A Respectable Occupation: - University of Hertfordshire Research ...

establishments dare not make any remark or even take any precautions to
ensure and safeguard the public safety on pain of dismissal from his
situation ….‖ 112 The 1908 Act addressed this difficulty by treating limited
companies as though they were individuals as far as the requirements of the
1868 Act were concerned. 113 This was a major change, as it reversed the
previously held position that a master was not responsible for the actions of
his employees. 114
Fourthly, there was an issue concerning the use of restricted titles by
limited companies. The Pharmacy Act (1868) had restricted the use of the
titles ‗chemist‘, ‗druggist‘, and ‗chemist and druggist‘ to those who were
named on the Society‘s register. Company chemists had traditionally used
the title ‗chemist‘ and in doing so were breaking the law. The Society‘s
argument was that the title had been earned by qualified men after a lot of
hard work and expense, and it was unfair to degrade its value by permitting
limited companies to use it. 115 The 1905 Bill had attempted to outlaw this
practice by specifically mentioning Joint Stock Companies as bodies not
being permitted to use the titles. 116 Additionally, a Joint Stock Company
was not required to employ qualified men; yet by placing the title ‗chemist‘
over the door it could well mislead the public into thinking that the shop
was under the control of a chemist. 117
112
Letter, “Anti-humbug” (69/20), dated 19 Mar. 1905, to the editor, Pharmaceutical Journal, series 4,
74, 20, (25 Mar. 1905) 468.
113
Poisons and Pharmacy Act, 8 Edw. 7, Cap. 55, 1908, Clause 4.
114
„The Draft Pharmacy Bill‟, Pharmaceutical Journal, series 4, 70, 16, (21 Mar. 1903) 435.
115
W. Glyn-Jones, Pharmaceutical Journal, series 4, 69, 15, (30 Aug. 1902) 240.
116
„The Draft Pharmacy Bill‟, Pharmaceutical Journal, series 4, 74, 20, (14 Jan. 1905) 32.
117
W. Glyn-Jones, Pharmaceutical Journal, series 4, 69, 15, (30 Aug. 1902) 240.
250