August 6, 1870.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
Ill 
Cjre ^1(j;mu;tftutic;r( Jotmmf. 
- ♦-- 
SATURDAY, AUGUST 6 , 1870 . 
THE POISON REGULATIONS. 
In drawing attention last week to tlie remarks of 
the ‘ Pall Mall Gazette ’ anent the privileges and 
duties of the Pharmaceutical Society, we were not 
influenced by any idea of an unkind spirit prompting 
our contemporary; indeed, we thought he desired 
rather to utter a kindly warning, more pleasantly 
expressed than other observations on the same sub¬ 
jects which we have read within the last three 
months: hut straws in the air indicate the course of 
the wind, and it is sometimes well to mark their 
direction. 
In days gone by, chemists and druggists were too 
insignificant a class to attract attention from other 
members of society; invested with privileges, they 
became worthy of observation. Privileges are never 
granted without duties being imposed on the recipi¬ 
ents, and their fulfilment at once furnishes an object 
for criticism. 
When we are reminded that “ all monopolies are 
to be regarded with distrust, and watched with 
anxiety in the public interest,” that our Society 
“ has public duties and private interests to consult, 
and the two may not always concur,” we cannot 
fail to recognize the fact that the eye of the press— 
which we may call one of the great lenses of the 
public—is upon us. 
We know that the public safety can in no way be 
better promoted than by aiding the education and 
enforcing the examination of men to whom the dis¬ 
pensing of dangerous medicines is entrusted. The 
Pharmaceutical Society enunciated that as a princi¬ 
ple thirty years ago, and has ever since faithfully, 
earnestly, and at great cost, laboured to carry it out. 
When Poison Bills were brought before Parliament 
based on other foundations than education, every 
effort was made, and made successfully, to defeat 
them; but when that principle was adopted, the 
Society joined heart and hand to promote it. 
Now it cannot be doubted that the public, scarcely 
conversant with the intricacies of the subject, see 
greater security in what they may perhaps call the 
“ material guarantee ’ of “ Poison regulations.” We 
on the other hand regard them as secondary, but 
still important, means of safety, so important, indeed, 
that scarcely an opponent of the code proposed by 
the Council for the consideration of the Annual 
Meeting could deny that in Ills own establishment 
some such precautions were in use. The opjiosition 
was not grounded on objection to the regulations 
themselves, but simply on a dislike to have any sys¬ 
tem made compulsory. Those who came to oppose 
forgot apparently that there are, and will be until 
another generation has succeeded the present, men 
in business as Chemists and Druggists, whose quali¬ 
fications have not been proved by examination, and 
in disinclination to accept for themselves any possi¬ 
bility of inconvenience, they gave the outer world 
reason to suspect that the latter half of the twofold 
position described by the ‘ Pall Mall Gazette’ had 
more weight with them than the former. Such an 
inference was rather strengthened by the assertion 
of some that it was useless to ordain regulations for 
chemists if the same rules were not to be compulsory* 
on apothecaries. 
We certainly cannot recur to the proceedings of 
that stormy day with any satisfaction, A discussion 
quite foreign to the legitimate business of the Phar¬ 
maceutical Society was forced on the meeting, and, 
as we believe, materially influenced the whole course 
of events. 
We do not intend now to enter on the merits of 
the proposed regulations; ample opportunity will be 
found for that, between this and next May, to which 
time the matter stands postponed, but we desire 
rather to remind our readers that the Pharmaceu¬ 
tical Society is a public body; that it is a part of 
the State Government, and if it fall short of its 
duty, a fair question for discussion will arise as to 
how far it has fulfilled that part of the contract to 
which it is bound by the Pharmacy Acts of 1852 and 
1868. These are points which should be pondered 
on quietly at home; with pots, bottles, and general 
shop arrangements at hand, to show what would be 
the comparative merits or demerits of the proposed 
system, or what other s} r stem could be suggested as 
an additional alternative to the three already set 
forth, and for such reasons we invited those who had 
propositions to offer, to communicate them to us for 
publication in this Journal and for criticism by others. 
THE PETROLEUM ACT. 
Our readers will be glad to learn that a Bill to 
amend the Petroleum Act is now before the House 
of Lords, and that it contains provisions for exempt¬ 
ing the articles sold under the name of “ Benzine 
Collas,” and such fancy titles, secured in small 
bottles and labelled with words of caution. 
Tliis is the exemption which was promised by the 
Home Secretary when the Pharmaceutical Society, 
accompanied by Mr. Thomas, represented to him 
the hardship and annoyance to which retailers were 
exposed. 
It was feared that the Government had further 
postponed the question. 
The ‘ Times ’ states, in reference to tliis Bill, that— 
“According to the view of the leading persons engaged 
in the business, its clauses are such as would completely 
interrupt this important branch of commerce; and strong 
representations have therefore been made to some of the 
principal mercantile members of the House of Commons 
to prevent its being passed without full consideration 
when it shall come down to that House.” 
