January 19, 18:3.J THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
571 
JJaimstentical Journal. 
-+-. 
SATURDAY, JANUARY 18, 1873. 
Communications for this Journal, and books for review,etc., 
should be addressed to the Editor, 17, Bloomsbury Square. 
Instructions from Members and Associates respecting the 
transmission of the Journal should be sent to Elias Brem- 
ridge, Secretary, 17, Bloomsbury Square , W.C. 
Advertisements to Messrs. Churchill, New Burlington 
Street, London, W. Envelopes indorsed “ Pharm. Journ 
VERMIN KILLERS. 
We have frequently liacl occasion, in replying to 
correspondents and otherwise, to point out how 
desirable it is that chemists and druggists, when 
dealing with “vermin killers” containing strychnine, 
arsenic and other poisonous ingredients, should 
comply with the conditions prescribed for regulating 
the sale of those poisons in the Pharmacy Act, 1808. 
This week we have to report two instances where 
these precautions have been neglected, and the re¬ 
sult has been that in one the vendor has been pro¬ 
secuted by the police authorities and fined, and in 
the other he has been sharply reprimanded by a 
coroner and threatened with further proceedings. 
It appears useless to ignore the fact that the pub¬ 
lic is still desirous that the restriction attending the 
sale of poisons should in no way be relaxed so as to 
facilitate their purchase. We have on former occa¬ 
sions stated our opinion that in this desire there is 
nothing that should be looked upon as objectionable 
by the registered chemist and druggist, who is the 
only lawful seller of such poisons. For the work 
which is involved in providing the requisite safe¬ 
guard is a need recognized by the public, and 
should not be performed without sufficient remunera¬ 
tion to prevent it becoming irksome. This seems 
to be the most fair and reasonable mode of dealing 
with the question. 
But each of the cases mentioned illustrates an 
error, and these errors are prevalent amongst those 
in the trade who are too ready to look upon vermin 
killers and drugs generally as commodities to be 
dealt with after the same fashion as groceries or 
hardware. In the case at Cambridge the defendant 
pleaded that lie had sold the vermin killer under the 
old law, and that vermin killers had been included 
for the first time in a new regulation which he had 
received the previous day. It is true that “ Vermin 
Killers ” were not included in the original Schedule 
A to the Pharmacy Act, 1808 ; but they were among 
the additions sanctioned by the Privy Council in 
December, 1809. In consequence of some doubt 
that existed as to which part of the schedule they 
were to be classed under, the Council of the Phar¬ 
maceutical Society, upon the report of a com¬ 
mittee recommending the addition of some explana¬ 
tory words, recently resolved that a copy of the re¬ 
vised regulations should be issued to every registered 
chemist and druggist, and it appears to have been 
one of these copies which the defendant looked upon 
as a new regulation, and to which he attributed his 
first knowledge that a vermin killer was a “ poison! ” 
In the case at Wolverhampton, the druggist 
urged, in reply to the coroner’s censure, that he 
did not know that “ Battle’s Vermin Killer ” con¬ 
tained strychnine. But, irrespective of this being a 
matter of common repute, surely in dealing with a 
substance prepared for the express purpose of de¬ 
stroying life, it is advisable that a man should have 
some idea as to what he is selling: and it is to 
the belief that the chemist and druggist is a 
man capable of acquiring and acting upon this 
knowledge that the willingness of the public to 
entrust the sale of such articles as vermin killers to 
registered chemists and druggists alone is to be 
attributed. We hope and believe that nothing will 
be wanting on their part to strengthen that 
confidence. 
MEDICAL ELEGANCE. 
Does the Lancet represent the medical profession ? 
This is a question which might be supposed to 
interest principally its subscribers; but in the light 
of recent circumstances it is one that may well be 
asked by those who have hitherto believed in the 
propriety of the phrase “ gentlemen of the medical 
profession.” For although the Lancet was never 
famed for being delicate in its choice of weapons 
when dealing with those who might fall under its 
displeasure, what gentleman can sympathize with 
the following paragraph, which is the summing up 
of a diatribe against dispensing chemists for their 
assumed exorbitant charges ? 
“ The fact is, that retail trade has gone mad. There 
are far more shopkeepers than the wants of the public 
require, and they think themselves entitled to all the 
luxuries and enjoyments of life. Their wives, glorious 
in sealskin jackets and redundant jewellery, are to be 
seen everywhere; and the pretensions of the class are 
becoming a nuisance that it is high time to put down.” 
Is this another “sign of the times?” A short 
time since the Lancet favoured its readers with a 
singular argument that because the College of 
Physicians and the Apothecaries’ Company had 
failed in their duty to regulate medical practice, the 
Pharmaceutical Society became responsible for the 
consequences of that failure. In a subsequent 
number it followed up this specimen of feminine 
logic by devoutly quoting, as if it were gospel, a 
rather foolish remark of an old lady of its acquain¬ 
tance, with the object of proving that members of 
the Pharmaceutical Society were misled in claiming 
to be eligible as analysts. And now we have another 
instance of these feminine proclivities, but in a re¬ 
pulsive form that is seldom found far apait from 
the garrulity of dotage and the neighbourhood of 
Lower Thames Street. 
