538 
PHARMACEUTICAL ETHICS. 
A drawing of some of these (of course highly magnified) was passed round the 
room, and the several organisms described. 
There were three species of infusoria (Bacterium termo , Monas inanis , and 
Vibrio prolifer), besides siliceous vegetable cells that probably derived their origin 
from the excreta of horses; some were cells that resembled those from skin or 
leather; others could not be determined that were mixed with mineral frag¬ 
ments, that very likely owed their origin to road dust. 
The smell emanating from the room where these were collected was intensely 
disgusting, nevertheless the author could not induce the inhabitant to open a 
window or clean a thing. 
For collecting and estimating the amount of organic matter, the air was 
passed through a plug of asbestos, and an acidulated solution of permanganate 
of potassium. 
An approximate estimation of the organic matter was thus obtained. 
In this manner 3 grains , and sometimes 5, were obtained from a few cubic 
feet of air. 
Why should we wonder then, with a falling barometer and a close damp at¬ 
mosphere, that a medical inspector should be necessary, or that without know¬ 
ing why, we go for change of air ? 
The paper was fully illustrated with diagrams and analytical apparatus. 
PHARMACEUTICAL ETHICS. 
TO THE EDITORS OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Gentlemen,—After speculating vaguely upon the blank pages of my 4 Sale 
of Poisons Book,’ Davis’s edition, which remain to this day innocent of 
contamination from Schedule A, I am led to reflect upon the mixed mo¬ 
tives concerned in the production of an Act of Parliament, which often give 
to it a character not intended by its promoters. Thus we, who have spent 
more than a quarter of a century in endeavouring to obtain legislative defini¬ 
tion of the qualification of Pharmaceutical Chemists, and compulsory powers to 
restrict the practice of pharmacy to those who possess that qualification, find 
that our efforts are ultimately rewarded by the passing of “ An Act to regulate 
the Sale of Poisons.’’ This looks like asking for bread and receiving a stone ; 
but, thanks to the judicious action of those who represented the trade, the parlia¬ 
mentary hobby for restricting (!) the sale of poisons has carried us safely over 
the parliamentary antipathy to trade privileges, and we have really got what 
we desired, although it does come like a blessing in disguise. 
We may possibly think that these poison regulations would have been better 
left alone, and that Parliament would have acted more wisely if, having limited 
the sale of poisons to competent persons, it had left them to the exercise of their 
own discretion under a sense of their responsibility. We should not then have 
been placed in the absurd dilemma of either labelling syrup of poppies “ Poison” 
in defiance of common sense, or of incurring a penalty of £5 for default. It is 
said that an enterprising and original pharmaceutist of this city has adroitly 
escaped the difficulty by adopting the following formula for his labels :— 
“ Syrup of Poppies. 
Poison (by Act of Parliament).” 
Such incongruities will, no doubt, be rectified in time, and we need not fear 
that the poison regulations will occasion us much inconvenience; the more im¬ 
portant question is whether they will afford that protection to the public which 
was intended. But as registration cannot prevent, although it may facilitate 
