440 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [November 26, 1870 . 
Pharmacy in Ireland. 
Sir,—Taking advantage of tlie invitation you kindly offer 
Irish chemists and druggists, to express in the columns of 
your Journal their opinions on the proposed Pharmacy Bill 
for Ireland, I would submit a few reasons why we, the 
Chemists and Druggists of Ireland, who are likely to come 
under its immediate influence, decidedly object to it. 
Primarily we object to it because it is not in accordance 
with the tenor of the Pharmacy Act of 1868—an Act which 
we deem every well-wisher of Pharmacy would like to see 
made general over the three kingdoms, or, if this is not 
found possible, that at least the Irish Bill should be in as 
close harmony with the other as circumstances will admit. 
Now, the proposed Bill does not make any advance towards 
attaining this object, but, instead, makes a retrograde move¬ 
ment and endows with supreme power a body of men whose 
influence on pharmaceutical matters the Bill of 1868 curtailed 
and endeavoured to eradicate,—I mean the medical profession. 
We do not seek to deny that they ought to have an im¬ 
portant voice in the matter, but to give apothecaries supreme 
control over Irish pharmacy is a principle running right in 
the teeth of pharmaceutical advance, and will prove an in¬ 
superable obstacle towards assimilating English and Irish 
legislation on the subject. We have now a British Pharma¬ 
copoeia, why not endeavour to obtain a British Pharmacy Act ? 
Again, is there any satisfactory reason why an individual 
who in England is a pharmaceutical chemist under the Act of 
1868 should, when he removes over to Ireland, be denied the 
privileges of compounding and dispensing medicines, simply 
because he does not bring with him the diploma of the Go¬ 
vernor and Managers of the Apothecaries’ Society of Dublin ? 
We think not, and in the interest of a large and increasingly 
influential body of men who have already had to submit too 
long to the tyrannical rule of the apothecaries, we protest 
firmly and unmistakably against the proposed Bill, trusting 
that our brethren across the Channel will at once see the 
cloven hoof protruding itself, and act accordingly. 
That pharmacy in Ireland should be confined exclusively 
to the members of a profession who, in their own domain, are 
so jealous of their dignity that we find them continually 
harping on the time-worn complaint that chemists and drug¬ 
gists do not separate completely prescribing from dispensing, 
seems to be, to say the least, inconsistent with justice, while it 
certainly leaves out in the cold those who till now considered 
that the practice of pharmacy was their profession. 
The chemists and druggists of Ireland will be blind to 
their best interests if they allow such a Bill as the one pro¬ 
posed to be passed into law, and we trust that they will 
agitate on the subject and be able to show that might is not 
always right. 
Cork, November 22ncl, 1870. J. S. 
Threats oe Law Proceedings against Druggists. 
Sir,—A female asked over the counter for sixpenny- 
worth of “steel pills;” about a dozen and a half were given 
to her (pilulre ferri carb. P.B.), labelled “steel pills” on the 
box, and without any comment upon their dose, etc. A 
gentleman called the next day, saying that the lady had taken 
some of them, and in consequence was seriously ill, and that 
proceedings in law would be taken. 
What I would ask is, whether the person so purchasing a 
medicine can bring an action against the vendor P for threats 
such as these are by no means uncommon in this neighbour¬ 
hood (generally from people of the Jewish persuasion), and 
are a source of anxiety, especially as more than one, not far 
off, have been ruined or nearly so by similar means. I would 
ask also whether there is a society for the mutual protection 
of the chemists’ trade. 
Whitechapel, November Is#, 1870. C. G. 
[*** Any one can, if he please, bring an action against any 
one else, either with reason or without. It is the privilege of 
those who are unreasonably proceeded against to prove that 
this is the case, and in some instances to incur much trouble 
and expense in doing so. We are not aware that any such 
Society as that referred to is in existence.—E d. Ph. J.] 
Poisonous Feeding-Bottles. 
Sir,—I should feel obliged by your inserting these few lines 
on the above subject, to say that from what has been written 
and the erroneous impression created in consequence, I made 
an experiment (on the bottle used by my own baby) with a 
view of finding out the true cause of the undoubtedly disgusting 
odour evolved. That the sulphur used in the process of vul¬ 
canizing the india-rubber is the cause, I take it there can be 
no doubt, since after having had the tube and teat of pure 
black india-rubber in use for some time, they are as sweet 
and free from smell as when first adapted to the bottle. 
South Nonvood. J. H. Baldock. 
[*** Our own experience enables us to confirm the state¬ 
ments of our correspondent as to the sulphur of vulcanized 
rubber being the source of the sulphuretted hydrogen. Pro¬ 
bably this defect might be remedied by digesting the tube- 
and teats for some time in a moderately strong solution of 
caustic alkali.— Ed. Ph. J.] 
Druggists’ Charges. 
Sir,—In reference to the letter of your correspondent, 
“Pharmaceutical Chemist, Cambridge,” it seems probable- 
that the mixture was prepared with clecoct. taraxaci, in which 
case Is. 9 d. or 2s. might be a fair charge. That the decoction 
was intended seems probable from the dose, 5j. The dose 
stated in the B.P. for succus taraxaci is 5j to 5\j- Doctors 
appear often to write prescriptions without any definite idea 
of the preparations they are ordering. 
As to query No. 33 (Dispensing), what would IT. IC. think 
of the following ?— 
R. Quinas Disulph. 9ss 
Liq. Ammon. Acet. *iss. M. 
A teaspoonful every four hours in water. 
On taking the above to the prescriber and explaining the 
sort of mess it would make, he at once said he knew of course 
it was insoluble, but had thought it would merely require 
shaking up; however, he rewrote it, adding aqua ad ^vj, and 
directing a tablespoonful for a dose. Even this must be pre¬ 
pared “ secundum artem,” or it will make a mess too.—W. M. 
Pepsine and Pancreatine. 
Sir,—Having seen in your issue of the 19th inst., Mr. R. 
J. Kinkead’s article, headed “A New Digestive,” and relating 
to the combined use of pepsine and pancreatine in cases of 
dyspepsia, would you do me the favour of giving publicity to 
the fact that in a preparation to which I have applied the 
term “ Gastrodyne,” I have, for more than twelve months- 
past, used pepsine and pancreatine in combination with the 
best results P A. Farr. 
Waterloo Hoad, November 1 9th, 1870. 
The Lord Mayor oe London. 
Sir,—Perhaps it would not be uninteresting to some of 
your readers to know (from information contained in the 
Prescot Observer) that Mr. Dakin served his apprenticeship 
with Mr. Threlfall, a Liverpool chemist, who retired from 
business some time ago, but still lives in the suburbs of that 
town, and is well known to the writer. Mr. Dakin after¬ 
wards removed to a wholesale London house, and on marry¬ 
ing a daughter of his employer, was received into partnership. 
Vincit Amor Patriy:. 
Liverpool, November 21st, 1870. 
“ Spero ” (Yarmouth) is referred to the rule as to anony¬ 
mous correspondence. 
“ A Minor Associate in Business ” (Liverpool).—Apply at 
Apothecaries’ Hall. 
B. T. (Edinburgh).—There are no such persons. 
Erratum. —The signature of the writer of the letter entitled 
“ Obscure Prescriptions ” in last week’s Journal was accident¬ 
ally omitted. It should have been “ J. F. Brown, J)over. ,, 
Communications, Letters, etc., have been received from 
Mr. A. H. Mason (Liverpool), Dr. Kidd, Mr. J. H. Askew 
(Liverpool), Mr. G. Wellborn (Grantham), Mr. Jenner (Bury 
St. Edmund’s), Mr. T. F. Best (Camberwell), Mr. E. Barber 
(Sheffield), Mr. G. W. Jones (Worksop), Mr R. H. Rowell 
(Houghton-le-Spring), Mr. F. C. Wyatt (Henley), Mr. J- 
Bordass (Driffield), Mr. J. Staley (Rochdale), Mr. B. H. 
Cowgill (Manchester), Mr. A. W. Postans (London), Mr. C. 
Wanron, Mr. W. Wilson (Devonport), Mr. J. H. Baldock 
(South Norwood), Mr. Ellwood (Leominster), F. B. (Mac¬ 
clesfield), S. S. (Holloway), “Pepsine” (Rugby), “Inquirer ’ 
(Bedford), “Reciprocate” (Chichester), “Beta” (York), 
“Vincit Amor Patrim,” H. G. (Bath), H. H. P., “Two In¬ 
quirers,” “Alpha” (Sudbury), “Iodi” (Sudbui'y), “Vulca¬ 
nite,” “ Odor,” J. S. A. 
