677 
February 18,1871.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
Leaving the “reasons,” after the foregoing explanation of 
my grounds for dissent, I will merely add a formal protest 
against the unusual conduct of a majority of the Council in 
delegating to a committee the revision and issue of such a 
document, which had not been seen until the Council met. 
One view of the issue of the “reasons” is very satisfactory. 
A majority of the Council, after this lengthy explanation, will 
hardly repeat the not very flattering resolution lately passed, 
telling the constituency that it had not understood the question 
when it previously passed an opinion upon it; moreover, as 
the Council adopts the post as the proper means of commu¬ 
nicating its ideas to its constituents, it may certainly be ex¬ 
pected to recognize the same medium for receiving the verdict 
which it invites. The settlement of the question at the 
Annual Meeting by the voting-papers of all members, is of 
the first necessity to the welfare of the Society, and as the 
regulation* would press with most unequal force upon diffe¬ 
rent sections of the country, justice requires that all should 
have the same opportunity of recording their opinions. 
I hold evidence that the promoters of the regulations are 
totally ignorant whether their adoption would be followed by 
Government inspection without a fresh Act of Parliament, 
or whether that would be necessary. They ask the Society 
to take the first and irrevocable step, and afterwards they 
will inquire about the second. 
Richard Reynolds. 
Southport. February 14 th, 1871. 
Sir,—While we search in vain through the statement re¬ 
cently placed before us for any but the old time-worn and 
threadbare arguments, one fact stands out with an alarming 
prominence, little intended by the authors of the paper,—the 
fact that we are at this moment, so far as the Society at large 
can be bound by the acts of its representatives, as ready to give 
way to pressure from above, as to resist it from below, under 
the irresponsible government of the medical officer to the 
Privy Council; and we may well inquire, in the light of its 
immediate change of policy in regard to “ the dispensing of 
poisons,” what value can be attached to the promise of the 
Councfl, that, in the event of the regulations being passed, 
“ no vexatious proceedings will be adopted to inquire into their 
observance” ? What guarantee have we against another 
change, equally sudden, should the autocratic Mr. Simon, by 
another letter, choose to bring the Council to a proper sense of 
its position? This very promise, indeed, puts the Council on 
the horns of a dilemma; either the regulations will not be en¬ 
forced, in which case faith will not be kept with the Govern¬ 
ment; or if they are, then the Council must be seeking to 
throw dust in the eyes of its constituents, for no ingenuity can 
devise a means of enforcement which will not be vexatious ! 
Hampstead, February \2>th, 1871. Charles Eve. 
Sir,—Having already written twice upon the subject of 
poison regulations, I had not intended addressing you again; 
but am so much taken by surprise at the report of last Coun¬ 
cil meeting, and the circular resulting from it, that I could 
not feel justified in allowing the matter to pass over un¬ 
noticed. 
Is it not remarkable that at the December meeting of 
Council, when Messrs. Woolley and Brown proposed that the 
opinion of the members of the trade relative to this question 
should be asked by circular, a majority of the Council 
then present objected to the chemists generally being commu¬ 
nicated with; and that we now have a circular drawn up by 
a committee consisting of the very men who opposed this 
proceeding in December last ? 
Is it forgotten that Messrs. Woolley and Brown were 
elected by a larger number of votes than any other members 
of Council, and that these votes came principally from pro¬ 
vincial members—members who felt they ought to be better 
represented on the Council than had previously been the 
case—who felt also that their representatives had only asked a 
bare measure of justice in moving that the chemists through¬ 
out the country should be asked to say whether or not they 
thought these poison regulations desirable ? I said it was a 
measure of bare justice, and I reiterate the statement, be¬ 
cause the regulations, if adopted, would affect the arrange¬ 
ments of some thousands of chemists, outside our Society, who, 
but for this proceeding, would have no opportunity of influ¬ 
encing the legislation under which they would be governed. 
Did the Council deem it a duty to represent the interests 
of our Society only, without regard to the outsiders ? Had 
it been so, Mr. W oolley’s query might at least have been sent 
to the provincial members of the Society, who, though not 
debarred by bye-laws, are prevented by other circumstances 
from attending the annual meeting. Or was it thought, 
notwithstanding all the correspondence which has taken place 
upon this question, that the country members had given no 
consideration to, nor felt any 7 interest in it ? No! I can 
come to but one conclusion, that the Council knew and 
remembered all the circumstances of the«case, and, knowing 
them, did not dare to ask the simple question as put by Mr. 
Woolley, because they knew that the replies would cut away 
the ground upon which they intended to carry out their 
foregone conclusion. And now we receive a circular from 
them, not asking if further regulations are desirable, and, if 
so, to what extent that may be the case, or of what nature 
such regulations should be, but telling us what regulations 
are to be proposed: making an elaborate statement, calcu¬ 
lated—probably intended—to stop further opposition by inti¬ 
midation, and apparently bribing us into submission to the 
proposed regulations by the statement that “ they venture to 
say 7 ,” though they do not give us any reason to believe, “ that 
no vexatious proceedings will be adopted to inquire into their 
observance.” 
I believe every man of common sense would rather a law 
were not made, than that it should be made not to be enforced ; 
and now that we have received from the Council the code of 
regulations which it proposes to submit to the meeting in 
May, and the reasons why it is thought we should adopt 
them, I think we cannot do better than give the reasons why 
we think such regulations should not be adopted. 
Personally, I have given much attention to the matter, and 
have come to the following conclusions :— 
1. That it is not desirable to make any regulations which 
are not very simple and easily adopted, perfectly definite and 
free from all ambiguity 7 , practically useful as a protection to 
dispenser and patient. 
It is imperative that any regulations to be adopted must.be 
simple, because, if not so, they will not be practically carried 
out. They must be definite, that the chemist may 7 know pre¬ 
cisely what is expected of him. They must be free from am¬ 
biguity, that, in the event of an accident happening, a coro¬ 
ner’s jury may have no difficulty in deciding whether or not 
the regulations have been complied with. They must be 
practically useful, that they may not be submitted to as a 
hardship, but practised willingly for the sake of the advan¬ 
tage to be derived from them. 
2. That if any distinctive mark is adopted to indicate a 
poison, that mark ought to be definite, and it should not be 
left to the option of each individual to select his own mark or 
marks; otherwise there will constantly be room to dispute 
whether or not a bottle bears a distinctive mark. 
3. That it is not desirable to use for the less dangerous 
poisons (such as tinct. opii ammon., empl. belladonna! or 
ung. sabime) any danger-signal or label which is intended to 
act as a caution in the use of the more, dangerous poisons 
(such as morphia, strychnia or hydrocy T anic acid). 
Turning now to the details ot the proposed code, the first 
regulation is objectionable. 
A. Because if a distinctive mark be adopted, it is. to apply 
to all poisons, whether very dangerous or comparatively tree 
from danger. 
B. Because, if a number of distinctive marks may be 
adopted, it is not free from ambiguity upon that point. 
C. And because it does not define a distinctive mark or 
marks which should be used. 
It is not desirable to have alternative regulations, because 
their adoption increases the chance of the danger-signal being 
entirely overlooked, while increasing the chance of censure 
from a coroner’s jury or the public press, if they see that some 
precautions have not been taken, which, according to the code 
of regulations might, and they' will say ought, to have been 
adopted. 
And there are many articles in the poison schedule, to the 
keeping of which it is not desirable that any ot the three 
alternative regulations should be required to apply, such as 
svrup of poppies, sundry ointments, plasters, etc. 
' There is only a fraction of one of the regulations which it 
would be desirable to put in force with regard to all the poi¬ 
sons in the schedule, and that is “that each poison shall, bo 
labelled with its name.” And no schedule can be a satisfac¬ 
tory basis for regulations which does not enumerate every 
poison distinctly to which the regulations are to apply . due 
loose way in which are included “all poisonous yegetabe 
alkaloids,” “ all metallic cyanides,” and “preparations ot A. 
