MANCHESTER CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS 5 ASSOCIATION. 
533 
though comparatively harmless, still contain a certain portion of some of the articles 
contained in the schedule, and it is very doubtful whether, strictly speaking, they 
ought not to be classed amongst the ‘ preparations.’ There is no fault to be found 
with the addition to the schedule of articles specified by name, such as red and white 
precipitate, because in those cases the meaning is clear and we know what the article is; 
but when we consider the spirit that animates magistrates, coroners, and authorities of 
all kinds in any case where a druggist is concerned, and how certainly we are made to 
suffer if it be possible, it was very uuwise policy to add the ‘preparations’ of no less 
than six articles to a list already sufficiently difficult of interpretation from the uncer¬ 
tainty as to the articles included in the term. 
“In the January number of the ‘Pharmaceutical Journal’ we are referred to a 
‘ case ’ on this point, submitted to the Privy Council, and a reply to it, published in 
the Journal for April, 1869, where the question is said to be determined; but it really 
amounts to very little, as it gives no authoritative interpretation, but merely states an 
opinion , and leaves the question as to what is or is not a ‘ preparation ’ within the 
meaning of the Act, totally undecided. 
“ Then in the case of vermin destroyers, which are placed in Part II. of the Schedule, 
a difficulty arises; seeing that these are generally ‘ preparations ’ either of arsenic or 
strychnine, which require registration, it is very doubtful whether we are safe in simply 
labelling them ‘ Poison,’ with name and address. 
“ With respect to the proposed regulations for the keeping and dispensing of poisons, 
it has been so often argued that an improved education would quite do away with the 
necessity for these contrivances and substitutes for reading labels, that one could hardly 
have supposed that the Council would propose their compulsory adoption; but they 
have done so, and if we country druggists do not oppose them pretty strongly, we 
shall find ourselves hampered with a series of regulations we cannot possibly carry out. 
There is not, certainly, much to object to in the first regulation,—that the bottles, etc., 
be labelled ‘ Poison,’ provided it is not made to apply to articles not really dangerous. 
The second regulation, relating to the keeping of poisons, is, perhaps, the most ob¬ 
jectionable of all. A separate compartment is in most cases quite out of the question, 
and even if practicable, where is the advantage ? Why need opium or ergot be kept 
apart, or belladonna or aconite leaves be separated from other drugs, and digitalis or 
hyoscyamus remain ? Besides, the danger of mistaking strychnine for morphia, or 
laudanum for tincture of ergot, would be as great as that of taking strychnine for 
salicine under the present system, or perhaps greater. The same objection applies to 
the ‘ angular, fluted, or corrugated bottles and jars,’ with this further one, that the 
system being applied to all the poisons in the schedule, from strychnia to cantharides, 
and from tr. belladonnas to prussic acid, the angularities of the bottles and the sand¬ 
paper on the jars would become so familiar to the touch that the value of the supposed 
caution -would be totally lost, and mistakes be far more likely to occur than if these 
special cautions were restricted to really dangerous articles, such as prussic acid, the 
alkaloids, and a few others. 
“ If the third regulation, requiring all liniments, etc., to be put into distinctive bottles, 
could be applied to prescriptions only, there w r ould be no objection to it; but to those 
who know that the ‘ dispensing and compounding ’ which falls to the share of most 
druggists consists chiefly of a few pennyworths mixed together, it is quite clear the rule 
could not be carried out in these cases, although it would apply to them just as much 
as to dispensing a prescription. 
“ I would not, however, be supposed to condemn the propositions altogether ; they all 
are good to a certain extent , but I strongly protest against their having the authority 
of law, at any rate in their present shape. Had the Council recommended their 
adoption, without attempting to make them compidsory , there would have been little 
objection, but to require the same regulation to be applied in the keeping of every 
article in the poison schedule condemns the proposal altogether. 
“ To sum up the matter, we now are in this position : unless we comply with the re¬ 
quirements of the Act, as to labelling and registering the sale of a number of articles not 
specified by name, we are liable to a penalty of £5 ; and unless we enter the ingredients 
of any medicine we may dispense containing any of the said articles, and the name of 
the person to whom it is supplied in a book kept for the purpose, we are liable. And 
if the proposed regulations become law, we shall be liable to the same penalty unless 
