GSO 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [February 18 , 1871 . 
Sir,—I had hoped, probably with the generality of your 
readers, that the proposed regulations for the keeping of 
poisons would have been accepted as sufficient by the Privy 
Council. Our hope, however, has proved fallacious. The 
Society is asked to frame regulations also for the dispensing 
of poisons. 
I would, with all due deference, ask the Council of the 
Pharmaceutical Society as to whether they have not unne¬ 
cessarily yielded to pressure from her Majesty’s Privy Coun¬ 
cil ? To honour the powers that be is perfectly right; but 
have they ever sought a conference with that body, so that 
the subject might for once be seen by them from other stand¬ 
points than from those of physicians, surgeons and the pre¬ 
sumably alarmed and endangered public ? In short, have 
endeavours been made to get the Medical Department to 
look at the question from the chemist’s point of view ? I am 
aware that the President and the Secretary of the Society 
had an interview with Mr. Simon about three weeks ago, but 
it was at that gentleman’s own request, and respected verbal 
alterations,—not (apparently) a review of the entire subject. 
(Phakh. Journ. p. 652-3.) 
The proposed regulations for the dispensing of poisons are 
certainly not very onerous, but the clause “ that there shall 
be affixed to each such bottle (of poisonous lotion, etc.) a 
label giving notice that the contents of the bottle are not to 
be taken internally,” is not altogether free from objection. 
Cases often occur in which, from the absence of directions, 
the dispenser is at a loss to determine whether the lotion, so- 
called, is really such, an injection or a mouth-wash. Under 
such circumstances, the label “for external use only ” is evi¬ 
dently inappropriate; “ not to be taken internally,” would 
lead many patients to question whether the compound was 
for internal use at all; while the uneuphonious “not to be 
drunk,” or “not to be swallowed,” might induce the opposite 
error, and cause a lotion to be employed as a gargle. The 
somewhat vague direction “'not to be taken” is the only one 
universally applicable. 
Oxford, February 15 tli, 1871. John Throssell. 
Sir,—Having received the statement of the Council re¬ 
specting the poison regulations, we think, before we can come 
to a right decision on the subject, the Council should state— 
1st. The name of every drug, chemical, or preparation that 
they propose to call a poison, and which would be affected by 
the regulations. 
2nd. The machinery by which they propose to enforce 
them. Yines and Froom. 
Sir,—In common with the rest of the trade, I have re¬ 
ceived from Mr. Bremridge “A statement of the reasons 
which have induced the Council to suggest regulations re¬ 
garding the keeping, dispensing and selling of poisons,” and 
I find one sentence which, for unpleasant vagueness, might 
well compare with the guarantee given by Messrs. Dodson 
and Fogg (on receiving Mrs. Bardell’s undertaking for the 
costs in Bardell v. Pickwick) that it was “only a matter of 
form.” The sentence, or rather part of a sentence, to which 
I allude is this:—“But, with reference to the obligations 
which the regulations would impose, they venture to say that 
no vexatious proceedings will be adopted to inquire into their 
observance.” 
Now, with all due respect to the Council, can anything 
be more ambiguous or unsatisfactory than this ? 
I think few men would be foolish enough in any business 
negotiation to take such an assertion as a guarantee. Would 
anyone, on giving an acknowledgment for money due, believe 
his creditor if he told him that “no vexatious proceedings ” 
should result if he did not meet his engagement ? To me 
the two cases appear similar. 
If it is necessary for the public safety, etc., that these 
regulations should become law, is it not also necessary that 
when law they should be conformed to ? 
If we assent to the passing of such an Act, we ought to do 
so with our eyes open to the unpleasant consequences in the 
way of supervision which might, and in all probability would, 
result from such a measure, and not allow the bait to be 
sugared with specious promises which the Council itself, if 
it had the wish, would not have the power to keep. 
Edwin A. Lewis. 
3, Mornington Street, Morning ton Crescent, N.W., 
February loth, 1871. 
Sir,—Whilst I must submit to the multitude of not-overwisc 
Councillors, Privy and Pharmaceutical, I cannot but protest 
against their meddling, irritating restrictions upon chemists, 
a class of men careful beyond cavil, whilst “Knockemorf” is 
licensed to kill without let or hindrance. Why are not 
surgeries to have “ poison ” bottles and three-cornered dispen¬ 
sing ones ? Perhaps our Council will tell me into what shaped 
glass I am to dispense the following recipe, received to-day:— 
R. Tr. Opii 5j 
Zinci Sulph. gr. x 
Glycerini §ss 
Aq. Camph. ad 5vj. M. 
It may be an injection, skin- or head-lotion, or cough mix¬ 
ture. Being sedative and expectorant, am I to be made the 
scapegoat of an antagonistic surgeon or the tool of any pre¬ 
scribing informer ? The word “ poison ” is become as nought, 
the public sees and hears so much of it ; and so does 
Wetlierby, February 14 th, 1871. Jas. Houlton. 
Wholesale Druggists’ Assistants’ Association. 
Sir,—The remarks of Mr. Davies Owen in your Journal of 
the 14th inst., are so severe upon wholesale assistants that it 
makes it necessary to place the matter in its right light. The 
picture of retail assistants advancing and wholesale ones 
gradually sinking in the social scale, judging from the steps 
taken by employers to prevent dishonesty, would be a sad 
one were it correct; but the mere fact of employers combining 
to form a trade protection society, to prevent robberies and 
prosecute thieves and receivers of stolen goods, is no impu- 
tation upon assistants, as it is well known that porters aud 
others of a similar grade are the parties most liable to the 
operations of the Society. 
The next statement of Mr. Owen’s, that the retail trade 
pass a regular apprenticeship, reside with their employers 
and have access to various works and journals, while the 
bulk of the wholesale men have not these opportunities, is also 
incorrect, inasmuch as they serve a similar apprenticeship 
(and some of them a more practical one than the present 
generation have served), and many of them have been assist¬ 
ants a few years in the retail, who have taken situations in the 
wholesale to perfect themselves in their business. 
Another idea, that members of the proposed society should 
discuss matters of trade interest, would simply amount to 
wholesale houses having their trade secrets made common 
property. I think that the kind of society proposed by Mr. 
Owen is not felt to be a want, or it would have been supported 
before. Justitia. 
London, January 1 Gth, 1870. 
J. T. (Lewisham).—The law is vague in regard to the ques¬ 
tion. but probably it may be regarded as not prohibitory of 
such prescribing, though in the event of any mischance, the 
punishment would be more severe than in the case of a duly 
qualified medical man. As a point of ethics, however, there 
can be no doubt that counter-prescribing by druggists should 
at least be restricted within the narrowest limits possible. 
“ Tolu.” —We do not consider the negative result satisfac¬ 
tory evidence, neither are we able to answer the question put. 
PL. J. Woolley (Islington).—The formula has been given 
recently. See p. 377 of the present volume, and the corre¬ 
spondence concerning it on pp. 397 and 419. 
“ Veritas.” —The mention of emp. hydrarg. is evidently an 
error, and, as you suggest, emp. opii should be in its place. 
“A Student ” (Sheffield).—There is no danger. 
F. L. Cove. —Probably Piesse’s ‘ Art of Perfumery.’ 
Messrs. Saivyer and Bird. —The advertisement has been 
handed to the publisher. 
C. J. Bell. —Your letter has been given to the Secretary. 
A. P. S., Amicus and A Member have omitted to forward 
their names. 
We have received a letter from Messrs. Domeier and Co., 
stating that they only execute for De Haen and Co., or the 
other houses they represent, such orders as are given by 
manufacturing chemists and wholesale druggists. 
Communications, Letters, etc., have been received from 
Mr. A. W. Bennett, Mr. T. J. W. Tipping, Mr. J. S. Parker, 
Mr. W. Hills, Mr. G-. Harvie, Mr. J. Ash, Mr. Padwick- 
Mr. Siebold, Mr. E. Walsh, Mr. Smith, Mr. Gray, Mr. P. L. 
Simmonds, Mr. C. H. Wood, S. R., “A Countrv Druggist,' 
“Spes,” A. P. S, 
