That is simply what has taken place in this milk of sulphur case. Precipitated sulphur certainly is not milk of sulphur, and milk of sulphur certainly is not precipitated sulphur, according to the present Pharmacopoeia, and I think the case would be established if it were taken up. I trust that it will be one of the objects of this Trade Defence Association. I am sorry to see that in some cases the advocacy of the contrary view was sought to be strengthened by the imputation of impure motives.

Mr. CHURCHILL (Birmingham): I think it would be well to bear in mind that our Birmingham milk of sulphur case was not directed against a chemist and druggist. The reader of the paper on the Adulteration Act suggested that in the event of such a case being brought against a chemist and druggist the defence should be undertaken by the Pharmaceutical Society. That idea has been held by many chemists, and I may state that I myself wrote to the Secretary of the Pharmaceutical Society suggesting such a view, but I received a reply that the Society was not a trade union. That seemed to point very clearly to the necessity for the formation of such an association as is now proposed.

Mr. G. ELLINOR (Sheffield): I have looked into the Pharmacopoeias, especially the one of 1721, when lac sulphuris was officially named and the process given. We next find that the name was changed from lac sulphuris to sulphur præcipitatum. The present process was not adopted till 1809, therefore the name milk of sulphur applies to the present Pharmacopoeia article sulphur præcipitatum. The name applies, because the name was changed before the process. I think, if you take the London Pharmacopoeias as they are in the London Society's Library, and examine them, you will find there is no ground whereby you can stand with the adulterated milk of sulphur. I believe that is the only official regulation we can have, and that convictions can be obtained and will be obtained if contaminated milk of sulphur is sold either as milk of sulphur or sulphur præcipitatum. We cannot get away from the Pharmacopoeias; they are the legal standards.

MR. ANDREWS (Bayswater): I am going to suggest a manner in which you may give the public what they ask for, for undoubtedly there is a'demand for this adulterated -as it is termed article. I would simply suggest that you should have a label "Milk of Sulphur-not the Precipitated Sulphur of the Pharmacopoeia." Do not say adulterated with anything. Then have another label, "Precipitated Sulphur, British Pharmacopoeia-such a date." I think that by this means you will escape all difficulty.

MR. G. WARD (Sheffield): I should like first of all to demur to the term "adulterated milk of sulphur." I hold it is not adulterated. I should like also to say, that the solicitor engaged in our case at Leeds, advised a label exactly such as has been recommended by the last speaker of "Milk of Sulphur, not the Precipitated Sulphur of the British Pharmacopoeia." Such a label is becoming somewhat common in our neighbourhood. There have been a great many instances in which this pure precipitated sulphur has been sold as milk of sulphur and has been returned as not being the article desired by the purchaser. A good deal of force undoubtedly rests in the remarks about the names in the Pharmacopoeia, but, I think, there is also some force in the custom of the trade. If I have been accustomed to buy for twenty years an article which I have known by a certain name, and which most people know by a certain name, I hold that if I go and ask for the article by the same name, the seller has a right to supply me with the article I want.

distinction is observed on our labels we shall avoid future difficulties.

Mr. WALKER (Longton): Allow me to say that some people have a very strong opinion about this milk of sulphur. On two occasions, within twenty years, I have been persuaded by friends, against my own opinion, to give up selling milk of sulphur and to sell only sulphur præcipitatum, but with very unsatisfactory results. I may say that on scores of occasions people have brought it back and have complained bitterly of being supplied with an article they did not want. It was not what they wanted; and this has been the case with other chemists who have sold pure precipitated sulphur. Where people ask for milk of sulphur they want a different article altogether, and I think all will agree they ought to be satisfied with what is known as milk of sulphur. If they ask for precipitated sulphur, let them have it; but if you supply it to them under the name of milk of sulphur they are dissatisfied, and they have not got what they want. I may mention that in my own neighbourhood certain chemists were summoned for selling milk of sulphur when precipitated sulphur was asked for. Eight or nine such cases occurred, and the defence in the case upon which the whole were decided was that they were synonmyous terms, and that when asked for precipitated sulphur we were quite justified in supplying milk of sulphur, because they were the same thing. The magistrate at once decided against that. He decided that the terms were not synonymous, that the two articles were entirely different, and that if when asked for precipitated sulphur the dealers supplied an article in which sulphate of lime was an ingredient, they broke the law, and in each case a conviction followed.

Mr. THONGER ( Birmingham): I am perfectly satisfied that if the opinion of the trade was canvassed as to whether it would be wise to turn our backs on what I have no fear to call a very nasty article--the old fashioned lac sulphuris, we should find the great majority in favour of doing so. I was told before I went into business to look at it as a nasty thing and a useless thing, and I have never had the slightest difficulty in selling the sulphur præcipitatum. I would propose that the subject should be one of the first that should be taken up by the association, and that a good plan of going to work would be first to consult some high medical authority as to whether such a society would be wise in doing its best to remove the thing altogether from the trade. If there is any value in it as a medicine it is for the medical authority to say so. That I cannot answer. If it be proved that there is some advantage in it which sulphur præcipitatum does not possess, the sale of it need not be followed with any great difficulty, I am sure.

Mr. COUNCILLOR STEAD (Leeds): Like some other gentlemen, I, after the milk of sulphur case at Leeds, sold in three instances sulphur præcipitatum, and in each case it came back.

Mr. MASON (President of the Liverpool Chemists' Association): It appears to me that the locality in which milk of sulphur is sold would in great measure decide what is to be sold for it. I agree entirely with Mr. Thonger, and I agree perhaps with the public analysts and medical men in thinking that there is not any virtue in lac sulphuris, and that one of the good re

sults which may come from the Adulteration Actis to put away its sale. I was most amused when I heard of the first milk of sulphur prosecution; my wife read it to me, and while she was so doing she said, "If they wanted cream of sulphur, why did not they ask for cream of sulphur?" I do not know whether it is known as cream of sulphur anywhere, but I believe there is some distinction of the kind in Guernsey, and that they ask for milk of sulphur if they want lac sulphuris, and for cream of sulphur if they want sulphur præcipitatum.

Mr. CUBLEY (Sheffield): I think a question has arisen which should be looked into with the greatest care, and that is the necessity of having the Pharmacopoeia as the standard of purity. I am afraid the question of milk of sulphur is one of those where, after all, the greatest profit will go into the pockets of the lawyers. But I think it should be our duty, as far as we possibly can go, to see that everything should be as nearly as possible to the Pharmacopoeia. I say so for this reason, and this reason only, that however you may put the sale of drugs by further enactments into the hands of the chemists only, there would be behind them, for vending by unlicensed persons, the calomel, milk of sulphur, and other things which may not be mentioned in the Pharmacopoeia. If any further restriction is to be made as to the sale of drugs you would have to take the Pharmacopoeia as the standard of purity. It is not in the wish to make no difference between milk of sulphur and precipitated sulphur that I would hold to it, but it is that we should endeavour, if possible, to get the principal articles of the Pharmacopoeia into our hands. If, however, we raise a lot of these dual articles, there will be the more to be left in the hands of unlicensed people.

Mr. ELLINOR: If we do not combine the old and new names together we shall have great difficulty in getting convictions against small shopkeepers. Where there are two names in the Pharmacopoeia, we must take them as synonymous.

Mr. BIRD: We are bound, in dispensing prescriptions, and medical men are bound in writing them, to adhere to our codex and to it alone; and we must not say that the old and the new names are synonymous.

Mr. THRESH: I would suggest that in any future Pharmacopoeia it would be advisable to increase the number of synonyms.

Mr. AYRES (Bridgwater): I think, as a practical man of business, that we cannot get over the fact that a demand by the public exists for lac sulphuris. The article is in demand, and in certain localities it has a very considerable sale. In our associations at Taunton and Bridgwater we have adopted a label declaring the actual article as it exists. We, as individuals, do not create the demand; the public come to us for the article, and we supply to them the article to which they have been accustomed.

The CHAIRMAN in closing the discussion said: Any proposal to place in the hands of the medical authorities the decision as to what should be an article of sale or should be forbidden to Englishmen would be to open up some of the principles of the liberty of the subject a great deal wider than we propose to discuss. The customs of the purchaser have a right to be considered. It is not a question merely of synonyms. On that, perhaps, we might have no great difficulty but we have to admit that the two things are different, that it is because they are different that prosecutions have taken place, and that the public say that they wish to have what they and their forefathers have been accustomed to. I think that the chemists would be disposed for the sake of avoiding trouble and annoyance, to give up a trifling gain from the sale of a particular article, but still there is a principle concerned which if we were to disregard altogether might be applied to other matters, so that we must still maintain that we have a perfect right to go on honestly selling the article which the public ask for. A very useful suggestion of Mr. Hampson's should be borne in mind,

and that is, that it is one more reason why pharmacists should be consulted in the formation of all parts of the Pharmacopoeia. Mr. J. T. SLUGG, F.R.A.S., read the following paper

on:

THE CASE OF WIDOWS AND TRUSTEES UNDER THE PHARMACY ACT, 1868.

upon the

This is soon told. By clause 1 of this Act it is made unlawful for any person to carry on the business of a chemist and druggist whose name is not on the register; and by the 11th clause, on the death of a chemist and druggist his name is to be removed therefrom. By the 16th clause certain exceptions are made to the operation of the 1st clause, and it is there enacted that “ decease of any chemist and druggist actually in business at the time of his death, it shall be lawful for any executor, administrator or trustee of the estate of such chemist and druggist to continue such business if and so long only as such business shall be bona fide conducted by a duly qualified assistant." In 1873 the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society obtained the opinion of their solicitor as to the right interpretation of this clause, from which it appears that in the case of the death of a man who has made a will appointing executors, and creating certain trusts, providing, for instance, that the business shall be carried on for the benefit of the widow or children, so long as the trust exists the executors may carry it on. But the strangest thing is that no one's name will appear on the register in connection with such business. The very essence of the Act appears to be complete and unexceptional registration, and yet it allows numberless executors in various parts of the kingdom to carry on the business without registration of any kind. Hence to this extent, which may be a large one, the register will be incomplete, and will not show the actual number of chemists and druggists in business. Here is one glaring instance of the incompleteness of the Act. But a still more glaring one, and a most unjust effect of this incompleteness, is the following, that the widow of a druggist cannot carry on the business for herself. If the husband should leave his business to his widow for her absolute benefit and appoint her sole executrix, she could only carry it on until his debts were paid, or the business sold, and not a day longer. The day she puts the profit into her own pocket she breaks the law. Exactly the same results follow if the husband dies intestate, and the wife takes out letters of administration. What a hardship this is, will be seen from a consideration of cases like the following, which is mentioned as a type of many others. The writer intimately knew the parties-a druggist and his wife without children. The wife who was much the younger, took an active part in the business, and in course of time became the more popular of the two. She acquired quite as competent a knowledge of it in every respect as the husband, and was even more trusted than he by the public. Since the Act was passed the husband has died, leaving his little all to his wife for her maintenance, fondly hoping she would have the profits of the business she had helped to build up, for her support. She was only allowed to continue the business till she had paid the debts due at his decease, and was then compelled to sell it. So that notwithstanding her intimate acquaintance with the business, equal in all respects to that of her husband, and her perfect competency to carry it on, she could not do so even with the aid of a legally qualified assistant. The extreme stringency of the Act in this respect appears very illogical when contrasted with its incongruous and absurd laxity in another. For a druggist once having his name on the register may open any number of shops in any number of towns, and if he chooses may appoint an apprentice or a porter, or any person, whether much or little qualified, to manage each shop. Of course it is admitted that self-interest would lead to the appointment of managers with some qualification, but the law in question, which is so absurdly strict

in one point, goes to the opposite extreme in another, and makes no provision for the adequate management of any of the branch shops a druggist may be the proprietor of. The writer believes that if an executor, who in all probability knows nothing of the business, may carry it on by the aid of a qualified assistant, a widow, who in many cases knows something of it, may be allowed to do the same for her own benefit, on similar conditions.

The CHAIRMAN: The meeting is much obliged to Mr. Slugg for his lucid explanation of a matter which many have not looked into very carefully. The matter is one most interesting to us and I shall be glad to hear any remarks.

Mr. RADLEY (Sheffield): There is one point to which I should like to call attention. The Council of the Pharmaceutical Society is the body entrusted with seeing that the law is carried out, and in no case has the Council taken action to oppress any widow. I believe a feeling of tenderness and compassion has always been felt towards a widow.

Mr. RIMMINGTON: I think it is only an anomaly of the Act.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I think that what has been advanced will show that it will be very wise for a druggist to make his will. I apprehend in the case of a man being in the position Mr. Slugg has referred to, the difficulty would not have happened if there had been a nominal executorship, and somebody had been appointed trustee to carry on the business for his widow. At all events it would be well for gentlemen who wish to leave their businesses to their widows to look into the matter.

Mr. R. G. JONES (Lye): Two trustees are required. I had a legal opinion on that point.

Mr. SLUGG: And then comes the difficulty of getting two gentlemen from mere friendship's sake to bear the responsibility which does rest upon anybody carrying on a drug gist's shop.

Mr. DYER (Halifax) said: The question is a very difficult one. The more we look into the operation of the clause of the Act in question, the more we shall see how detrimentally it may operate against descendants of members of the traile. It is one of those questions which I think this Society should put its shoulder to the wheel to set right. One of my friends has suggested what would be the position of an executor employed in one of these trusteeships, who is not registered, administering poisons with fatal results. What would be the result to the persons implicated under such circumstances!

Mr. DAVISON (York): I should like to ask one question-Whether any parties except the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society are in a position to set the law in motion according to the clause read? We have no evidence that the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society has ever taken any action whatever against widows; the local associations for very obvious reasons never liked to appear in these matters; therefore if no other individuals have any right or power to insist on the provisions of the clause being carried out, it is evident the clause is likely to be quite inoperative.

Mr. ANDREWS: I think it is quite within the power of any one to take action to cause the clause to be carried out. I do not think there is anything which touches the interest of the druggists more closely than the settlement of the affairs of their families. I can tell of a case in London where very great injustice was done to the widow of a pharmacist who thought she had succeeded to a good business. She asked the Secretary of the Pharmaceutical Society whether it was legal for her to carry it on. She was told that it was not, and she was obliged to sell the business for a sum about equal to what the annual income would have been. While a widow may not carry on her late husband's business any registered chemist may set up any number of businesses all over the country and

put any one he pleases in charge of them, competent or incompetent. Here is a glaring iujustice which ought to be remedied, and I think some substantive resolution ought to be carried by this meeting affirming that something should be done. When I went to consult my solicitor some time ago he said that the Act was very badly drawn, that you may do almost what you like, but that if you want to be in a secure position you must get two gentlemen to act as trustees; and therein consists the difficulty.

Mr. WOOTTON (Editor of the Chemist and Druggist) : I should like to say, that so far as the business of a chemist and druggist approaches a profession, this clause is no injustice; because when a surgeon dies you cannot claim that his practice shall be retained by his widow, with any number of trustees. His practice dies with him; and so it must be with the professional part of a chemist and druggist's trade. At the same time, there is no doubt a great deal of property in a trade business, in reference to which there is much opportunity for rectifying the Act.

Mr. HAMPSON: I should not like to do anything injurious to women, but we ought to bear in mind that it was the intention of the legislature that the owner of the shop should be an examined person; and if we attempt to amend the Act in an opposite direction, we shall do injury instead of good. We ought to bear steadily in mind that the owner of poisons should be a responsible person. The widow, unfortunately, does not Occupy that position. It is one of those unfortunate things in connection with this Act which occur in almost every kind of legislation-that there is personal hardship inflicted somewhere.

Mr. SLUGG: The executor is not an examined person. Mr. HAMPSON said the object of an executorship was simply to wind up the concern. It was never intended that the executors should carry on the business in perpetuity.

Mr. A. BIRD: Would it not meet the difficulty by allowing ladies to pass the pharmaceutical examination? If the wife had been examined, she would then be in a position to carry on the business. Is not that some reason for allowing ladies to pass our higher examination? I say in my judgment that it is.

A DELEGATE: They can pass.

Mr. BARCLAY: I should like to advise any chemist who has not made his will, that it would scarcely be wise for him to make it in such a way as that his widow should carry on his business after him. I have known several cases throughout the country, and in almost every case the business has suffered. Instead of the business continuing a lucrative one as it was when carried on by the chemist himself, it has in the hands of a manager suffered considerably. I know a few exceptions where a manager has carried on a business satisfactorily, but they are quite the exception. It was only the other week I was consulted by a widow who was left some six months ago with a capital businesg in a neighbourhood where there was very little competition, and where one would have thought that the business could have been carried on by means of an ordinary assistant. In six months she had had three or four assistants, and just now the business is in such a condition that she is obliged to sell it-it is slipping away entirely from her, and she is in the greatest extremity about getting a manager, and altogether it is a most lamentable thing. She has been teased and worried during the last six months to such an extent that she would be glad to get rid of it almost at any price. Looking at the matter in a benevolent view certainly widows ought to have the privilege which executors are allowed, yet at the same time I should like to give the Conference, as the result of my experience, that it is not wise to make arrangements for widows to carry on the business as a rule. There is another point which ought not to be lost sight of, and that is that in the carrying on of busi

nesses by widows and executors there is a loophole for illegal competition. I think there are many businesses carried on professedly by execntors, which are really carried on by unregistered persons for their own benefit. As the Pharmaceutical Society does not appear to have pushed the matter, I should think the object of Mr. Slugg will be gained without pressing the matter further. The CHAIRMAN: The discussion of this matter in a calm and dispassionate way cannot fail to do good by letting us all know the position of the law. Although manifest hardships may occur to the individual in some cases, which would at first dispose us to seek an alteration of the law that would permit greater latitude, I think there is great force in such suggestions as have been given us by Mr. Barclay. In the interest of the widows it probably is better that they should leave property of such a risky and responsible nature as this. We must recollect that in addition to the difficulties which any business may have there are liabilities under Lord Campbell's Act which apply specially to this trade. In view of this, and of the abuses by unauthorized persons, it is very doubtful whether it is in the interest of the general body that we should have much extension of the powers of widows. There are cases of wills being made which would give a widow power to continue a business two or three years in anticipation of the coming of age of a son. It appears that for this there should be some protection, but that a business should be carried on by a widow for a long period he did not think was particularly desirable.

The Conference then adjourned for luncheon and were entertained by the Birmingham Chemists' Association at the Midland Hotel. On resuming,

Mr. JOHN HARRISON (Sunderland) read à paper on

JURIES.

Although the subject I have to bring before you is one of great practical importance to every chemist, yet I am happy to say that I shall not require to trespass long upon your time, as the reasonableness of the proposition I shall advance is so clear that very few words on my part will be required to enlist your sympathies with me.

The principle by which the members of certain professions are exempted from jury service on account of the peculiar character of their duties is a very ancient one, and has been so frequently adopted by Parliament that no defence of it is required on the present occasion. Since the year 1513 surgeons have been exempt from such service, and in the year 1694 this exemption was extended to apothecaries, for the following reason, which I quote from the Act by which the extension of the Act of 1513 was enacted :

"Whereas the art of apothecaries is of great and general use and benefit by reason of their constant and necessary assistance to his Majesty's subjects, which should oblige them to attend solely to the duties of their profession.'

It was no doubt felt at the time that as the physician and surgeon who prescribed the medicine were free from service on juries that it was only the correct logical consequence that he who compounded the medicine should be likewise free.

Public opinion in this country is proverbial for the slow rate of its growth, and it is perhaps therefore not a matter for surprise that nothing more was done in making further extensions of this principle in our own direction until the year 1862, when pharmaceutical chemists were included in the lists of those entitled to exemption from jury service, and they, observe, not because they were pharmaceutical chemists, but being a registered body and only able to obtain registration by passing a recognized system of examination there was no difficulty in limiting the privilege to those who were really entitled to it. Chemists and druggists were not included in the provisions of this Act, simply on account of the difficulty it was

felt would occur in defining who were and who were not entitled to it.

This difficulty has, however, been removed by the Pharmacy Act of 1868, and every one now who aspires to the rank of chemist must reach it through the examination room.

My contention is, therefore, that as the whole of the members of our profession, whether pharmaceutical or not, must be registered, and when so registered discharge the same duties and incur the same responsibilities, so they ought also to be accorded the same protection. This contention will I imagine be at once conceded, as I trust there is no necessity at this advanced period of the nineteenth century to argue that equal conditions should entail equal rights.

The reasonableness of this proposition is so clear to my own mind that I can only account for the fact that it did not receive legislative sanction at the time of the passing of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, by supposing that it must have been overlooked or that it was withheld by Parliament simply because it was not asked for by those most interested in it. I am strengthened in this conclusion by comparing the principle upon which both the Act of 1694 and that of 1868 are based. You will have observed from the quotation which I made from the Act of 1694 that its principle was that persons engaged in the dispensing of medicines should give their personal attention to the same, for it speaks of "their constant and necessary assistance," and you will find that in the Pharmacy Act, 1868, the same principle is acted upon, for in the 17th clause, after defining what the penalties shall be for certain offences against the Act, it is enacted "and for the purposes of this section the person on whose behalf any sale is made by any apprentice or servant shall be deemed to be the seller." Now it is very clear from this that the intention of the Legislature has been that a chemist's business shall enjoy the continual personal supervision of the chemist himself, and I ask where is the consistency to lay down such a principle in one Act of Parliament and enforce the contrary by another Act, even to perform so important a duty as that of a jury

man.

I need not trouble you with any instances of the hardships the present law entails, there will be plenty of such instances present to the mind of each one of you. The immortal Dickens has supplied in his trial of Bardell v. Pickwick such an one, which may differ somewhat in degree but certainly not in kind from realities which take place daily amongst us.

On two recent occasions have our claims been before Parliament. In 1872 Sir John, now Lord Coleridge, and again, in 1874, Mr. Lopes, introduced bills dealing with the juries question, and in the last bill were clauses exempting chemists from service on juries. In both cases, however, the bills failed to make their way through the Parliament, not, however, I am glad to say, from any opposition to the clauses jespecially interesting to ourselves, but on account of objections raised to other portions of the measures.

I think we should now proceed on a new basis, and not wait for so simple an act of justice until such time as the whole jury question can be dealt with, but urge upon Government or some private member to introduce a bill by which the provisions of the Juries Act, 1862, may be extended to all chemists and druggists.

And I hope that this Conference will not only express with a decided voice its dissatisfaction with the present unequal state of the law, but will also place the question in a favourable position for its successful agitation, and of this I am firmly convinced that, if it be taken up with spirit and prosecuted with zeal, its justice and reasonableness will ensure for it a speedy success.

The CHAIRMAN: I feel sure we shall all feel under an obligation to Mr. Harrison for his paper on the subject of

juries. He expects to have your general consent, but there may be some remarks to be made.

Mr. BARNET (Rochester): I was engaged with many persons at the time of the Amended Pharmacy Act in getting the amendments, and one point which we pressed on the attention of the government was that we should be exempted from serving on juries, and the answer which was given was that they could not afford to spare so many intelligent men.

Mr. A. BIRD: I think there is a good deal of force in the able paper which has been read but there is one point I think we should not overlook. There does appear to me a sort of slinking, a sort of moral cowardice, in not being prepared on suitable occasions to assist our fellow countrymen in the difficult operations of doing justice. Although I think it is desirable that those who are engaged in dispensing medicines should be to a certain extent exempt, I think it would be desirable that they should have the option of serving on juries, as there may be cases where it would be of the greatest consequence to have a good chemist and druggist on the jury. I think it should be optional. If a chemist declines to serve he should not be called upon, but if he is willing to serve the country would receive benefit from his services.

Mr. SLUGG: I am very glad the subject has been taken up by the Conference because I have always considered it a great injustice that while members of the Pharmaceutical Society should be exempt the ordinary chemist and druggist could not be.

The CHAIRMAN: Not members of the Society; you mean pharmaceutical chemists?

Mr. SLUGG: Well, pharmaceutical chemist really means nothing, because men who were in business at the passing of the first Act were on certain payments made pharmaceutical chemists. I know the case of an ostler who groomed the horses of a surgeon and was occasionally called into the surgery and so obtained a knowledge of drugs. When that Act was passed he became a pharmaceutical chemist, having previously set up in business. I think it a great injustice that men of that kind should be exempt from serving on juries while I am not.

Mr. HAMPSON: As a pharmaceutical chemist I coincide with a great deal of what has been said. I think that as the legislature in its wisdom compels a certain standard of examination as a condition of entrance to the trade those so exempt are entitled to all the advantages which accrue to pharmaceutical chemists. With respect to the option of serving or not serving on juries I think the proposition that they should have the option is certainly a desirable one. It would be a pity if intelligent men should not have an opportunity of serving on juries if they think proper. I should certainly support any proposition which should exempt a properly registered druggist from being obliged to serve.

Mr. ARBLASTER (Birmingham): I am afraid the returning officer would find it very awkward in serving notices if chemists and druggists were to have an option.

Mr. ELLINOR: I think it is only right chemists and druggists should be exempt from serving on juries, seeing that many of them are not able to leave their business without getting a temporary assistant. They had no one regularly to manage for them, and as they were held responsible for any accidents or mistakes of those they employ, I think they should be exempt.

Mr. DELVES (Exeter): Speaking as a Major man, and especially in answer to Mr. Slugg, I may say that the only advantage we have in passing our examination is exemption from juries. I don't wish to speak as to the merits or demerits of others.

Mr. DYER (Halifax): If it would be competent for us I should like to propose a resolution that the Pharmaceu tical Society be requested as soon as possible to procure the exemption of chemists and druggists from the lability of serving on juries. I believe there is no point upon which there is greater unanimity among the

registered chemists and druggists throughout the country than that they ought to be exempt.

Mr. HARRISON: I rise for the purpose of seconding the resolution. When the pharmaceutical chemists were exempted it was not because they were pharmaceutical chemists but because they were registered. Now we are registered I contend we ought to enjoy the same exemption.

Mr. BIRD asked the mover of the resolution to amend it by adding the word "optional."

The CHAIRMAN explained the manner in which the jury lists were compiled, pointing out that exempted persons were omitted from those lists on their claiming exemption. It was from the lists that juries were summoned. If any chemist wished to be called upon to serve it would be necessary that there should be no claim for exemption by himself nor by any one on his behalf. Mr. ANDREWS moved as an amendment, "That in the opinion of this meeting, it is most desirable that chemists and druggists be exempted from serving on juries, and that as soon as possible the attention of the trade association be devoted to the purpose."

Mr. BIRD: I beg to move an amendment that the word optional be a portion of that amendment.

Mr. JONES (Leamington): I have been anxious that all members of the trade should be exempt, because there are many of our brethren who have not the means of obtaining an assistant. I hope Mr. Bird will not press his amendment as regards it being optional. I hope the legislature will release us entirely, or that it may be optional only as a matter of favour. In Leamington, I have been asked by the summoning officer whether I would act on a jury as a favour in certain cases where it was thought desirable to have a chemist or two.

Mr. BIRD: All I wish is that registered chemists and druggists should not be absolutely disqualified from serving

Mr. JONES: They are not disqualified from serving. Mr. ANDREWS: I have had a like experience to Mr. Jones. We should not be disqualified in any way.

Mr. BIRD withdrew his amendment, and the amendment of Mr. Andrews, being accepted by the mover of the resolution, was carried unanimously. Mr. R. HAMPSON read the following:

CIVIL SERVICE AND CO-OPERATIVE STORES.
BY R. HAMPSON.

This subject which has revolved in the mind of the trade for a considerable time, is at length likely to receive adequate and unfettered discussion. It has been a forbidden one to ventilate in the pages of the Pharmaceutical Journal, and at the annual meetings of the Society it has been mentioned with bated breath, as if this particular question was so involved and peculiar that neither discussion would throw light upon it, nor deliberation help to remove it from our path.

The main plea uttered by presumably intelligent men for all this folly of silence and reticence was that a public discussion on the illegality of the co-operative stores, would simply result in gratuitously advertising them to the public, and would otherwise do no good. This plea can no longer be advanced. The stores still abound and flourish, and the pernicious example set in the metropolis is bearing the expected fruit in the provinces.

The time has come when the assumed and hollow decorum of silence investing this subject must be utterly broken through and put aside, and the question-notwithstanding the inordinate apathy and patience that clings to the trade in reference to it-be fought out to the best issue that remains for it.

It is not needful for me to bring you detailed evidence as to the number of the stores in which the Act of Parliament is infringed and set at nought, or a precise estimate of the amount of damage done by them to the legitimate trader. It is admitted by all, except perhaps some of the