January 28, 1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
CIO 
doraspni) eittc. 
*** No notice can be taken of anonymous communica¬ 
tions. Whatever 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 oe Poisons. 
Sir,—The storm of opposition which the proposed regula¬ 
tions for the keeping of poisons have evoked seems to have 
been noticed with amazement by the medical journals, and 
will probably excite the surprise and contempt of the House 
of Commons if the subject should come before them. That 
anything so simple and easy as an enactment which amounts 
to this, that certain deadly poisons named in a schedule, by 
the careless use and sale of which accidents have continually 
happened to human life, should be either kept separately in 
the way most convenient to the dealer, or, if not, marked dis¬ 
tinctly from other things, should be so obstinately resisted, 
—will be one of the curiosities of pharmaceutical literature 
when the question is settled. The Council, too, are unreason¬ 
ably assailed, as if they wished to force these regulations 
upon the trade against their will, in utter forgetfulness appa¬ 
rently that they were ordered to prepare them by the last 
annual meeting, and that the next will no doubt demand 
obedience to those directions. 
We hear it vaunted loudly by some that such scientific 
men as chemists should be above legal restraint, but the 
gentlemen who make this assertion forget that there are a 
very large number of chemists and druggists placed upon the 
register who have never been examined at all, and who have 
equal right with themselves to sell and use the objectionable 
articles. The Council have been obliged by law to give this 
privilege to thousands, merely because they had kept open 
shop for the making up of prescriptions before the passing of 
the Act. Very many of these, there is reason to fear, are 
both careless in the way they carry on their business, and 
very ill-qualified to conduct it rightly. And those who so 
loudly put themselves forth as the types of the legal sellers of 
poisons should know that they are a minority, and a small 
one, of those to whom the regulations will apply. Mr. Vizer 
writes as though he had quite set the matter at rest with his 
typical surgeon and his lancets, etc., but, so far as argument 
in his letter goes, it is sufficient to say that if it were possible 
to show that in consequence of the negligence of medical men 
human life had been sacrificed until a cry of reprobation and 
alarm arose from every quarter, that it was sacrificed now 
and might probably be so in time to come, then it would be 
the duty of the Legislature to regulate the use of lancets, etc., 
in the hands of surgeons, whatsoever examinations they 
might have passed, and although they might have half-a- 
dozen letters of distinction appended to their names. 
Some of your correspondents are indignant because the 
restrictions do not apply to medical men, but we have nothing 
to do with medical men ; we have to regulate our own affairs, 
and if we have the good sense to do this properly we shall 
not have them to regulate ours. 
Mr. Proctor, whose name always carries deserved weight 
with it, says that the only fault of the regulation is that it 
does not provide for the different grades of caution which the 
articles may require, so that morphia, etc., may be shut up 
in a cupboard, while such a thing is impracticable for syrup 
of poppies, etc. ; but I maintain that this variety is the very 
thing which is given. You may seclude the most dangerous 
articles as closely as you please, whilst a different bottle or a 
capped one, or one with a mark upon it, will suffice for those 
which are mingled with the others, A more weighty objec¬ 
tion—and the only weighty one that I can find—is this, that 
you introduce the thin edge of the wedge, which will lead to 
inspection and annoyance from public officers. 
But those proposed will no more introduce the wedge than 
the last regulations did. Wo are living already under regu¬ 
lations as to how we shall sell poison, and neither the Privy 
Council nor any one else can set on foot inspection without 
an Act of Parliament, a thing wholly unlikely as long as we 
act up to the requirements of the Act we have already. But 
if, indeed, we refuse to do this, the Privy Council (backed by 
the. Government) will most assuredly take the work into 
their own hands; and can any one who has observed the 
iemper of Parliament, the press, the medical profession and 
the current of public opinion, doubt how it will be done ? Does 
any one who has marked the career of former Poison Bills sup¬ 
pose that such an Act as we should have would be content 
with the few articles in schedules A and B ? or that it would 
leave us the freedom which the present regulations afford ? 
We may well dread inspectors, indeed, if the matter passes 
into the hands of a committee of the House of Commons. 
Look at the Petroleum Act. Suppose the dealers in this 
should say, We are men of considerable experience in busi¬ 
ness, we have much property at stake, we know best how to 
manage our own affairs, and these regulations are very trouble¬ 
some and have caused many of us inconvenience and loss. 
Would not the reply be something of this kind ? Very pro¬ 
bably they may, but do you suppose Ave pass Acts of Parlia¬ 
ment to please petroleum dealers? We have to consider 
what is best for the public and Avhat regulations ensure safety 
to them. If those we ha\'e ordered are what you practise, so 
much the better; if not, you had better conform to them 
without delay. And if the legal restrictions pinched us pretty 
sharply, as no doubt they Avould, should we get any to pity 
us ? Would they not say you have only yourselves to thank, 
they serve you right; you had the extraordinary opportunity 
afforded you of making rules to suit yourselves, and you 
were guilty of most extraordinary folly in refusing to do so. 
It is, of course, in the power of the next Annual Meeting 
to talk great things and refuse to accept any regulations at 
all, and the Council will then probably transmit the answer 
to their Lordships and hand the matter over to them; but if 
the advocates of this proceeding imagine that thus poison 
regulations will come to an end, no greater mistake will ever 
have been made. If anything is certain it is this, that Avhether 
Ave like it or no, the Privy Council are determined that the in¬ 
tention of the Legislature shall be fully carried out, and that 
either with our consent or against it, poison regulations shall 
be made. Opifex. 
Sir,—The precipitate publication of Mr. Simon’s letter 
having failed to produce the effect doubtless intended (viz., 
that of silencing our opposition) by those A\dio were in such 
a terrible hurry to publish it to the members before it was 
even known officially to the Council, it seems now to be the 
cue of the “ regulation ” advocates (who, by the way, mostly 
write anonymously) to say that when the Pharmacy Act was 
passed, it Avas an understanding with the Government that 
the Society should make some regulations on the subject, and 
thus endeavour to convince us that Ave are morally bound to 
make a yoke for our oavu necks and a rod for our own backs, 
now they find that threats of governmental interference do 
not alarm us. This appeal to our moral sense is being pressed 
rather strongly into the service, but only to meet the same 
fate as the threat of parliamentary compulsion. If ever there 
were any understanding of the sort, it was kept remarkably 
secret and made known only to a very select few; the great 
bulk of the trade being certainly totally unacquainted Avith any 
such arrangement, and are not, and will not, be compelled 
to acknowledge as a duty that of Avhich they had no cogni¬ 
zance. 
In the Journal of December 24th there is a letter signed 
“ Pharmaceutical Chemist ” Avhich contains some extraordi¬ 
nary statements. I always understood, as did most other 
people, and it was always so stated by the Pharmaceutical 
Council both in the Journal and elsewhere, that their primary 
object in promoting the Act Avas to secure the higher educa¬ 
tion of chemists, and that the poison clauses were introduced 
entirely against their Avish in consequence of the action of 
other parties, Avhereas his statement Avould make it appear 
that the facts are exactly contrary. The preamble of the Act 
says “ It is expedient for the safety of the public . . . that 
chemists and druggists should possess a competent knoAvledge 
of their business . . . and should be duly examined as to their 
practical knowledge;” and there is not one Avord in the Act 
to bear out his assertion that “opportunity was adroitly taken 
to introduce into the measure security for the higher educa¬ 
tion of chemists,” but exactly the contrary; nor can I admit 
that “ the primary object Avas the protection of the public 
from accidental and other poisoning” by means of poison 
schedules and regulations, as he Avould have us to belieA r e. 
As to the cry for some regulations, haA r ing waxed strong, 
the only outcry has been a I’cav articles in a newspaper or 
two and in the medical journals (of course ); but that the 
public haA'e made any demand in the matter I utterly deny, 
aid challenge “ Pharmaceutical Chemist” to give a single 
