51S 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [December 21 , 1870 . 
.also have each of those instruments distinctly engraved ‘dan¬ 
gerous,’ lest you should by chance forget the fact.” What, 
I ask, would that gentleman say ? what would he feel ? Me- 
thinks I see the smile of sarcastic scorn with which he would 
view his interrogator, while with difficulty he restrains the 
utterance of an epithet not over-complimentary. Would his 
objection be logical? Would not his indignation be pardon¬ 
able as well as reasonable? 
I venture to think this is veiy much the position into 
which our Council seeks to put us by adhering to these would- 
be “ Poison Regulations,” over -which we had so warm a dis¬ 
cussion at the last Annual Meeting, the amended form of 
which you have published in this week’s Journal. I grieve, 
as I look through the names of the gentlemen who felt it 
their duty (certainly not in the interests of their electors) 
to oppose the amendments moved by Messrs. Brown and 
Woolley, to see those whose judgment in most cases we dare 
not question, who yet, under the mistaken idea that because 
the Council at the time of the passing of the Pharmacy Bill 
thought proper to make certain unwise engagements, there¬ 
fore the present Coimeil is bound to endorse and to carry 
out those engagements, notwithstanding the universal ex¬ 
pression of dissent by the whole body of independent chemists 
throughout the length and breadth of the land. Should the 
Council persist in enforcing these regulations, it will be our 
bounden duty to rise en masse against so unjustifiable an 
act. 
The reluctance of the Council to solicit a cool expression of 
feeling on the part of the trade, which would have been the 
result of adopting Mr. Woolley’s second amendment, reminds 
one irresistibly of the similar feeling manifested by our 
neighbours across the Channel; is it possible a similar feeling 
of distrust in their own position actuates both parties ? If 
so, let our friends at Bloomsbury Square be wise and face the 
difficulty and act upon the verdict returned, and they will 
have no cause to regret the step; but supported by the una¬ 
nimous voice of the trade, they will be in a position to ex¬ 
plain to the Privy Council the impracticability of carrying 
out such measures, and further to show that the present 
educational standard required by law is a far more powerful 
safeguard than any penal enactment could possibly produce. 
On the other hand, should these gentlemen, forgetting their 
representative position, still consider themselves pledged to 
Government to carry out these regulations, then in the face 
of an adverse vote but one constitutional act remains open to 
them. 
No one would regret more than myself any repetition of 
the excitement exhibited at our last Annual Meeting upon 
this question, but unless the Council will be wise in time, I 
fear the result will be inevitable, for assuredly the trade at 
large will not quietly submit to be thus unnecessarily saddled 
with a burden which neither the promoters nor ourselves 
could carry. 
Two modes of action present themselves at the present 
crisis. The first rests with the Council itself, viz., the adop¬ 
tion of Mr. Woolley’s motion at the next meeting of the 
Council to the effect “ That it is desirable to obtain an ex¬ 
pression of opinion from chemists throughout the country 
whether regulations for the keeping of poisons are desirable 
or not; the same to be obtained by circulars issued by the 
Seci’etary of the Society.” The second -would then be un¬ 
necessary ; but in the event of the Council again rejecting it, 
I venture to suggest that the trade would be compelled in 
self-defence to take the matter into its ow r n hands, and forth¬ 
with have petitions against the regulations signed in every 
town and duly forw r arded to the Council. For many reasons 
the former -would be far preferable, eminently so, as it would 
at once prevent the unnecessary excitement which must 
otherwise arise. 
The one would be an act of becoming grace, the other an 
act of hostile necessity. Edwin B. "VTzeb. 
G3, Lupus Street, Belgravia South, 
December 19 th, 1870. 
Sir,—I had a slight hope, but not much expectation, that 
the discussion in the Council on the 7th instant would have 
produced a different result, and that we should hear no more 
of compulsory regulations ; but the majority seem determined, 
if possible, to force them upon us. They certainly cannot be 
aware of the full scope and effect of the proposed measure, or 
they would not be so desirous of enforcing its adoption. 
I do not hesitate to say that if the “ Regulations ” last pro¬ 
posed become law, every chemist and druggist in the country 
will be at the mercy of the Privy Council, and liable at any¬ 
time to be struck off the Register, and compelled to discon¬ 
tinue his business if he fail to observe them. The first clause 
in the Pharmacy Act says, “ It shall be unlawful for any 
person to sell or keep open shop for retailing poisons, or to 
use the title of Chemist and Druggist, unless registered under 
the Act, and conform to such regulations as to the keeping, 
dispensing and selling of such poisons as may from time to 
time be prescribed by the Pharmaceutical Society with the 
consent of the Privy Council.” 
Clause 15 says, “ Any person who shall fail to conform 
to any regulation as to the keeping or selling of poisons 
made in pursuance of this Act, shall be liable to a penalty 
of £5.” 
Clause 26 says, “ The Privy Council may direct the name 
of any person who is convicted of any offence against this 
Act, which, in their opinion, renders him unfit to be on the 
Register under this Act, to be erased from such Register, 
and it shall be the duty of the Registrar to erase the same 
accordingly.” It is hardly credible that any one seeing the 
effects of these provisions would voluntarily subject himself 
to such a liability, yet that is what our Council propose to do 
for themselves and us. 
We have been told that the Council are bound by the Act 
to make “ regulations,” but that I deny. The Act nowhere 
says that the Council shall make regulations, but it speaks of 
regulations that may “ be prescribed by the Pharcnaceutical 
Society.” Now the word “may” is only used in the Act 
some six or seven times altogether, and in every other case 
in a permissive sense only, giving power to do something that 
may be necessary or desirable, but certainly not directing the 
thing to be done; surely if this be so, we have every right to 
conclude the -word to be permissive in this instance likewise. 
But granting the intention to have been that the Society 
should prescribe regulations, I contend that it is the duty of 
the Council to strongly resist any Governmental pressure on 
the subject, and firmly refuse to submit either themselves or 
their constituents to a burden which they alone, of all the 
dealers in poisons, are required to bear. 
The threat that, if we do not frame regulations, the Privy 
Council will do it for us, does not alarm me in the least. 
They have not the power to do so; a new Act of Parliament 
would be required for the purpose ; and does any one imagine 
it possible to pass an Act that shall apply to chemists and 
druggists only, and leave every other dispenser of poisons to 
keep them in any way he thinks proper ? If compulsory re¬ 
gulations are made at all, they must apply to every dispenser 
of poisons and not to us alone. 
There is not a doubt that you have correctly estimated the- 
terms of Mr. Hampson’s letter, and that “open war and de¬ 
termined resistance to the action of the Council ” is intended; 
if the Council will not fight our battle in this matter, we- 
must fight the Council, and I have no fear that “ the real in¬ 
terests of Pharmacy, as a craft,” will either “ be lost sight 
of or damaged ” in the contest. 
W. Wilkinson. 
CheetJiam Hill, December 19 th, 1870. 
Sir,—The majority of the Council bas elaborated a new 
edition of the ‘Poison Regulations,’ which it intends to propose 
for adoption at the next Annual Meeting, and we have now 
before us the prospect of a renewal of last year’s contest. 
It is much to be hoped that the leaders of the opposition 
will on this occasion take stronger ground, and contend 
boldly—that all such regulations, however wide their terms, 
are objectionable in view of the consequences which must fol¬ 
low their adoption in a compulsory form; if it is not to be a 
mischievous sham—both a snare for ourselves and a delusion 
for the public—that no sufficient proof of their necessity in 
the past has been afforded, and that they must, under exist¬ 
ing circumstances, become daily less necessary. Their warmest 
advocates recommend them only on the ground of expedience. 
Holding before our eyes the bugbear of the Privy Council, 
“ We know,” say they in effect, “ the dose is nauseous; but 
swallow it now with a good grace, lest by-and-by you get. 
one still more unpleasant.” The valour of these gentlemen 
is too largely tempered with discretion. If we are true to 
ourselves, and act in concert, we have little to fear; but even 
should their most terrible prognostications prove well-founded, 
it will be better to suffer what we cannot avoid, after a man¬ 
ful resistance, than commit the absurdity of fashioning 
