway authorities, and agricultural societies had petitioned in favour of the Bill.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, the hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that the law in Ireland was as he had represented it. It only extended to sheep, not to cattle. But in Scotland the law applied to both sheep and cattle, which was the proper state of things. He hoped this Bill would be made applicable not only to England, but to Ireland, and he thought poultry might with great propriety be added to sheep and cattle.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Tomorrow.

  CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS BILL.
  [Sir FitzRoy Kelly.]

  [BILL 78.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR FITZROY KELLY,in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, it was a measure which had been long and urgently required for the protection of the public, and it was desired by all the members of the respectable profession of chemists and druggists. It was well known to the House that as the law now stood there was absolutely no protection whatever for the public in general against the carrying on of the business of chemist and druggist, and consequently of the making up of medical prescriptions by persons altogether ignorant and incompetent. It had long been felt that the law ought to provide some protection against the dangers to which the public was exposed in this respect. The Medical Council had recently called the attention of the Government to this important subject in the hope that the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary would himself introduce a Bill to provide a remedy against the evils complained of. It was not for him to arraign the Government, who he had no doubt had very good reasons for not attempting legislation on the subject; but as the Government had shown no disposition to act upon the suggestion made them, the Pharmaceutical Society, which had been long established, and whose acts and proceedings had conferred great benefit upon the public, thought it their duty to submit this measure to the consideration of the House. As the law at present stood, there was no qualification required, nor was any licence necessary to enable a man to start into business as a chemist and druggist. By the present Bill it was proposed to subject chemists and

  471
  druggists, with certain exceptions, to an examination, upon the result of which would depend their registration, and when registered, whether they should be hereafter entitled to carry on the business of chemist and druggist and to make up medical prescriptions; the registry would be kept by the Pharmaceutical Society. The only question that remained for consideration was, what was to be the nature of the examination and by whom it should be conducted. Now, there already existed the means and the machinery for such examinations with the most perfect security within the Pharmaceutical Society itself. That Society had been in existence since 1843, when it was incorporated; and in 1852 it was recognized and confirmed by the well-known Act called the Pharmacy Act. A body of examiners had been appointed to examine candidates for the profession in botany, chemistry, materia medica, and the Latin language, and the successful candidate obtained a certificate by which he was qualified to be an associate of the Society. The whole substance of this Bill was contained in a single sentence. It was proposed that all persons hereafter to be permitted to carry on the business of chemist and druggist, and to prepare medical prescriptions, should, in the first instance, submit to an examination by this Society, and upon obtaining a certificate of competency they should be registered by the payment of a small fee to the Pharmaceutical Society. He was quite content to leave the question of fees and any other detail to the approval of the Secretary of State, the main object of the Bill was the examination, and that, he thought, would give all the security that was required. It was impossible to speak too confidently of the nature and character of this examination. The system had been in existence and practice for more than twenty years, and had been recognized and confirmed by Act of Parliament in 1852; it had received the sanction of various Governments. He, therefore, thought he was warranted in relying upon the support of Her Majesty's Ministers in moving the second reading of the present measure. The Medical Board charged with the well-being of the army had stamped their approval on the examination and whole proceedings of the Pharmaceutical Society by a resolution which had been in force for many years; and no one could be an army dispenser without producing their certificate; and the effect of this Bill was to
  472
  protect the public as the army is now protected by prohibiting any person from making up prescriptions unless he had passed an examination by the Pharmaceutical Society. At present several thousand persons carried on the business of chemists and druggists, and it had been thought too strong a measure for any but Her Majesty's Government to lay any important restrictions upon them; and therefore, whilst the provisions of the Bill were stringent and precise, an exception was made by the Bill in favour of those who had carried on this business for a certain period, and there were some thousands who might have carried it on for a great length of time; but it would be necessary for them to produce the certificate of a medical practitioner that they had actually and bonâ fide carried on the business of a chemist and druggist before this Bill came into operation, and on that certificate they would be entitled, without further qualification, to be registered and to carry on the business hereafter. If the House should read the Bill a second time it would be for the Government and the House to decide when in Committee whether a clause should be added to the Bill imposing any further restrictions upon the existing chemists and druggists. All that he now asked was that the House should assent to the second reading of this Bill, with the view of securing the public against the carrying on hereafter of this business by utterly incompetent, inexperienced, and altogether ignorant persons, and enact an examination of properly qualified persons by the Pharmaceutical Society, which had obtained universal approbation wherever it had been applied in practice. The Bill of the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir John Shelley) had two objects in view. One identical with the object of the Bill now before the House, and the other a much more extensive object—namely, to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which the sale of poisons and drugs, and what were called "chemicals" in general should hereafter be sold. Now, that, he thought, was far too difficult and complicated a measure, as it would interfere with the freedom of many branches of trade, to be made the subject of a Bill; but should the Government undertake such a measure he should be happy to give them his assistance; but he protested against its being attempted to legislate in that manner by individual Members of that

  473
  House. Both Bills, however, admitted the necessity of affording to the public some protection against incompetent and ignorant persons carrying on the trade of chemists and druggists; they agreed that some examination should be applied to all; and the only difference between them in that respect was by whom the examination should be conducted. His Bill proposed that it should be in the hands of the already recognized body—the Pharmaceutical Society—who had conducted their operations in that respect with great effect and success. The other Bill proposed that there should be a Council of twenty-one members, who were to appoint the examiners, no provision being made for the qualification either of the Council or the examiners, and they were equally left in doubt as to the character of the examination. That was a point which he thought might be as well, if not more properly, discussed and decided in that House than in a Select Committee, because it was a point upon which they did not require to take evidence.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2°."—(Sir FitzRoy Kelly.)
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYdistinctly disclaimed, on the part of those whom he represented on this occasion, the slightest intention to infringe or interfere with the privileges of the chartered body who were the clients of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The question was a public one—the sale of drugs. Dr. Taylor had recommended to the Government that the question of the sale of poisons should be taken into consideration. The Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman wont no further than this: it proscribed a certain examination, under the Pharmacy Act, to be undergone by all before they were qualified to make up medical prescriptions; but there was a very large portion of the trade earring on a lucrative business, that did not see or make up a medical prescription once in a week, and the Bill as to these would be comparatively useless. The trade was divided into two classes—namely, those who wished to become scientific chemists and those who carried on the trade of chemists and druggists, who required little or no qualification for the branch of the trade in which they had embarked. His Bill proposed to deal, not with common things sold over the counter, but only with poisons. The Pharmaceutical Society had no doubt existed for many years, was possessed of
  474
  great privileges and wealth, and had done a great deal of good in towns, but its benefits had not reached the agricultural districts. It was well that the House should know that the members of the Pharmaceutical Society numbered at one time 4,000, but since then they had decreased to 2,300, including the foreign and colonial members. The United Society of Chemists, whose Bill he would have the honour of proposing to that House, was composed of over 3,000 members. It was clear, he considered, that the examination prescribed by the Pharmaceutical Society was too expensive, and this accounted for the falling off in the number of its members, and the superior numerical strength of the Society of Chemists and Druggists. Care should be taken that while the doctors differed the patients did not die; and it was their duty to see, in the public interests, that some legislation should take place by which the sale of poisons would be efficiently regulated. If he understood aright the Bill proposed by his hon. and learned Friend, it would prohibit any person from making up a prescription who had not undergone the examination of the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society. The House would agree that it was a great pity that the two great Societies which had been referred to had not come together and mutually agreed upon the principles of a Bill which would not have interfered with the freedom of the trade, and have given the public that protection which they required in the sale of dangerous drugs. The Chemists and Druggists Society had made advances with that object, but the Pharmaceutical Society would not recognize it, and now each Society had come forward with a Bill of its own. The examinations of the Pharmaceutical Society cost ten guineas; and in addition to that there were the expenses necessarily entailed upon persons coming from the country to London, and remaining there till they had passed their examination; so that the outlay would not amount to less than £30 or £40. He did not wish to interfere for a moment with the privileges of the Pharmaceutical Society; on the contrary, he would still be glad to see chemists wishing to raise themselves in the grade of their profession, taking the advantage of the examination which the Pharmaceutical Society afforded; but he could not assent to the principle of forcing the whole of the chemists and druggists to pay for that examination, when they could be regis-

  475
  tered for half the amount. The public required more protection than the Bill proposed by the hon. and learned Member provided, and he (Sir John Shelley) ventured to say that that Bill did not meet with the support of the trade at large. The House should not look upon the two Bills as a mere squabble between two great Societies, but as an important public question. Let the Pharmaceutical Society go on with their hall and lectures, and they would no doubt do much good; but this Bill of the Society was not calculated to promote the interests of the trade at large, nor yet to reduce the danger to which the public were exposed in the sale of drugs. The Bill which he (Sir John Shelley) had brought forward did not interfere with those now carrying on the trade of chemists and druggists, but it proposed that chemists should be registered under an Act, and, after that, that a Board of Examination should be founded upon the principle of the Medical Practitioners Act. He believed if these two Bills were referred to a Select Committee, the result would be satisfactory. The sale of poisons was a difficult question to deal with, and he heartily wished the Government had taken it in hand, especially after the strong representation that had been made on all sides as to the mode in which drugs were dispensed in agricultural districts, where everything, from laudanum to a pair of boots was sold in the same shop. The question of the sale of poisons was no doubt difficult to deal with, but when they found that a Society that had been established so many years shirked it, and the Government did nothing, it was right that some one else should take steps to put the matter on a right footing. A Select Committee might find the groundwork of a good public Act in the Bill which he had brought before the House, rather than that in which had been proposed by his hon. and learned Friend opposite. He had, however, no objection to the second reading of this Bill, hoping the House would see the necessity of referring both Bills to a Select Committee.
  MR. BRADYsupported the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend (Sir FitzRoy Kelly), and contrasted the importance of the two Societies referred to, and their respective claims upon the consideration of the House. The Pharmaceutical Society was composed of men of the highest knowledge in chemistry, and the examinations of the Society were formed upon a very high stand-
  476
  ard; while the Society of Chemists and Druggists admitted clerks, apprentices, and many other persons as members who knew nothing whatever about chemistry. He attributed the decrease in the members of the Pharmaceutical Society to the fact that there were a number of enthusiastic persons joined it at first who had since resigned, not having any real interest in the science of chemistry. It was incumbent, he thought, upon the Home Secretary to take the matter into his own hands.
  MR. KINGLAKEsaid, he did not admit that there was any force in the argument of the hon. Baronet as to the greater number of members composing the Chemists and Druggists Society compared with the Pharmaceutical Society. The one submitted its members to a very difficult examination, whereas the other did not subject its members to any examination whatever. The claim of the Pharmaceutical Society rested entirely upon the fact that it had ready a machinery suitable for conducting the proposed examinations; whereas, if the Bill of the hon. Baronet were adopted, it would be necessary to begin de novo and constitute new machinery. There were some alterations which he would like to see made in the Bill, which would place all chemists and druggists now in business on an equality with those who should hereafter pass the examination of the Pharmaceutical Society. If that were done, he should not object to the second reading.
  MR. ROEBUCKwished to know what steps the Government intended to take in this matter; as he would feel himself very much bound by what they did, because this was a matter which fell particularly within their cognizance.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had no objection to the second reading of the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir FitzRoy Kelly). The Pharmaceutical Society was a very important and useful body, and if there were to be examinations of chemists and druggists those examinations might with safety be placed under the direction of the Council of that Society. There was no doubt these subjects required very careful consideration. The hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right in saying that Bills with reference to medical subjects had hitherto been very carefully inquired into. That was the case with the Pharmacy Act, which received the close attention of a Select Committee, of which his right

  477
  hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. E. P. Bouverie) was Chairman, and the Bill which was brought in was essentially altered, the House having adopted the recommendations of the Committee with regard to it. There was again the Medical Registration Act, with regard to which he recollected the difficulty that was experienced in bringing together the different branches of the medical profession; and it was only after an inquiry before a Select Committee, that this object was effected, and an amended Bill was submitted to Parliament, which was ultimately adopted, with the general approval of the medical profession. He had seen the representatives of the Pharmaceutical Society, and also of the general body of Chemists and Druggists, and his advice to them was that they should meet together, and agree upon a general outline of a Bill. He could not concur in all parts of the Bill which the Pharmaceutical Society wished him to introduce, and he stated certain objections to it. Unhappily, though it was, perhaps, not a matter of surprise, there were jealousies existing among members of the same profession, and it had not yet been possible to bring them together and induce them to agree to the principles of a Bill. The Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman was good as far as it went, but it dealt with a very limited portion of the subject. It professed only to provide an examination for chemists who were to make up prescriptions for medical practitioners. In the other Bill before the House there were provisions with regard to the sale of poisons and deleterious drugs, and it would be extremely desirable when dealing with the subject to embody in the Bill, if possible, these provisions. He thought there were points in both Bills which recommended them to favourable consideration, and if a Select Committee were appointed who would bring before them a limited number of the representatives of the two conflicting parties, a Bill might be the result which would effect to the fullest extent the object in which they had so deep an interest. He would recommend that both Bills be read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee, a course which he believed would be the most satisfactory to the House.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he had some objections to the Bill proposed by the hon. and learned Member (Sir FitzRoy Kelly). He had been asked by the Pharmaceutical Society to undertake the conduct of that
  478
  Bill through the House, and the reason, he apprehended, why they came to him was that in 1858 he had taken an active part in the subject of medical reform. There was much need felt for raising the standard of education. There were so many different bodies bidding against each other that the result was the lowering of medical education. Certain bodies also had monopolies which it was felt desirable to do away with. When the representatives of the Pharmaceutical Society came to him with this Bill, he told them they went a little too far in one respect, and an injustice would be inflicted. He contended that it was necessary to allow certain persons in country villages to dispense medicines, and even to make up prescriptions, although it could not be expected that those people should undergo examinations. Having met with an accident in the Highlands during the present year he had had occasion himself to get a prescription made up in one of these country villages. He had to go for this purpose to the post-office of the village, which he found to be a store for the sale of almost every article, from Addles to hobnails. His prescription, however, was made up, and did him great benefit. Now he believed it to be unadvisable to do away with shops of that description; and, at the same time, it was unreasonable to expect that such shopkeepers should submit to an examination. He should support the Bill brought in by his hon. and learned Friend in preference to the one introduced by the hon. Baronet, because, of the two, he believed it to be the more liberal. He should also observe that the former measure was promoted by the Pharmaceutical Society, who had a good library, laboratory, and lecture-room, and they had expended £70,000 on the education of the chemists and druggists of the country; while the Secretary of the Chemists and Druggists, Society, who had framed the other Bill, were nothing more than a trading body, and a sort of benefit society. Under these circumstances he could not help thinking that if the present law were to be changed it would be better to raise the new system upon the foundation furnished by the former, rather than upon that furnished by the latter of those two bodies. He should, however, recommend the hon. and learned Gentleman to accede to the proposal that his measure should be referred with the competing scheme to a Select Committee.
  MR. BEECROFTalso recommended the hon. and learned Gentleman to allow his Bill to be referred to a Select Committee.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he would assent, though, reluctantly, to this proposal.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed, to a Select Committee. Then,

CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS (No. 2) BILL— [BILL 84]— [Sir John Shelley.]

  SECOND READING.
  Bill read 2°; and referred to the same Select Committee; and on Thursday, April 6, Select Committee nominated as follows:—
  Sir FITZROY KELLY, Sir JOHN SHELLEY, Lord ELCHO, Mr. BARING, Dr. BRADY, Mr. HASTINGS RUSSELL, Mr. CHARLES WYNN, Mr. AYRTON, Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Mr. COX, Mr. SCHNEIDER, Sir JAMES FERGUSSON, Mr. CHARLES FORSTER, Mr. ROEBUCK, and Mr. BLACK:—Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Four o'clock.