538 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [December 31, 1870, 
a distinctive label such as I have enclosed, with the word 
“ Toxicum t” written or printed legibly on a plain gummed 
label, placed on a larger piece of pink capping paper, showing 
a border beyond which must strike the eye, and attach a band 
of glass paper to the ends of it, going round the back of the 
bottle, or vessel, just above the bottom, where the hand would 
take hold when required for use ? 
Here there would be two safeguards at once, a distinctive 
white label on a red ground in front to catch the eye, and a 
rough surface detected by the touch. 
These precautions may be adapted to large or small pack¬ 
ages, either in the cupboard, on the shop shelves, or in ware- 
rooms ; and where bottles or packages are not in every-day 
use, an additional precaution of tying over, or fastening down 
by a simple contrivance, would obviate every difficulty, put an 
end to this unseemly controversy, and meet the requirements 
of a wholesome regulation. 
This inexpensive method every chemist can at once carry 
into effect for himself, by the aid of pen, paper and gum pot. 
I trust our brethren will be unanimous, and adopt the re¬ 
gulations in a spirit of fairness; for captious resistance will 
inevitably lead to further legislation on the subject and en¬ 
largement of the schedule of poisonous articles. 
A Founder of the Pharmaceutical Society. 
Dec. 2 ith, 1870. 
Sir,—As this poison question is again being brought pro¬ 
minently forward, I should like to be permitted to state in 
the columns of the Journal my own personal experience in 
reference to this subject before and after adopting precau¬ 
tionary measures in the storing, keeping and dispensing of 
poisons. 
I have always felt one of the greatest drawbacks to the 
profession of pharmacy to be the possibility of some very seri¬ 
ous mistake being made in the dispensing of dangerous drugs 
and chemicals, even when carried out by thoroughly qualified 
assistants. This always pressed heavily and unremittingly 
upon my mind before adopting precautions. But some six 
years since I separated the most dangerous of these medi¬ 
cines,_ such as strychnine, aconitine, hydrocyanic acid, liq. 
arsenicalis, and placed them in a small lock-up case, with each 
article distinctly labelled “poison;” whilst to the prepara¬ 
tions of opium, morphia, and tr. belladonnse and analogous 
drugs, I used caps of india-rubber, which from their elasticity 
required no fastening, and marked each cap with the word 
“ poison.” I can with truth say that considerable relief accrued 
to my mind from a conviction that an additional element of 
security against mistakes had thus been introduced. 
Probably most of my brother pharmacists have more or less 
felt oppressed by our great responsibility, especially in con¬ 
nection with the dispensing of poisons; I believe this simple 
precaution would relieve them as it has done me from a con¬ 
siderable part of this, and frequently prevent tjie occurrence 
of serious mistakes; whilst at the same time it would meet 
the wishes of the Council, to whom surely some deference is 
due, composed as it is of some of the leading men connected 
with the Pharmaceutical Society, as well as being a represen¬ 
tative body. 
Of the other alternate proposals, viz. 1st. A separate com¬ 
partment for dangerous articles, it is evident that this is next 
to impossible in a great many small shops for want of space. 
Or 2ndly. Distinctive bottles or vessels would involve con¬ 
siderable outlay, which wouldpress heavily in businesses where 
the returns are small and inadequately remunerative for the 
skill and labour employed, which is unfortunately too often 
the case. 
Edinburgh, Dec. 2 6th, 1870. H. C. Baildon. 
Sir, As a very old member of the craft, allow me to say 
one w r ord on the.subject now agitating it. I do not see any- 
thing very hard in our being obliged to submit to such simple 
regulations as were last set forth by the Council, in itself. 
But I do.see something very hard, very unjust, and contrary 
to the spirit of tairplay, so much loved by all Englishmen, and 
which is such a characteristic of English legislation, if all 
persons who dispense poisons are not equally compelled to 
submit to the same regulations. If there is to be one law for 
one class of her Majesty’s subjects, and another law for an- 
other class, then I would oppose the Council’s action through 
thick and thin. 
If the Council will only seek to extend their regulations to 
all persons alike, without fear or favour, they would disarm 
a great deal of opposition. 
Manchester, Dec. 27th. A Lover of Fairplay. 
Sir,—The above subject is of so much importance to us as 
a body that I will not offer an apology for asking you to 
grant me a small space for a few remarks, which I hope may 
be regarded as relevant to its discussion. 
The whole subject appears to me to be embraced in the follow¬ 
ing questions:—(1.) Are these proposed regulations needed? 
(2.) Underwhat circumstances is it sought to impose that which 
is justly regarded as an unwise interference with an arrange¬ 
ment which has hitherto worked well ? (3.) If we adopt the 
course which appears favourable to our parent Society, and 
reduce ourselves to the position of mere automatons, requiring 
no thought or consideration in the execution of our duties, shall 
we under this proposed new order of things, in the event of 
error, still be responsible and liable to damages ? Finally, if 
these regulations eventually come into force, will it tend to 
elevate us in the estimation of the thinking public ? 
First, I will endeavour to prove that they are not needed. 
If these innovations are meant to prevent poisoning by mis¬ 
adventure, it seems to argue that this calamity is of frequent 
occurrence; but is this so ? I think not. Indeed, so seldom 
does it happen (and, be it remembered, that we have no* 
means of sheltering ourselves behind a curtain of obscurity) r 
that when a case is brought before us we stand aghast, and 
inquire, How did it occur? Very rarely indeed by the che¬ 
mist in compounding his prescriptions, as he becomes, by 
force of habit, a thoughtful and reflecting man, well knowing 
his great responsibilities, and as a rule is most conscien¬ 
tious in the fulfilment of his duties. It may more fre¬ 
quently be traced to the unwise parsimony of medical men, 
who order liq. strychnise to be taken in five-drop doses, and 
thereby make the uninformed public their own dispensers, 
with what result I need not say. Facts are stronger than 
theories. Considering the number of potent poisons which 
many of us have daily to manipulate, our various duties in¬ 
terspersed with interruptions which often annoy, it argues 
much for our present order and arrangements, combined with 
energy and concentration of mind, that a less number of acci¬ 
dents could not occur, unless we were suddenly to arrive at a 
state of perfection ; but, as this condition is not common to* 
man, I take it that we are not likely at present to attain this 
point. 
Secondly, the time for introducing this arbitrary measure 
appears most unfavourable and inopportune. If chemists, as 
a whole, were less competent in their particular sphere than 
other tradesmen or even professional men,—or if they, being 
incompetent, set their faces rigidly against reform, or persis¬ 
tently refused any measure which would tend to increase the 
public confidence; or, if poisoning by misadventure were of 
more frequent occurrence than formerly,—there might be a 
colouring of plausibility for thus introducing a measure 
which, to say the least, will be exceedingly onerous and ex¬ 
cessively distasteful. But, if we look calmly into the facts, 
we shall soon perceive the very opposite of that which I pur¬ 
posely placed in the subjunctive mood. Who were most 
anxious for the passing of the Pharmacy Bill of 1868 ? The 
chemists, Sir. Who were most anxious that this Bill should be 
complete and effective, and the standard of education such as 
would entitle us to the respect of all ? The chemists. To* 
whose interest is it that all our plans should be well matured 
and well arranged, promote unity of action, cohesion and 
strength, and thereby avoid our greatest enemy—internal 
dissension ? I say again, the chemists. While I believe that 
the Pharmaceutical Society are especially desirous of watch¬ 
ing over our interests, and doing all in their power for our 
united good, I do hope that their great zeal will not lead 
them into the greatest of all errors, viz. that of doing too* 
much. 
Thirdly, the chemist must always be inevitably responsible 
to the public for the manner in which he conducts his most 
important duties. But, may I ask, is it wise to attempt to 
introduce any measure which will have for its object the* 
simplifying (or more properly mystifying) of our present- 
arrangements, and which will necessitate engrafting a new 
set of ideas upon our dull sensibilities? If this plan should 
be enlarged upon, we may soon find that, instead of labels to 
our bottles, we shall have to learn that a bottle with one angle 
means one thing, with two angles another, three angles an¬ 
other; and when our angles are exhausted, w'e shall fly to 
