HL Deb 14 July 1908 vol 192 cc549-71

Order of the Day for the House to he put into Committee read.

Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Earl of Crewe.)

LORD ASHBOURNE

I should be very glad, as this Bill has not been before the House for some time, if the noble Earl would give a short explanation on one or two points. When the Bill was orginally introduced everyone, of course, realised its general importance, and one of the matters that attracted attention was that it did not include Ireland. Ireland had been included in and omitted from previous Bills, and it was deemed wise to refer it to a Select Committee. The result of the consideration of the Committee was that they recommended the desirability of including Ireland, and the Bill was reprinted in accordance with the recommendations of that Committee and included Ireland practically without qualification. But, in view of the Amendments on the Paper in the name of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, I would invite a short explanation from him on one or two points.

I should think myself that on a question like this, dealing so much with the happiness and the welfare of the people, it would be desirable as far as possible to have common legislation. I do not see why what are safeguards in the matter of poisons in England, Scotland, and Wales, should not be applied also to Ireland. That was the idea, I gather, of the Select Committee, and I do hot quite follow the alterations which it is now proposed to effect. The Amendments on the Paper purport, as I gather, to apply only two sections of the Bill to Ireland. I think that must be a mistake. I assume there is nothing more susceptible of general application to all parts of the country than a schedule of poisons. What is a poison in England should be a poison in Ireland. The schedule mentioned in the first section of the Bill is a very considered section. It was thought out and discussed, I have no doubt, with the wisdom of scientific knowledge. I gather, from my reading of the noble Earl's Amendments, that the schedule is not extended to Ireland. I only mention it because I can hardly think that that is intended, and if I am right in that the matter can be adjusted later. It is quite obvious it cannot be intended. If it is intended it is unintelligible, and if it is unintelligible it is indefensible.

There is one other matter to which I would draw attention. It has been required that persons selling poisons should label them as poisonous. I have no doubt that the law is not sought to be changed, but this is one of those occasions when repetition would be desirable; and as you are dealing in this Bill with poisonous substances I think it would be desirable to take the opportunity of a very short statement in the schedule to the effect that, as already indicated, poisons should be marked "Poisons." For common caution it is needed. I do not know whether it has been considered that poisonous substances used for agricultural purposes should be sold to the public without any indication that they may be dangerous to human life. They are called in the Bill poisonous, and therefore they might be very dangerous. It may be dealt with already, and I do not propose to say anything further on the subject. My only desire was to direct attention to it. I would also draw attention to the second part of the schedule. Under the heading of "Carbolic Acid" there is a statement that it is to be contained in a closed bottle and to be marked "Poisonous." I do not object; I think it wise and sensible; but why is that alone to be marked poisonous? That is a matter that may have been considered by the Select Committee, and it is one that can readily be set right in drafting. I do not think it would be desirable or fair that I should say anything more in reference to the matter now.

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE)

My Lords, I think it might be for the general convenience if I say a word on the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, opposite before we take the Bill clause by clause. As regards the general inclusion of Ireland, it is perfectly true that there was some dispute on that subject, and it was left to the Committee to decide one way or the other. They recommended the inclusion of Ireland, and the noble and learned Lord has very naturally, I think, drawn attention to the fact that only certain clauses, by an Amendment which I shall have to propose, apply to that country.

The case for the inclusion of Ireland was founded mainly on Clause 2 of the Bill. It was pointed out that the need for these agricultural and horticultural substances was very specially felt in Ireland owing to the sparsely populated character of some parts of the country, and that particular side of the question was very strongly pressed from Ireland. That applies also to Section 5, but Section 3, relating to companies, was not as strongly pressed from the Irish side. The case does not arise there at all to the same extent as it does in England, and when the matter came to be looked into, it was found that the pharmacy laws in Ireland are so different in many essential respects from those in England that, as a matter of drafting, it became absolutely impossible to incorporate them in this Bill. That is, as I am informed, the reason which actuated the Irish Office in asking that the other clauses of the Bill should not apply to Ireland. The noble and learned Lord raised the question of the schedule, and asked why that w s not made to apply to Ireland. Ireland has always had a schedule of its own, drawn up by the College of Surgeons and amended from time to time by Order in Council. If, therefore, Ireland desires to have this particular schedule, or the amended schedule which I am going to propose, nothing is easier than for an Irish Order in Council to be obtained assimilating the Irish schedule to this one.

LORD ASHBOURNE

It is much easier to put it in this Bill.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

We do not know that Ireland wants this schedule. We have no information that it does. This is a schedule prepared by the Privy Council and the pharmacists of England, and whether it is the particular schedule which is preferred m Ireland, I am not in a position to say. But if the noble and learned Lord is Tight in thinking that it is, the two can quite well be assimilated. As regards the question of marking poisonous substances sold for agricultural and horticultural purposes, the noble and learned Lord will find that that is amply provided for in the regulations to be issued by the Privy Council. Those regulations have not, I think, been laid on the Table of the House, but I should be quite prepared to lay them at any time. The noble and learned Lord will find that his point is fully covered by those regulations. I think these are the only matters which were mentioned by the noble and learned Lord. Any other point that arises can be dealt with in the course of the discussion in Committee.

House in Committee, according to order.

[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Amendments made by the Joint Committee agreed to.

Clause 1:

*LORD ASHBOURNE

said he thought it only fair to mention that, as at present advised, he would move, at the next stage of the Bill, that this be one of the sections that should apply to Ireland. It could be applied, he understood, without much alteration. He could not understand why, when they had thrashed out in a Select Committee with all the advice at their disposal, a new schedule carrying the schedule of poisons up-to-date, it should be enacted for England only, and that the old Irish schedules should be left to be varied from time to time as Ireland might think right.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

Of course, there can be no objection to the noble and learned Lord pursuing the course which he indicates he means to take; but between how and then we shall, no doubt, be able to discover whether the Irish authorities desire to adopt this schedule, or not.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I move an Amendment in page 1, line 15, to leave out "for use exclusively in connection with agriculture or horticulture," and to insert "to be used exclusively in agriculture or horticulture for the destruction of insects, fungi, or bacteria, or as sheep dips or weed killers." This alteration is made to make it rather more clear exactly what substances were intended to be sold under this section. The form of it, I think, was suggested by the Pharmaceutical Society, and I understand that the Board of Agriculture agree to it, and, so far as we know, it is not objected to by anybody. In fact, the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Hill) has something of the same kind on the Paper.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 15, to leave out the words 'for use exclusively in connection with agriculture or horticulture,' and insert the words 'to be used exclusively in agriculture or horticulture for the destruction of insects, fungi, or bacteria, or as sheep dips or weed killers.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)

VISCOUNT HILL

said he noticed with satisfaction that the noble Earl had moved an Amendment to meet what they considered the rather wide wording in the clause as it stood. Practically there was very little difference between the noble Earl's Amendment and his. He would, however, ask the noble Earl whether he did not consider the word "bacteria" a little too wide. It might on some occasions cause the introduction of disinfectants.

LORD SALTOUN

said the Committee had considered this matter very carefully, and he thought the words in the Bill were better than those in the Amendment moved by Lord Crewe, or in that standing in the name of Viscount Hill. The words in the clause were "for use exclusively." That kept them entirely for agricultural and horticultural purposes. There was very little in the matter, and if the Minister for Agriculture accepted Lord Crewe's Amendment he (Lord Saltoun) would not object.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY,

who also served on the Committee, agreed very much with the noble Lord who had just spoken. They were anxious to benefit agriculture by enabling farmers to get these things which they needed in their trade as easily as possible, and the wider the wording the better he would have liked it. But he supposed there were practical reasons which had led the Government to propose this restricting Amendment. For himself, he very much preferred the Amendment moved by Lord Crewe to the still more limited Amendment standing in the name of Viscount Hill.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

One noble Lord thinks these words too wide, and the other is of opinion that they are too narrow. Therefore, I think the words in my Amendment seem to be indicated as the correct ones.

LORD MONK-BRETTON moved an Amendment in page 1, line 17, to leave out "a local authority" and to insert "any local authority authorised to appoint an analyst for the purposes of the Sale of Foods and Drugs Act." He said the object was to make the foods and drugs authority the licensing authority under this Act, and the purpose of that was to obtain economy in the local administration of the Act by employing existing food and drug inspectors instead of new officials, and also to make the new areas coincide with those of the Foods and Drugs Act. It was certain that this Bill would necessitate greater inspection, because poisons were sold by more people and the danger which the public ran was increased. Sir Herbert Maxwell's Inter Departmental Committee reported that the great disadvantage was that there was not sufficient inspection, and they advocated more inspection. Now there ought to be still greater inspection. Under the Bill as it stood the matter was left to the Privy Council. He did not think the Privy Council were the best body to leave it to, because that council had no connection whatever with local authorities. The whole connection of the Privy Council with the administration of poisons, had, he ventured to submit, now become archaic. They were made the authority for the administration of the Poisons Act at the time when there was no Local Government Board and no local authorities, and therefore he asked their Lordships to insert in this Bill the local authority which was to administer the Act. He believed that the foods and drugs authority was the best to administer the Act. The County Councils Association had petitioned the Committee with regard to the matter, and he might mention that this Amendment was put before the Committee and that the numbers were equal. He believed those who voted, against it did so because they thought this was a question which would be more usefully raised in the House where members of His Majesty's Government were present than in Committee, and he agreed. The Amendment followed exactly the wording of the Margarine Act of 1887 and the Foods and Drugs Act of 1899, and whether in those words or in some other words he asked the Government to insert the provision that the foods and drugs authority should be the licensing authority under the Bill.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 17, to leave out the words 'a local authority,' and to insert the words 'any local authority authorised to appoint an analyst for the purposes of the Sale of Foods and Drugs Act.'"—[Lord Monk-Bretton.)

*THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, this is rather a complicated and intricate point, and I am not quite sure that the noble Lord in his Amendment does what he imagines he is doing. The effect of what the noble Lord desires to do would be that towns with a population exceeding. 10,000 would be included, not by any test of the present population, but by the test of the population as it was in the year 1881. Then it is not the case that it is the local authorities who are charged with the appointment of analyists who inspect and take samples for the purpose of the Sale of Foods and Drugs Act. That business extends to any local authority which appoints a medical officer of health, an inspector of nuisances, or an inspector of weights and measures. These licences, of course, do not apply very largely to urban districts. That is obvious. The question is infinitely more important in connection with rural areas, because Clause 2 is drawn in order to meet a particular case of thinly-populated rural areas. What would happen under the noble Lord's Amendment would be this: The authorities entitled under his Amendment to issue licences would be the following: the Common Council of the City of London, the borough councils of London, the county councils of extra-Metropolitan counties, the councils of county boroughs, and the town councils of boroughs containing, according to the census of 1881, a population exceeding 10,000, and possessing either a Court of Quarter Sessions or a separate Police Court. The authorities we propose under the regulations are: the London County Council in London, the county councils of extra-Metropolitan counties, the councils of county boroughs, and the town councils of all boroughs exceeding 10,000 in population at the last census—the census of 1901; and I must say that ours seems to me of the two to be the more practical proposal. There is no particular connection that I can see between the work of foods and drugs inspectors and the issuing of licences under this Bill. I do not see that there is any special relation between the two things. I do not know whether the actual authorities are open to variation, but I suppose everybody would agree that the county councils are the proper authorities in the counties, and I should have thought the London County Council was the best authority for the London district. I am quite content myself to leave the matter as it is, and I confess I do not see the advantage of the Amendment suggested by the noble Lord.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

supported the proposal of the Government as against the Amendment. As drafted the Bill left the selection of the local authority to the Privy Council. The sketch which the noble Earl had given of the local authorities would, he believed, be thoroughly satisfactory. He thought it undesirable to have separate authorities for small country towns with 10,000 population; and that it was best to leave the Bill as it stood.

LORD BELPER

said he understood from Lord Crewe that the authority in the counties would be the county council. But where was it stated that that would be the authority?

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I ought to have explained that it is in the draft regulations proposed by the Privy Council.

LORD BELPER

Those regulations I are already decided upon and in print?

*THE EARL OF CREWE

Yes, they are drawn up.

LORD BELPER

Then we may take it that the authorities stated by the noble Earl are to be the authorities under the Bill?

*THE EABL OF CREWE

Yes.

LORD BELPER

did not, in these circumstances, see any necessity for making the proposed alteration.

LORD SALTOUN

said he had been in favour of the Amendment, but after-hearing the explanation of Lord Crewe as to who would be the authorities under the Bill he suggested that Lord. Monk-Bretton should withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT HILL moved an Amendment, to insert "nor shall the provisions of this section be applicable in any municipal borough or in any urban district containing a duly registered chemist and druggist actually carrying on the business of a chemist and druggist." It might be suggested in some quarters that he was proposing a. measure to encourage trusts, but i was another principle altogether. The object of the Bill, no doubt, had been to meet the difficulty of farmers in some parts of Great Britain in obtaining sheep dips, etc. in small quantities. He did not know whether the evidence was satisfactory as proving that there was such a terrible inconvenience as had been represented. The farmers themselves did not attempt to approach the local chemists for these dips. In many cases they obtained them from the persons who purchased their wools, and in other cases co-operative parties went round the country and dipped the sheep at so much per hundred. In the county of London there were 12,000 qualified poison sellers. Surely that was enough for agriculture in this part of England. All large cities and towns were equally well supplied. His feeling in this matter was that the Government were persuaded to look upon this rather from the manufacturers' point of view. The manufacturers were the men who would benefit by the provision as it stood in the clause. He considered that the safety of the public was a far superior consideration. They naturally looked to the Government to support commercial activity, but, on the other hand, they must remember that the trade in poisons necessarily should be dealt with in a much more serious and different manner from the trade in ordinary commodities.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 22, after the word 'poisons,' to insert the words' nor shall the provisions of this section be applicable in any municipal borough or in any urban district containing a duly registered chemist and druggist actually carrying on the business of a chemist and druggist.'"—(Viscount Hill.)

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I hope the Committee will not accept the noble Lord's Amendment. He desires that the provisions of this section shall not be applicable in any municipal borough or in any urban district containing a duly registered chemist and druggist actually carrying on the business of a chemist and druggist. It does not at all follow that because there is a chemist in a place, the reasonable requirements of agriculturists will be met. It is quite possible that he might decline to supply these substances at all. He might not think it worth his while. No provision is inserted in the Amendment compelling him to meet the requirements of the public at all, and, of course, it obviously would be impossible to insert such a section. These licences will, I think it is quite certain, being in the hands of responsible local authorities, be issued with very great care; and I have no doubt that no licence will be issued at all in places where there are chemists who are in the habit of selling these things and who satisfy the public. I must draw attention to subsection (2) of this section, which says that before granting any licence under this section the local authority shall take into consideration whether in the neighbourhood where the applicant for the licence carries on or intends to carry1 on business, the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the purchase of such poisonous substances are satisfied. Therefore, if the chemist is there and sells the things, obviously no licence will be issued; but if he is there and does not sell the thing, the licence ought to be issued.

*LORD HAVEBSHAM

said the noble Viscount (Lord Hill) could not possibly have moved this Amendment if he had been on the Committee. They had abundant evidence that there was an enormous number of small towns in the West of Ireland and in the North of Scotland where there was no chemist at all. But, even supposing there were one, that man, under the noble Viscount's Amendment, would enjoy an absolute monopoly of the sale of these things, and the whole of the clause, which was to enlarge the area in which these things might be obtained would be rendered nugatory. If the noble Viscount would look at the next clause he would see that the whole question of licences was left to the local authority. If greater facilities were required the authority would grant the licence; if not they would refuse it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT HILL moved to amend the proviso— Provided that His Majesty may by Order in Council amend this provision by adding thereto or removing therefrom any poisonous substance, by adding, after the word "substance," the words— Not being an article included in the schedule to this Act. He explained that the object was cover a difficulty. He was afraid that when the Bill became an Act it would be quite possible at any time for those in authority to remove a poison, such as corrosive sublimate, from the schedule by the action of the Privy Council. If it was worth the while of Parliament to pass an Act restricting the sale of these very dangerous poisons, he thought the proper action to pursue was that if the poisons were to be at all changed the matter should be done by Act of Parliament.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 25, after the word 'substance,' to insert the words 'not being an article included in the schedule to this Act.'"—(Viscount Hill.)

*THE EARL OF CREWE

This is a question of machinery and convenience. I am sorry to oppose the noble Viscount's Amendment again, but I think it might lead to some practical inconvenience if it required an Act of Parliament either to withdraw some substance which it might be found was not safe to leave under this section or to add some newly invented substance which might be wanted. It might, for instance, be found that some substance authorised under this schedule was too dangerous to be sold. I do not think it is likely to happen, but it might conceivably occur, in which case the Privy Council would wish to withdraw it. But what is more likely to happen is that a new substance might be invented and the Privy Council might wish to include it. But these things are not done in the dark. Notice has to be published in the Gazette, and thereby the matter is brought before the cognisance of everybody when any proposal for a new Order in Council is intended. I think that will be an ample safeguard.

VISCOUNT HILL

said the explanation of the noble Earl that public notice would be given of any change was satisfactory to him, and he, therefore, withdrew his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3:

Verbal Amendment agreed to.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

The next series of Amendments open up the whole vexed question of titles, about which there has been so much controversy both in and out of the House. I hope that by these Amendments we have arrived at a conclusion which is fairly satisfactory to everybody. It is, I hope, accepted both by the Pharmaceutical Society and also by the companies who sell. I propose, in lines 9 and 10, to leave out the words "and may use the description of chemist and druggist, or of chemist, or of druggist," and to subsequently insert the words standing in my name on the Paper. I had better speak of the Amendments together as the whole matter is one. I move to insert— A body corporate, and in Scotland a firm or partnership— —in Scotland a firm or partnership is a technical term which, I understand, has a different meaning from that which it would bear in England— —may use the description of chemist or druggist, or of chemist, or of druggist, or of dispensing chemist or druggist, if the foregoing requirements as to the carrying on of the business are observed— that is to say, provided there is a qualified man in every shop or place in which the business is carried on— And if one at least of the board of directors or other governing body of the body corporate, or one at least of the members of the firm or partnership, as the case may be, is a duly registered pharmaceutical chemist or chemist and druggist, but nothing in this provision shall authorise any body corporate, or in Scotland a firm or partnership to use the description of pharmacist. It is important to see how it comes about that the great companies accept this Amendment, as I am glad to believe they do. They do not use the title of chemist and druggist or chemist or druggist. Harrod's Stores, the Army and Navy Stores, and others, do not use this title, and therefore they are not obliged by this Amendment to place a qualified chemist on their board. All that they want to do is to be able to call themselves chemists on their labels and to sell, as they do in a very well-managed fashion, the various drugs. There are other companies who sell on a large scale who also are not affected by this provision, because they do have qualified men on their boards. There are some of the great chemist companies so well-known by name and by advertisement who do not object to this Amendment for that reason. But it was pointed out to us that there is a third possible class of company—namely, the bogus company; that is to say, a man gets six other men of straw to form themselves into a company. It is conceivable that a man who has been removed from the Pharmaceutical Society for malpractices might form a company of that kind, call himself a chemist and druggist, and set up as a one-man company. That we prevent, as we hope, by this provision that there must be a qualified man on the board or partnership. I think, therefore, that this Amendment, which has been the result of a great deal of discussion and a great deal of thought, has at last reached a sufficient measure of agreement to satisfy all parties. So far as regular chemists are concerned, by a subsequent Amendment we preserve to them the special title of pharmacist. That will be the mark that will differentiate them from those who merely sell drugs as chemists, and by that means I hope we have secured, if not their complete approval, at any rate their acquiescence. I therefore move this series of Amendments with considerable confidence that the House will be willing to accept them.

Amendment moved— In page 3, lines 9 and 10, to leave out the words 'and may use the description of chemist and druggist, or of chemist, or of druggist,' and in line 16, after the word 'business' to insert the words 'A body corporate, and in Scotland a firm or partnership, may use the description of chemist and druggist, or of chemist or of druggist, or of dispensing chemist or druggist, if the foregoing requirements as to the carrying on of the business are observed, and if one at least of the board of directors or other governing body of the body corporate, or one at least of the members of the firm or partnership, as the case may be, is a duly registered pharmaceutical chemist or chemist and druggist, but nothing in this provision shall authorise any body corporate, or in Scotland a firm or partnership, to use the description of pharmacist.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)

*LORD HAVERSHAM

congratulated the noble Earl in charge of the Bill upon the strategy with which he had turned their flank by the alteration of his own Amendment. As the Amendment stood the previous night the words "dispensing chemist or druggist" appeared at the end, but they had now been dropped. The addition of those words was strongly objected to by some of the leading firms who had been in the habit for many years of using this term. He was very glad that the noble Earl had been able to drop those words, as such a provision would have constituted a grievance, and involved a serious financial loss to the companies concerned. The description of "pharmacist" was a very different thing. Pharmacist was a professional term; chemist was a trade term. He failed to see what security the provi- vision in the Amendment of requiring one qualified chemist to be on the directorate of the company would afford, as the qualified director might be a sleeping partner, and the safety of the public arose from having a qualified dispenser in each shop. He held in his hand the judgment of Lord Blackburn, in which the noble and learned Lord distinctly said that the whole safety of the public depended on the keeping of a qualified assistant to superintend and conduct the sale of drugs.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

agreed with Lord Haversham, but felt that as a settlement had been arrived at by compromise it was inadvisable to reopen it.

LORD SALTOUN

said the wording had been very carefully considered by the Committee, and the provision requiring a qualified person to be in charge of every shop was inserted solely for the protection of the public. The Committee did not accept the provision that one of the members of the firm should be a duly registered chemist, but, as the matter had been agreed to, he did not desire to say anything more on the subject.

LORD EBURY

asked permission, as he was a party to the compromise on this question two years ago, to define his attitude in regard to the present proposals. Having ascertained from the newspapers the intentions of the noble Earl with regard to this Bill he sought and secured assurances that the proposals, where they varied from the compromise of two years ago, should be so worded as not to bring within their operation companies which, although they transacted the business of chemists and druggists, did not employ that designation in their title. His noble friend gave him those assurances and had repeated them again to-day. He was sure the assurances were quite sincere. But there would be one better alternative, in his opinion, than the acceptance of the proposed words, and that would be to pass the clause in the form in which it came down to the House from the Joint Committee appointed to consider the Bill. If that alternative were offered to him he would certainly embrace it.

VISCOUNT HILL

said he had obtained information as to a company that had recently been formed under the new Companies Act. The men concerned were engineers, but they had registered themselves as chemists and druggists. Supposing they employed a qualified man to sell drugs, he would only be a servant. He would like to know what guarantee the public had in such a case of the safe dispensing of medicines.

LORD ASHBOURNE

understood that the Amendment was consistent with the earlier provision that every place of business would have to be conducted by a duly qualified chemist. He understood that that was not to be affected.

*THB EARL OF CREWE

That is so. Noble Lords will see in the Amendment the provision that it is subject to the foregoing requirements as to the carrying on of the business being observed.

LORD ASHBOURNE

And, in addition, the Amendment seeks to secure that in certain cases there shall be a duly registered chemist on the board of directors?

*THE EARL OF CREWE

That is so. This is really not a very important matter, but it does represent, as several noble Lords have said, an arrangement which has been arrived at. My noble friend behind me is perfectly right in saying that the titles either of chemist, or of druggist, or of chemist and druggist, or of dispensing chemist and druggist, cannot be used, although the business may be carried on—it is important to bear that distinction in mind—unless there is a qualified chemist on the board of directors. As the noble Lord opposite, Lord Ebury, has said, we fully admitted that to compel, for instance, the Army and Navy Stores, with which the noble Lord is connected, to place a qualified chemist and druggist on their board for the purposes of this Act would be something of an absurdity; and he, of course, will admit, in his turn, that he is relieved from any such responsibility by the terms of the Amendment now before the Committee. He does not want to use the title either of chemist or druggist, and, therefore need not have a qualified man on his board. The noble Lord behind me, Lord Haversham, asked why this Amendment was necessary at all. Its intention, I admit, is not entirely for the protection of the public, although it does to some degree enter into the protection of the public. It is the desire of the pharmacy profession to meet a case of this kind. A one-man company is formed, employing no doubt a qualified assistant, but that man is, as the noble Viscount opposite has pointed out, the absolute servant of this not merely unqualified, but possibly disqualified person. Therefore, although he may be held in one sense responsible, he may be placed in a position of extreme difficulty as between his duty to the public and his duty to his employer. That kind of company, we maintain, has no locus standi to exist at all, if it is prevented from existing by this Amendment. I think it will be altogether to the advantage of the public. We entirely appreciate the work done by great chemist companies, such as Boots, and companies of that kind. We also appreciate the work done by individual chemists in small shops; but the small employer who uses a qualified chemist for his own purposes is not, we think, a person who deserves any sympathy or support; and it is the fact that it may very fairly be held that public safety is to some extent compromised by the existence of shops of that kind. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will agree to the Amendment as it stands.

Consequential Amendments agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

THE EARL OF CREWE moved to amend subsection (b)— Providing for the registration, upon payment of the prescribed fee, as pharmaceutical chemists or chemists and druggists under the Pharmacy Acts, 1852 and 1868, without examination, of any persons holding colonial diplomas who produce evidence satisfactory to the council of the society that they are persons of sufficient skill and knowledge to be so registered, by adding, after the word "diplomas," the words "or of qualified military dispensers." The noble Earl said: This is a small Amendment which is inserted at the desire of the War Office, and I have no doubt your Lordships will agree to it.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 35, after the word'diplomas,' to insert the words 'or of qualified military dispensers.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

LORD CLINTON moved to leave out the word "poison" and to insert the word "substance" in five places in Clause 5. His object was, he explained, to avoid the confusion which probably might arise owing to the use of the word "poison" to cover the very many meanings attached to that word in the Bill. It was very little more than a verbal Amendment, but he thought it one of considerable advantage.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 1, to leave out the word poison,' and to insert the word 'substance.'"—(Lord Clinton.)

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I do not know that the proposed substitution is very much of an improvement in the Bill as it stands, but I do not wish to offer any opposition to it.

Consequential Amendment agreed to.

LORD CLINTON moved to amend the first subsection, which provided that— It shall not be lawful to sell any poison to which this section applies by retail, unless the box, bottle, vessel, wrapper, or cover in which the poison is contained is distinctly labelled with the name of the substance and the word poison', by omitting "Poison," and inserting "Dangerous; not to be taken." He said it was practically the same as his other Amendments, and was to show the difference between the two classes of poisons.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 4, to leave out the word 'word,' and to insert the word 'words,' and to leave out the word 'poison,' and to insert the words 'Dangerous; not to be taken.'"—(Lord Clinton.)

*THB EARL OF CREWE

I do not think that it is practically the same. You have to consider the effect of the word "poison" on the public. These things undoubtedly are poisons, and, in my opinion, the word "poison" is a more effective word to frighten the public than the word "dangerous."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Consequential Amendments agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

*THE EARL OF CREWE moved to omit from Clause 6 the words applying the Bill to Ireland. He said: I have already explained, on the Motion to go into Committee, the reasons which actuated us in applying only two sections of this Bill to Ireland, and I do not think I need say any more on the subject. I shall move a new clause after Clause 6 dealing with the application to Ireland.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 19, to leave out from the word 'nine' to the end of the clause.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)

LORD ASHBOURNE

said he, too, had stated all he wished to say on this point. But he would observe that the particular Amendment it was now sought by the noble Earl largely to obliterate was moved in the Select Committee by the Chairman, Lord Haversham, and assented to without objection.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE,

who last year moved the exclusion of Ireland, from the Bill, said that as its application to Ireland had been considered by the Select Committee and they recommended that Ireland should be included, he would not further oppose its inclusion.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment moved— After Clause 6, to insert the following new Clause":—'(1) The provisions of this Act relative to the regulation of sale of certain poisonous substances for agricultural and horticultural purposes and to restrictions on sale of certain mineral acids shall apply to Ireland, with the following modifications: (a) For the reference to the Pharmacy Act, 1868, there shall be substituted a reference to the Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875, and the Pharmacy Act (Ireland) 1875, Amendment Act, 1890, and the reference to regulations made under Section one of the first-mentioned Act shall not apply; (b) for references to Orders in Council by His Majesty, or to Orders in Council, there shall be substituted references to Orders in Council by the Lord-Lieutenant; (c) the reference to a duly registered chemist and druggist shall include a reference to a registered druggist. (2) Save as provided by this section, the foregoing provisions of this Act shall not apply to Ireland.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)

Schedule:

*THE EARL OF CEEWE moved to leave out the Schedule and to insert a new Schedule. The noble Earl said, I need not say anything upon this Amendment except that the amended Schedule has been arrived at by a comparison of the original Government Schedule with that presented by the Pharmaceutical Society. It has been the subject of close discussion between the competent people representing the Government chemists and analysts and the society, and we hope that this Schedule as now to be amended really produces the best features of both the lists which were prepared, one by the Government, and one by the society.

Amendment moved— In pages 5 and 6, to leave out the Schedue, and to insert the following new Suhedule:—'Part I.—Arsenic and its medicinal preparations; aconite, aconitine, and their preparations; alkaloids:—all poisonous vegetable alkaloids not specifically named in this Schedule and their salts, and all poisonous derivatives of vegetable alkaloids; atropine and its salts, and their preparations; belladonna, and all preparations or admixtures containing 0.1 or more per cent, of belladonna alkaloids; cantharides, and its poisonous derivatives; coca any preparation or admixture of, containing I or more per cent, of coca alkaloids; corrosive sublimate; cyanide of potassium, and all poisonous cyanides and their preparations; emetic tartar, and all preparations or ad- mixtures containing I or more per cent, of emetic tartar; ergot of rye, and preparations of ergots; nux vomica, and all preparations or admixtures containing 0.2 or more per cent, of strychnine; opium and all preparations or admixtures containing 1 or more per cent, morphine; picrotoxin; prussic acid, and all preparations or admixtures containing 0.1 or more per cent, of prussic acid; savin and its oil, and all preparations or admixtures containing savin or its oil. Part II.—Almonds, essential oil of (unless deprived of prussic acid); antimonial wine; cantharides, tincture and all vesicating liquid preparations or admixtures of; carbolic acid, and liquid preparations of carbolic acid and its homologues containing more than 3 per cent, of those substances, except preparations for use as sheep wash or for any other purpose in connection with agriculture or horticulture contained in a closed vessel distinctly labelled with the word 'poisonous,' the name and address of the seller, and a notice of the special purposes for which the preparations are intended; chloral hydrate; chloroform, and all preparations or admixtures containing more than 20 per cent, of chloroform; coca, any preparation or admixture of, containing more than 0.1 per cent, but less than 1 per cent, of coca alkaloids; digitalis; mercuric iodide; mercuric sulphocyanide; oxalic acid; poppies, all preparations of, excepting red poppy petals and syrup of red poppies (papaver rhæas); precipitate, rod, and all oxides of mercury; precipitate, white; strophanthus; sulphonal; all preparations or admixtures which are not included in Part I. of this Schedule, and contain a poison within the meaning of the Pharmacy Acts, except preparations or admixtures, the exclusion of which from this Schedule is indicated by the words therein relating to carbolic acid, chloroform, and coca, and except such substances as come within the provisions of Section 5 of this Act.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)

LORD ASHBOURNE

inquired whether the amended Schedule contained any substantial alterations.

*THE EABL OF CREWE

It does not include, so far as I know, any new substances of importance except in a technical sense. The terms of description are in some degree altered, but the Schedule does not include any new substance which would be of interest to the noble and learned Lord or myself.

Bill reported, with Amendments to the House.

Moved, "That the Standing Committee be negatived."—(The Earl of Crewe.)

LORD ASHBOURNE

Why is the Standing Committee to be negatived? If the Standing Committee is to be recognised at all, it is just a Bill of this kind that should be referred to it.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I would remind the noble and learned Lord that the Bill has been very carefully considered by a Joint Committee and has also had the advantage of the close attention of the Government draftsman. But, if the noble and learned Lord wishes it, the Bill shall go to the Standing Committee.

LORD ASHBOURNE

I think the fact that the noble Earl has thrown over a substantial part of the recommendations of the Select Committee is a good reason why this Bill should go to the Standing Committee. I will, however, withdraw my objection.

THE EAEL OF CAMPERDOWN

I beg to give notice that, on some early day, I shall move the abolition of the Standing Committee stage.

On Question, Standing Committee negatived.

The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 151.)