February 4,1871.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 039 
than compelling us to mark “Poison” on sueli articles as 
paregoric, syr. poppies, infants’ preservative, et id genus omne. 
The Committee of Pharmacy have attempted too much, and 
have defeated their object,—“ the safety of the public.” One 
is reminded of Shakspeare’s 
“Vaulting ambition, which overleaps itself, 
And falls on t’other side.” 
Personally I am decidedly opposed to any compulsion 
whatever. We have quite enough with the patent medicine 
licence, spirit licence, methylated-spirit licence and petroleum 
licence without inviting a set of inspectors to visit us at un¬ 
seasonable hours. I am vain enough to think that I can 
manage my own business without the intervention of the 
Council, and charitable enough to suppose that the great ma¬ 
jority of my brethren can do the same. Few have been con¬ 
nected with the Society longer than I have; and no one has 
a greater respect for the Council, several of whom are per¬ 
sonally known to me. I have always been taught to respect 
those who are “ set in authority over us,” and know the truth 
and value of what Mr. Bagnet says, viz. that “ discipline must 
be maintained;” still there is a limit beyond which it would 
be unwise to proceed, and I would advise the Council to 
pause in time. Let them ascertain the real feeling of the 
members by sending out voting-papers to every Pharmaceu¬ 
tical Chemist in the kingdom. I shall be perfectly content to 
abide by the result, whatever it may be; but I do not feel in¬ 
clined to put myself to considerable expense and much incon¬ 
venience at the simple dictation of the Council. I have 
hitherto been content to be a very silent member indeed, but 
it is the last strain, etc., and I think it behoves all who have 
an opinion on this subject, to boldly give expression to it 
before the annual meeting. 
January 30th, 1871. Sydney Taylor. 
Sir,—Is your correspondent, who shields himself in the 
obscurity of “ Opifex ,” a bond fide chemist? 
I am tempted to make this inquiry from the total want 
of respect and consideration he has shown for our brethren, 
charging “very many with carelessness in the way they 
carry on their business, and as very ill-qualified to conduct 
it rightly,” and then sneering at our friend Mr. Vizer’s 
analogy to the surgeon and his lancets, passing by his power¬ 
ful arguments against poison regulations and fixing upon 
the weak point of his letter. I certainly regret Mr. Vizer 
•did not apply a more forcible comparison; for instance, sup¬ 
pose the Council of the Royal College of Physicians, in con¬ 
cert with the Privy Council, proposed to make it imperative 
that every person who died under the treatment of a general 
practitioner should be subject to an inquest held by a medical 
tribunal,—the profession would to a man vehemently resist 
such a scandal upon their qualification. 
“ Opifex ” speaks too of tbe amazement expressed by the 
medical journals at our opposition and the probability of our 
exciting the contempt of the House of Commons, and goes 
on to say if we continue to resist the proposed simple enact¬ 
ment “ we shall be one of the curiosities of pharmaceutical 
literature,” but what our opposition has to do with literature 
I cannot comprehend. I have conversed with many medical 
men upon this subject, and they have all expressed surprise 
that any chemist should be willing to place such a yoke upon 
his neck; and as to the House of Commons, it is all a phan¬ 
tom. 
"When the Council first introduced the subject, in Yol. XI. 
second series. No. 7, p. 377, there was no mention of the Privy 
Council nor House of Commons, who have more important 
duties than troubling themselves about poison cupboards. 
I hope in future those who write upon this subject will 
subscribe their names, that we may know who would yoke 
us to their bondage, and those whom we may honour as the 
champions of our liberty. John Beaton. 
Kilburn, January 30th, 1871. 
Sir,—The case reported in the Pharmaceutical Journal 
last week is worth notice, especially by one who shelters him¬ 
self under the common-place signature M. P. 8. 
A Mr. Jones, chemist, druggist and stationer, of Mossley, 
Lancashire, sent for a medical man to attend his infant 
daughter. The medicine prescribed was compounded by a 
lad employed in the surgery, who substituted morphia for 
some other remedy. The first dose proved fatal. Surely, if 
educated and experienced pharmacists are to be coerced by 
law, subjected to the decisions of country magistrates or the 
tender mercies of common informers, other dispensers of 
medicine, whether in public or private establishments, should 
be included in the same regulations. 
As regards blunders, inadvertencies and acts of careless¬ 
ness, I am confident that they take place in our shops less 
frequently than elsewhere. Physicians themselves are not 
exempt from occasional errors, proof of which I have in my 
possession—several letters from eminent men thanking me 
for the judgment shown in dispensing prescriptions, which, 
had they been made up literally must have killed the patient. 
I write this after an experience of more than thirty years, 
and hope that 31. P. S. will, before again addressing you, 
obtain a little more of that in which he acknowledges himself 
so deficient. R. Goodwin Mumbray. 
Uichmond, S.TF. 
Sir,—It appeal’s to me that the weak point in the proposed 
poison regulations is the fact that they apply to many com¬ 
paratively mild preparations a system suited only for really 
dangerous articles. What can be more absurd than to place 
liq. ergo toe and tinct. canthar. under such stringent rules? 
How could crude opium or ergot possibly be mistaken for 
any other drug ? 
If the first regulation be applied to all poisons, and the 
second only to those which are really dangerous, I venture 
to think the difficulties of the subject might be met. 
Jan. 30th, 1871. “Provincial.” 
CnLORAL Hydrate. 
Sir,—Messrs. E. De Haen and Co., of Hanover, justly com¬ 
plained, in a note you published last week, of certain state¬ 
ments in Mr. Mason’s paper of January 7th, on chloral 
hydrate, which would make it appear that samples obtained 
by him as Messrs. De Haen’s chloral hydrate were in reality 
chloral alcoholate. 
Such statements, groundless and unjustifiable as they are, 
are calculated to do serious injury; and as the matter has 
now been fully investigated, we, as Messrs. De Haen’s agents 
here, beg to hand you a copy of Dr. Versmann’s analysis of 
the article in question. 
The analysis proves that the compound manufactured by 
Messrs. E. De Haen and Co. and brought into the English 
market by us, is good chloral hydrate and nothing else; it is 
not chloral alcoholate. 
There is no doubt Mr. Mason wishes to show, and he 
plainly states so, that from a variety of samples representing 
different manufactures, the product of one particular firm 
only is to be relied upon, and that all the other manufac¬ 
turers offer the alcoholate under the name of the hydrate. 
This is a very grave accusation, because the alcoholate is 
not a mere impurity or bye-product in the manufacture ot 
the hydrate; it must be made on purpose, and the manu¬ 
facturer selling it under the name of hydrate, must do so 
with the knowledge of committing a fraud,—and Messrs. E. 
De Haen, amongst other manufacturers, are accused of this 
fraud. 
We must here be satisfied with proving the utter absence 
of truth in Mr. Mason’s analysis as far as Messrs. E. De 
Haen and Co. are concerned, and we do so 
1. By producing Dr. Versmann’s detailed examination of 
samples representing large quantities. 
2 . By an extract of a letter received from Mr. Umney, who 
writes :—“ I have on several occasions during the past 
year examined specimens of hydrate of chloral as con¬ 
signed to you by Messrs. E. Do Haen and Co., and 
have always found them to be hydrate, and never al¬ 
coholate, of chloral.” 
3. By Mr. Mason’s own conflicting evidence. He states 
our cake yields 57 per cent, of chloroform, our crystals 
5G per cent. Both cake and crystals are therefore re¬ 
presented as inferior to alcoholate; but by the solubility 
in water and insolubility in chloroform, he shows them 
to be hydrates. His own statements contradict each 
other, and prove how much value may be attached to 
his analysis. 
4. By Mr. Mason’s own confession. In answer to our in¬ 
quiry how the samples had been obtained he writes: 
“ I had the verbal declaration that this was De Haen s 
manufacture (I am morally certain of this), but much 
to my surprise, I learn this morning that the manu¬ 
facturer of the cake is Saame, of Gottingen. 
