December 17, 1870.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
4S9 
®|e ^pijanitacmtical J’ounntl. 
- + -. 
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1870. 
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 Breh- 
ridge, Secretary, 17, Bloomsbury Square, W.C. 
Advertisements to Messrs. Churchill, New Burlington 
Street, London, W. Envelopes endorsed “ Bharm. Journ.” 
POISON REGULATIONS. 
We tliis week give a report of tlie proceedings at 
the Council Meeting of the 7tli inst. It will he seen 
that the Committee appointed to report on the sub¬ 
ject, recommended that poisons should be kept with 
some distinctive mark in addition to the names' of 
the articles; also, that they should be kept in a 
closet, etc., specially set apart for them, or in vessels 
distinguishable by the touch, or in vessels closed in a 
manner different from the way in which non-poison- 
ous articles are kept. On the motion that these re¬ 
commendations should be proposed to the Annual 
Meeting, an amendment was moved to the effect that 
poison regulations were not necessary under existing 
circumstances. This amendment was lost, as well 
as another declaring the need for an expression of 
^opinion by the country trade before the adoption of 
any regulations. The original motion was then put 
and carried by a majority of six out of fourteen 
members present. 
As the matter now stands, therefore, the regula¬ 
tions recommended by the Committee will be pre¬ 
sented by the Council to the Society at its General 
meeting, for adoption as regulations that every one 
in the trade will be compelled to observe, so that the 
poisons in his stock are kept in such a manner as to 
-come within the terms of the regulations. 
In connection with this important subject, we must 
also call attention to a letter from Mr. Hampson, the 
terms of which seem to suggest the possibility of 
open war and determined resistance to the action 
taken by the Council. From the neutral ground ne¬ 
cessarily held by the Editor of this Journal, it would 
be obviously improper to comment on a position of 
such gravity any further than to express the hope 
that, whatever contest may be deemed indispensable, 
the real interests of Bliarmacv, as a craft, will not 
be lost sight of or damaged in the endeavour to sup¬ 
port any view less catholic in character. 
THE LANCET AND PHARMACEUTISTS’ CHARGES. 
Our contemporary, the Lancet, must, we think, 
by this time have become aware that the sentiments 
to which it has given expression in reference to the 
charges made by pharmaceutists for medicines sup¬ 
plied to the public, do not find acceptance either 
with the leading members of the profession or with 
the bulk of the general medical practitioners of the 
country. Indeed, though our contemporary has re¬ 
turned once and again to the charge, it has had to 
disclaim the idea that druggists’ charges are gene¬ 
rally, or even frequently extortionate; and it has only 
succeeded in making the unpleasant impression upon 
pharmaceutists that its strictures were dictated by 
a sell-interested clique, seeking to gain a personal 
advantage at the expense of the dispenser, and 
thinking that if less be paid for physic, there will 
then be more room for visits, whilst it has elicited 
from the medical profession itself but very few in¬ 
stances of exceptionally high charges,—even then the 
statements have been unauthenticated by the names 
of the writers, and pharmaceutists themselves have 
condemned in still stronger terms the charges alleged 
to have been made in those instances, as altogether 
unusual and unjustifiable. 
But in the face of the document published in last 
week’s Journal, setting forth for general adoption by 
the medical profession a tariff of fees which should 
be charged by the profession for medicines, the stric¬ 
tures of our contemporary must appear very impolitic 
indeed, and the more unjust, since the charges in 
that tariff are altogether higher than those of any 
leading pharmaceutists. This document describes 
the scale of fees to be such that the humblest mem¬ 
ber of the profession need not hesitate to make it 
the basis of his charges,—a rate suggested, indeed, 
rather in accordance with past usage than from any 
consideration of what is essential to maintain the 
proper status of the profession,—due regard being 
had to the diminished value of money and the in¬ 
crease of wealth among the several classes of the 
community, considerations, we would say, that should 
be as fairly applied to the pharmaceutical as to the 
medical profession. 
And what is the tariff which is so moderate ? It 
is based upon house rental of patients, and recog¬ 
nizes three classes, those who pay from TTO to T'25, 
those who pay from £25 to £50, and those who 
pay from T50 to LTOO a year. Now, although it is 
held that medical men should be paid for their 
advice, “ drugs ” being thrown in when supplied 
by medical practitioners; yet we have a special 
scale given for medicines alone, and a very wide 
difference is observed in the charges suggested where 
medicines are supplied in the one case and not in 
the other. For instance, for an ordinary visit within 
the postal district, including medicines, it is sug¬ 
gested that the fees should be respectively for the 
three classes, 2s. iSd. to 5s.; 3s. 0 d. to 7s.; and 5s. to 
10 s. G d .; for visits, exclusive of medicines, for the 
same classes respectively, Is. to 2 s. G d.; Is. 0 d. to 
3 s. 0 d.; 2 s. (kl. to 5 s., that is to say, the difference 
where medicines are supplied in each case respec¬ 
tively, from Is. G d. to 2s. G d .; 2s. to 3s. Od .; 2 s. 0 d. 
