032 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[February 1, 18?1. 
tho Medical Department of the Privy Council, with the 
reply from Mr. Simon, of which the following- are 
copies:— 
“ 71, St. Vincent Street, Glasgow , 
“ 16 tli January , 1871. 
“Sir,—As President of the Glasgow Chemists and 
Druggists’ Association, permit me to direct the attention 
of the Right Hon. the Lords of her Majesty’s Privy 
Council as to the keeping, dispensing and selling 
poisons. 
“ Glasgow, with a population of over 500,000 inha¬ 
bitants, has about sixty pharmaceutical chemists and 
chemists and druggists, and about 120 physicians and 
surgeons, who keep open shop for the retailing, dispen¬ 
sing, and compounding of persons. 
“The proposed regulations for the keeping of poisons 
will only apply to the sixty pharmaceutical chemists and 
chemists and druggists, the 120 physicians and surgeons 
who keep open shop being exempt from the operation 
•of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, by the Amended Act, lltli 
August, 1869. 
“As the regulations for keeping, dispensing, and sell¬ 
ing of poisons are required for the protection of the 
public, may I hereby suggest that the Right Hon. the 
Lords of her Majesty’s Privy Council co-operate with 
the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society, and obtain a 
Pill that will include under the Pharmacy Act physi¬ 
cians, surgeons, hospital infirmaries, dispensaries, and all 
who keep open shop for the selling, dispensing and 
compounding of poisons. 
“The opposition to compulsory regulations by che¬ 
mists and druggists throughout the country is almost 
entirely owing to the liberty granted to physicians, etc., 
who keep open shop to act as they think proper. 
“ I am, Sir, 
“ Your obedient servant, 
“Thomas Davison. 
“John Simon, Esq., F.R.S., D.C.L., 
“ Medical Department , Privy Council Office, 
“8, Richmond Terrace, Whitehall , S. W 
(Reply) 
“Medical Department of the Privy Council Office, 
“ January 24th, 1871. 
“ Sir, 
“lam directed by the Lords of her Majesty’s Coun¬ 
cil to acknowledge the receipt of your letter suggesting 
the propriety of extending the operation of the Pharmacy 
Act, so far as concerns regulations to be made under it 
as to the keeping, selling, etc. of poisons to physicians, 
surgeons and others, who keep open shop for the sale 
and dispensing of poisons. 
“ My Lords direct me to say that should an opportu¬ 
nity occur for such legislation as you propose, your sug¬ 
gestion shall have the most careful consideration. 
“ I am, Sir, 
“ Your obedient Servant, 
“John Simon. 
“ T. Davison, Esq. 
“ 71, St. Vincent Street, 
“ Glasgow.’’ 
The President, after reading the letters, said he would 
leave it to the members to decide what further steps 
should be taken. 
Mr. John M'Millan said ho thought from the tone of 
Mr. Simon s reply, the Privy Council were not going to 
be so pressing in their demands for regulations as was at 
first anticipated; he thought it was a few of the members 
ot the Pharmaceutical Society who were anxious that 
some action should be taken in the matter, but he said it 
was unjust to make the regulations compulsory upon 
chemists who, in the groat majority of cases, gave their 
whole attention to business, while physicians and others 
who had shops, and who gave little or no attention to the 
dispensing part of their business, should bo entirely ex¬ 
empt. It had always been his opinion that surgeons 
who had shops would be exempt from the regulations, 
although some chemists maintained the contrary, and 
the fact that no reference was made to that point in Mr. 
Simon’s letter, he thought confirmed his opinions. He 
would advocate that the regulations in their present form 
be opposed. 
Mr. Kermath said he looked upon the whole affair as 
a good farce. How were the regulations to be made 
compulsory F There has been no mention of how they 
were to be enforced, whether by the aid of inspectors, or 
if that duty was to devolve upon the local secretaries; 
and further, was there to be a punishment or fine put upon 
those who did not comply with them F Those are things 
which ought to be inquired into, and until they were 
satisfactorily cleared up, all compulsory regulations op¬ 
posed. For his own part he took every precaution, hav¬ 
ing Silverlock’s label attached to every poison in his 
establishment, and he kept the more dangerous poisons 
at the back of other bottles on a high shelf where it was 
impossible for an assistant to reach them without know¬ 
ing what he was about; and from what he had seen 
among the chemists of Scotland, there was far more care 
taken with poisons by them, than by many physicians 
who had shops, and who left them from day to day in 
the hands of youths or girls. 
Mr. Paterson said he thought the regulations should 
be opposed in their present form, but the memorial 
should be got up in a different manner from the one sent 
up to the Council last year. He thought it did not re¬ 
ceive the attention it would have got had it emanated 
from the whole trade instead of from the Association 
only; he therefore suggested that if a memorial be 
drawn up, an opportunity be given to all chemists hi 
and around Glasgow to sign it for themselves. 
After several other members had expressed their opi¬ 
nion, Mr. J. M. Fairlie (Hon. Secretary) moved “That 
a committee be appointed to draw up a strong memorial 
against the regulations in their present form, together 
with a statement of objections, to be presented to the 
Council of the Pharmaceutical Society at their Annual 
Meeting in May next, and that an opportunity be given 
to all chemists wishing to sign the memorial before that 
time.” 
Mr. Fairlie said that the great argument in favour of 
the regulations was, that they were for the protection of 
the public ; but if so, why arc chemists and druggists 
only required to adopt them F Some say, “ Why do 
chemists wish to interfere with medical men F We have 
nothing to do with them; we have only to regulate our 
own affairs.” This is all very true ; I do not think there 
is a druggist in the kingdom who would interfere with 
a medical man in the performance of his professional 
duties; what we want is that when a medical man 
becomes a druggist, when he opens a shop for tho sale 
and compounding of drugs, that he shall be under the 
same restrictions as ourselves. There is no unbiassed 
medical practitioner who keeps open shop that could 
object to being put upon the same footing, in this re¬ 
spect, as the druggist; and it seems to me to be tho fault 
of tho Council of the Pharmaceutical Society that they 
have not asked the co-operation of the medical depart¬ 
ment of Her Majesty’s Council to get the regulations 
made so as to put all who keep open shop for the dis¬ 
pensing of medicines in the same position. Mr. Simon’s 
reply says, that “ should an opportunity occur,” etc. 
I think we ought to do all we can to put the opportunity 
in their way, by getting the regulations rejected in May 
next. There are to be no voting-papers allowed; but if 
every association or every town in the kingdom would 
endeavour to send up one or two members, there would 
be no doubt the Lancet's hope, that we should be in a 
minority, would be reversed. The responsibility will 
then lie with the Privy Council, or probably with Par¬ 
liament itself, and there is no doubt but that we shall 
