340 
PHARMACEUTICAL MEETING. 
pitalPharmacopoeia: from the Hospital,—Swedenborg’s Principles of Chemistry: from 
Mr. W. Young,—Some Particulars of Alderman P. Malpas and Alderman Sir T. Cooke, 
K.B., Ancestors of Sir Francis Bacon (Lord Bacon) and Robert Cecil (first Earl of 
Salisbury). By B. B. Orridge: from the Author,—On Education as Illustrated by Me¬ 
dical Usages and Experiences. By W. A. Guy, M.B.: from the Author,— Note sur la 
Culture du Quinquina: from M. Soubeiran,— Wood of Guaiacum officinale from the 
Bahamas. The peculiar structure of this specimen is characteristic of the Bahama 
Lignum vita: presented by the Curator,—Root of Psycliotria emetica. Out of a parcel 
recently offered for sale in London: presented by the Curator. 
THE NEW PHABMACY ACT. 
Mr. Bland said that before the business of the evening was proceeded with 
he should like to ask a question of the Chairman. He supposed most of them 
had seen a report in the newspapers of a case of attempted suicide which came 
before Mr. Flowers at the Bow Street Police Court. In giving his judgment, 
Mr. Flowers took occasion to state that the Pharmacy Act, and particularly 
clause 17, which would very materially affect them as retailers, was already in 
force, and that if the party who had sold the red precipitate had been brought 
before him, he should have had no alternative but to have fined him £5. Now 
it appeared to him (the speaker) that, looking at the Act, and reading it in a 
common-sense way, no one would expect it to come into operation at all before 
the close of the present year ; and further, that if it had been in operation, the 
person who sold the red precipitate had committed no infraction of the law, in¬ 
asmuch as red precipitate was not one of the poisons named in the schedule of 
the Act. He should like to know, therefore, whether the legal advisers of the 
Society were prepared to express an opinion of the correctness or otherwise of 
Mr. Flowers’s view of the matter. If that gentleman’s ruling was correct, it 
was important for them at once to take steps to put themselves in a right po¬ 
sition. 
The Chairman observed, with reference to the latter point, that Mr. Flowers 
was undoubtedly wrong, inasmuch as red precipitate was not mentioned in the 
schedule as a poison. As to the time this Act came into operation, there were 
doubts. It had not been supposed that it would do so until the 1st of January 
next year. 
Mr. Flowers held that it was already in force, and a second notice to that 
effect was given in the Bow Street Police Court report, in reply to some con¬ 
tradictory statements which had appeared in the newspapers. All he could say 
was this, he had been in communication with the Privy Council respecting it, 
and had received no very decided answer at present. It all depended upon 
the reading of the 15th clause. That clause said that after the 31st of 
December, 1868, any man who should fail to conform to such regulations 
as were made in pursuance of this Act should be liable to a penalty of £5 ; and 
it would altogether turn on the question whether a regulation made by the 
Act—the 17th clause—was a regulation made in pursuance of the Act. Let the 
matter be decided as it might, he thought they could all bring themselves into 
obedience to the Act at once. There was no difficulty in registering the sale 
of poisons, nor in labelling their articles “ poison,” according to the schedule. 
He apprehended that the greater portion of the articles mentioned in the schedule 
were already labelled “ poison ” by most chemists. 
Mr. Bland said he should be under some difficulty in this matter, because he 
should have to get a large quantity of labels printed. He should have to label 
paregoric lozenges “poison.” 
The Chairman would rather not express an opinion as to whether paregoric 
lozenges were poison, but in this particular he thought any chemist would be 
