CORRESPONDENCE. 
725 
the Pharmaceutical arms upon it. Our much-respected Secretary called, and informed 
me that I must either remove it, or make myself a member by passing the other neces¬ 
sary examination. I chose to adopt the latter plan, and, being in business, it cost me 
much anxiety, time, and expense; and now I have the satisfaction of seeing numbers 
of men elected for a mere subscription of two guineas. Except that I am proud of the 
honour of being a Pharmaceutical Chemist by examination, I should regret the outlay 
both of time and money. Apologizing for the length of my letter, I am, gentlemen, 
yours respectfully, James Bell. — Hastings , May , 1869. 
The Bill to Prevent the Adulteration of Drugs and Food. —To the Editors of the Phar¬ 
maceutical Journal.—Gentlemen,—Perhaps you will permit me a few words on the 
above question ; I think no class of men would be wise if they willingly permitted them¬ 
selves to be placed under tyrannical and oppressive laws, even if the main object aimed 
at was the public welfare. It is very doubtful if the chemists of the United Kingdom 
have not already placed themselves, or been placed in this respect by recent legislation 
in a false and dangerous position; already a chemist has been proceeded against, and 
actually fined, not for sending out a wrong article, not for the omission of the word 
poison , but simply because he had not added his own address,—and all this at the instiga¬ 
tion of a regularly educated medical min. It is now proposed to apply the laws respecting 
the adulteration of food and ordinary drinks to our own trade, and intensely to increase the 
power of application. It may be that some additional legislation is earnestly required, 
and really desirable for all parties on this subject, but the Legislature ought to be made 
to feel that there is a very essential difference in the application of such laws to the 
trade in ordinary articles of food, and to that in medicine. In the former case, the 
articles are simple, their qualities are well understood, even by the most illiterate, any 
changes which they are liable to undergo spontaneously are at once recognized, any 
adulteration is easily detected; and as, for the most part, they are the productions of 
nature in an uncompouuded state, the application of such laws is by no means difficult 
or unsatisfactory In our case the matter is entirely and essentially different, our goods 
are intensely complicated, their very composition is not in all cases clearly understood, 
they are constantly undergoing chemical changes; and, in addition to this, we are often 
compelled to supply the public with different varieties of the same preparation, bearing 
the same name; sometimes to modify excessive price, or because one particular mode of 
preparation is what the purchaser has been accustomed to purchase, and which has 
always fully answered his special object, although its preparation may not be according 
to any particular standard, of which he cares just nothing. Again, even in many cases 
of simple medicines, it is a disputed point, what really constitutes an adulteration. I 
am far from thinking that the following clauses would be sufficient to protect us, but 
they may suggest others more effective. The law should not apply unless the article 
has been adulterated with the express view of deceiving the public, or increasing the 
profits of the adulterator. It should not apply to any article which is not sold expressly 
as answering to some particular standard. It should not apply to any man who is not 
clearly proved to be the adulterator, or to be cognizant of the adulteration. Any enact¬ 
ment going further than this would be clearly tyrannical, oppressive, and unjust, and 
ought to be resisted to the utmost by every section of our community. I am, Sir, yours 
truly, J. B.— Birkenhead , May 6, 1869. 
Opium Lozenges. —Mr. T. Howard Hall, of Spitalfields, in reference to a paragraph in 
a letter which appeared in our last number on this subject, but evidently mistaking 
the purport of the letter, observes:—“On reference to the authorized Pharmacopoeia, 
there is no reason that I can see, for calling opium lozenges other than as there named. 
Take the case of bismuth lozenges, B. P. ; your correspondent would have us call 
them ‘ Compound Bismuth Lozenges,’ perhaps, but until the proper authorities see 
the necessity of changing the name or composition of any article or formula of the Phar¬ 
macopoeia, we must conform to its recognized authority.” In reply to our correspondent's 
question, the Pharmacy Act does not provide that no preparation of the Pharmacopoeia 
shall be made by a person who is not registered under the Act. 
Uniformity of Prices. —The chemists of Colchester, guided by the example of their 
Manchester brethren, have unanimously adopted a uniform dispensing price list and 
private mark.—May 6, 1869. 
