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

found sufficient grounds to warrant their withholding their approval and
that the byelaw had been approved on14 January 1920. 172 By 1921, of the
150 potential applicants, only 52 assistants had taken up the offer. 173 On 11
November 1920, Mr Crooks, Labour Member of Parliament for Woolwich,
asked a question in the House about the restrictive nature of the byelaw and
complained that it did not meet the intentions of the 1908 Act. In response,
Mr Balfour, Unionist Member for the City of London and Lord President of
the Council, said that the byelaw had been accepted by both the
Pharmaceutical Society and the Association of Certified Dispensers as a fair
compromise and that the government had no power to persuade the
Pharmaceutical Society to make greater concessions. 174
Further Nails in the Assistants’ Coffin
This was not the end of the assistants‘ problems however. Although the
passing of the byelaw had dealt a serious blow to the their position, they had
been left a few havens. From 1913, these were increasingly closed to them.
One was closed when it was found that the National Insurance Act
prohibited an assistant, employed by an institution, from dispensing a
prescription for another employee of the institution. This was so even
though the employee was being treated by a doctor in the institution. It was
considered wrong that an institution‘s employees should have their
172
Society of Apothecaries Archive, Box 10, E/4/4/1/4, Letter, Sir Almeric Fitzroy to the Clerk of the
Society of Apothecaries, 16 Jan. 1920.
173
Hunting, A History of the Society of Apothecaries, p. 233.
174
Hansard, fifth series, vol. 134, 1-19 Nov. 1920, col. 1408.
347