558 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [January 7 .18;i. 
*** JVo notice can be taken of anonymous communica¬ 
tions. JKhatever is intended for insertion must be authenti¬ 
cated by the name and address of the writer ; not necessarily 
for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. 
Proposed Regulations for Storing op Poisons. 
Sir,—What ever eoukl have moved the Lords of her Ma¬ 
jesty’s Privy Council to make the interesting inquiry touch¬ 
ing the keeping, dispensing and selling of poisons? Surely 
they are confounding the serious loss of life which has occurred 
recently through railway negligence with accidental poison¬ 
ing. I cannot otherwise understand their anxiety at this 
holiday time, seeing that no death for a very long period has 
been reported as arising out of a chemist’s neglect or inadver¬ 
tence. It certainly may help the Council of the Pharmaceu¬ 
tical Society in their high aims of compelling the use of 
curious cupboards and funny bottles with poison! poison! 
poison ! staring you in the face, till you are so familiar with 
the word that its influence will be lost. 
After the many powerful letters which have appeared in 
the Journal, showing the absurdity and folly of poison regu¬ 
lations, I feel it is of no use to argue any more upon the 
subject, but be present at the next General Meeting of the 
Society, there make your voice heard, resolved to vote only 
for members of the Council who will pledge themselves to 
resist the proposed offensive regulations, proclaiming us to 
society as wholly incompetent for the responsibility which 
our profession involves! 
Kilburn, Jan. 2nd, 1871. John Eeaton. 
Sir,—By the publication of Dr. Simon’s letter from the 
Medical Department of the Privy Council, the kind of pres¬ 
sure—which to the outside world has apparently put to flight 
the sagacity of the Pharmaceutical Council—is exhibited to 
the members themselves. Whether this mighty and porten¬ 
tous missive be a genuinely unsolicited production, to be 
held in terrorem over the heads of refractory members I do 
not know. We have, however, now the issue placed before 
us, and if we rouse ourselves I do not fear the result. The 
position of those opposed to compulsory dispensing poison 
regulations, with their concomitant corps of inspectors, is, I 
believe, sufficiently unassailable to withstand, not only most 
searching criticism, but even parliamentary discussion if this 
undesirable ordeal be brought about. We have simply at 
this particular crisis to face the difficulty which the injudi¬ 
cious action of the Council has produced, and defeat any 
further attempt at Governmental trade restriction. The 
Pharmaceutical Council seems to think itself bound, either 
by coercive influence or by an imaginary sense of obligation, 
to move in this matter; yet if the Pharmacy Act be con¬ 
sulted, it will be found that the introduction of additional 
regulations is perfectly optional, and in no way obligatory. 
The settlement of this question, if no fairer mode be pro¬ 
posed, will be made at the next May meetmg by those who 
are able to attend to give their votes, but how many are there 
who cannot possibly be present to resist or approve? Any¬ 
thing like a majority of the members, however anxious they 
may be to vote, will not be present. Hence how flagrantly 
unjust is this process of arriving at a decision! Is it really 
needtul for us to make a humble and dutiful pilgrimage to 
Bloomsbury Square, at a sacrifice of time and money, to 
record our votes ? The well-to-do magnates of the trade may 
be able to afford the time and money, but there are many 
whose voice in this matter is worthy of being heard who, 
simply from economic reasons, will not be able to attend. 
The voting in London in May, if it takes place, will not give 
a just reflex of the opinions of the members. The greater 
the distance from London, the fewer the votes that will be 
recorded. What objection is there to the issuing of voting- 
papers to every member of the Pharmaceutical Society, so 
that every member may be enabled to exercise his rightful 
influence in the settlement of the vexed question? By this 
means, and by this alone, is it possible to obtain the opinion 
of the members. If the Council honestly desire, as in duty 
bound they should, to elicit the opinions of the whole of 
the members, and if they do not wrongfully wish to carry 
with a high hand their unwise resolve as to the compulsory 
poison regulations, spite of protest and threatening discord, 
they will at their next meeting at once decide to use voting- 
papers instead of the arbitrary decision of an annual meeting. 
Manchester, Jan. 3rd, 1871. Robt. Hampson. 
Sir,—The keeping and storing of poisons is now a matter 
of much importance, indeed it is perhaps one of the subjects 
that interests and concerns the whole trade more than any 
other. Therefore I trust a few further remarks on this con¬ 
troversy may not be unacceptable. In the first place I will 
say, it is with sincere regret that I find there are such dis¬ 
sensions on this matter; and although much has been written 
and said, we are still in a state of unsettlement from so many 
entertaining such different and tenacious opinions. 
The Journal of Dec. 21st contains some very elaborate let¬ 
ters concerning the matter, the writers of which are well 
known for their many contributions to the Journal; but r 
strange to observe, each one holds widely different opinions. 
Mr. Edwin B. Yizer’s letter occupies a good space, but I 
must frankly remark that it seems more eloquent than logical ; 
and in my opinion, his views, instead of leading to anything 
of service, are most inconsistent, or, if I might use a political 
phrase, they are perhaps ultra-radical. 
I do not wish to review his letter as a critic would do, 
but what I wish to point out is the error he labours under in 
desiring to take up so much of the Journal in putting forth 
ideas that are not at all compatible with the subject. 
He says, “Allow me to put a parallel case, and to ask wliab 
would be the feeling of a gentleman after receiving a good 
education, walking the hospital, going through the usual ex¬ 
amination, and who in due course received his diploma autho¬ 
rizing him to practise, were the same authorizing body to- 
come to him and say, ‘Now, Sir, you have passed our ex¬ 
aminations, you are fully qualified to practise, but before you 
do so, we must remind you that you must conform to our 
regulations as to the place and manner of keeping your knives 
and lancets, lest you should by mistake use the wrong one. 
You must also have each of these instruments distinctly en¬ 
graved “dangerous,” lest you should by chance forget the 
fact.’ ” I glean from this that Mr. Vizer does not deem it 
expedient that any act or rule is necessary to guide or con¬ 
trol those who pass an examination, and, if he had the ruling, 
he would annihilate it in toto. But he must either forget, or 
he has not been aware, that all who keep open shops for the 
dispensing and compounding of medicines, are unfortunately 
not individuals of his ability and qualifications. 
Many indeed, although registered as dispensing chemists, 
have never passed examinations, and I presume this is one of 
the special reasons which actuate the Council in urging the 
necessity of a law, to act as a preventive, as far as possible, 
of the deplorable accidents which have so frequently happened, 
and which must necessarily raise the indignation of the publie 
against pharmacists in general. 
How Mr. Vizer can offer the keeping of a surgeon’s knives 
or lancets as a parallel case with that of storing virulent poi¬ 
sons seems to me ridiculously absurd. I cannot perceive any 
similarity whatever. If the surgeon should use the wrong 
knife or lancet, in all probability the harm would be but 
little; but if the pharmacist should use the wrong powder, 
such as strychnine for sugar, the mischief is irreparable. The 
majority of the trade, too, will admit. I think, that there can¬ 
not be a doubt as to the actual necessity of an Act for the 
storing and safe keeping of poisons. I know there is a sort 
of jealousy entertained by some parties, as this Act doe3 not 
apply to surgeons, but why should such envy exist ? Sur¬ 
geons are not ruled by the Pharmaceutical Society. They 
have an Act of their own to practise under, and they con¬ 
sider themselves quite apart from the pharmacist. It also 
must be borne in mind that the surgery is quite a different 
kind of place to the pharmaceutical establishment. We may 
find two or three poisons in the former, Avhile in the latter we 
have (or should have) all that the “ Materia Medica,” or 
Pharmacopoeia, contains. Besides, the dispensing in the 
private surgery is totally different from that of the pharma¬ 
ceutical establishment. 
Therefore, as to having an Act for keeping and storing of 
poisons, I emphatically say it is necessary. I feel confident, 
too, that if something is definitely fixed upon, the change will 
benefit the whole trade. I might add that, as far as I can 
perceive, the law now in use has raised us considerably in the 
estimation of the public, for when they are assured that we 
have such precautions they feel a perfect safety in receiving 
medicines dispensed by us. 
