HC Deb 15 July 1868 vol 193 cc1214-20

Order for Committee read.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clauses 4 and 5 omitted.

Clauses 6 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 16 (Reserving Rights of certain Persons).

MR. LOWE moved, in line 6, after the word "dealing," to leave out "nor with the retailing of arsenic, oxalic acid, cyanide of potassium, or corrosive sublimate for use in manufactures."

Page 6, line 6—

Amendment proposed, after the word "dealing," to leave out the words "nor with the retailing of arsenic, oxalic acid, cyanide of potassium, or corrosive sublimate for use in manufactures."—(Mr. Lowe.)

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, the Pharmaceutical Society did not wish to retain the words, and they were not originally in the Bill.

LORD ELCHO

said, he objected to the omission of those words, which would unnecessarily limit the retail of common articles of household use. The clause which he proposed to substitute for the 17th clause in the Bill, would in the way of regulation give as much security as could reasonably be expected against the careless sale or wrong use of ordinary poisons.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, he only desired that poisons should be bought, sold, and kept in bottles or wrappers properly labelled; so that, if possible, no mistakes should occur in their use.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayea 30; Noes 57: Majority 27.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, he would beg leave to move, at the end of the clause, to add— Provided always that registration under this Act shall not entitle any person so registered to practice medicine or surgery, or any branch of medicine or surgery.

Proviso agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 (Poisons to be distinctly labelled).

LORD ELCHO

proposed that this clause should be struck out.

MR. LOWE

proposed that the clause should be amended. There were two Amendments, in fact, before the Committee. The noble Lord proposed to substitute a new clause, and he (Mr. Lowe) would amend the present clause. The Committee would have to decide which was the preferable alternative. He admitted that the clause proposed by the noble Lord was a considerable improvement on the present state of things; but there was a good many objections to it. The noble Lord proposed that poisons should be divided into two classes, but both were to remain in one Schedule, and to be distinguished only by asterisks. Now, that was a most inconvenient way of dealing with the subject. The noble Lord proposed:— It shall be unlawful to sell any poison whatsoever to a person unknown to the seller, unless he gives evidence that he requires it for a legitimate purpose, and is aware of the uses, danger, and proper dose, as the case may be, of such poison. What chance was there that these requirements, if of any value, would be complied with by the little shopkeepers throughout the country? How was the "evidence" that the person "required it for a legitimate purpose" to be given? He might want it "for a legitimate purpose," but he was not to have it unless he was well read up in public and forensic medicine. And, then, who was to be the judge of all this? Perhaps some old woman. This seemed to him a very inadequate way of dealing with the subject. What he proposed was this—They had already the precedent of the Arsenic Act, which, although it dealt with only one poison, was a most salutary Act, and it seemed to him that the proper course would be to place all ordinary poisons under the same restriction. With this view he begged to move in line 18, before "It," to insert— Of poisons which are not articles in the British Pharmacopoeia, none shall be sold except under such conditions as are prescribed in regard of Arsenic by sections first and second of the Act fourteenth and fifteenth Victoria, chapter thirteen, intituled 'An Act to regulate the Sole of Arsenic,' which sections for this purpose shall be read as if the word 'poison' were throughout substituted in, them for the word' arsenic;' and of poisons which are articles in the said Pharmacopoeia, none shall be sold otherwise than under the same conditions as aforesaid, or else under the written order of a. legally qualified medical practitioner, unless it be prepared as an ointment or liniment or otherwise for external use, or, if for internal use, be in quantity not exceeding one ordinary medicinal dose of the article; and in line 22, after "any," leave out "seller of any poison not so distinctly labelled," and insert "person selling poison otherwise than as herein provided."

LORD ELCHO

observed that the inconvenience of "asterisks" might be got rid of by having two Schedules. His right hon. Friend had admitted that the clause which he proposed to bring up was an improve- ment on the Bill as originally drawn. The clause embraced all the regulations which the Pharmaceutical Society—a body of gentlemen in daily practice, and to whom (lie public were under great obligations—considered requisite, establishing, as it did, the proper medium between drawing the law so tightly that it must break in their hands and that laxity which would be prejudicial to the whole community. He was informed that the Arsenic Act was too stringent, and was practically a dead letter. He objected to the proposed Amendment.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, he wished to know how a seller of poison was to ascertain the truth of a customer's assertion that he required the poison for destroying rats? He should support the Amendment.

MR. M. CHAMBERS

said, the clause would compel the homœopathist to put the word "poison" upon all his bottles.

MR. LOWE

said, the answer to the hon. and learned Member's observation was that a whole bottle of homœopathic medicine would not amount to a dangerous dose. The difference between his clause and that of his noble Friend was that by his clause the buyer of poison must be introduced to the seller, whereas by his noble Friend's clause the buyer might be a person unknown to the seller.

LORD ELCHO

said, that his clause required that the buyer should satisfy the seller that he required the poison for a legitimate purpose.

MR. LOWE

said, that would leave the decision to the conscience of the seller, who had an interest in selling.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18 struck out.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

LORD ELCHO moved, in place of Clause 4, which had been omitted, to insert a new clause— Any person who at the time of the passing of this Act shall be of full age, and shall produce to the registrar on or before the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and seventy, certificates according to Schedule (E) to this Act, that he had been actually engaged and employed in the dispensing and compounding of prescriptions as an assistant to a Pharmaceutical chemist or to a chemist and druggist, as defined by Clause three of this Act, shall, on passing such a modified examination as the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society, with the consent of the Privy Council, may declare, to be sufficient evidence of his skill and competency to conduct the business of a chemist and druggist, be registered as a chemist and druggist under this Act.

MR. LOWE

said, he would submit that the principle of the Bill being to require education on the part of those who sell poisons, the clause was wholly indefensible:n making the distinction of a modified examination. It is urged that these persons have a vested interest. A vested interest in what? A vested interest in ignorance—in not knowing enough to pass the examination usually required.

LORD ELCHO

said, he thought it would be very hard upon those now dispensing medicines if they had to pass the same examination as apprentices entering the business. A modified examination in their case would give the requisite protection to the public.

MR. THOMAS CAVE

called attention to the fact that many of the present assistants had been in business and failed, and others were married. It would be very hard upon them to insist on their passing a stringent examination.

Clause read a second time.

MR. THOMAS CAVE

suggested the insertion in the fourth line of the words "for not less than four years."

LORD ELCHO

said, he was willing to modify his clause to the extent suggested by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. T. Cave)—namely, that the assistants must have been actually engaged in the dispensing of medicines for four years.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, he assented to the clause on the understanding that the assistants affected by it should have been engaged in the dispensing of medicines for four years, and should be registered assistants under the Pharmacy Act.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he would suggest that the term should be reduced to three years.

LORD ELCHO

s said, he was willing to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, and to reduce the period of service required to three years.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

MR. LOWE

proposed, in place of Clause 5, to insert a new clause (Registration of Chemists and Druggists), by which chemists and druggists should be entitled to be registered under the Act without paying any fee.

Clause agreed to.

LORD ELCHO

proposed a clause in lieu of Clause 17, rendering it unlawful to sell certain poisons marked with an asterisk in Schedule (A) to persons unknown to the seller, laying down certain regulations respecting the registration of the sale, and imposing penalties for breaches of such regulations.

MR. LOWE

said, he objected to making a dintinction between poisons which a man might sell and poisons which he might not sell to unknown persons. He contended that those poisons referred to in the Schedule as poisons which ought not to be sold to persons unknown were really not more used for criminal purposes than other poisons. The asterisk would apply to arsenic, prussic acid, cyanide of potassium, strychnine, and corrosive sublimate; but oxalic acid, chloroform, aconite, belladonna, essential oil of almonds, and such things, do not fall within the provision.

LORD ELCHO

said, the reason why was that these latter are used in the common purposes of life. Ho would suggest that the Schedule should be divided into two parts—one containing poisons in common use for ordinary purposes, and the other those of a more subtle character, and generally selected for criminal purposes.

ME. LOWE

submitted that the distinction utterly fails.

The distinction between the poisons in the Schedule was omitted from the clause; and—

MR. LOWE

then moved that poisons should not be sold to persons unknown, unless such persons were introduced by a person known to the seller.

MR. SERJEANT GASELEE

thought that such a provision would lead to a system of touting.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BRUCE moved, that in the case of the sale of poison the name and residence of the introducer of a purchaser should be entered in the book of the seller.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

proposed an Amendment to the effect that no poison should be sold unless a purchaser could satisfy the vendor that he really required it for medicinal purposes.

MR. LOWE

pointed out that the Committee had already agreed that no poisons should be sold to persons unknown. To pass this Amendment would render legal the sale of poisons to any one.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

asked in what position a person would be if in a strange place where he was unknown he required to purchase a poisonous drug? Suppose, for instance, he was in Birmingham, and wanted a dose of laudanum to cure the toothache, how was he to get it?

MR. SERJEANT GASELEE

said, the chemist might think the noble Lord wanted to destroy himself.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

New clauses added.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 238.]