676 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [February 18,1871 
*** JVo 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. 
Poison Regulations. 
Sir,—My physical inability during the past three months 
to attend the meetings of the Council has not diminished my 
interest in the changing phases of the proposed regulations 
for keeping and dispensing poisons. The publication in the 
Pharmaceutical Journal of the 11th inst. of Restate¬ 
ment of reasons which have induced the Council to suggest 
regulations,” hearing the endorsement of eleven members of 
Council, compels me in this way to record my dissent from 
those “reasons,” a feeling which I cannot doubt is shared by 
many others of the ten remaining members of the Council. 
On general grounds, the “reasons” appear to me as being 
framed upon a basis, suitable perhaps for the excuse of party 
measures, but inconsistent with the representative character 
of the Council. The historical notice of the Pharmacy Bill 
(No. 1) of 1865 may be satisfactory to those who are respon¬ 
sible for that expensive failure, but the allusion to the United 
Society of Chemists and Druggists as the cause of its failure 
is a very doubtful piece of good faith towards a body of men 
who were thought powerful enough to be parties to a treaty 
in 1868, and who maintained an unselfish fidelity not yet 
fully recognized, and certainly not rewarded. 
The recommendations of the committee of the House of 
Commons in 1835 (instigated by the United Society) are 
taken as the origin of present restrictions on the sale of 
poisons, reserving the fact recorded by the “reasons” that 
‘prior to the passing of the Pharmacy Act of 1868 attempts 
had been made in Parliament at various times to enforce 
regulations for the sale of poisons.” Surely this fact, used 
in the preceding paragraph as one of the “reasons” for pre¬ 
sent action, might fairly be supposed to have influenced the 
promoters of Bill No. 2 in 1865. The opponents of the regu¬ 
lations are perfectly aware of the tendency of modern legisla¬ 
tion as relating to the liberty of the subject, it being clear 
that the tide has turned against that doctrine of laissez faire, 
which somewhat illogically received an impetus from the 
removal of fiscal burdens upon commerce and manufactures. 
We all know that such changes of policy tend towards an 
opposite extreme, and that unreasoning panic constantly 
follows a state of blind security. In connection with the 
present phase of advancing civilization, it is proper that the 
old ducal right, “a man may do as he likes with his own,” 
should give way when that wish is exercised to the damage 
of his fellow-men. But society must apply its restrictions 
with some fairness, and show cause for the burdens which it 
imposes upon any class. The restrictions placed upon the 
sale of poisons was accepted by our body as a general mea¬ 
sure which was not unreasonable But where is the evidence 
making a case for immediate and the most oppressive form 
of interference in the keeping of poisons P We all know 
that in years gone by it was no uncommon thing for tincture 
of rhubarb and tincture of opium to stand shoulder to 
shoulder, and that several mistakes happened as a conse¬ 
quence. The Pharmaceutical Society may point to its influ¬ 
ence during a quarter of a century as having changed this 
state of things, and may assert that hardly any mistakes now 
occur which would be prevented by the proposed regulations. 
In the 5th paragraph of the “ reasons,” it is stated that 
there was “a tacit understanding between the Council and 
the Government, that the Pharmaceutical Council should 
frame a code of regulations to be approved by the Privy 
Council.” This is a point of the deepest importance, and 1 
ask my fellow-members to observe it closely. “Tacit under¬ 
standing ’ is something to be pondered over. “ Secret treaty” 
is the modern phrase, and we now ask who had any power of 
making either “ tacit understandings,” or “secret treaties”? 
The authors of the “reasons” seem to have undertaken a task 
which will require them to show more “reasons.” If the 
“understandings” ot 1868 were something additional and be¬ 
yond the Society’s Bill, why were they not acknowledged ? 
If “ tacit,” who were to be kept in the dark except the So¬ 
ciety itselt, which conferred the only representative powers 
possessed by its mouthpiece ? A little study of the negotia¬ 
tions of 1868, by the dim light vouchsafed to us by those con-! 
cerned, will show what probably happened. Mr. Simon, the 
medical officer of the Privy Council, constituted a new power 
in the State, and found a Bill to regulate pharmacy intro¬ 
duced into Parliament without its promoters having thought 
of obtaining his sanction. The reasonable character of that 
Bill, its respect for the recommendations of the Committee of 
the House of Commons of 1865, and its united support by all 
chemists, gave it a good prospect of viability. In the nature 
of things, Mr. Simon desired to impress upon the Bill those 
finishing touches which would show the hand of a master. 
Schedule A. was divided into two .sections, and opium and its 
long train of preparations were added.. The powers of con¬ 
firmation previously vested by the Act of 1852 in one of her 
Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State, -were transferred to 
the Privy Council, whilst clause 26 gave that body the power 
of removing from the Register any person who was convicted 
of an offence under the Act. The existence of clause 26 is by 
no means to be overlooked by those who are now asked to run 
a thousand new risks of conviction and its consequences. I 
doubt whether for cruel and irresponsible power, a more ob¬ 
noxious clause can be found in the legislation of the past ten 
years. Whether Mr. Simon is likely to use such an arbitrary 
right is no part of the question whether it ought to exist, or 
of the much more practical one whether the danger should be 
widely extended. 
During the various modifications of clause 1, as shown by 
copies of the Bill of different dates, its promoters finally ac¬ 
cepted the requirement to “ conform to such regulations as to 
the keeping, dispensing and selling of such poisons, as may 
from time to time be prescribed by the Pharmaceutical Society 
with the consent of the Privy Council.” Now, this clause, 
so far as referring to a power of revising Schedule A., “ from 
time to time,” was what any sensible man would have antici¬ 
pated as requisite, whilst the distinctly permissive right to 
regulate “keeping and dispensing” also appeared to be a 
proof of not unwise forethought for the future. The pretence 
which has been made that “may” when in an Act of Parlia¬ 
ment means “must,” is sufficiently answered by the opinion 
of the Society’s solicitor, distinctly denying the prospect of a 
threatened mandamus. Were it needful to bring any other 
argument on this point, we have only to compare the language 
of the Act when compulsion is directed, thus, clause 9, “The 
Council shall with all convenient speed, etc., make orders 
for regulating the Register.” 
Before leaving this notice of the birth of the Act of 1868,, 
it is proper to reflect upon Mr. Sandford’s position. The 
difficulties in the way of the Bill, consequent upon Mr. 
Simon’s demands, must have caused him great anxiety, and 
increased those laborious exertions for which the Society has 
already expressed its gratitude. This was the second time 
that Mr. Sandford had taken charge of a Pharmacy Bill, and 
a risk of failure upon this occasion might well appear dis¬ 
heartening, whilst success was an object to satisfy the highest 
ambition of a pharmacist. Does not this supply the clue to 
the ‘ tacit'understanding” now vaguely acknowledged. Does 
not this make it probable that Mr. Sandford has been per¬ 
sonally entangled in his relations with Mr. Simon ? 
But, if answering these probabilities in the affirmative, 
what is the inference as concerns the Soeiety ? Simply that 
Mr. Sandford is not the free agent that the President ot the 
Pharmaceutical Society ought to be. If the present proposals 
are the necessary result of any “ tacit understanding” made 
in 1868, the Society will soon express its opinion as to those 
who were parties to such compact. Any time within the 
past thirty years, the trade would have been roused from one 
end of the kingdom to the other, rather than accept Govern¬ 
ment inspection, with a host of pitfalls such as Schedule A. 
would bring. 
Amongst the “ reasons,” I find the “expression of opinion in 
the press” put forward by the Council. '1 his is not the first 
time that this argument lias been used ; and, if I am correct, 
those who have put such an argument in the mouth ot the 
Council, without the justification of facts, owe an explanation, 
which it will not be very easy to give. The Lancet has pub¬ 
lished two articles, and the Pall Mall Gazette one article, 
favouring the regulations. As these articles were imme¬ 
diately reproduced in the leader column of the Pharmaceu¬ 
tical Journal, and as no others have been seen there, 
we have only three to deal with. I have the best authority 
for asserting that these three articles were produced by 
gentlemen officially connected with the Pharmaceutical So¬ 
ciety, and they "were re-imported as an evidence ot popular 
feeling! 
