§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been called to the Letter signed "Non-Practitioner," in The Times, and to the articles in The Lancet, Medical Times, and other medical journals, in reference to the Medicine Stamp Act; if he has any information to confirm the statements in these various publications that the Act, instead of discouraging, stimulates largely the sale of quack medicines, mainly through the stamp being interpreted as a Government guarantee of the safety and purity of the medicine, the vendors of many quack medicines implying in their advertisements that the stamp affords a Government guarantee; whether he is aware that the large number of deaths that occur annually are attributed to the taking of poisons in the shape of secret medicines; if he is aware that the Act which was passed for the purpose of protecting the medical profession against quack medicines has been condemned by all the authoritative organs of medical opinion in the throe Kingdoms; whether the Revenue Department intend to enforce the rigid interpretation put on the Patent Medicines Act, and set forth in the circular of Mr. W. H. Cousins of May 17th; whether this has been found very seriously to prejudice British exporters 93 of medicine, in competition with continental manufacturers of medicines; whether, already, owing to this action on the part of the Department, a large quantity of the trade to the Colonies has fallen into the hands of Germany, France, and America; and, whether he will favourably consider the question of repealing the Tax?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)No, Sir; I have not read the newspaper statements to which the hon. Member refers, and I can, therefore, express no opinion about them. As to the point whether the stamp on patent medicines should express that they are not guaranteed by Government, I am disposed to think that the French practice of putting on the stamp a disclaimer of such a guarantee might, perhaps, be followed with advantage. I have no information as to the hon. Member's third and fourth Questions; but I am aware that there has been during the last few months a good deal of controversy on this subject among professional people. The Circular of May 17 does not refer to British medicines at all, but to foreign medicines first imported and then exported in bulk by agents of foreign firms, and it can only affect the consumer abroad. I know nothing of the consumption of patent medicines in the Colonies. As to the last Question, I can hold out no hope of repealing this tax, which brings in £160,000 a-year; but I have asked the Board of Inland Revenue for Reports on the subject, which I shall study with care.