108 
THE FATE OF BILLS NOS. 1 AND 2. 
a trace of common salt and some osmazome, neither of which would interfere 
with the tests I intended to use, the alcoholic solution was evaporated to dry¬ 
ness and redissolved in water, and tested with the iodochloride of mercury and 
potassium, which showed that I had obtained an alkaloid, and a little of the 
solution weakened and applied to one of my eyes, in ten minutes expanded the 
iris to double its previous diameter; it was thus brought into the limited class 
of three (as given in chemical works), atropia, daturia, and aconitia; but I had 
by reagents and the microscope previously proved that the two first are really 
but one alkaloid, though obtained from different plants, yet I made hydro¬ 
chlorates of. atropia, daturia, and aconita from alkaloids in my possession, and 
upon testing with chloride of gold and with picric acid they all gave yellow 
precipitates, but witli chloride of platinum the salt of aconita did not precipitate 
it, consequently it could not be the latter, and must be atropia ; but in addition, 
I found that the microscope with an object-glass of ^ in. focus resolved the 
various yellow precipitates into definite crystalline forms capable of enabling us 
to discriminate between the two poisons. 
We have now, therefore, the power to discover four of the alkaloids in com¬ 
plex solutions—strychnia, morphia, atropia, and aconitia ; and daturia should be 
expunged from the list. 
Your obedient servant, 
William Herapath, Sen., F.C.S., etc., 
Professor of Chemistry , Bristol , Old Park. 
THE FATE OF BILLS Nos. 1 AND 2THE MORAL. 
TO THE EDITOR OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Sir,—The Parliamentary campaign of 18C5 has resulted in failure, so far as 
Pharmaceutical legislation is concerned. Before turning over a new page, it is 
fyut prudent to see what lessons can be learned from the late attempt. The 
question that first suggests itself is, “ Why did we fail ? ” 
As far as I am able to trace cause and effect, defeat arose from two causes, 
viz. the opposition of the United Society, as shown in introducing and support- 
► ing an antagonistic and irreconcilable Bill; and secondly, from Bill No. 1 
losing the sympathies of the Select Committee, because it did not embrace any 
restrictions upon the sale of poisons. The desirability of such restrictions had 
been strongly urged by the medical witnesses who had given evidence, and it 
was clear that the framers of Bill No. 1 did not omit such a clause from any 
affection for absolute free-trade. Those who were urging a monopoly of dis¬ 
pensing upon the ground of the public interest, might have been expected to 
have been equally solicitous to promote similar security in the much wider ques¬ 
tion of the sale of poisons. The evil to be remedied was more glaring, and it 
was not an unnatural conclusion for a non-professional commission to arrive at, 
that a Pharmacy Bill which placed no restrictions upon the sale of any poison 
would be worth very little. The opinions of the press have been freely given, 
and have shown a similar wish for some reasonable restrictions. The extreme 
tenacity in favour of a system of laissez faire , which certainly prevailed a few 
years since, is evidently much modified at the present time. 
But I may be told that the promoters of Bill No. 1 deferentially offered to 
introduce a poison clause if the Select Committee wished it. Those who concur 
with what has just been said of the popular feeling upon this subject will, I fear, 
be inclined to smile at the elasticity of such an offer. At any rate, it is satis¬ 
factory to find that we are all agreed upon the point, so that as soon as a poi- 
