January 14,1871.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
579 
now offered and the suppression of the restriction touching 
liniments and angular bottles, so simplify them, as to render 
them generally applicable ? The trade may, I imagine, be di¬ 
vided, as regards this question, into three sections. First, there 
are houses probably where these or similar regulations for 
storing poisons are already in force; this, we may presume, is 
the case in our principal metropolitan and provincial dispensing 
establishments, and here no material difficulty would be ex¬ 
perienced. There is a second class who have virtually em¬ 
bodied these regulations in certain precautionary measures of 
their own, and such would willingly conform to those officially 
proposed. A third section still remains, not, I think, the most 
numerous, and certainly not the most influential, who have not 
adopted precautions of any kind in keeping poisons, but who 
(as Mr..Slipper naively observes), “ If they find the bottles 
containing crystals of citric acid and sal. acetos. huggingeach 
other, naturally and prudently (!) forbid the close connection.” 
Such chemists “know better” than to be bound by a “hard 
and fast line.” They act upon their knowledge and experience. 
Perhaps the instances given above will serve to show that the 
laisses faire policy, which this section of the trade so strongly 
advocates, is directly subversive of its own interests, as weil 
as of the interests of the public, and help to explain the reason 
why the Council thiuk it necessary to compel chemists to 
keep poisons in certain places or in distinctive bottles. From 
this section of the trade opposition must be expected, and 
ought to be vigorously met. But by a free and full discussion 
of the matter in the pages of the Journal, it may be hoped 
that many who at first opposed these regulations, will be led 
to see the advisability of adopting them. 
Objections have been raised to the compulsory nature of 
the proposed regulations, but to be generally effective, I hold 
that they must be compulsory. This is evident from the 
existence of a section in the trade opposed to them (and which 
would still exist if reduced to a minority), and also from the 
fact that their effectiveness must largely depend on their 
faithful application by apprentices, assistants, or porters, on 
whom rules legally binding, would naturally have a greater 
hold than regulations merely recommended by the Society or 
enjoined by their employers. It might, perhaps, greatly 
facilitate the adoption of the present regulations, if the So¬ 
ciety could devise and authorize a label to be stamped, “ The 
Pharmaceutical Poison Label,” and bearing the word “poison” 
in the centre in distinctive type; such label, exhibiting some 
bold device which would be at once recognized, to be made 
both in paper and metal; the latter form with holes for nails 
or string, to enable it to be conveniently affixed to casks or 
jars. If made in different sizes, the smallest bottle or pot or 
preparation of any kind, could easily have one attached. The 
value of one uniform safeguard label, universally understood 
and recognized throughout the trade, will be at once evident 
to all. I have said above that the proposed regulations 
should apply to wholesale druggists and surgeons as well as 
to chemists. Nor do I see why they should not or cannot; 
but if their extension to medical men and the wholesale trade 
involve any practical difficulty, this is certainly no reason why 
chemists should reject them. Shall we refuse to adopt a 
course suggested by prudence and warranted by reason and 
experience, merely because our neighbours won’t ? Let us 
set them a good example. 
January 7th, 1871. M. P. S. 
P.S. The use of the label above suggested, would probably 
be considered to meet the requirements of the second alterna¬ 
tive regulation, applicable to articles which cannot be conve¬ 
niently kept apart, especially if the label were made of sand¬ 
paper or other rough material, so as to be distinguishable by 
the touch. In the case of metal, a few holes punched in it 
would answer this purpose. Let me add, that it is quite 
possible that many chemists whose own arrangements are excel¬ 
lent, may, nevertheless object to compulsory regulations, but 
surely they are inconsistent with their own practice in doing 
so. I have just read Mr. Allman’s letter in to-day’s Journal 
•and would here endorse his excellent remarks (as also those 
of “A Pharmaceutical Chemist ” in the N umber for December 
24th). Mr. Vizer’s reference to the “ knives and lancets” is 
a pure absurdity. It is, however, important as touching Mr. 
Proctor’s suggestion, that the regulations should be as simple 
as possible, otherwise they will be evaded. A rule too com¬ 
plex to be undeviatingly observed is worse than none. This 
question deserves, in my opinion, far more serious and dis¬ 
passionate treatment than it has received in the letters of Mr. 
Beaton, Mr. Hampson, Mr. Yizer and other correspondents. 
Sir,—In common with the majority of your readers, I have 
taken great interest in the discussion that has been kept up 
\\ ith so much spirit and, in the main, with such good sense, 
. '' c uow stand in a different position respecting the ques- 
tion; the Council are not to have it all their own wav. 
Much as l respect several individuals of that body, I should 
feel wanting in honesty did I not express my convictions upon 
the great topic. I have hitherto deferred doing so, but the 
letters of Messrs. Beaton, Hampson and Allman have brought 
me to bearings; the two former gentlemen fairly represent 
the gist of the whole affair, and advocate the dignity of our 
profession (if it be ever destined to such honorary title). 
Presuming the object of Government to be the protection 
of the lives and health of her Majesty’s subjects, there is 
ample scope for such benevolent intentions :—■ 
1st. By commencing a system of practical sanitary reform. 
2nd. By regulating the supply and quality of poisonous 
compounds by publicans and others. 
3rd. By placing under strict surveillance unscrupulous and 
irresponsible railway directors, who sacrifice human life and 
limb with so much sangfroid. 
4th. To try and get hold of the fact (if it exists) that people 
can be made moral, careful and intelligent by Acts of Parlia¬ 
ment for the prevention of such as the three cases of poison¬ 
ing recorded in last week’s Journal. 
I can but repeat what has already been shrewdly advanced, 
that the intelligent chemist does not need legal intervention 
to keep him in the knowledge of the substances he makes and 
handles, any more than the accomplished surgeon requires 
watching as to how he operates with his knives and lancets, 
—the idea is preposterous and impertinent. 
Mr. Allman’s letter being chiefly personal, does not admit 
of remark, further than the acknowledgment that as a speci¬ 
men of special pleading, it deserves the palm. 
R. Goodwin Mumbray. 
Pharmacy in Brighton. 
Why do not the Pharmaceutical Chemists here study more 
the interests of their assistants, since the examinations of the 
Pharmaceutical Society have become so rigid ? In this town, 
where we have more than fifty chemists in business and, on 
an average, two assistants in each shop, there is not either a 
school of pharmacy or any place where we can receive in¬ 
struction. Why does not the Pharmaceutical Council ap¬ 
point Local Secretaries, not merely for the purpose of con¬ 
ducting a preliminary examination (which is of no use to as¬ 
sistants), but also that they might exert themselves—particu¬ 
larly in a town like Brighton—to establish, with the help of 
their brother pharmaceutists, a school, or at least some place 
where assistants could meet for the purpose of instruction 
in the several branches of the profession? It is not every as¬ 
sistant who has money to repair to the great metropolis, and 
give his whole time to a pharmaceutical education; whereas 
at home he might get away one evening in the week and pay 
a fee for a course of lectures. I am sure if our Pharmaceu¬ 
tical Chemists were to exert themselves to establish a school 
of pharmacy, it would be strongly supported by the assis¬ 
tants in general. 
A. Henley Attwater, Jun. 
Wholesale Druggists’ Assistants’ Society. 
Sir,—Concerning my abortive attempt to get the assistants 
in the wholesale drug trade to form themselves into a Mu¬ 
tual Improvement Association, allow me to remark that it 
took place as far back as the spring of 1867, and was prompted 
principally by seeing the rapid improvement which had for 
years been going forward in the ranks of the assistants in the 
retail trade, while the assistants in the wholesale trade were 
gradually sinking in the social scale, if we may judge from 
the fact that their employers found it necessary to look about 
for some means of protection against their delinquency. I 
need hardly allude to the difference which has always existed 
in the position of the wholesale and the retail druggists’ 
assistant. While the latter are men who have passed through 
a regular apprenticeship, and for the most part reside with 
their employers, having access to the various works and 
journals appertaining to their calling and time to study 
them during the intervals of business, the great bulk of the 
former have never had an opportunity of pursuing any course 
of study; and, being engaged at business dming fewer hours 
