582 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
printed on red paper, with the word 
“poison,” of course. This colour is familiar 
to the public as an emblem of danger; and 
I have no doubt if we all used it to distin¬ 
guish things not to be taken , every one 
would soon be educated to understand its 
significance. The fact that different colours 
—not different shapes—are used to distin¬ 
guish the various priced letter-stamps, proves 
such a mode of distinguishing is now pretty 
well understood, I shall conclude by express¬ 
ing a wish to see an esprit de corps culti¬ 
vated amongst us, so that when any doubt 
is cast on our accuracy or carefulness, each 
would feel the imputation as acutely as a 
soldier would any unfavourable reflection 
cast on the courage of his regiment. 
I am Sir, your obedient servant, 
George Burrell. 
Montrose, February 9th, 1870. 
Sir,—At a time when the Council of the 
Pharmaceutical Society exercises so much 
influence over legislation, it may not be in¬ 
opportune to note how inadequately country 
districts are represented in the Council. It 
would seem as reasonable that Members of 
Parliament for London and the Universities 
should legislate for the whole country, as 
that the pharmaceutical interests of the 
country population generally should be 
committed to chemists in London and the 
large towns exclusively. 
It might be an advantage if some such 
relationship could be established between 
Members of the Council and their sup¬ 
porters, as subsists between Members of 
Parliament and their constituents. We 
should then have a direct means of commu¬ 
nication with the Council, instead of endea¬ 
vouring to reach their ears in the best way 
we can. 
Whatever benefits result to certain che¬ 
mists from the Pharmacy Act, we, in the 
country—where trades are so mixed, and 
where we depend so much upon retailing 
drugs, etc.—can reap little advantage from 
it. If we restrain the grocer and the 
huckster from selling half-a-dozen poisons in 
occasional demand, they will retaliate by 
selling a dozen other things of constant ne¬ 
cessity ; so that borax at a shilling per 
pound may be but a type of the “ improved 
prices ” we shall obtain under the operation 
of the Act. The inhabitants, too, of the 
country proper may suffer needless inconve¬ 
nience from additions to the schedule of 
poisons. Hodges, the ploughman, sends 
His children to the village school, where, be¬ 
sides the intellectual life developed within the 
head, considerable animal life is often com¬ 
municated to the exterior, for which “ a 
pennyworth of white precipitate ” is the 
time-honoured remedy. But he lives six or 
seven miles from a town, and poisons are 
not sold in his village. The obstacles in the 
way of supplying his need from so great a 
distance, practically extend to the third 
plague of Egypt the same protection which 
is afforded to small birds ; and Hodges won¬ 
ders why an article labelled “ poison,” from 
the shop of “ John Smith, shopkeeper, Little¬ 
ton,” is more dangerous than if it bore the 
address “ John Smith, Chemist, Bigton ” ? 
“ Salus populi suprema lex;” but “ salus ” is 
both “ health ” and “ safety;” and the latter 
meaning may override the former : 
“ Incidit in Scyllam cupiens vitare 
Charybdim.” 
The security of the word “ poison ” is too 
frequently merely apparent. Like the cau¬ 
tion-board at the ford which warned persons 
not to attempt the passage when the water 
covered it ; the label is often present when 
unnecessary, but absent when needed, espe¬ 
cially in the case of dry poisons. The black¬ 
smith buys prussiate of potash, so danger¬ 
ous to children from its attractive appear¬ 
ance ; he uses a small quantity, but does not 
restore the remainder to the original wrap¬ 
per, or if he does, the label is so begrimed as 
to be illegible. But, perhaps, the doubtful 
destiny of a poison-label is not so great an 
evil as the uncertainty attached to its use. 
Am I to label an opium plaster, ung. gallse 
co., andsyr. rhoeados “ poison ” ? Or must I 
either affix this label to a pennyworth of 
cough pills (supposing them to be “ pil. 
ipecac, c. scilla”), or a single Dover’s pow¬ 
der, or else enter such items in a prescrip¬ 
tion book ? What must I do if, at market¬ 
time or on a Saturday night, a customer 
wants a pennyworth each of paregoric and 
syrup of squills, or a pennyworth of lauda¬ 
num in a winebottleful of vinegar and trea¬ 
cle ? shall I label them “ poison,” with a 
verbal instruction to remove the label a 3 
soon as he gets outside ? “Use your com¬ 
mon sense.” But what has that to do with 
the Act P “ All preparations of opium and 
poppies,” are “ poisons,” and the Pharma¬ 
copoeia appends an authoritative list of 
“preparations” to “'opium.” Moreover, 
my common sense might be of some use, did 
not the phantom of “justices’ justice ” and 
the recollection of recent magisterial deci¬ 
sions haunt my imagination and pervert 
my judgment. 
Every chemist must have a great many 
anonymous prescriptions containing poisons. 
Why should not the physician be compelled 
to add the name and address of the patient, 
leaving chemists to deal with family recipes 
and published formulae ? It must seem im¬ 
pertinent to a customer that a chemist 
should require more information than the 
physician who accepts the responsibility of 
the case ; and explanations of the law may 
