701 
LIVERPOOL CHEMISTS’ ASSOCIATION. 
Mr. Stewart had also been informed of the good effect of chloral in the cases 
cited. 
Dr. Oxley said that he had found it to do well at first, but then it produced gastric 
irritation, and asked what medicines would be suitable to use with it. A child who 
had taken three grains vomited severely. Two grains had made a young lady sleep 
eighteen hours. In another case 10 grains gave a comfortable night’s sleep, but on 
repeating the dose, violent vomiting ensued. He had not so good an opinion of it as 
he had at first, and he found that it produced a horrible taste in the mouth. 
The President said that chloroform often produced vomiting and other unpleasant 
effects, and that many investigations would be necessary before the best method of ad¬ 
ministering chloral, and the precautions to be observed, were ascertained. 
A vote of thanks to Mr. Evans, proposed by Mr. Murphy and seconded by Mr. 
Stewart, was carried by acclamation. 
Twelfth General Meeting, held March 31st, 1870 ; the President in the chair. 
Mr. Parry, 345, Scotland Koad, was unanimously elected a member of the Asso¬ 
ciation. 
A donation was announced of a framed portrait of Mr. II. S. Evans from the pub¬ 
lishers of the ‘ Chemist and Druggist,’ and thanks were voted. 
Mr. Hargreaves exhibited a label used by Mr. Delf for poisonous substances, printed 
boldlv in black on a bright red ground. 
The President read the account of a case of poisoning by strychnine at Pemberton, 
in which a surgeon gave it by mistake for santonine, from an unlabelled bottle. He 
said that wholesale druggists should send out poisonous substances in distinctive bottles, 
as they were often retained in the original bottles, and if kept in a damp cupboard, the 
labels might fall off. 
The Secretary read a letter from the Manchester Chemists’ Association, and a circu¬ 
lar from the Leeds Chemists’ Association, both opposing the proposed regulations for 
the keeping and dispensing of poisons. 
The President opened a discussion on these regulations, which had been announced 
as the business of the evening. Comparing a Pharmacopoeia of 1803 with modern ones, 
he found that at that time there was not much need for regulations, as the number of 
active poisonous substances was then small. Since that period the vegetable alkaloids 
and many potent remedies have been discovered, and long since precautions in dispensing 
these have been felt to be necessary. Distinctive bottles were suggested some years 
since, and many other methods have been tried. By the Act of 1868, the Pharma¬ 
ceutical Society was authorized to make regulations, and it was now thought desirable 
to exercise this power. No one is more interested in carefully observing good regula¬ 
tions than the chemist, and he, personally, was in favour of the regulations. He thought 
that two or three years should be given during which time it should be recommended 
that these regulations should be observed, as this would give time for suggestions. In 
other countries locking up poisons was ordered ; but the list of poisons in the Pharma¬ 
copoeia Germanise and the Pharmacopee FranQaise was much smaller than ours. The 
argument of the Leeds chemists, that surgeons would not be subject to these regula¬ 
tions, is rather an argument in their favour, as the public would prefer having their 
medicines prepared where every precaution was taken. In medicines for external use, 
the corrugated bottle is better than a label, as that might come off. 
Mr. Bedford thought the communications from Manchester and Leeds excellent, 
and quite agreed with them. He acknowledged that violent poisons should be locked 
up, but the list was now so long that the object would be defeated by any method 
which applied to all; as the liability to mistakes inter se, as between strychnine and 
morphia, would still remain. He objected to remove tincture of belladonna, etc., from 
his shelves, and was opposed to compulsory legislation on the subject altogether. 
Mr. Shaw sympathized to a certain extent with the chemists of Leeds and Man¬ 
chester, and was opposed to legislative action interfering with the manner of carrying 
on business. The public did not demand it, and if the chains were once riveted on, 
there would be great difficulty in removing them. He approved of the regulations if 
they were simply to be recommendations, but thought that unbending rules could not 
be observed. 
The President said that there were two questions to be discussed: first, Are the 
